PISA_2003.pdf

P rogramme for I nternational S tudent A ssessment

Tomorrow’s World

First Results from PISA 2003

OECD

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT

Learning for

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION

AND DEVELOPMENT

Pursuant to Article 1 of the Convention signed in Paris on 14th December 1960, and which came into

force on 30th September 1961, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)

shall promote policies designed:

– to achieve the highest sustainable economic growth and employment and a rising standard of living in

member countries, while maintaining financial stability, and thus to contribute to the development

of the world economy;

– to contribute to sound economic expansion in member as well as non-member countries in the

process of economic development; and

– to contribute to the expansion of world trade on a multilateral, non-discriminatory basis in

accordance with international obligations.

The original member countries of the OECD are Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France,

Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain,

Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The following countries became

members subsequently through accession at the dates indicated hereafter: Japan (28th April 1964), Finland

(28th January 1969), Australia (7th June 1971), New Zealand (29th May 1973), Mexico (18th May 1994),

the Czech Republic (21st December 1995), Hungary (7th May 1996), Poland (22nd November 1996),

Korea (12th December 1996) and the Slovak Republic (14th December 2000). The Commission of the

European Communities takes part in the work of the OECD (Article 13 of the OECD Convention).

Publié en français sous le titre :

Apprendre aujourd’hui, réussir demain – Premiers résultats de PISA 2003

Originalfassungen veröffentlicht unter dem Titel:

Lernen für die Welt von morgen – Erste Ergebnisse von PISA 2003

PISA TM , OECD/PISA TM and the PISA logo are trademarks of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and

Development (OECD). All use of OECD trademarks is prohibited without written permission from the OECD.

Permission to reproduce a portion of this work for non-commercial purposes or classroom use should be obtained through the Centre français

d ’ exploitation du droit de copie (CFC), 20, rue des Grands-Augustins, 75006 Paris, France, tel. (33-1) 44 07 47 70, fax (33-1) 46 34 67 19, for every country

except the United States. In the United States permission should be obtained through the Copyright Clearance Center, Customer Service, (508)750-8400,

222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 USA, or CCC Online: www.copyright.com . All other applications for permission to reproduce or translate all or part

of this book should be made to OECD Publications, 2, rue André-Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16, France.

Foreword

Compelling incentives for individuals, economies and societies to raise levels of

education have been the driving force for governments to improve the quality of

educational services. The prosperity of countries now derives to a large extent

from their human capital, and to succeed in a rapidly changing world, individuals

need to advance their knowledge and skills throughout their lives. Education

systems need to lay strong foundations for this, by fostering knowledge and

skills and strengthening the capacity and motivation of young adults to continue

learning beyond school.

All stakeholders – parents, students, those who teach and run education systems

as well as the general public – need to be informed on how well their education

systems prepare students for life. Many countries monitor students’ learning in

order to provide answers to this question. Assessment and evaluation – coupled

with appropriate incentives – can motivate students to learn better, teachers to

teach more effectively and schools to become more supportive and productive

environments. Comparative international analyses can extend and enrich the

national picture by providing a larger context within which to interpret national

results. They can provide countries with information to judge their areas of relative

strength and weakness and to monitor progress. They can also stimulate countries

to raise aspirations. And they can provide evidence to direct national policy, for

schools’ curricula and instructional efforts and for students’ learning.

In response to the need for cross-nationally comparable evidence on student

performance, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Develoment

(OECD) launched the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) in

1997. PISA represents a commitment by governments to monitor the outcomes

of education systems in terms of student achievement on a regular basis and within

an internationally accepted common framework. It aims to provide a new basis for

policy dialogue and for collaboration in deﬁning and implementing educational

goals, in innovative ways that reﬂect judgements about the skills that are relevant

to adult life. The ﬁrst PISA assessment was conducted in 2000. Focusing on reading

literacy, PISA 2000 revealed wide differences in the extent to which countries

succeed in enabling young adults to access, manage, integrate, evaluate and reﬂect

on written information in order to develop their potential and further expand their

horizon. For some countries, the results were disappointing, showing that their

15-year-olds’ performance lagged considerably behind that of other countries,

sometimes by the equivalent of several years of schooling and sometimes despite

high investments in education. PISA 2000 also highlighted signiﬁcant variation in

the performance of schools and raised concerns about equity in the distribution of

learning opportunities.

How have things changed since 2000? This report presents ﬁrst results from the PISA

2003 assessment, which focused on mathematics. It shows that average performance

in the group of the 25 OECD countries for which data can be compared has

increased in one of the two content areas of mathematics that was measured in both

2000 and 2003, 1 while performance in science, reading and the other comparable

area of mathematics has essentially remained unchanged. However, performance

changes have been uneven across OECD countries. Finland, the top performing

country in the PISA 2000 reading assessment, has maintained its high level of

reading performance while further improving its performance in mathematics and

science, placing it now on a par with the East Asian countries, whose performance

in mathematics and science had been previously unmatched. By contrast, in Mexico,

the lowest performing OECD country in the 2000 assessment, the pressure to

expand the still limited access to secondary education (OECD, 2004a) may have

been one of the factors contributing to lower performance in 2003 in all three

assessment areas.

However, the report goes well beyond an examination of the relative standing

of countries in mathematics, science and reading. It also looks at a wider range

of educational outcomes that include students’ motivation to learn, their beliefs

about themselves and their learning strategies. Furthermore, it examines how

performance varies between the genders and between socio-economic groups.

It also provides insights into some of the factors that are associated with the

development of knowledge and skills at home and at school, and into how these

factors interact and what the implications are for policy development. Most

importantly, the report sheds light on countries that succeed in achieving high

performance standards while at the same time providing an equitable distribution

of learning opportunities. Results in these countries pose challenges for other

countries by showing what it is possible to achieve.

The report is the product of a collaborative effort between the countries

participating in PISA, the experts and institutions working within the framework

of the PISA Consortium, and the OECD. The report was drafted by the OECD

Directorate for Education, principally by Andreas Schleicher, Claudia Tamassia and

Miyako Ikeda, with advice and analytic support from Raymond Adams, Cordula

Artelt (who developed the model underlying Chapter 3), Alla Berezner, Jude

Cosgrove, John Cresswell, Donald Hirsch, Yuko Nonoyama, Christian Monseur,

Claudia Reiter, Wolfram Schulz, Ross Turner and Sophie Vayssettes. Chapters 4

and 5 also draw on analytic work undertaken in the context of PISA 2000 by

Jaap Scheerens and Douglas Willms. The PISA assessment instruments and the

1. In 2003, mathematics was assessed in detail and results are reported on four content scales.

In 2000, a minor assessment of mathematics was reported on only one scale, but the assessment

covered two content areas of the PISA mathematics framework, namely space and shape and change

and relationships (see OECD, 2001a). To allow for comparisons with results from PISA 2003,

separate reporting scales were retrospectively constructed for the 2000 results in these two

content areas.

data underlying the report were prepared by the PISA Consortium, under the

direction of Raymond Adams at the Australian Council for Educational Research.

The development of the report was steered by the PISA Governing Board that

is chaired by Ryo Watanabe (Japan). Annex C of the report lists the members of

the various PISA bodies as well as the individual experts and consultants who

have contributed to this report and to PISA in general.

The report is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the

OECD.

Ryo Watanabe

Chair of the PISA Governing Board

Barry McGaw

Director for Education, OECD

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: