PISA in brief - 2015 In 2015, over half a million students - - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Excellence and equity

Andreas Schleicher

Director for Education and Skills

PISA in brief - 2015

In 2015, over half a million students…

• represen'ng 28 million 15-year-olds in 72 countries/economies

… took an interna9onally agreed 2-hour test…

• Goes beyond tes'ng whether students can reproduce what they were taught to assess students’ capacity to

extrapolate from what they know and crea'vely apply their knowledge in novel situa'ons

• Total of 390 minutes of assessment material

… and responded to ques9ons on…

• their personal background, their schools, their well-being and their mo'va'on

Parents, principals, teachers and system leaders provided data on:

• school policies, prac'ces, resources and ins'tu'onal factors that help explain performance differences
• 89,000 parents, 93,000 teachers and 17,500 principals responded

PISA 2015

OECD Partners

“the ability to engage with science- related issues, and with the ideas of science, as a reflective citizen”

Science in PISA

Drag Ragworms and Common Sole into Tank 2 and Marsh Grass and Shellfish into Tank 3

This question requires students to understand a system and the role of several organisms within that

• system. In order to answer

correctly, students must understand the goal of the fish farm, the function of each of the three tanks therein, and which organisms will best fulfill each function. Students must use information provided in the stimulus and the diagram, including a footnote under the diagram

Trends in science performance 2006 2009 2012 2015 OECD

450 470 490 510 530 550 570

OECD average

Student performance

Trends in science performance

450 470 490 510 530 550 570

2006 2009 2012 2015

Mass.

OECD average

Singapore Japan Estonia Chinese Tapei Finland Macao (China) Canada Vietnam Hong Kong (China) B-S-J-G (China) Korea New Zealand Slovenia Australia United Kingdom Germany Netherlands Switzerland Ireland Belgium Denmark Poland Portugal Norway United States Austria France Sweden Czech Rep. Spain Latvia Russia Luxembourg Italy Hungary Lithuania Croatia CABA (Argentina) Iceland Israel Malta Slovak Rep. Greece Chile Bulgaria United Arab Emirates Uruguay Romania Moldova Albania Turkey Trinidad and Tobago Thailand Costa Rica Qatar Colombia Mexico Montenegro Jordan Indonesia Brazil Peru Lebanon Tunisia FYROM Kosovo Algeria Dominican Rep. (332)

350 400 450 500 550 5 10 15 20 25 Mean science performance Higher perfomance High performance High equity Low performance Low equity Low performance High equity High performance High equity

Science performance in PISA (2015)

More equity

Singapore Japan Estonia Chinese Tapei Finland Macao (China) Canada Viet Nam Hong Kong (China) B-S-J-G (China) Korea New Zealand Slovenia Australia United Kingdom Germany Netherlands Switzerland Ireland Belgium Denmark Poland Portugal Norway United States Austria France Sweden Czech Rep. Spain Latvia Russia Luxembourg Italy Hungary Lithuania Croatia Iceland Israel Malta Slovak Rep. Greece Chile Bulgaria United Arab Emirates Uruguay Romania Moldova Turkey Trinidad and Tobago Thailand Costa Rica Qatar Colombia Mexico Montenegro Jordan Indonesia Brazil Peru Lebanon Tunisia FYROM Kosovo Algeria Dominican Rep. (332)

350 400 450 500 550 Mean science performance Higher perfomance

Science performance and equity in PISA (2015)

Some countries combine excellence with equity

More equity More equity

Australia Austria Belgium Brazil Bulgaria Canada Chile Chinese Taipei Colombia Croatia Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hong Kong (China) Hungary Iceland Indonesia Ireland Israel Italy Japan Jordan Korea Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Macao (China) Mexico Montenegro Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Qatar Romania Russia Slovak Rep. Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Thailand Tunisia Turkey United Kingdom United States Uruguay

350 400 450 500 550 5 10 15 20 25 Mean science performance Percentage of performance varation explained by ESCS More equity

Science performance and equity in PISA (2006-2015)

Some countries improved performance or equity

Higher perfomance High performance High equity Low performance Low equity Low performance High equity High performance Low equity

Colombia Norway Portugal Romania 350 400 450 500 550 5 10 15 20 25 Mean science performance Percentage of performance varation explained by ESCS More equity

Science performance and equity in PISA (2006-2015)

Some countries improved performance

Higher perfomance High performance High equity Low performance Low equity Low performance High equity High performance Low equity

Brazil Bulgaria Chile Mexico Montenegro Slovenia Thailand United States 350 400 450 500 550 5 10 15 20 25 Mean science performance Percentage of performance varation explained by ESCS More equity

Science performance and equity in PISA (2006-2015)

Some countries improved equity

Higher perfomance High performance High equity Low performance Low equity Low performance High equity High performance Low equity

• 2
• 1

1 2 300 400 500 600 700 ESCS PISA science scale USA 2006 USA 2015

No difference Significant difference

Greater equity

Poverty is not destiny - Science performance

by international deciles of the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS)

280 330 380 430 480 530 580 630

Dominican Republic 40 Algeria 52 Kosovo 10 Qatar 3 FYROM 13 Tunisia 39 Montenegro 11 Jordan 21 United Arab Emirates 3 Georgia 19 Lebanon 27 Indonesia 74 Mexico 53 Peru 50 Costa Rica 38 Brazil 43 Turkey 59 Moldova 28 Thailand 55 Colombia 43 Iceland 1 Trinidad and Tobago 14 Romania 20 Israel 6 Bulgaria 13 Greece 13 Russia 5 Uruguay 39 Chile 27 Latvia 25 Lithuania 12 Slovak Republic 8 Italy 15 Norway 1 Spain 31 Hungary 16 Croatia 10 Denmark 3 OECD average 12 Sweden 3 Malta 13 United States 11 Macao (China) 22 Ireland 5 Austria 5 Portugal 28 Luxembourg 14 Hong Kong (China) 26 Czech Republic 9 Poland 16 Australia 4 United Kingdom 5 Canada 2 France 9 Korea 6 New Zealand 5 Switzerland 8 Netherlands 4 Slovenia 5 Belgium 7 Finland 2 Estonia 5 Viet Nam 76 Germany 7 Japan 8 Chinese Taipei 12 B-S-J-G (China) 52 Singapore 11

Score points Bottom decile Second decile Middle decile Ninth decile Top decile

Figure I.6.7

% of students in the bottom international deciles of ESCS

OECD median student

Percentage of resilient students

Figure I.6.10

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Viet Nam 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

% 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 socio-economic status

Excellence and baseline performance

The global pool of top performers: A PISA perspective

Figure I.2.18

United States (8.5%); 300k B-S-J-G (China) (13.6%); 181k Japan (15.3%); 174k Germany (10.6%); 79k Viet Nam (8.3%); 72k United Kingdom (10.9%); 68k Korea (10.6%); 60k France (8.0%); 59k Russia (3.7%); 42k Canada (12.4%); 41k Chinese Taipei (15.4%); 39k Australia (11.2%); Poland (7.3%); Netherlands (11.1%) Italy (4.1%) Spain (5.0%) Brazil (0.7%) Singapore (24.2%) Belgium (9.0%) Finland (14.3%) Switzerland (9.8%) Sweden (8.5%) Portugal (7.4%) New Zealand (12.8%) Israel (5.9%) Others

Share of top performers among 15-year-old students: Less than 1% 1 to 2.5% 2.5 to 5% 5% to 7.5% 7.5% to 10% 10% to 12.5% 12.5% to 15% More than 15%

Science and careers

Expectations of a science career

by gender

Figure I.3.5

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 %

United States OECD average Science-related technicians or associate professionals2 Information and communication technology (ICT) professionals Health professionals Science and engineering professionals Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls

Students expecting a career in science

Figure I.3.2

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Dominican Rep. 12 Costa Rica 11 Jordan 6 United Arab Em. 11 Mexico 6 Colombia 8 Lebanon 15 Brazil 19 Peru 7 Qatar 19 United States 13 Chile 18 Tunisia 19 Canada 21 Slovenia 16 Turkey 6 Australia 15 United Kingdom 17 Malaysia 4 Kazakhstan 14 Spain 11 Norway 21 Uruguay 17 Singapore 14 Trinidad and T. 13 Israel 25 CABA (Arg.) 19 Portugal 18 Bulgaria 25 Ireland 13 Kosovo 7 Algeria 12 Malta 11 Greece 12 New Zealand 24 Albania 29 Estonia 15 OECD average 19 Belgium 16 Croatia 17 FYROM 20 Lithuania 21 Iceland 22 Russia 19 HKG (China) 20 Romania 20 Italy 17 Austria 23 Moldova 7 Latvia 19 Montenegro 18 France 21 Luxembourg 18 Poland 13 Macao (China) 10 Chinese Taipei 21 Sweden 21 Thailand 27 Viet Nam 13 Switzerland 22 Korea 7 Hungary 22 Slovak Republic 24 Japan 18 Finland 24 Georgia 27 Czech Republic 22 B-S-J-G (China) 31 Netherlands 19 Germany 33 Indonesia 19 Denmark 48

% 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

% of students with vague or missing expecta'ons

10 20 30 40 50 300 400 500 600 700 Percentage of students expecting a career in science Score points in science Low enjoyment of science Moderate enjoyment of science High enjoyment of science

Students expecting a career in science

by performance and enjoyment of learning

Figure I.3.17

L K J

Students’ enjoyment of learning science

Figure I.3.9

Percentage of students who reported that they "agree" or "strongly agree" with the following statements 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 I enjoy acquiring new knowledge in <broad science> I am interested in learning about <broad science> I generally have fun when I am learning <broad science> topics I am happy working on <broad science> topics I like reading about <broad science> % OECD average United States

Singapore Canada Slovenia Australia United Kingdom Ireland Portugal

Chinese Taipei Hong Kong (China) New Zealand Denmark Japan Estonia Finland Macao (China) Viet Nam B-S-J-G (China) Korea Germany Netherlands Switzerland Belgium Poland

Sweden Lithuania Croa9a Iceland Georgia Malta

United States Spain Israel United Arab Emirates

Brazil Bulgaria Chile Colombia Costa Rica Dominican Republic Jordan Kosovo Lebanon Mexico Peru Qatar Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Uruguay

Above-average science performance Stronger than average epistemic beliefs Above-average percentage of students expec'ng to work in a science-related occupa'on Norway

Multiple outcomes

Lessons from PISA

Low impact on outcomes High impact on outcomes

Low feasibility High feasibility

Money pits Must haves Low hanging fruits Quick wins

Lessons from PISA

Low impact on outcomes High impact on outcomes

Low feasibility High feasibility

Money pits Must haves Low hanging fruits Quick wins

Commitment to universal achievement Gateways, instruc'onal systems Capacity at point of delivery Incen've structures and accountability Resources where they yield most A learning system Coherence

Lessons from PISA

Low impact on outcomes High impact on outcomes

Low feasibility High feasibility

Money pits Must haves Low hanging fruits Quick wins

Commitment to universal achievement Gateways, instruc'onal systems Capacity at point of delivery Incen've structures and accountability Resources where they yield most A learning system Coherence

A commitment to educa'on and the belief that competencies can be learned and therefore all children can achieve

l

Universal educa'onal standards and personaliza'on as the approach to engage with diversity… … as opposed to a belief that students have different des'na'ons to be met with different expecta'ons, and selec'on/stra'fica'on as the approach to heterogeneity

l

Clear ar'cula'on who is responsible for ensuring student success and to whom

Horizontal stratification: ability grouping

Figure II.5.8

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Moldova Georgia Brazil Greece Portugal Italy Uruguay Norway Austria Latvia Sweden Iceland Croatia France Peru Denmark Bulgaria Chile Chinese Taipei Belgium Russia Czech Republic Germany Turkey Lebanon CABA (Argentina) Slovak Republic Slovenia Hungary B-S-J-G (China) Dominican Republic Colombia Poland Estonia Indonesia Spain FYROM United Arab Emirates Costa Rica Albania Kosovo OECD average Romania Mexico Montenegro Jordan Lithuania Macao (China) Finland Japan Korea Tunisia Switzerland Qatar Trinidad and Tobago Algeria Netherlands Luxembourg Malta Thailand United States Viet Nam Canada Australia New Zealand Hong Kong (China) Singapore Ireland Israel United Kingdom %

Percentage of students in schools where students are grouped by ability into different classes:

One form of grouping for all subjects One form of grouping for some subjects No ability grouping for any subject

Lessons from PISA

Low impact on outcomes High impact on outcomes

Low feasibility High feasibility

Money pits Must haves Low hanging fruits Quick wins

Commitment to universal achievement Gateways, instruc'onal systems Capacity at point of delivery Incen've structures and accountability Resources where they yield most A learning system Coherence

Inves'ng resources where they can make most

• f a difference

l Alignment of resources with key challenges

(e.g. a^rac'ng the most talented teachers to the most challenging classrooms)

l Effec've spending choices that priori'se high

quality teachers over smaller classes

Spending per student from the age of 6 to 15 and science performance

Figure II.6.2

Luxembourg Switzerland Norway Austria Singapore United States United Kingdom Malta Sweden Belgium Iceland Denmark Finland Netherlands Canada Japan Slovenia Australia Germany Ireland France Italy Portugal New Zealand Korea Spain Poland Israel Estonia Czech Rep. Latvia Slovak Rep. Russia Croatia Lithuania Hungary Costa Rica Chinese Taipei Chile Brazil Turkey Uruguay Bulgaria Mexico Thailand Montenegro Colombia Dominican Republic Peru Georgia 11.7, 411

R² = 0.01 R² = 0.41 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Science performance (score points) Average spending per student from the age of 6 to 15 (in thousands USD, PPP)

Differences in educational resources

between advantaged and disadvantaged schools

Figure I.6.14

• 3
• 2
• 2
• 1
• 1

1 1

CABA (Argentina) Mexico Peru Macao (China) United Arab Emirates Lebanon Jordan Colombia Brazil Indonesia Turkey Spain Dominican Republic Georgia Uruguay Thailand B-S-J-G (China) Australia Japan Chile Luxembourg Russia Portugal Malta Italy New Zealand Croatia Ireland Algeria Norway Israel Denmark Sweden United States Moldova Belgium Slovenia OECD average Hungary Chinese Taipei Viet Nam Czech Republic Singapore Tunisia Greece Trinidad and Tobago Canada Romania Qatar Montenegro Kosovo Netherlands Korea Finland Switzerland Germany Hong Kong (China) Austria FYROM Poland Albania Bulgaria Slovak Republic Lithuania Estonia Iceland Costa Rica United Kingdom Latvia

Mean index difference between advantaged and disadvantaged schools

Index of shortage of educational material Index of shortage of educational staff Disadvantaged schools have more resources than advantaged schools Disadvantaged schools have fewer resources than advantaged schools

Integra'ng immigrants

Student performance in science

by immigrant background

Figure I.7.4

350 400 450 500 550 600

Greece Costa Rica Jordan CABA (Argentina) Israel Sweden France Slovenia Austria Germany Netherlands Denmark Italy Norway Belgium OECD average Spain Croatia United States Luxembourg Switzerland Qatar Portugal Russia United Arab Emirates United Kingdom Ireland Australia Estonia Hong Kong (China) New Zealand Canada Macao (China) Singapore Score points

Non-immigrant students Second-generation immigrant students First-generation immigrant students

Percentage of immigrant students and education systems' average performance in science

OECD average CABA (Argentina) Costa Rica Sweden Jordan Luxembourg United States Denmark Italy Australia Portugal Russia Hong Kong (China) Qatar Belgium Israel Croatia United Arab Emirates Ireland Greece New Zealand Macao-China Spain Switzerland Estonia 1.8, 332 Netherlands Germany Singapore Austria Canada United Kingdom Slovenia France

R² = 0.09 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Mean science performance Percentage of immigrant students

Figure I.7.3

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Hong Kong (China) Macao (China) Estonia Singapore Spain Portugal Canada Switzerland United Kingdom Germany Slovenia Australia Netherlands New Zealand Austria Belgium OECD average Denmark Norway United States Ireland Sweden France Italy Russia Croatia Luxembourg Greece CABA (Argentina) Israel Costa Rica Jordan United Arab Emirates Qatar

% Non-immigrant students Immigrant students

Percentage of resilient students

by immigrant background

Figure I.7.8

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 taking socio-economic status into account

Star'ng strong

1 2 3 4 5

Sweden Estonia Russia Latvia Bulgaria Iceland Norway Hungary Denmark Finland Singapore Israel Belgium Hong Kong (China) Spain Slovak Republic Uruguay France Macao (China) Brazil B-S-J-G (China) Japan Germany Czech Republic Lithuania Slovenia Thailand Austria Croa'a Italy Chinese Taipei OECD average Poland Peru Korea Mexico Luxembourg Greece Montenegro Dominican Republic New Zealand United Kingdom United States Switzerland Costa Rica Qatar United Arab Emirates Colombia Australia Canada Chile Ireland Tunisia Portugal Turkey

Years Disadvantaged schools Advantaged schools Number of years in pre-primary educa'on among students a^ending socio-economically …

Attendance at pre-primary school

by schools’ socio-economic profile

Table II.6.51

OECD average

Lessons from PISA

Low impact on outcomes High impact on outcomes

Low feasibility High feasibility

Money pits Must haves Low hanging fruits Quick wins

Commitment to universal achievement Gateways, instruc'onal systems Capacity at point of delivery Incen've structures and accountability Resources where they yield most A learning system Coherence

❒

Capacity at the point of delivery

l

A^rac'ng, developing and retaining high quality teachers and school leaders and a work

• rganisa'on in which they can use their poten'al

l

Instruc'onal leadership and human resource management in schools

l

Keeping teaching an a^rac've profession

l

System-wide career development …

Student-teacher ratios and class size

Figure II.6.14

CABA (Argentina) Jordan Viet Nam Poland United States Chile Denmark Hungary B-S-G-J (China) Turkey Georgia Chinese Taipei Mexico Russia Albania Hong Kong (China) Japan Belgium Algeria Colombia Peru Macao (China) Switzerland Malta Dominican Republic Netherlands Singapore Brazil Kosovo Finland Thailand R² = 0.25 5 10 15 20 25 30 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Student-teacher ratio Class size in language of instruction High student-teacher ratios and small class sizes Low student-teacher ratios and large class sizes

OECD average OECD average

Lessons from PISA

Low impact on outcomes High impact on outcomes

Low feasibility High feasibility

Money pits Must haves Low hanging fruits Quick wins

Commitment to universal achievement Gateways, instruc9onal systems Capacity at point of delivery Incen've structures and accountability Resources where they yield most A learning system Coherence

❒

Clear ambi'ous goals that are shared across the system and aligned with high stakes gateways and instruc'onal systems

l

Well established delivery chain through which curricular goals translate into instruc'onal systems, instruc'onal prac'ces and student learning (intended, implemented and achieved)

l

High level of metacogni've content of instruc'on

The ‘produc'vity’ puzzle

Making learning 'me produc've so that students can build their academic, social and emo'onal skills in a balanced way

Learning time and science performance

Figure II.6.23

Finland Germany Switzerland Japan Estonia Sweden Netherlands New Zealand Macao (China) Iceland Hong Kong (China) Chinese Taipei Uruguay Singapore Poland United States Israel Bulgaria Korea Russia Italy Greece B-S-J-G (China) Colombia Chile Mexico Brazil Costa Rica Turkey Montenegro Peru Qatar Thailand United Arab Emirates Tunisia Dominican Republic R² = 0.21 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 35 40 45 50 55 60 PISA science score Total learning time in and outside of school

OECD average

OECD average OECD average

Learning time and science performance

Figure II.6.23

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Finland Germany Switzerland Japan Estonia Sweden Netherlands New Zealand Australia Czech Republic Macao (China) United Kingdom Canada Belgium France Norway Slovenia Iceland Luxembourg Ireland Latvia Hong Kong (China) OECD average Chinese Taipei Austria Portugal Uruguay Lithuania Singapore Denmark Hungary Poland Slovak Republic Spain Croatia United States Israel Bulgaria Korea Russia Italy Greece B-S-J-G (China) Colombia Chile Mexico Brazil Costa Rica Turkey Montenegro Peru Qatar Thailand United Arab Emirates Tunisia Dominican Republic Score points in science per hour of total learning time Hours Intended learning time at school (hours) Study time after school (hours) Score points in science per hour of total learning time

Effec've teaching

A well-structured, clear and informa've lesson on a topic including teachers’ explana'ons, classroom debates and students’ ques'ons pays

• ff, as does adap've instruc'on

Inquiry-based science instruc'on (e.g. experimenta'on and hands-on ac'vi'es) tends to relate nega'vely to performance but posi'vely to student engagement and career expecta'ons

Lessons from PISA

Low impact on outcomes High impact on outcomes

Low feasibility High feasibility

Money pits Must haves Low hanging fruits Quick wins

Commitment to universal achievement Gateways, instruc'onal systems Capacity at point of delivery Incen've structures and accountability Resources where they yield most A learning system Coherence

❒

Coherence of policies and prac'ces

l

Alignment of policies across all aspects of the system

l

Coherence of policies

• ver sustained periods of 'me

l

Consistency of implementa'on

l

Fidelity of implementa'on (without excessive control)

Looking forward

PISA OECD Programme for Interna'onal Student Assessment

• How well are students prepared for life,

ci'zenship and employment in mul'cultural socie'es and in a globalised world?

• To what degree are students able to examine

contemporary issues?

• Are students able to understand and appreciate

mul'ple cultural perspec'ves (including their

• wn) and manage differences and conflicts?
• To what degree are students prepared to interact

with others with respect for the inviolable rights and dignity of every individual?

• To what degree do students care about the world

and take ac'on to make a difference?

Some key ques9ons for social cohesion and sustainable development

PISA OECD Programme for Interna'onal Student Assessment

Global Competence is the capacity to examine global and intercultural issues, to take mul'ple perspec'ves, to engage in open, appropriate and effec've interac'ons with people from different cultures and to act for collec've well-being and sustainable development.

PISA defini9on of Global Competence

PISA OECD Programme for Interna'onal Student Assessment

Examine issues

Take

perspec'ves Act for well- being and sustainability Interact across cultures

Skills

Evaluate evidence and explain issues Analyse perspec'ves Adapt communica'on and behaviour Evaluate ac'ons and consequences

Knowledge

Knowledge of global issues Intercultural knowledge

Values

Valuing human dignity Valuing cultural diversity

A`tudes

Openness Respect Global-mindedness Global Competence

PISA OECD Programme for Interna'onal Student Assessment

Cogni've test

• A test of « global and

intercultural understanding » that covers the cogni've components of global competence (e.g. cri'cal reasoning with evidence, perspec've taking) Self-reported informa'on

• Self-reported data from

students on the other components of global competence (e.g.

• penness, adaptability),

and self-reported data from principals and teachers on ac'vi'es related to global and intercultural educa'on

The instruments

Average school systems High performers in PISA

Some students learn at high levels à All students learn at high levels Uniformity à Embracing diversity Curriculum-centred à Learner-centred Learning a place à Learning an ac'vity Prescrip'on à Informed profession Delivered wisdom à User-generated wisdom

Find out more about our work at www.oecd.org/pisa

– All publica9ons – The complete micro-level database

Email: Andreas.Schleicher@OECD.org Twi^er: SchleicherOECD Wechat: AndreasSchleicher

Thank you