Sie sind auf Seite 1von 11


EDUCATION, Biannual Journal of the Faculty of Education of San Marcos

Luis Piscoya Hermoza
n this article we propose to describe the characteristics of what may be called
the PISA (OECD Programme for International Student Assessment) which is the larg
est effort and complexity,
within the international community to measure the knowledge and skills of school
children of 15 and 16 years, in terms that allow the reliable comparison of the
scores obtained for samples taken in schools, a plurality of countries in diffe
rent cultures installed . We believe that a presentation, albeit preliminary, th
e scope of the PISA project is important not only for its breadth and generality
but mainly by the peculiarities that characterize his conception of measuring t
he quality of services offered by the educational systems in actual effect, it i
s bound to the most advanced science and technology education and an explicit un
derstanding of the central role that education must in any social project guided
by a vision rationally founded. The context within which they must understand t
he social and educational objectives of the PISA project is, in significant meas
ure, a stranger to the educational reality of our country. In fact, have passed,
and about 40 years since neighboring countries such as Chile, Colombia and Braz
il established national test systems for the purpose of measuring school perform
ance annually on the level of basic education in order to have quality indicator
s of learning produced by the educational systems as a justification of public e
xpenditure made by states in infrastructure, equipment, salaries of teachers and
educational materials, from taxes paid by members of the national community. Bu
t in Peru, except in the case of so-called mental maturity tests were short-live
d in the 1950s, there has been any projects for the national cyclic tests to sch
oolchildren in the level of basic education, although scientific and technologic
al development in this area has been remarkable since the improvement and cheape
ning of the equipment has been increasing, which has facilitated national testin
g systems are in widespread use in the region, Europe and Asia in broad sectors
, found among the few exceptions. The dissemination of national tests and intern
ational in Latin America has been a result of the influence of educational appli
cations of psychometrics through the Educational Testing Service of New Jersey.
This institution
developed a methodology for the development of multiple-choice tests, automatic
grading and mass application, most notably the SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) wh
ich is the tool for selecting candidates who used to date the majority of univer
sities U.S.. Using this same methodology in Latin America have established inter
national tests, some
Education, Year I, No. 2, December 2004, pp. 21-34
of which have their origin in the United States and Canada. Among them may be me
ntioned Civic Education Study, IALS (International Adult Literacy Survey), ALL (
Adult Literacy and Lifeskills), PIRLS (Progress in International Reading Literac
y Study), TIMSS (Third International Mathematics and Science Study) and TIMSS-R,
among others. In this regard, we note that Peru, with the exception of proof LL
ECE of UNESCO, has not participated in any of these tests that allow comparisons
in the region, while Argentina, Colombia, Brazil, Chile, Mexico and, occasional
ly, Bolivia and Costa Rica reported repeated units between 1991 and 2002. Surely
, what singles out with greater clarity and relevance to PISA is its peculiar co
nception of literacy that goes far beyond what has traditionally been understood
in Castilian about this, that is, to read, write and perform very basic arithme
tic operations. Normally we would not say, according to our standards, a student
at the end of fifth grade high school is acceptably literate or goal of educati
on is high literacy in our school who are between 15 and 16. In our language we
say that literacy to those who did not have timely access to the school system a
nd whether we realize we have successfully resolved an emergency, but we are sti
ll far from a desirable educational minimum. For example,€I have never heard tha
t use of the Cartesian plane and that the solution of linear equations are part
of a literacy program, but the curriculum of secondary education. In contrast to
this, what we call the approach PISA (PISA literacy approach) is to define each
assessment area, ie mathematics, science, reading comprehension and solution
which is completely compatible with what they think about education evaluation s
pecialists respected by the international academic community, avoid pointless di
scussions of those who are engaged in curricular debates past three decades tryi
ng to resolve devout if the curriculum developed from a list of behavioral objec
tives or competencies Skinnerian "cons constructivist." This is the heavy legacy
they left, I think unintentionally, the initial theoretical SAT, whose issues h
ave been misrepresented by those who have sought, first, to measure whether the
skills of knowledge and then write resumes from skills and qualifications by min
isterial decree dissolving the scientific disciplines. The PISA project's emphas
is on taking on the Cartesian plane as X axis and as a foundation of knowledge a
nd a set of general skills or identifiable performance (retrieving information,
interpreting texts, reflecting and evaluating) is clearly manifested in the fact
that each of its phases has been defined by one dimension of knowledge or that
which makes possible and strengthens. PISA 2000 tests were aimed mainly to asses
s reading comprehension but not in terms of learning to read "but to" read to le
arn. " That means the instrumental sense of reading, which is not limited to the
literary text but incorporates a balanced reading of diagrams and curves in the
Cartesian plane, the understanding of flowcharts, organization charts, maps, ta
bles and double entry iconic signs. It's all part of not only scientists but als
o reports of administrative, media reports or signaling Metro stations are not y
et in Lima but exists in most cities in the world that are representative of the
complex contemporary society. In keeping with the foregoing, the 2003 PISA test
s, in which 40 countries have participated, have been geared essentially to asse
ss mathematics and PISA 2006 tests, which involved 60 countries, focus the evalu
ation of the basic sciences.
no problems mainly in terms of minimal skills and abilities, but in terms of kno
wledge and skills required to achieve full participation in the increasingly com
plex society of the XXI century. This approach
EDUCATION, Biannual Journal of the Faculty of Education of San Marcos
As soon as sufficient proof that the PISA approach of scientific knowledge are t
he tools of survival, development and command more powerful than Western culture
has been created from the rationality of Greek philosophical thought and its as
sociated mathematics. From this entry, rooted in philosophical and scientific tr
adition, set the test questions in terms of tasks, which measure the abilities a
nd skills to use reading comprehension as a learning tool and to increase knowle
dge, and mathematics and science as tools to be employed in the real world by pu
tting them into operation in addressing these needs and in anticipation of futur
e, rather than in developing successful responses to questions from the school c
urriculum. In this way do not lose the meaning of education in breaking down art
ificial and psychological skills abilities, skills and abilities that assumed as
functions or independent multiply atoms that have nothing to do with the struct
ural and integrating production scientific. Instead, drivers PISA proposed acade
mic issues adequately defined tasks that are distinguished by their degree of lo
gical organization, for the symbolic richness of the language used and the exten
t to which demand to exercise skills such as intuition, reason, argue, communica
te , model and plan and solve problems. These criteria are sufficient to define
operationally, for example, six levels of performance in mathematics and constru
ct 85 questions (tasks) that express a theoretical goal which is not expected th
at any school can respond in full. While this issue of Education dedicated to ed
ucational innovation and evaluation in
what follows we shall proceed to outline the theoretical contribution of the PIS
A test in defining performance standards for measuring the knowledge and skills
required for 1915-1916 school years to successfully face the challenges ahead. A
lso include some specific criteria to guide the construction of questions, and t
hen presented as annex some tables showing the test results UNESCO 1998-2000 and
PISA 2000 and 2003, and its implications. Peru only participated in the first t
wo extremely poor results that have not so far received the attention they deser
ve from those responsible for the conduct and administration of our educational
system worrisome. To the extent that we believe that those pictures speak for th
emselves, we have omitted this time comment to leave the task of reflection and
prosecution entirely to the reader.
2. READING COMPREHENSION TESTS 2.1. Performance Levels
PISA tests of reading comprehension measure proposed five levels of performance,
in decreasing, the more complex, more simple, combining them in varying degrees
of complexity the following skills: a) information retrieval; b) interpretation
of texts and c) reasoning and evaluation. Here are a box that is in the main, a
Castilian version of the author of this article of the table is in Chapter II,
page 42 of the PISA 2000 report.
Skills Levels
Information Retrieval
Locate and possibly s ecuencia or combine multiple pieces of information implici
tly, part of the c ual c can be found outside the main text uerpo. Infer which i
nformation in the text is relevant to the task. Deals with highly plausible info
rmation on alternatives to the conflict oc. Locate and possibly s ecuencia or co
mbine multiple pieces Further I ion, each of which may include different criteri
a in a text form or context to rare. Infer which information in the text is rele
vant to the task. Locate and in some cases recognizing the relationships between
pieces of information, each of which may include a variety of criteria. Treated
with alternative information.
Interpreting texts
Constructs the meaning of a language with subtle nuances or demonstrates a full
and detailed understanding of a text.
Reasoning and Evaluation
Rate c rític hypothesized ely or handles specialized knowledge using unfamiliar
concepts and shows a deep understanding of long or complex texts.
5. º
4. º
Make inferences based on a complex text to understand and apply categories in an
unusual context and to construct the meaning of a text segment ource c taking t
he text as a whole. Deals with ambiguity, unusual ideas and ideas expressed in t
he negative. Integra various parts of a text to identify the main idea, understa
nd a relationship or we build and the meaning of a word or phrase. Compare, cont
rast or categorized taking into account several criteria. Alternativ information
dealing with a. Identify the main idea of a text, understand relationships, con
struct or apply simple categories, or constructs the meaning ado a limited porti
on of text containing non-obvious information that requires low-level referents.
Recognize the theme or author's purpose in a text on a familiar topic when the
information required by the text is very visible.
Use formal or public knowledge to hypothesise about or critically evaluate a tex
t. Demonstrates thorough understanding of one long or complex.
3. º
C ONNECTIONS ago or comparisons, give explanations or evaluating a property of a
text. Demonstrates a detailed ion c omprens respective text to the everyday kno
wledge or upon the knowledge less common.
2. º
Find one or more pieces of information each of which may include various criteri
a. Treated with alternative information.
ONNECTIONS c c ompared ago between the text and outside knowledge to my mo or ex
plain a text CHARACTERISTICS using personal experience and attitudes. Make a sim
ple connection between the text and everyday knowledge or common.
1. º
Find one or more independent pieces with explicit information that typically mee
ts only one criterion, with little or no information to conflict.
EDUCATION, Biannual Journal of the Faculty of Education of San Marcos
2.2. Intervals Performance Levels
In the table below detail the intervals corresponding to each level of performan
ce in the PISA tests of reading comprehension.€1. º is the lowest level of perfo
rmance considered in the rating scale. However, this level corresponds to a mini
mum acceptable standard but a minimum standard recorded in OECD countries, which
coincides with the score that corresponds to the average value minus three stan
dard deviations (s). It is noted that the Peruvian students scored, on average,
in 2001, a score less than 335, which places them in a position statistically be
Management of hypotheses about an unexpected phenomenon, taking into account ext
ernal expertise to the text and all the relevant information contained in a comp
lex picture on a relatively unfamiliar topic (approximate score: 822).
Analysis of several reported cases associated with the categories presented in a
tree diagram in which part of the relevant information is in footnotes on the p
ages (approximate score: 727).
Management of hypotheses about an unexpected phenomenon by taking into account t
he external knowledge to the text and part of the relevant information contained
in a complex picture on a relatively unfamiliar topic (approximate score: 705).
Evaluation of the final episode of a long narrative in relation to a theme impli
cit (approximate score: 652).
Levels 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. º
Range more than 625 553-625 481-552 408-480 335-407
Distinguish nuances of language in a narrative about the main theme, in the pres
ence of conflicting ideas (approximate score: 645).
Locate information in a tree diagram using information contained in footnotes pa
ge (approximate score: 631).
2.3. Nature of the Task or Reading Comprehension Questions
The content of the work expressed by the questions has been classified into 31 c
ategories presented, then from highest to lowest order of complexity. Also, to t
he extent that the PISA tests of reading comprehension have been standardized, a
fter detailing the content of questions of each category, we added brackets stan
dard score with a probability of 0.62 would reach the student able to answer the
questions relating to that category. Naturally, for this student the chance to
answer questions relating to the standards under the relevant question is greate
r than 0.62.
Building the meaning of a sentence related to a broader context in a narrative (
approximate score: 603).
Manage hypotheses about a decision regarding the evidence shown in a graph to in
fer the main subject of multiple chart (approximate score: 600).
Compare and evaluate the style of two open letters (approximate score: 581).
2.3.10. Evaluate the final part of a narrative in relation to the plot (approxim
ate score: 567). 2.3.11. Inferring an analogical relationship between two phenom
ena discussed in an open letter (score: approx 542). 2.3.12. Identify baseline i
nformation implied by the construction of a chart (approximate score: 540).
2.3.13. Constructing meaning short quotes in a story in relation to the atmosphe
re or immediate situation (approximate score: 539). 2.3.14. Connect evidence giv
en in a narrative with personal concepts to justify a contrary view (approximate
score: 537). 2.3.15. Explain the motivations of a character linking them to eve
nts described in a narrative (approximate score: 529). 02/03/1916. Infer the rel
ationship between two graphs presented with different conventions (approximate s
core: 508). 03/02/1917. Evaluate the applicability of a tree diagram for a parti
cular purpose (approximate score: 486). 03/02/1918. Locate numerical information
in a tree diagram (approximate score: 485). 03/02/1919. Connect the evidence de
scribed in a narrative with personal concepts to justify a particular viewpoint
(approximate score: 480). 02/03/1920. Locate and combine information in a line g
raph and then use it to infer a numerical value unknown (approximate score: 478)
. 03/02/1921. Understanding the structure of a tree diagram (approximate score:
477). 03/02/1922. Pairing categories given in a tree diagram to describe situati
ons where the relevant information is in a footnote on page (approximate score:
473). 02/03/1923. Interpret information given in a paragraph to understand the s
cenario of a narrative (approximately score: 447). 02/03/1924. Distinguish betwe
en variables and structural features of a tree diagram (approximate score: 445).
02/03/1927.€Infer the main idea of a bar chart from its title (approximate score
: 397). 02/03/1928. Locate a literal piece of information in a clear text struct
ure (approximate score: 392). 03/02/1929. Locate information explicit in a short
section, previously specified, a narration (Approximate score: 367). 03/02/1930
. Locate a fragment with information explicitly defined in a text titles (approx
imate score: 363). 02/03/1931. Recognize the theme of an article that has subtit
les clear and considerable redundancy (approximate score: 356).
3. PISA TEST OF MATH 3.1. Content and skills
PISA 2003 tests, as we noted above have been designed primarily to measure the k
nowledge and skills that are expressed through the concept of Mathematical Liter
acy that can be literally translated into Castilian as Literacy Mathematics but
certainly to be understood in the context that we described in the Introduction.
These tests were designed to measure the performance of schoolchildren in four
areas: space and shape, change and relationships, quantity and uncertainty. The
first includes geometric and spatial phenomena, and properties of objects. The s
econd includes relationships between variables and an understanding of what they
represent, including equations. The third includes numerical phenomena, relatio
nships and quantitative models. The fourth explores statistical and probabilisti
c phenomena. As shown, the areas are not raised at the level of knowledge of mat
hematical formalism, but in the level of identification and management of proble
matic situations that are in phenomenal states, all of which must be handled usi
ng mathematical tools.
02/03/1925. Identify the purposes of two short texts (approximate score: 421). 0
3/02/1926. Locate the parts of the information implicit in a text that contains
strong organizers (approximate score: 405).
EDUCATION, Biannual Journal of the Faculty of Education of San Marcos
The skills required to use the knowledge included in the four areas mentioned ab
ove are not understood as entities but as sets of skills that fall into three di
stinct clusters but generally operate together. • Skills for reproduction of inf
ormation. Regarding the reproduction of knowledge and the recognition of types o
f mathematical problems and conducting routine operations processes. These skill
s are applied to the task simpler. • Skills connection or ligatures. Require goi
ng beyond routine problems linked to interpretations and different situations, b
ut all in relatively familiar contexts. These skills are used in solving problem
s of medium difficulty.

Reasoning skills. It requires intuition and creativity in reasoning as well as i
dentifying what constitutes a mathematical problem. These problems are often com
plex, require making connections and tend to be the most difficult of the PISA t
3.2.Niveles performance in PISA mathematics tests
The nature of the PISA mathematics test includes six levels of performance, in d
ecreasing, the more complex, more simple. Each one of these levels of complexity
combines each of the skill set described above. In what follows we present a Ca
stilian version of the table in page 5 of the executive summary of the PISA 2003
Students can conceptualize, generalize, and use information based on their inves
tigations and modeling of complex problem situations. They can link different in
formation sources and representations and make flexible translation between them
. They are capable of reasoning and advanced mathematical thinking. Apply insigh
t and understanding together with a skillful handling of the relationships and m
athematical operations on formal and symbolic level to develop strategies and ne
w approaches to handle new situations. They can communicate and formulate precis
ely their actions and reasoning considering its findings, interpretations, argum
ents, and the appropriateness of these to the original situation. Students can d
evelop and work with models applicable to complex situations by identifying cons
traints and specifying assumptions. You can select, compare and evaluate appropr
iate strategies for solving p ara treat complex problems related to these models
. They can work strategically using reasoning skills and thought well developed,
appropriately linked representations,€formal and symbolic characterizations and
insights specific to complex situations. Can reason about their actions and for
mulate and communicate their interpretations and reasoning. Students can work ef
fectively with explicit models applicable to specific situations, but complex wh
ich may include restrictions and demand assumptions. You can select and integrat
e different representations, including symbolic, to link them directly to real-w
orld problem situations. At this level students can use well developed skills an
d flexible thinking along with some insights. Can construct and communicate expl
anations and arguments based on their interpretations, arguments and actions. St
udents can perform procedures previously described including those that require
sequential decisions. You can select and implement strategies for solving simple
problems. They can interpret and use representations based on different informa
tion sources and reason directly on them. They can develop short communications
reporting their interpretations, results and reasoning. Students can interpret a
nd recognize situations in contexts that require only direct inferences. Can ext
ract relevant information from a single source and make use of a specific mode o
f elaborate representations. They can use basic algorithms, formulas, procedures
or conventions. May use direct reasoning and literal interpretations of the res
ults. Students can answer questions in familiar contexts where all relevant info
rmation is present and the questions are clearly defined. They are able to ident
ify information and carry out routine procedures according to direct instruction
s in explicit situations. Can perform activities that are obvious and follow imm
ediately from the stimulus.
3.3.Puntajes Levels of Performance in Mathematics
The highest level of performance is around 750 points. Students are characterize
d by taking an active and creative in their approach to mathematical problems. I
nterpret and formulate problems in mathematical terms. They handle more complex
information and tested a number of process steps. At this level, identify and ap
ply relevant tools and knowledge, often to an unfamiliar problem context. They u
se their intuition to identify a suitable method for the solution and show maste
ry of higher-order cognitive processes such as generalization, reasoning and arg
umentation to explain and communicate results. Around 570 points of the scale st
udents are usually able to interpret link and integrate different representation
s of a problem or different pieces of information. They use and manipulate a giv
en model often including algebra or other symbolic representations. Verify and r
ecord given propositions or models. Typical work of these students is through st
rategies, models or propositions given, for example, through recognition and ext
rapolation from a model. Select and apply relevant mathematical knowledge to sol
ve a problem, which may include a small number of process steps. The lowest leve
l of the scale is around 380 points. Students usually are able to complete a sim
ple step procedure consisting of reproducing basic mathematical facts or process
es, or are capable of applying simple computational skills. Usually recognize in
formation from a diagram or text that is familiar and simple, in which the mathe
matical formulation is provided or is provided by visibly. Any interpretation or
reasoning typical of this level includes the recognition of a simple and famili
ar element of a given problem. The solution demands the implementation of a rout
ine procedure consisting of a single step procedure.
In this case it is not possible to include a picture with minimum standards dist
inguishing levels because the PISA-2000 in the area of mathematics has not been
standardized, and only recently has detailed information on the PISA-2003 to be
the subject of a future article . As for the PISA test results in Mathematics, 2
000, we note that in the countries of the OECD and its partners students placed
in the top 5% earned an average of 655 points. However, the countries located in
the top positions of this 5% had average scores higher than 680 points. This si
tuation is Hong KongChina, Japan, New Zealand and Switzerland.€On the lower leve
l of the scale is that 75% of students in OECD countries achieved at least 435 p
oints and over 95% of these countries reached 326 points. In this test the sampl
e of Peruvian children reached 292 points, ie 34 points less than the lowest sco
re recorded in the OECD countries and 42 points below the average of Brazil, whi
ch ranked second to last among 41 countries registered as participants in the Pi
sa tests.
3.4. Criteria for the construction of math questions or tasks
As a rule of construction of items in this area, we can say that mathematics is
a good question whether the fact of having a hand calculator or computer does no
t give the subject considered significant advantage to answer correctly. The sim
plest tasks require to connect and integrate material. They require students to
apply a simple representation or a technique applicable to a simple piece of inf
ormation. The less simple tasks require students to integrate more than one piec
e of information using different representations, or different mathematical tool
s, or knowledge in a simple sequence of steps. There are tasks that need to repr
esent and interpret a material to reason about the situation and
EDUCATION, Biannual Journal of the Faculty of Education of San Marcos
methods. These tasks vary in a range from the recognition of a phrase commonly u
sed in the formulation, translation or creation of an appropriate model in an un
usual context and require the use of intuition, reasoning, and generalization.
4.1.Niveles performance and test scores in science
The highest level of performance in the understanding and management of scientif
ic language (approximately 690 points) are manifest in the fact that students ar
e generally able to create or use conceptual models to make predictions or give
explanations. Analyze scientific research to understand, for example, designing
an experiment or to identify the idea or hypothesis being tested. Compare data t
o evaluate alternative viewpoints or differing perspectives. Communicate scienti
fic arguments and provide detailed and accurate descriptions. Students performin
g at approximately 550 points are normally able to use scientific concepts to ma
ke predictions or explanations. Recognize questions can be answered by scientifi
c research and / or identify details about what that involves scientific researc
h. Select relevant information from data on competencies and chains of reasoning
sketched in graphics or evaluating conclusions. The third level of the scale, a
bout 400 points, occurs when students are able to recall simple factual scientif
ic information (names, facts, terminology, simple rules) and use common scientif
ic knowledge to derive conclusions or assessments. PISA tests in this area have
not been standardized. The information available on the OECD countries reveals t
hat the top 5% had an average of 657 points, the top 10% averaged 627 points hig
her and 25% achieved an average of 572 points. At the lower end of yield was rep
orted that more than 75% of OECD countries reached at least 432 points, more tha
n 90% achieved 368 points and over 95% of 332 points.
The evaluation focused on the sciences, as noted earlier, is scheduled for 2006.
However, in 2000 and in 2003 this area has been assessed but not with sufficien
t breadth and intensity, and therefore the information available is not particul
arly detailed. However, reviewing the work done in the last two times the eviden
ce shows that affected the use of scientific knowledge, empirical or scientific
and factual in handling real situation with emphasis on the logic of identificat
ion and problem-solving approach. In general, understanding the language of natu
ral sciences and social sciences are measured by the presence of the following s
kills: • • • • • • Understanding of scientific concepts. Ability to recognize sc
ientific questions relevant. Identification of processes that involve scientific
research. Ability to relate factual evidence with hypotheses and conclusions. A
bility to communicate clearly and accurately processes and scientific results. A
bility to use scientific concepts of high level of abstraction or logical chains
of reasoning.ۥ Knowledge and use of simple conceptual models and data analysis
models to test alternative approaches.
Among the countries that are not OECD members, have had outstanding performance
Hong Kong China whose averages were 671, 645, 448, 426 and 391 points for the pe
rcentiles 95 º, 90 º, 25 º, 10 º and 5, respectively. Clearly, these statistical
indicators show higher yields than those of OECD countries. Japan and Korea, co
nsidering only averages have shown even higher returns to Hong Kong-China. The P
eruvian students in this area obtained an average score of 333, that is, 42 poin
ts behind Brazil, which is located in the penultimate scene of the
41 countries participated in PISA 2000 and 167 points below the average for OECD
UNESCO, OECD (2003). Literacy Skills for the World of Tomorrow - Further Results
s from PISA 2000. 389 p. OECD PISA (2004). First Results from PISA 2003 Executi
ve Summary. 37 p. OECD PISA (2004). Learning for Tomorrows's World, First Result
s from PISA 2003. 471 p.
EDUCATION, Biannual Journal of the Faculty of Education of San Marcos
OECD / PISA Results 2000.2002 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Japan Hong posit
ion Kong Korea Australia New Zealand Finland Canada UK Ireland Switzerland Austr
ia Belgium France Iceland Sweden Norway Denmark Czech Republic United States LIE
C htenstein Hungary Poland Italy Germany Spain Portugal Greece Fed Rus Israel La
tvia Luxembourg Bulgaria Macedonia Thailand Indonesia Mexico Argentina Chile Bra
zil Peru Albania Reading 522 525 525 546 534 529 528 523 527 507 516 507 505 494
507 505 492 504 497 483 480 484 493 479 487 462 470 474 458 441 452 430 431 422
410 418 373 371 349 396 327 Matemáticas 557 560 547 536 533 537 533 529 503 515
510 520 517 529 514 499 498 493 514 514 488 490 476 470 457 478 454 447 463 446
433 430 432 387 384 388 381 367 381 334 292 Science 550 541 552 538 529 528 528
532 513 519 512 496 500 496 496 500 511 499 481 476 496 487 491 483 478 460 459
461 460 443 434 448 436 422 415 396 401 393 376 375 333 L + M + C 1629 1626 162
4 1620 1596 1594 1589 1584 1543 1541 1538 1523 1522 1519 1517 1504 1501 1496 149
2 1473 1464 1461 1460 1432 1422 1400 1383 1382 1381 1330 1319 1308 1299 1231 120
9 1202 1155 1131 1106 1105 952
Source: OECD (2003) PISA, literacy and Skills for the World of Tomorrow, Further
n Results. From PISA 2000. Paris, France. Table 3.3, p.287.
EDUCATION, Biannual Journal of the Faculty of Education of San Marcos
TABLE 4 Performance of students in combined reading, science and mathematics in
the PISA scale vs. national income
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Converted to U.S. dollars U.S. dollars PPP (purchasing power parity). Only publi
c institutions. Reference year: 1998. Reference year: 2000. Only public and inde
pendent private institutions.
Source: OECD (2003c) for OECD countries. And for those countries that are not th
e source of the OECD has been the World Bank. Author's Translation
TABLE 5 PISA-2003 average yield on the PISA mathematics scale
Va ri ation of the post icione Ranking * s in the NKI Ra ra pa pa ng ISES OECD F
inland Hong Kong-China Japan Korea Liechtenstein Norway Macao-China Canada Belgi
um Switzerland Australia New Zealand Czech Republic Iceland Denmark France Swede
n Austria Germany Ireland Republic Norway Luxembourg Poland Slovakia Latvia Hung
ary Spain United States Italy Greece Portugal Russian Federation Serbia Turkey U
ruguay Indonesia Thailand Tunisia Mexico Brazil Position High - 1 1 1 - 2 4 4 -
4 7 7 9 10 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 19 19 22 - 22 - 25 25 27-28 - - 29 - - - M
inimum Position - 3 4 5 - 7 August 7 to September 9, 1910 14 13 14 15 16 18 18 1
8 21 21 21 23 23 24 - 24 - 26 26 27-28 - - 29 - - - Ranking i ncl u endo coun tr
ies that do not belong in the OECD nec Position Position Minimum Maximum 1 3 1 4
1 5 2 7 2 9 3 10 5 9 5 10 6 12 6 12 9 12 9 13 12 17 13 16 13 17 14 18 15 19 16
17 17 19 21 22 22 22 25 25 25 29 29 29 32 32 33 34 34 37 38 38 38 20 21 21 24 24
24 26 27 28 28 28 31 31 31 33 34 36 36 36 37 40 40 40
Countries with a statistically similar to the average OECD
* Note: Because the data were collected by sampling is not possible to specify a
n exact position of the countries in the ranking. It has only been possible for
each country to specify minimum and maximum position with a 0.95 probability.
Est countries with an average adiStar significantly below OECD
Est countries with an average adiStar significant effect on the average of OECD