IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/oec/eduaab/151-en.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Report on the relative strengths and weaknesses of the United States in PISA 2012 mathematics

Author

Listed:
  • Janina Krawitz

    (University of Kassel)

  • Kay Achmetli

    (University of Kassel)

  • Werner Blum

    (University of Kassel)

  • Sebastian Vogel

    (University of Kassel)

  • Michael Besser

    (University of Kassel)

Abstract

This paper aims to investigate the performance of the students in the United States in all 84 mathematics items that were administered in the United States as part of the PISA 2012 assessment. It compares the performance of the United States with the OECD average and with the performance of five reference countries/economies that were ranked higher on the PISA scale. The analysis reveals specific relative strengths and weaknesses of the 15-year-olds in the United States, referring to items in which they performed unexpectedly well or unexpectedly badly compared to their overall distance from the OECD average or from the reference countries/economies. On that basis, certain patterns – that means certain clusters – of items with similar cognitive requirements, are identified. There are seven altogether, three for strengths and four for weaknesses of the US students. An analysis of student solutions illustrates and further clarifies these strengths and weaknesses. The results show that the relative strengths are mostly revealed in easy items, whereas the relative weaknesses are mostly reflected in particularly demanding items. Cette étude s’intéresse aux performances des élèves aux États-Unis dans l’ensemble des 84 items de mathématiques qui ont été administrés aux États-Unis dans le cadre de l’évaluation PISA 2012. Elle compare les performances des États-Unis à la moyenne de l’OCDE et aux performances de cinq pays/économies de référence qui ont obtenu un meilleur classement à l’échelle du PISA. L’analyse révèle les forces et les faiblesses relatives spécifiques des élèves de 15 ans aux États-Unis, en se reportant aux items où ils ont obtenu des résultats les uns meilleurs et les autres pires que ceux auxquels on s’attendait, par rapport à leur classement global d’après la moyenne de l’OCDE ou les pays ou économies de référence. C’est sur cette base que sont relevés certains schémas, à savoir certains clusters, d’items présentant des exigences cognitives similaires. Il en existe sept au total, trois pour les forces et quatre pour les faiblesses des élèves américains. Une analyse des solutions trouvées par les élèves illustre et précise davantage ces forces et ces faiblesses. Les résultats montrent que les forces relatives se manifestent surtout au niveau des items faciles, tandis que les faiblesses relatives se reflètent surtout au niveau des items particulièrement exigeants.

Suggested Citation

  • Janina Krawitz & Kay Achmetli & Werner Blum & Sebastian Vogel & Michael Besser, 2016. "Report on the relative strengths and weaknesses of the United States in PISA 2012 mathematics," OECD Education Working Papers 151, OECD Publishing.
  • Handle: RePEc:oec:eduaab:151-en
    DOI: 10.1787/bc544d1e-en
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1787/bc544d1e-en
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1787/bc544d1e-en?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oec:eduaab:151-en. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deoecfr.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.