PISA 2015 Good or Bad News for the UK?

PISA 2015 Good or Bad News for the UK?

PISA 2015 Looking at school systems in 72 countries and economies Students assessed in science, mathematics, reading, collaborative problem-solving and financial literacy Key issues: - How far are we nurturing a generation of scientifically literate young people? - Are schools adequately preparing young people for adult life? - What kinds of learning environments do we find in high performing systems? - Can schools improve the futures of students from disadvantaged backgrounds?

PISA 2015 OECD Partners

Science in PISA the ability to engage with sciencerelated issues, and with the ideas of science, as a reflective citizen A scientifically literate person is willing to engage in reasoned discourse about science and technology

https://www.oecd.org/pisa/test/

Trends in science performance 570 550 United Kingdom from 2006-15 -6 points 530 510 490 470 OECD average Drop of -5 points from 2006-15 450 2006 2009 2012 2015

Mean science performance Higher perfomance PISA 2015 Science performance 550 500 Portugal Japan Canada Poland Denmark Sweden Spain Latvia Italy Estonia Finland New Zealand United Kingdom Germany Ireland United States France Russia England 512 Northern I 500 Scotland 497 Wales 485 450 Greece Turkey 400 Jordan Tunisia 350 25 20 15 10 5 Percentage of performance variation explained by ESCS 0

Future Skills Market

Vietnam Estonia Singapore Canada Finland Korea Slovenia Poland Germany Latvia Portugal United Kingdom Russia Spain Switzerland United States Czech Republic Austria OECD average France Italy Croatia Lithuania Iceland Greece Chile Bulgaria Romania Uruguay Albania United Arab Emirates Moldova Turkey Trinidad and Tobago Costa Rica Thailand Mexico Colombia Jordan Qatar Georgia Montenegro Indonesia Brazil Peru Lebanon FYROM Tunisia Kosovo Algeria Dominican Republic 8% top performers, 20% low performers across OECD countries Low Performers 17.4% Top Performers 10.9% Figure I.2.15 100 80 Students at or above Level 2 60 40 % 20 0 20 40 60 80 100 Level 1a Level 1b Below Level 1b Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Students below Level 2

Performance in and attitudes Knowledge Content towards science Think like a scientist! Methodological procedures Epistemic reasons and ideas Competencies Explain phenomena scientifically Evaluate and design scientific enquiry Interpret data and evidence scientifically Context Personal, local, global Current and historical Attitudes Attitudes to science Scientific attitudes

Japan United Kingdom OECD average Figure I.2.28 Science competency subscales Score points 600 Mean performance in science (overall science scale) Evaluate and design scientific enquiry Explain phenomena scientifically Interpret data and evidence scientifically 550 500 538 539 536 541 509 509 508 509 493 493 493 493 450 400 350

OECD average United Kingdom Singapore Different science knowledge subscales Figure I.2.30 Overall science scale Content knowledge Procedural and epistemic knowledge Overall science scale Content knowledge Procedural and epistemic knowledge Overall science scale Content knowledge Procedural and epistemic knowledge Overall science scale Content knowledge 450 470 490 510 530 550 570 Score points

Index of Epistemic Beliefs The ideas in <broad science> science books sometimes chang Sometimes <broad science> scientists change their minds about what is true in science It is good to try experiments more than once to make sure of your findings Good answers are based on evidence from many different experiments Ideas in <broad science> sometimes change A good way to know if something is true is to do an experiment 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 OECD Average Singapore UK

Malta Singapore Australia Lebanon New Zealand Ireland Korea France Finland Netherlands United Kingdom Switzerland Germany Norway B-S-J-G (China) Chinese Taipei Spain Belgium Sweden Greece Czech Republic Japan Canada Luxembourg Denmark United States Qatar Slovak Republic OECD average Austria Iceland Trinidad and Tobago Estonia Georgia Portugal Jordan Slovenia United Arab Emirates Croatia Moldova Italy Macao (China) Lithuania Israel Hong Kong (China) Hungary Brazil Poland Thailand Latvia Romania Bulgaria FYROM Russia Uruguay Chile CABA (Argentina) Tunisia Montenegro Vietnam Kosovo Algeria Mexico Turkey Peru Colombia Indonesia Dominican Republic Costa Rica Score-point difference Students enjoyment of science and science performance Figure I.3.18 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Students with a higher index of enjoyment of science perform better in all countries and economies

Percentage of students expecting a career in science Students expecting a career in science by performance and enjoyment of learning Figure I.3.17 50 40 30 20 Low enjoyment of science Moderate enjoyment of science High enjoyment of science 10 0 300 400 500 600 700 Score points in science

Gender Overall no significant difference Minimal for low performers Statistically significant for top performers (boys do 4.5% better)

Score-point difference (boys - girls) Boys' and girls' strengths and weaknesses in science, OECD average 25 20 15 10 5 0-5 -10 It is harder for boys, on average, to perform well on these types of tasks... Among all boys and girls Figure I.2.29-15 Science Explaining phenomena scientifically Evaluating and designing scientific enquiry Interpreting data and evidence scientifically Content knowledge Procedural and epistemic knowledge Physical systems Living systems Earth and space Science competencies Knowledge types Content areas

Score-point difference (boys - girls) Boys' and girls' strengths and weaknesses in science, OECD average 25 20 15 10 5 0-5 -10...but the highestachieving boys perform better than the highestachieving girls on all types of tasks, including these Figure I.2.29 Among the highest-achieving boys/girls -15 Science Explaining phenomena scientifically Evaluating and designing scientific enquiry Interpreting data and evidence scientifically Content knowledge Procedural and epistemic knowledge Physical systems Living systems Earth and space Science competencies Knowledge types Content areas

Score-point difference (boys - girls) Boys' and girls' strengths and Figure I.2.29 weaknesses in science, OECD average 25 20 15 10 5 0-5 -10... It is harder for girls to perform well on these types of tasks, even among low achievers Among the lowest-achieving boys/girls -15 Science Explaining phenomena scientifically Evaluating and designing scientific enquiry Interpreting data and evidence scientifically Content knowledge Procedural and epistemic knowledge Physical systems Living systems Earth and space Science competencies Knowledge types Content areas

% of students with vague or missing expectations Dominican Rep. 12 Costa Rica 11 Lebanon 15 Brazil 19 Peru 7 Qatar 19 United States 13 Turkey 6 Australia 15 UK 17 Malaysia 4 Kazakhstan 14 Spain 11 Israel 25 CABA (Arg.) 19 Portugal 18 Bulgaria 25 Ireland 13 Kosovo 7 Algeria 12 Malta 11 OECD average 19 Belgium 16 Croatia 17 HKG (China) 20 Romania 20 Italy 17 Austria 23 Moldova 7 Latvia 19 Montenegro 18 France 21 Sweden 21 Thailand 27 Vietnam 13 Switzerland 22 Korea 7 Hungary 22 Slovak Republic 24 Japan 18 Netherlands 19 Germany 33 Indonesia 19 Denmark 48 Students career expectations Figure I.3.2 % 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Percentage of students who expect to work in science-related professional and technical occupations when they are 30 Science-related technicians and associate professionals Information and communication technology professionals Health professionals Science and engineering professionals

Expectations of a science career, UK Figure I.3.5 Students who expect to work as... Girls Boys...science and engineering professionals...health professionals...information and communication technology (ICT) professionals...science-related technicians or associate professionals 0 5 10 15 20 %

Students interest in science topics, OECD average & UK Percentage of students who reported that they are "interested" or "highly interested" in the following topics How science can help us prevent disease All students UK Students Figure I.3.12 The Universe and its history Energy and its transformation (e.g. conservation, chemical reactions) Motion and forces (e.g. velocity, friction, magnetic and gravitational forces) Biosphere (e.g. ecosystem services, sustainability) 0 20 40 60 80 %

Science teaching and learning How teachers teach matters

Moldova Lebanon Finland Georgia Qatar United Arab Emirates Jordan Italy Colombia Malta Israel Kosovo Australia Poland Greece Romania Netherlands Spain United Kingdom Hong Kong (China) Vietnam FYROM CABA (Argentina) Canada Singapore Macao (China) United States Uruguay Russia Luxembourg Iceland Portugal Germany France Chinese Taipei Switzerland OECD average Croatia B-S-J-G (China) Mexico Brazil Trinidad and Tobago Norway Latvia Dominican Republic Ireland New Zealand Chile Austria Thailand Turkey Sweden Czech Republic Bulgaria Denmark Belgium Tunisia Algeria Japan Hungary Costa Rica Estonia Lithuania Slovak Republic Montenegro Peru Korea Indonesia Score-point difference Teacher-directed instruction and science performance Figure II.2.13 25 20 Score-point difference associated with the index of teacher-directed instruction Students who reported more frequent teacher-directed instruction perform better in almost all countries/economies 15 10 5 0-5

The teacher explains how a science idea can be applied to a number of different phenomena The teacher clearly explains the relevance of science concepts to our lives Students are given opportunities to explain their ideas Students are asked to draw conclusions from an experiment they have conducted Students are required to argue about science questions There is a class debate about investigations Students spend time in the laboratory doing practical experiments Students are asked to do an investigation to test ideas Students are allowed to design their own experiments Score-point difference Enquiry-based teaching practices and science performance, OECD average Figure II.2.20 25 15 5-5 -15-25 -35-45 -55-65 After accounting for students' and schools' socioeconomic profile Before accounting for students' and schools' socioeconomic profile The following happen in "most" or "all" science lessons

Science beliefs, engagement and motivation All citizens, not just future scientists, need to be willing and able to confront science-related dilemmas

Students' epistemic beliefs Figure I.2.32 UK OECD average The ideas in <broad science> science books sometimes change Sometimes <broad science> scientists change their minds about what is true in science It is good to try experiments more than once to make sure of your findings Good answers are based on evidence from many different experiments Ideas in <broad science> sometimes change A good way to know if something is true is to do an experiment 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 Percentage of students who agreed with the above statements

Tunisia Colombia Romania Hungary Thailand Czech Republic Jordan Turkey Slovak Republic Slovenia Chinese Taipei Mexico Macao (China) Croatia Netherlands Finland Uruguay Chile Montenegro France Brazil Russia Italy Indonesia Bulgaria Austria Hong Kong (China) Germany Japan Belgium Qatar Portugal OECD average-35 Korea Switzerland Greece Latvia Norway Israel Luxembourg Estonia Lithuania Spain Sweden Iceland Denmark Australia New Zealand Canada United Kingdom United States Poland Ireland Index change (PISA 2015 - PISA 2006) Change between 2006 and 2015 in students enjoyment of learning science Figure I.3.10 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0-0.1-0.2-0.3-0.4-0.5 Enjoyment of science decreased Enjoyment of science increased

Multiple outcomes Above-average science performance Stronger than average epistemic beliefs Japan Estonia Finland Macao (China) Vietnam B-S-J-G (China) Korea Germany Netherlands Switzerland Belgium Poland Norway Chinese Taipei Hong Kong (China) New Zealand Denmark Singapore Canada Slovenia Australia United Kingdom Ireland Portugal United States Spain Israel United Arab Emirates Sweden Lithuania Croatia Iceland Georgia Malta Brazil Bulgaria Chile Colombia Costa Rica Dominican Republic Jordan Lebanon Mexico Peru Qatar Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Uruguay Kosovo Above-average percentage of students expecting to work in a science-related occupation

Equity Inclusive: all students attain foundation skills Fair: all students, regardless of their background, succeed

Dominican Republic CABA (Argentina) Peru Singapore France Hungary B-S-J-G (China) Luxembourg Chile Bulgaria Belgium Czech Republic Slovak Republic Germany Switzerland Chinese Taipei New Zealand Spain Austria Japan Portugal Poland Australia Israel Uruguay OECD average Malta Ireland Greece Jordan Lebanon Romania Slovenia Costa Rica Italy Mexico Finland Georgia Netherlands Sweden Brazil Moldova Lithuania Canada Qatar United States Denmark Colombia Indonesia Korea Norway Tunisia United Arab Emirates United Kingdom Russia Croatia Trinidad and Tobago FYROM Vietnam Turkey Estonia Hong Kong (China) Latvia Montenegro Kosovo Iceland Thailand Macao (China) Algeria Disadvantaged students are almost 3 times more likely to not attain the baseline level of proficiency in science, OECD countries Figure I.6.9 Odds ratio 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Vietnam Macao (China) Hong Kong (China) Singapore Japan Estonia Chinese Taipei B-S-J-G (China) Finland Korea Spain Canada Portugal United Kingdom Latvia Slovenia Poland Germany Australia United States Netherlands New Zealand Ireland OECD average Switzerland Denmark Belgium France Italy Norway Austria Russia Czech Republic Sweden Croatia Lithuania Turkey Malta Luxembourg Hungary Thailand Greece Slovak Republic Iceland Israel CABA (Argentina) Chile Uruguay Bulgaria Moldova Trinidad and Tobago Mexico Colombia Romania Indonesia Costa Rica Brazil Montenegro United Arab Emirates Jordan Georgia Algeria Lebanon Qatar Tunisia FYROM Peru Kosovo Dominican Republic Percentage of resilient students Figure I.6.10 % 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Resilient students come from the bottom 25% of the ESCS index within their country/economy and perform among the top 25% across all countries/economies, after accounting for socioeconomic status

Netherlands 114 B-S-J-G (China) 119 Bulgaria 115 Hungary 104 Trinidad and Tobago 98 Belgium 112 Slovenia 101 Germany 110 Slovak Republic 109 Malta 154 United Arab Emirates 110 Austria 106 Israel 126 Lebanon 91 Czech Republic 101 Qatar 109 Japan 97 Switzerland 110 Singapore 120 Italy 93 Chinese Taipei 111 Luxembourg 112 Turkey 70 Brazil 89 Croatia 89 Greece 94 Chile 83 Lithuania 92 OECD average 100 Uruguay 84 CABA (Argentina) 82 Romania 70 Vietnam 65 Korea 101 Australia 117 United Kingdom 111 Peru 66 Colombia 72 Thailand 69 Hong Kong (China) 72 FYROM 80 Portugal 94 Dominican Republic 59 Indonesia 52 Georgia 92 Jordan 79 New Zealand 121 United States 108 Montenegro 81 Tunisia 47 Sweden 117 Mexico 57 Albania 69 Kosovo 57 Macao (China) 74 Algeria 54 Estonia 88 Moldova 83 Costa Rica 55 Russia 76 Canada 95 Poland 92 Denmark 91 Latvia 75 Ireland 88 Spain 86 Norway 103 Finland 103 Iceland 93 Variation in science performance between and within schools Figure I.6.11 % Between-school variation Within-school variation 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 OECD average 30% OECD average 69% Total variation as a proportion of the OECD average

Why should we worry about this? The average science score for pupils in outstanding schools is around the same level as the average score across all pupils in some of the highest performing countries. Pupils in schools rated as inadequate and requiring improvement achieve average science scores around 480 points - around two years schooling lower than the average score in schools rated outstanding.

Learning environment: Governance, resources, etc For designing more effective and efficient education systems

Turkey Singapore Vietnam Japan Tunisia Italy Chinese Taipei Thailand Greece Switzerland Czech Republic United States Estonia Uruguay France Austria CABA (Argentina) Kosovo Mexico Hong Kong (China) Indonesia Luxembourg Sweden Hungary Malta Dominican Republic Latvia OECD average B-S-J-G (China) Portugal Slovenia Spain United Kingdom Slovak Republic Norway Australia Croatia Denmark Peru Jordan Costa Rica Colombia Chile Netherlands Korea New Zealand Canada Lithuania Ireland Georgia Trinidad and Tobago FYROM Germany Finland Lebanon Belgium Poland Brazil United Arab Emirates Qatar Score-point difference Public and private schools Figure II.4.14 After accounting for socio-economic status Before accounting for socio-economic status 60 40 20 0-20 -40-60 Students in public schools perform better -80-100 Students in private schools perform better

Are selective schools better? Big caveat on the data no control has been included for pupils prior achievement results cannot be interpreted as providing evidence of different rates of pupil progress or of school effectiveness.

Policy implications for further analysis and discussions Improving the performance of the less able? Challenge gender stereotypes about science activities and occupations Teachers, school leaders and governments find ways to make teaching more effective and learning more attractive Provide additional support to disadvantaged schools

3 Thank you OECD PISA www.oecd.org/pisa