presented by Andreas Schleicher, Director for Education and Skills, and Special Advisor on Education Policy to the Secretary-General at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in Paris, at the conference on""Fostering a Scientific Mindset: OECD 2015 PISA Results for Scientific Literacy" (8th December 2016, New York Academy of Sciences)

1. The global state
of science education
Andreas Schleicher
Director for Education and Skills

2. PISA in brief - 2015
In 2015, over half a million students…
- representing 28 million 15-year-olds in 72 countries/economies
… took an internationally agreed 2-hour test…
- Goes beyond testing whether students can reproduce what they were taught to assess students’ capacity to
extrapolate from what they know and creatively apply their knowledge in novel situations
- Focus on science, but also mathematics, reading, collaborative problem-solving and financial literacy
- Total of 390 minutes of assessment material
… and responded to questions on…
- their personal background, their schools, their well-being and their motivation
Parents, principals, teachers and system leaders provided data on:
- school policies, practices, resources and institutional factors that help explain performance differences
- 89,000 parents, 93,000 teachers and 17,500 principals responded

3. PISA 2015
OECD
Partners

4. “the ability to engage with science-
related issues, and with the ideas of
science, as a reflective citizen”
Science in PISA

5. •Explain phenomena scientifically
•Evaluate and design scientific enquiry
•Interpret data and evidence scientifically
Competencies
Recognise, offer and
evaluate explanations for
a range of natural and
technological phenomena.
Describe and appraise
scientific investigations
and propose ways of
addressing questions
scientifically.
Analyse and evaluate
data, claims and
arguments in a variety of
representations and draw
appropriate scientific
conclusions.

6. •Explain phenomena scientifically
•Evaluate and design scientific enquiry
•Interpret data and evidence scientifically
Knowledge
•Content knowledge
•Knowledge of methodological
procedures used in science
•Knowledge of the epistemic
reasons and ideas used by
scientists to justify their claims
Competencies
Each of the scientific
competencies requires
content knowledge
(knowledge of theories,
explanatory ideas,
information and facts), but
also an understanding of
how such knowledge has
been derived (procedural
knowledge) and of the
nature of that knowledge
(epistemic knowledge)
“Epistemic knowledge”
reflects students’ capacity
to think like a scientist and
distinguish between
observations, facts,
hypotheses, models and
theories

7. •Explain phenomena scientifically
•Evaluate and design scientific enquiry
•Interpret data and evidence scientifically
Knowledge
•Content knowledge
•Knowledge of methodological
procedures used in science
•Knowledge of the epistemic
reasons and ideas used by
scientists to justify their claims
Competencies
Peoples’ attitudes and
beliefs play a significant role
in their interest, attention
and response to science
and technology.
PISA distinguishes between
attitudes towards science
(e.g. interest in different
content areas of science)
and scientific attitudes (e.g.
whether students value
scientific approaches to
enquiry)Attitudes
•Attitudes to science
•Scientific attitudes

8. •Explain phenomena scientifically
•Evaluate and design scientific enquiry
•Interpret data and evidence scientifically
Knowledge
•Content knowledge
•Knowledge of methodological
procedures used in science
•Knowledge of the epistemic
reasons and ideas used by
scientists to justify their claims
Competencies
Personal, local/national and
global issues, both current
and historical, which
demand some
understanding of science
and technology
Attitudes
•Attitudes to science
•Scientific attitudes
Context
•Personal, local, global
•Current and historical

9. 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

10. Trends in science performance
2006 2009 2012 2015
OECD
450
470
490
510
530
550
570
OECD average
Studentperformance

11. Trends in science performance
450
470
490
510
530
550
570
2006 2009 2012 2015
Mass.
OECD average

12. Singapore
JapanEstonia
Chinese Tapei FinlandMacao (China) Canada
Vietnam Hong Kong (China)
B-S-J-G (China) Korea
New Zealand Slovenia
Australia United KingdomGermany Netherlands
Switzerland IrelandBelgium DenmarkPoland PortugalNorway United StatesAustria FranceSweden Czech Rep.Spain Latvia
Russia
LuxembourgItaly
HungaryLithuania CroatiaCABA (Argentina)
Iceland
IsraelMalta
Slovak Rep.
Greece
Chile Bulgaria
United Arab Emirates UruguayRomania
Moldova AlbaniaTurkey Trinidad and TobagoThailand Costa RicaQatar ColombiaMexico MontenegroJordan
IndonesiaBrazil
Peru
Lebanon
Tunisia
FYROM
KosovoAlgeria
Dominican Rep. (332)350
400
450
500
550
0510152025
Meanscienceperformance
Higherperfomance
High performance
High equity
Low performance
Low equity
Low performance
High equity
High performance
High equity
Science performance in PISA (2015)
More equity

13. Singapore
Japan
EstoniaChinese Tapei Finland
Macao (China)
CanadaViet Nam
Hong Kong (China)B-S-J-G (China) KoreaNew ZealandSlovenia
Australia United KingdomGermany
Netherlands
Switzerland
Ireland
Belgium DenmarkPolandPortugal NorwayUnited StatesAustriaFrance
Sweden
Czech Rep.
Spain Latvia Russia
Luxembourg Italy
Hungary LithuaniaCroatia Iceland
IsraelMalta
Slovak Rep.
Greece
Chile
Bulgaria
United Arab EmiratesUruguay
Romania
Moldova Turkey
Trinidad and Tobago ThailandCosta Rica QatarColombia Mexico
MontenegroJordan
Indonesia Brazil
Peru
Lebanon
Tunisia
FYROM
Kosovo
Algeria
Dominican Rep. (332)
350
400
450
500
550
Meanscienceperformance
Higherperfomance
Science performance and equity in PISA (2015)
Some countries
combine excellence
with equity
More equityMore equity

14. Colombia
NorwayPortugal
Romania
350
400
450
500
550
0510152025
Meanscienceperformance
Percentage of performance varation explained by ESCS
More equity
Science performance and equity in PISA (2006-2015)
Some countries
improved
performance
Higherperfomance
High performance
High equity
Low performance
Low equity
Low performance
High equity
High performance
Low equity

15. Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
Mexico
Montenegro
Slovenia
Thailand
United States
350
400
450
500
550
0510152025
Meanscienceperformance
Percentage of performance varation explained by ESCS
More equity
Science performance and equity in PISA (2006-2015)
Some countries
improved
equity
Higherperfomance
High performance
High equity
Low performance
Low equity
Low performance
High equity
High performance
Low equity

16. 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
DominicanRepublic40
Algeria52
Kosovo10
Qatar3
FYROM13
Tunisia39
Montenegro11
Jordan21
UnitedArabEmirates3
Georgia19
Lebanon27
Indonesia74
Mexico53
Peru50
CostaRica38
Brazil43
Turkey59
Moldova28
Thailand55
Colombia43
Iceland1
TrinidadandTobago14
Romania20
Israel6
Bulgaria13
Greece13
Russia5
Uruguay39
Chile27
Latvia25
Lithuania12
SlovakRepublic8
Italy15
Norway1
Spain31
Hungary16
Croatia10
Denmark3
OECDaverage12
Sweden3
Malta13
UnitedStates11
Macao(China)22
Ireland5
Austria5
Portugal28
Luxembourg14
HongKong(China)26
CzechRepublic9
Poland16
Australia4
UnitedKingdom5
Canada2
France9
Korea6
NewZealand5
Switzerland8
Netherlands4
Slovenia5
Belgium7
Finland2
Estonia5
VietNam76
Germany7
Japan8
ChineseTaipei12
B-S-J-G(China)52
Singapore11
Scorepoints
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

17. Percentage of resilient students
Figure I.6.10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
VietNam
Macao(China)
HongKong(China)
Singapore
Japan
Estonia
ChineseTaipei
B-S-J-G(China)
Finland
Korea
Spain
Canada
Portugal
UnitedKingdom
Latvia
Slovenia
Poland
Germany
Australia
UnitedStates
Netherlands
NewZealand
Ireland
OECDaverage
Switzerland
Denmark
Belgium
France
Italy
Norway
Austria
Russia
CzechRepublic
Sweden
Croatia
Lithuania
Turkey
Malta
Luxembourg
Hungary
Thailand
Greece
SlovakRepublic
Iceland
Israel
CABA(Argentina)
Chile
Uruguay
Bulgaria
Moldova
TrinidadandTobago
Mexico
Colombia
Romania
Indonesia
CostaRica
Brazil
Montenegro
UnitedArabEmirates
Jordan
Georgia
Algeria
Lebanon
Qatar
Tunisia
FYROM
Peru
Kosovo
DominicanRepublic
%
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

18. Top performers
Students who can develop and work with models for complex science
situations, identifying constraints and specifying assumptions. They can
select, compare and evaluate appropriate problem-solving strategies for
dealing with complex problems related to these models.

19. 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%

20. Gender
The difference is not how good they are at science
but in their attitudes to science

21. -15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
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
Boys' and girls' strengths and weaknesses in science
Figure I.2.29
It is harder for boys, on
average, to perform
well on these types of
tasks...
Score-pointdifference(boys-girls)
Knowledge typesScience competencies Content areas

22. -15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
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
Top-performing boys' and girls' strengths and weaknesses
Figure I.2.29
...but the highest-
achieving boys
perform better than
the highest-achieving
girls on all types of
tasks, including these
Score-pointdifference(boys-girls)
Knowledge typesScience competencies Content areas

23. -16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
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
Bottom-performing boys' and girls' strengths and weaknesses
Figure I.2.29
... It is harder for girls
to perform well on
these types of tasks,
even among low
achievers
Score-pointdifference(boys-girls)
Knowledge typesScience competencies Content areas

24. Science and careers

25. Expectations of a science career
by gender
Figure I.3.5
0 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

26. Students expecting a career in science
Figure I.3.2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
DominicanRep.12
CostaRica11
Jordan6
UnitedArabEm.11
Mexico6
Colombia8
Lebanon15
Brazil19
Peru7
Qatar19
UnitedStates13
Chile18
Tunisia19
Canada21
Slovenia16
Turkey6
Australia15
UnitedKingdom17
Malaysia4
Kazakhstan14
Spain11
Norway21
Uruguay17
Singapore14
TrinidadandT.13
Israel25
CABA(Arg.)19
Portugal18
Bulgaria25
Ireland13
Kosovo7
Algeria12
Malta11
Greece12
NewZealand24
Albania29
Estonia15
OECDaverage19
Belgium16
Croatia17
FYROM20
Lithuania21
Iceland22
Russia19
HKG(China)20
Romania20
Italy17
Austria23
Moldova7
Latvia19
Montenegro18
France21
Luxembourg18
Poland13
Macao(China)10
ChineseTaipei21
Sweden21
Thailand27
VietNam13
Switzerland22
Korea7
Hungary22
SlovakRepublic24
Japan18
Finland24
Georgia27
CzechRepublic22
B-S-J-G(China)31
Netherlands19
Germany33
Indonesia19
Denmark48
%
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
%ofstudentswith
vagueormissing
expectations

27. Students’ enjoyment of learning science
Figure I.3.9
Percentage of students who reported that they "agree" or "strongly agree" with the following statements
0 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

28. 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
Croatia
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 expecting
to work in a science-related occupation
Norway
Multipleoutcomes

29. LessonsfromPISA
Low impact on outcomes
High impact on outcomes
Low feasibility High feasibility
Money pits
Must haves
Low hanging fruits
Quick wins

30. LessonsfromPISA
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, instructional
systems
Capacity
at point of delivery
Incentive structures and
accountability
Resources
where they yield most
A learning systemCoherence

31. LessonsfromPISA
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, instructional
systems
Capacity
at point of delivery
Incentive structures and
accountability
Resources
where they yield most
A learning systemCoherence
A commitment to education and the belief that
competencies can be learned and therefore all
children can achieve
 Universal educational standards and
personalization as the approach to engage with
diversity…
… as opposed to a belief that students have
different destinations to be met with different
expectations, and selection/stratification as the
approach to heterogeneity
 Clear articulation who is responsible for ensuring
student success and to whom

32. LessonsfromPISA
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, instructional
systems
Capacity
at point of delivery
Incentive structures and
accountability
Resources
where they yield most
A learning systemCoherence
Investing resources where they can make most
of a difference
 Alignment of resources with key challenges
(e.g. attracting the most talented teachers to
the most challenging classrooms)
 Effective spending choices that prioritise high
quality teachers over smaller classes

33. Spending per student from the age of 6 to 15 and
science performance
Figure II.6.2
Luxembourg
Switzerland
NorwayAustria
Singapore
United States
United Kingdom
Malta
Sweden
Belgium
Iceland
Denmark
Finland
Netherlands
Canada
Japan
Slovenia
Australia
Germany
Ireland
FranceItaly
Portugal
New Zealand
Korea Spain
Poland
Israel
Estonia
Czech Rep.
LatviaSlovak 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
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Scienceperformance(scorepoints)
Average spending per student from the age of 6 to 15 (in thousands USD, PPP)

34. Differences in educational resources
between advantaged and disadvantaged schools
Figure I.6.14
-3
-2
-2
-1
-1
0
1
1
CABA(Argentina)
Mexico
Peru
Macao(China)
UnitedArabEmirates
Lebanon
Jordan
Colombia
Brazil
Indonesia
Turkey
Spain
DominicanRepublic
Georgia
Uruguay
Thailand
B-S-J-G(China)
Australia
Japan
Chile
Luxembourg
Russia
Portugal
Malta
Italy
NewZealand
Croatia
Ireland
Algeria
Norway
Israel
Denmark
Sweden
UnitedStates
Moldova
Belgium
Slovenia
OECDaverage
Hungary
ChineseTaipei
VietNam
CzechRepublic
Singapore
Tunisia
Greece
TrinidadandTobago
Canada
Romania
Qatar
Montenegro
Kosovo
Netherlands
Korea
Finland
Switzerland
Germany
HongKong(China)
Austria
FYROM
Poland
Albania
Bulgaria
SlovakRepublic
Lithuania
Estonia
Iceland
CostaRica
UnitedKingdom
Latvia
Meanindexdifferencebetweenadvantaged
anddisadvantagedschools
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

35. Starting strong

36. 0
1
2
3
4
5
Sweden
Estonia
Russia
Latvia
Bulgaria
Iceland
Norway
Hungary
Denmark
Finland
Singapore
Israel
Belgium
HongKong(China)
Spain
SlovakRepublic
Uruguay
France
Macao(China)
Brazil
B-S-J-G(China)
Japan
Germany
CzechRepublic
Lithuania
Slovenia
Thailand
Austria
Croatia
Italy
ChineseTaipei
OECDaverage
Poland
Peru
Korea
Mexico
Luxembourg
Greece
Montenegro
DominicanRepublic
NewZealand
UnitedKingdom
UnitedStates
Switzerland
CostaRica
Qatar
UnitedArabEmirates
Colombia
Australia
Canada
Chile
Ireland
Tunisia
Portugal
Turkey
Years
Disadvantaged schools Advantaged schools
Number of years in pre-primary education among students attending socio-economically …
Attendance at pre-primary school
by schools’ socio-economic profile
Table II.6.51
OECD average

37. LessonsfromPISA
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, instructional
systems
Capacity
at point of delivery
Incentive structures and
accountability
Resources
where they yield most
A learning systemCoherence
 Capacity at the point of delivery
 Attracting, developing and retaining high quality
teachers and school leaders and a work
organisation in which they can use their potential
 Instructional leadership and human resource
management in schools
 Keeping teaching an attractive profession
 System-wide career development …

38. 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-teacherratio
Class size in language of instruction
High student-teacher ratios
and small class sizes
Low student-teacher ratios
and large class sizes
OECD
average
OECDaverage

39. -20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
Malta
Lebanon
Norway
VietNam
Finland
Denmark
HongKong(China)
Qatar
Sweden
Singapore
ChineseTaipei
Australia
UnitedKingdom
UnitedArabEmirates
B-S-J-G(China)
Lithuania
Macao(China)
Moldova
UnitedStates
Iceland
Estonia
Thailand
TrinidadandTobago
Germany
Ireland
Portugal
Canada
Latvia
Hungary
Algeria
Korea
OECDaverage
Turkey
Georgia
Jordan
France
Croatia
Israel
Switzerland
FYROM
Netherlands
CostaRica
Poland
Slovenia
Japan
NewZealand
Montenegro
Bulgaria
Mexico
Brazil
Russia
Spain
Chile
CABA(Argentina)
Greece
Belgium
Indonesia
Italy
DominicanRepublic
Luxembourg
Colombia
Kosovo
Peru
CzechRepublic
Tunisia
Austria
SlovakRepublic
Romania
Uruguay
Score-pointdifference
After accounting for socio-economic status Before accounting for socio-economic status
Teacher support in science lessons and science performance
Figure II.3.12
Teacher support in science lessons is
associated with lower student performance
Teacher support in science lessons is
associated with better student performance

40. LessonsfromPISA
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, instructional
systems
Capacity
at point of delivery
Incentive structures and
accountability
Resources
where they yield most
A learning systemCoherence
 Clear ambitious goals that are shared across the
system and aligned with high stakes gateways
and instructional systems
 Well established delivery chain through which
curricular goals translate into instructional
systems, instructional practices and student
learning (intended, implemented and achieved)
 High level of metacognitive content of instruction

41. The ‘productivity’ puzzle
Making learning time productive so that students
can build their academic, social and emotional
skills in a balanced way

42. 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
PISAsciencescore
Total learning time in and outside of school
OECD average
OECD average
OECDaverage

43. Learning time and science performance
Figure II.6.23
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Finland
Germany
Switzerland
Japan
Estonia
Sweden
Netherlands
NewZealand
Australia
CzechRepublic
Macao(China)
UnitedKingdom
Canada
Belgium
France
Norway
Slovenia
Iceland
Luxembourg
Ireland
Latvia
HongKong(China)
OECDaverage
ChineseTaipei
Austria
Portugal
Uruguay
Lithuania
Singapore
Denmark
Hungary
Poland
SlovakRepublic
Spain
Croatia
UnitedStates
Israel
Bulgaria
Korea
Russia
Italy
Greece
B-S-J-G(China)
Colombia
Chile
Mexico
Brazil
CostaRica
Turkey
Montenegro
Peru
Qatar
Thailand
UnitedArabEmirates
Tunisia
DominicanRepublic
Scorepointsinscienceperhouroftotallearningtime
Hours Intended learning time at school (hours) Study time after school (hours) Score points in science per hour of total learning time

44. Science-related extracurricular activities offered at school
Figure II.2.9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
HongKong(China)
Korea
B-S-J-G(China)
Thailand
Qatar
UnitedArabEmirates
ChineseTaipei
Poland
UnitedKingdom
Russia
Montenegro
UnitedStates
Macao(China)
Romania
Malta
Algeria
Bulgaria
SlovakRepublic
Japan
Tunisia
Indonesia
Israel
Portugal
Canada
Slovenia
Croatia
Hungary
Kosovo
Jordan
DominicanRepublic
CABA(Argentina)
NewZealand
Germany
Albania
CzechRepublic
Italy
Latvia
VietNam
Lebanon
Estonia
Turkey
Singapore
OECDaverage
Georgia
FYROM
TrinidadandTobago
Australia
Switzerland
Chile
Uruguay
Colombia
Ireland
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Mexico
Peru
France
CostaRica
Greece
Netherlands
Moldova
Spain
Finland
Brazil
Iceland
Denmark
Sweden
Belgium
Austria
Norway
%
Percentage of students in schools offering:
Science club Science competitions

45. 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Switzerland
Japan
Iceland
Jordan
Norway
Austria
Netherlands
Algeria
Uruguay
Romania
Lebanon
Denmark
Brazil
VietNam
Germany
Greece
Turkey
Italy
Chile
France
Tunisia
Luxembourg
Israel
CABA(Argentina)
Belgium
OECDaverage
Thailand
Kosovo
Mexico
ChineseTaipei
Sweden
Peru
Ireland
FYROM
Colombia
UnitedStates
NewZealand
Canada
TrinidadandTobago
Spain
Bulgaria
Korea
Malta
UnitedKingdom
Croatia
Slovenia
SlovakRepublic
Georgia
Indonesia
CzechRepublic
HongKong(China)
Qatar
Latvia
Singapore
DominicanRepublic
Finland
Lithuania
UnitedArabEmirates
Hungary
Portugal
Australia
Montenegro
B-S-J-G(China)
Poland
Albania
CostaRica
Estonia
Russia
Moldova
Macao(China)
Disadvantaged schools Advantaged schools
Science competitions offered at school
by schools' socio-economic profile
Figure II.2.10
%

46. Effective teaching
A well-structured, clear and informative lesson on a topic including
teachers’ explanations, classroom debates and students’ questions pays
off, as does adaptive instruction
Inquiry-based science instruction (e.g. experimentation and hands-on
activities) tends to relate negatively to performance but positively to
student engagement and career expectations

47. UnitedKingdom
Italy
Australia
Israel
Malta
Lebanon
Spain
Qatar
Singapore
UnitedStates
Finland
Norway
UnitedArabEmirates
Greece
Canada
HongKong(China)
Russia
Jordan
NewZealand
Macao(China)
Portugal
CABA(Argentina)
Poland
B-S-J-G(China)
Georgia
Moldova
Luxembourg
Ireland
OECDaverage
Iceland
Uruguay
Netherlands
Thailand
Mexico
ChineseTaipei
Germany
France
Croatia
Switzerland
Denmark
Brazil
Kosovo
Austria
Chile
Romania
Colombia
TrinidadandTobago
Hungary
Sweden
Latvia
DominicanRepublic
Belgium
Tunisia
VietNam
Peru
Japan
Algeria
FYROM
Estonia
CzechRepublic
Turkey
Lithuania
SlovakRepublic
CostaRica
Bulgaria
Montenegro
Indonesia
Korea
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Score-pointdifference
After accounting for socio-economic status Before accounting for socio-economic status
Teacher-directed instruction: demonstrating scientific ideas
Table II.2.18
Students who reported that their science teacher explains scientific
ideas in many lessons or every lesson perform better in science

48. Norway
Netherlands
UnitedArabEmirates
Qatar
Denmark
Finland
Singapore
Australia
Sweden
UnitedKingdom
Iceland
Germany
Bulgaria
Portugal
Latvia
Israel
Brazil
Russia
B-S-J-G(China)
HongKong(China)
Chile
Canada
Turkey
OECDaverage
CzechRepublic
Ireland
Colombia
Poland
NewZealand
Macao(China)
Estonia
Lithuania
Switzerland
Thailand
DominicanRepublic
SlovakRepublic
Uruguay
UnitedStates
CostaRica
Korea
Greece
Montenegro
Hungary
Mexico
Croatia
Italy
France
Spain
Belgium
Tunisia
Luxembourg
Peru
Japan
Austria
ChineseTaipei
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Score-pointdifference
Score-point difference associated with the index of adaptive instruction
Adaptive instruction and science performance
Figure II.3.16
Students who reported that their science teacher adapts more frequently
their lessons to students’ needs and knowledge perform better in science

49. Enquiry-based teaching practices and science performance
Figure II.2.20
-65
-55
-45
-35
-25
-15
-5
5
15
25
Theteacherexplainshowascience
ideacanbeappliedtoanumberof
differentphenomena
Theteacherclearlyexplainsthe
relevanceofscienceconceptsto
ourlives
Studentsaregivenopportunitiesto
explaintheirideas
Studentsareaskedtodraw
conclusionsfromanexperiment
theyhaveconducted
Studentsarerequiredtoargue
aboutsciencequestions
Thereisaclassdebateabout
investigations
Studentsspendtimeinthe
laboratorydoingpractical
experiments
Studentsareaskedtodoan
investigationtotestideas
Studentsareallowedtodesigntheir
ownexperiments
Score-pointdifference
After accounting for
students' and
schools' socio-
economic profile
Before accounting for
students' and
schools' socio-
economic profile
The following
happen in
"most" or "all"
science
lessons“

50. Balancing curricula

51. Overall science
scale, 532
Content
knowledge, 538
Procedural and
epistemic
knowledge, 528
480 490 500 510 520 530 540 550 560
ChineseTaipei
Score points
Comparing countries and economies on the
different science knowledge subscales
Figure I.2.30

52. Overall science scale, 556
Overall science scale, 532
Content knowledge, 553
Content knowledge, 538
Procedural and epistemic
knowledge, 558
Procedural and epistemic
knowledge, 528
480 490 500 510 520 530 540 550 560
SingaporeChineseTaipei
Score points
Comparing countries and economies on the
different science knowledge subscales
Figure I.2.30

53. Overall science scale, 556
Overall science scale, 532
Overall science scale, 496
Content knowledge, 553
Content knowledge, 538
Content knowledge, 490
Procedural and epistemic
knowledge, 558
Procedural and epistemic
knowledge, 528
Procedural and epistemic
knowledge, 501
480 490 500 510 520 530 540 550 560
Singapore
Chinese
Taipei
United
States
Score points
Comparing countries and economies on the
different science knowledge subscales
Figure I.2.30

54. LessonsfromPISA
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, instructional
systems
Capacity
at point of delivery
Incentive structures and
accountability
Resources
where they yield most
A learning systemCoherence
 Coherence of policies and practices
 Alignment of policies
across all aspects of the system
 Coherence of policies
over sustained periods of time
 Consistency of implementation
 Fidelity of implementation
(without excessive control)

55. Some students learn at high levels All students need to learn at high levels
Student inclusion
Routine cognitive skills Conceptual understanding,
complex ways of thinking, ways of working
Curriculum, instruction and assessment
Standardisation and compliance High-level professional knowledge workers
Teacher quality
‘Tayloristic’, hierarchical Flat, collegial
Work organisation
Primarily to authorities Primarily to peers and stakeholders
Accountability
What it all means
The old bureaucratic system The modern enabling system

56. Find out more about our work at www.oecd.org/pisa
– All publications
– The complete micro-level database
Email: Andreas.Schleicher@OECD.org
Twitter: SchleicherOECD
Wechat: AndreasSchleicher
Thank you