This chapter examines students' reports of three types of learning strategies: students' control or self-monitoring of their own work, their use of critical thinking (perspective-taking) skills, and their proactive learning behaviours. It outlines the importance of fostering these strategies and behaviours in all students in order to prepare them to take control of their own learning and to improve their learning outcomes, including readiness for lifelong learning. The chapter also analyses socio-economic inequalities in students' learning strategies and builds on the importance of improving access to resources, supporting disadvantaged students and fostering inclusive learning environments that promote lifelong learning for all students.
PISA 2022 Results (Volume V)
Learning Strategies and Attitudes for Life
PISA
Abstract
For Australia*, Canada*, Denmark*, Hong Kong (China)*, Ireland*, Jamaica*, Latvia*, the Netherlands*, New Zealand*, Panama*, the United Kingdom* and the United States*, caution is advised when interpreting estimates because one or more PISA sampling standards were not met (see Reader’s Guide, Annexes A2 and A4).
This chapter explores how students use learning strategies for sustained learning. Special attention will be given to two types of students: those who did not attain baseline Level 2 in mathematics1, referred to as “low performers”, and students scoring at Level 3 and above, referred to here as “skilled performers”. Starting at Level 3, students demonstrate computational, spatial, and interpretational abilities that are essential for lifelong learning (see Box V.2.1 for further details).
This chapter focuses on three learning strategies. They are strategies that encompass cognitive dimensions essential for processing and encoding information and metacognitive dimensions that demand self-awareness and active participation in one’s own learning process (Schraw, Crippen and Hartley, 2006[1]). These three strategies are: (1) students' control over or self-monitoring of their own work and learning processes; (2) the application of critical-thinking (perspective-taking) skills in analysing problems from various perspectives and considering diverse opinions; and (3) proactive learning behaviours, such as connecting new information with previously acquired knowledge, diligently engaging in tasks, and efficiently managing workload (c.f. Table V.1.2 in Chapter 1).
About two out of three students agreed that they are meticulous about their schoolwork, on average across OECD countries. Low performers are often less meticulous with their schoolwork compared to skilled performers. While about 54% of low performers agreed that they are meticulous about their schoolwork, 71% of skilled performers did.
Many students would benefit from learning environments where they feel confident enough to ask questions when they do not understand the material. Inquisitive classroom atmospheres foster better learning outcomes. And, enhancing students' ability to proactively build on prior knowledge is crucial as most students in OECD countries do not frequently connect new material to mathematics knowledge they already have. Students who reported frequent proactive behaviours tend to outperform those who reported less frequent use. In Korea we find the biggest gap between students (101 score-point gap) while the gap is the smallest (15 score-point gap) in Costa Rica, but differences remain significant.
Being able to weigh different pieces of information is essential for making well-informed decisions in complex scenarios throughout life. Low performers, in particular, would benefit from improved critical thinking and perspective-taking as many struggle to recognise multiple valid viewpoints in a disagreement. Portugal stands out for its large share of students reporting that they consistently consider everyone's perspectives before taking a position (80%) among both low (72%) and skilled performers (85%). It is the country with the biggest share of students challenging the notion that there is only one correct position in a disagreement (65%). Portugal also showed the smallest discrepancy (29%) in students considering everyone’s perspective while still believing there is only one correct position in a disagreement.
Finally, across most systems, socio-economically advantaged students consistently reported higher engagement in error-checking, homework review, question-asking, proactive study behaviours, and critical thinking than their socio-economically disadvantaged peers.
Students who monitor their own learning set aside time and resources to process and understand information. They also regulate how and what they learn (Paris and Paris, 2001[2]). They make informed decisions about their learning processes by checking their understanding as they progress and evaluating how they do against set objectives.
In what follows, two control or self-monitoring strategies will be analysed: actively asking questions in class when in doubt and being meticulous about not making mistakes2.
Most students do not ask questions when they do not understand what is being taught
PISA data show that less than half of students frequently ask questions when they do not understand something being taught in mathematics (i.e. over half of the time they have doubts). On average, only 47% of students frequently seek clarification (Figure V.2.1). This is important as it reflects students' engagement in the learning process and their readjustment of learning when needed.
Percentage of students responding that they ask questions when they do not understand the mathematics material being taught, at least more than half of the time
Countries and economies are ranked in ascending order of the percentage of all students.
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 Database, Table V.B1.2.7. See Table V.2.1 for StatLink at the end of this chapter.
Low performers tend not to ask questions frequently to clarify something being taught and only half of skilled performers will do so
Students who reported asking questions frequently outperform those who do not in almost all countries/economies, even after accounting for the socio-economic profile of students and schools. However, not all skilled performers (at Level 3 or above in mathematics) reported using this strategy. An average of 52% of skilled performers in OECD countries reported frequently asking questions (Table V.B1.2.8). However, in Macao (China), Poland and Chinese Taipei, 32% or less of skilled performers reported doing so frequently. In contrast, in Albania, Iceland and Uzbekistan over 70% of skilled performers ask questions (Figure V.2.1 and Table V.B1.2.7).
Among low performers (below Level 2 in mathematics), less than 40% reported frequently asking questions when they do not understand what is being taught, on average. This suggests that those who are likely to need more support are more reluctant to openly ask questions when they are unsure of something they are being taught. This is especially so in Czechia, Hong Kong (China)*, Korea, Macao (China), Poland, Chinese Taipei and Thailand, where less than 30% of low performers reported frequently asking questions. This is particularly important as these students are likely to face a double challenge: they lack essential mathematics skills and knowledge, and the key strategies needed for continuous learning and adaptation (see Box V.2.3). Only in Albania, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Israel, Jamaica*, Paraguay and Uzbekistan do at least half of low performers frequently ask questions when unsure of the material (Figure V.2.1 and Table V.B1.2.7).
In analysing students' preparedness for lifelong learning, it is important to recognise that establishing a direct relationship between learning strategies and metrics like mathematics performance yields insights but should not be the sole focus. Rather, the aim is to identify learning strategies that can be universally applied to improve educational outcomes at different stages of their lives, regardless of their level of performance.
A more constructive approach is to identify ways in which learning strategies are used by students with different mathematics proficiency levels. This can help to design interventions tailored to students’ needs. This chapter focuses on the following two groups of students:
Low performers below proficiency Level 2 in mathematics: In today's rapidly changing world, a strong foundation in mathematics is essential. PISA proficiency Level 2 represents the essential baseline of mathematical competence. Students who do not attain baseline Level 2, or "low performers", are likely to struggle when faced with challenging future educational and career endeavours (OECD, 2023[3]). In the context of lifelong learning, students who do not develop appropriate learning strategies may be doubly burdened: they will have limited knowledge and skills in mathematics and lack effective learning strategies to cope with new challenges.
Skilled students at or above proficiency Level 3 in mathematics: Level 3 encompasses skills that are essential for lifelong learning, including the use of computational thinking to develop strategies, the ability to solve problems involving different calculations that are not clearly defined, and the ability to interpret and use representations based on different sources of information and reason directly from them (OECD, 2023[3]). These students already possess a solid foundation and strong mathematical skills. The question now is how well they are prepared to navigate their own learning, what strategies they have mastered, and where they could benefit from further support.
This comprehensive group captures the nuances of performers from Level 3 to Level 6 and allows this report to examine strategies used by well-rounded students who are prepared for the challenges of the 21st century.
Inquisitive classroom environments can contribute to better learning attitudes
Asking questions when one does not understand the mathematical material being taught indicates that the student believes it is possible to improve one’s understanding, knowledge and skills even if it is a struggle. Creating learning environments in which all students feel confident and supported in their efforts can significantly foster positive learning mindsets. Encouraging students to ask questions in class is a crucial part of this process. It helps them embrace challenges, seek help when needed, and view mistakes as opportunities for growth. Findings in Chapter 3 suggest that some education systems may be more attuned to develop such mindsets than others.
Developing such environments can empower students, giving them greater control over their learning and mindsets to meet future learning challenges. Moreover, attitudes towards learning can also be incorporated into curricula together with subject knowledge and skills to cultivate the use of learning strategies (see Box V.2.2).
Education goals can be designed in line with student profiles. These goals can include key attitudes, skills, competencies and knowledge that students are expected to have acquired upon completion of different education levels and are defined in curricula and subject-specific education goals. These skills include learning strategies such as critical thinking and problem-solving, and are commonly integrated into curricula.
In Canada, the Ministers of Education, through the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC), articulated six broad global competencies in 2016. CMEC’s global competencies are a set of attitudes, skills, knowledge and values that are interdependent, interdisciplinary and can be leveraged in a variety of situations both locally and globally. Building on strong foundations of literacy and numeracy, these competencies are: Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving; Innovation, Creativity, and Entrepreneurship; Learning to Learn/Self-Awareness and Self-Direction; Collaboration; Communication; and Global Citizenship and Sustainability. They provide learners with the abilities to meet the shifting and ongoing demands of life, work and learning; to be active and responsive in their communities; to understand diverse perspectives; and to act on issues of global significance.
This framework is closely aligned with the competencies that provinces and territories have prioritised in new curricula, programmes, and initiatives. It is anticipated that the CMEC global competencies will evolve based on provincial and territorial engagement with these competencies.
About two-thirds of students reported being meticulous and checking for mistakes
Data from PISA 2022 show that 64% of students, on average, agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “I like to make sure there are no mistakes”3 (Table V.B1.2.1). Double-checking for mistakes is a typical control or self-monitoring strategy used to evaluate how one is doing compared to the learning objectives one has set for oneself.
Skilled performers have especially cultivated this habit of double-checking for errors as they more consistently agreed or strongly agreed that they do so (71% on average) in most surveyed countries and economies (Figure V.2.2 and Table V.B1.2.3). The share of PISA skilled performers who reported checking for errors is at least 60% in all countries and economies except for Croatia and top-performing4 Estonia, Hong Kong (China)* and Macao (China). In contrast, about half of low performers reported double-checking for errors on average. Yet, there is wide variation across countries: slightly over one-third in Estonia and New Zealand* reported doing this compared to over 80% in Indonesia, Korea and Mongolia (Table V.B1.2.3).
Percentage of students agreeing or strongly agreeing they like to make sure there are no mistakes
Note: Only countries and economies with available data are shown.
Countries and economies are ranked in ascending order of the percentage of all students.
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 Database, Table V.B1.2.3. See Table V.2.1 for StatLink at the end of this chapter.
As with other learning strategies analysed in this volume, the interplay between double-checking for mistakes and learning outcomes likely depends on several student- and context- related aspects. Analyses of students' reports that they check for mistakes in their work and their mathematics performance show a positive relationship between the two in most countries and economies with varying positive performance gaps across different performance levels5 (Table V.B1.2.8). This suggests that meticulous checking habits may be an effective aspect of students reaching their targeted learning objectives and an essential strategy in sustained lifelong learning.
The variability across countries/economies and among skilled and low performers invites further exploration into how targeted control strategies are used for learners’ self-monitoring (see Box V.2.3).
Students employ various strategies to control and self-monitor their learning, especially by double-checking homework. Reports indicate significant variation across countries and economies in the habit of carefully checking homework before submission. On average, only 44% of students clearly reported doing so. In some countries like Cambodia, Indonesia, and Uzbekistan about three-quarters of students do this while in Finland, the Netherlands*, and Latvia*, the percentage drops below 30% (Table V.B1.2.5).
But who is more rigorous in homework-checking? Interestingly, 46% of skilled performers and 42% of low performers reported double-checking their homework, on average. However, in countries like Cambodia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Indonesia, Uzbekistan and Viet Nam, over 75% of low performers are diligent in this practice. Only in Finland and the Netherlands* did about a quarter or less of students report homework-checking, irrespective of their level of performance (Table V.B1.2.5).
There are also interesting discrepancies between students who aim to generally make no mistakes and those who thoroughly check their homework. Notably, 44% of students who try not to make mistakes in general do not apply the same rigour to their homework. This discrepancy is as much as 64% in Finland and the Netherlands* (Figure V.2.3).
When analysing these results, it is important to consider that the emphasis on homework varies across education systems, likely influencing students’ homework verification practices. In some systems, homework is a critical component of overall grading and learning. This could partly explain why checking homework before submission shows a stronger positive relationship with performance in some contexts, particularly for students who have more significant learning gaps. Conversely, in systems where homework is less critical, this meticulousness might not significantly impact academic performance.
On average, there is a moderate gap of four score points in mathematics between students who check their homework before turning it in and those who do not, after accounting for socio-economic factors. In many countries and economies, this association is not significant; however, when positive, the gap is typically significant for students on the lower end of the performance scale. While these analyses do not allow for establishing causality, they suggest that going carefully over homework is a way to reinforce learning for students who have the most difficulties learning in some countries/economies (Table V.B1.2.8).
To provide the greatest benefits, homework and the habit of double-checking homework should be tailored to students’ actual needs rather than mechanically implemented without consideration of their effectiveness (Corno, 2000[7]; Hong, Milgram and Rowell, 2004[8]).
Percentage of students responding whether they check (or not) their homework before submitting among those who agree/strongly agree they make sure there are no mistakes
Note: Only countries and economies with available data are shown.
Countries and economies are ranked in ascending order of the percentage of students not checking their homework.
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 Database, Table V.B1.2.27. See Table V.2.1 for StatLink at the end of this chapter.
Critical thinking or perspective-taking is a pivotal skill for autonomous learning. It involves questioning initial beliefs, integrating new information, and justifying newly formed understandings. This is fundamental for developing and validating new ideas (Garrison, 1992[9]).
Lifelong learning in formal and informal settings relies on moving from an established knowledge base to a state of questioning. Critical thinking helps to identify new problems and knowledge needs, thereby enhancing the scope of learning and knowledge application (Southworth, 2022[10]). It is essential for renewing and relearning, and collaborative and active learning, making it a cardinal strategy for sustained lifelong learning.
Three aspects of students’ ability to critically consider different viewpoints and perspectives are considered in the following analyses: students’ agreement with the statements “I try to consider everybody’s perspective before I take a position” and “I can view almost all things from different angles”, and their disagreement with the statement “I think there is only one correct position in a disagreement”.
Open-mindedness: A strong basis for lifelong learning
Students’ reports in PISA reveal that slightly more than half of students are capable of perspective-taking, with 59% and 57% agreeing to the first two statements, on average, respectively. However, also slightly over half (54%) did not challenge the notion that there is only one correct position in a disagreement, highlighting open-mindedness and the recognition of multiple viewpoints as areas for education systems to focus on (Table V.B1.2.9).
In the majority of countries and economies, both trying to consider everybody’s perspective and viewing issues from different angles are clearly the two perspective-taking strategies that most students embrace, reported by over half of students. Only in Iceland, Jordan, Kosovo and the Palestinian Authority did less than half of students report both these strategies. However, the inverse is true of not agreeing that there is only one correct position in a disagreement: only in 12 countries did at least half of students challenge this notion (Table V.B1.2.9).
Skilled performers often consider multiple perspectives and view things from different angles (over 60% on average). While about half of low performers do the same, only 31% rejected the notion that there is only one correct position in a disagreement, on average. In stark contrast, about 57% of skilled performers rejected this notion (Tables V.B1.2.11, V.B1.2.13 and V.B1.2.15).
Interestingly, among students who try to consider everyone's perspective before taking a position, about half still believe there is only one correct position in a disagreement. As many as 67% of low performers show this contradiction but only 38% of skilled performers do, on average. When we zero in on top performers (students who attained proficiency Level 5 or Level 6 in mathematics) alone, only 27% consider everyone’s perspective while still believing there is only one correct position in a disagreement. This suggests that it is top performers who explain the relatively small percentage of skilled performers who have these contradictory attitudes. Top performers demonstrate the flexible thinking and ability to integrate information from diverse sources that should be reinforced for all students (Figure V.2.4, Figures V.2.4b and V.2.4c (available online), and Table V.B1.2.28).
Percentage of skilled performing students reporting there is only one correct position in a disagreement among those who agree/strongly agree they try to consider everybody's perspective before taking a position
1. The label "I think there is only one correct position in a disagreement" includes students who agree or strongly agree with this statement as well as students who neither agree nor disagree.
Note: Only countries and economies with available data are shown.
Countries and economies are ranked in ascending order of the percentage of students who think there is only one correct position in a disagreement.
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 Database, Table V.B1.2.28. See Table V.2.1 for StatLink at the end of this chapter.
Percentage of students agreeing or strongly agreeing that they try to consider everybody's perspective before they take a position
Note: Only countries and economies with available data are shown.
Countries and economies are ranked in ascending order of the percentage of all students.
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 Database, Table V.B1.2.11. See Table V.2.1 for StatLink at the end of this chapter.
If we look at countries and economies, Portugal stands out for its large share of students reporting that they consistently consider everyone's perspectives before taking a position (80%) among both low (72%) and skilled performers (85%). Portugal is the country with the biggest share of students challenging the notion that there is only one correct position in a disagreement (65%). Portugal also showed the smallest discrepancy (29%) in students considering everyone’s perspective while still believing there is only one correct position in a disagreement. At the opposite end of the spectrum, only in Czechia, Finland, Iceland, Jordan, Kosovo, the Netherlands*, the Palestinian Authority and Poland did less than 50% of all students report considering everybody’s perspective before taking a position. In Indonesia and Thailand, less than 20% of students disagreed with the idea that there is only one correct position in a disagreement (Figure V.2.56 and Tables V.B1.2.11, V.B1.2.15and V.B1.2.28).
Percentage of students disagreeing or strongly disagreeing that there is only one correct position in a disagreement
Countries and economies are ranked in ascending order of the percentage of all students.
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 Database, Table V.B1.2.15. See Table V.2.1 for StatLink at the end of this chapter.
This discrepancy underscores a crucial aspect for lifelong learning. Maintaining a perspective on people’s opinions and trying to see things from different angles reflects the capacity to analyse new information and alternative viewpoints. Yet, unlike binary reasoning, which views situations as either correct or incorrect, a person who thinks it is possible there can be more than one correct position in a disagreement is one who must constantly weigh different pieces of information in order to make nuanced, logically reasoned and well-informed decisions in complex scenarios. Finally, this kind of attitude requires us to question our own understanding and accept the possibility of being incorrect (Southworth, 2022[10]). It is this adaptability that will help us navigate a rapidly evolving global landscape and the lifelong learning it entails.
The implications for lifelong learning are important. Learning in general requires us to be able to take multiple perspectives into consideration. Measurable outcomes, like performance in mathematics, support this. All three critical perspective-taking strategies relate positively with academic performance even after accounting for students’ and schools’ socio-economic profile (15, 14 and 28 score-point gaps, on average), although relationships are not uniformly distributed across education systems (Table V.B1.2.16). Interestingly, the largest performance gaps are seen among students that challenge the notion that there can be only one correct position in a disagreement, especially in top-performing countries/economies Hong Kong (China)*, Korea, Singapore and Chinese Taipei (over 50-point score gap). Surprisingly, students who reported taking multiple perspectives into consideration often did not report being open to the possibility that there can be different valid positions in a disagreement. This can be problematic for decision-making in situations where there are many different (often unverifiable) opinions at play. Accepting that one can be wrong triggers learning and is a key area of interest for lifelong learning.
Critical thinking (perspective-taking) is the cornerstone of lifelong learning. As shown in previous PISA reports, this form of perspective-taking promotes both convergent and divergent thinking and open-mindedness. It brings out the benefits of diverse groups and heterogeneity of viewpoints in the development of new and original ideas (OECD, 2024[11]). Schools should hone these skills to equip students to navigate and contribute to an increasingly complex world. Activities in which students work on real-world problems or structured debates, which allow students to argue from different perspectives and develop a deeper understanding of complex issues, can encourage them to take multiple perspectives and think critically about the consequences of different solutions (Kokotsaki, Menzies and Wiggins, 2016[12]; Kennedy, 2007[13]). Similarly, schools can encourage group projects in which students work together. This fosters an environment in which they must understand and integrate different viewpoints to achieve common goals (Johnson and Johnson, 2009[14]). This last point is important, as Box V.3.4 in Chapter 3 shows: critical thinking is an area in which the socio-emotional skill of co-operativeness is crucial and co-operative students are the most likely to consider multiple perspectives before forming their own opinions, on average and across surveyed countries and economies. As learners move beyond formal education, the ability to apply critical thinking independently becomes essential for the validation of knowledge, both individually and collectively.
The last aspect to consider is proactivity in learning, specifically in mathematics, as assessed by PISA 2022. Proactivity is understood not merely as an inherent trait but a set of deliberate behaviours and practices that students can develop and enhance over time (Crant, 2000[15]) (Seibert, Kraimer and Crant, 2001[16]).
Proactive behaviour is a strategy for sustained learning that can contribute to learning outcomes as it encourages students to approach learning tasks intentionally and at their own pace and manner.
There is room to improve in encouraging students to learn proactively
PISA measures students’ proactive study behaviour by how frequently they engage in activities that demonstrate effort and persistence. This involves student reports on how often they do certain learning tasks that are key for lifelong learning. One essential proactive study task is to autonomously connect what is being learned to what one already knows. Less than half of students (46%) in OECD countries reported that they try to relate new material to what they have learned in previous mathematics lessons more than half of the time. The same share reported that they often start their work on mathematics assignments right away. In both cases, about half of skilled performers reported frequently connecting new and previous things learned, and starting mathematics assignments right away while less than 40% of low performers did (Tables V.B1.2.22 and V.B1.2.24).
Likewise, when looking at student reports on frequently engaging in group discussions during mathematics class when given the opportunity to do so, only about a third of students do so (33%). Skilled performers reported quite little participation in class group discussions on average (38%). In less than half of countries and economies with available data is the share above 50% and in no country do more than half of low performers engage frequently in this practice (26% on average) (Table V.B1.2.20). Group discussions in mathematics class embody proactive learning behaviour and promote other lifelong learning strategies like critical thinking.
Countries and economies that score the highest on the index of proactive mathematics study behaviour6 are also those in which more students frequently participate in group discussions, start their assignments right away and, most importantly for lifelong learning, try to connect new material to what they had learned in previous mathematics lessons (Table V.B1.2.17).
Figure V.2.7 shows the relationship of students’ proactive behaviour with their performance in mathematics. In countries in the right panel of the figure, the relationship between proactive behaviour and student mathematics performance is the strongest.
Proactive learning strategies relate to key skills for lifelong learning
Students who reported frequent proactive behaviours tend to outperform those who reported less frequent use by 45 points, on average across OECD countries (Figure V.2.7 and Table V.B1.2.26).
Mean score in mathematics
Notes: Only countries and economies with available data are shown.
Students who have a less (more) proactive mathematics study behaviour are those in the bottom (top) quarter of the index on proactive mathematics study behaviour in their own country/economy.
Countries and economies are ranked in ascending order of the difference in score between those that are more proactive in mathematics study behaviour compared to those that are less.
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 Database, Table V.B1.2.26. See Table V.2.1 for StatLink at the end of this chapter.
A more detailed understanding of what these differences entail for lifelong learning requires looking at the tasks students can do at each end of the proactive mathematics study behaviour index. In Korea we find the biggest gap between students. Those within the top quarter of the proactive mathematics study behaviour index can typically handle mathematics tasks at Level 4, which is significantly above average difficulty. These students can make qualitative judgements when computations are not possible from the information at hand. At this level of mathematics proficiency, students can select and integrate different representations of information and link them directly to real-world situations. These are essential skills to build further knowledge on but also to navigate one’s own learning sustainably throughout life. Less proactive students, however, struggle with Level 2 tasks, indicating a much more basic understanding of mathematics and a significantly more basic set of lifelong learning skills (Figure V.2.7 and Table V.B1.2.26).
In countries and economies with a smaller performance gap between students at opposite ends of the index of proactive mathematics study behaviour, it is, nonetheless, significant. In Costa Rica, for example, both groups are under Level 2. But even when the gap is small, differences remain in what students know and can do with what they know (Figure V.2.7).
These findings show the importance of fostering proactive learning behaviours for all students to ready them to take control of their own learning and enhance their learning outcomes. This builds the foundation for lifelong learning. Examples of classroom activities include enquiry-based learning, where students formulate questions, investigate to find answers, and build new understanding as they progress. Research suggests that enquiry-based learning stimulates independent research skills as well as curiosity and critical thinking (Pedaste et al., 2015[17]). By means of their self-directed progression, activities of this type can help students develop proactive learning behaviours.
Understanding socio-economic disparities in students' learning strategies is crucial for developing effective policies and interventions. Analyses using PISA data reveal significant gaps and nuanced differences between socio-economically advantaged and disadvantaged students in their approaches to learning across various countries and economies.
Socio-economically advantaged students consistently reported higher engagement in error-checking, homework review, question-asking, proactive study behaviours, and critical thinking than their socio-economically disadvantaged peers. However, the gaps are not uniform across all contexts, with some countries/economies showing minimal or even inverse differences.
PISA data show that in most countries and economies socio-economically advantaged students are more likely to engage in error-checking practices. On average, 69% of advantaged students reported that they like to ensure there are no mistakes in their schoolwork compared to 58% of disadvantaged students. This difference is most pronounced in New Zealand*, with a gap exceeding 20 percentage points, while it is smallest in Mexico and Viet Nam, where it is less than 5 percentage points. Interestingly, in Cambodia and Morocco, disadvantaged students reported this practice more than their advantaged peers, with a gap of 6 and 8 percentage points, respectively (Table V.B1.2.2). The general trend of these disparities suggests that in most systems, advantaged students may benefit more from structured, detail-oriented learning environments while disadvantaged students may need additional support in developing consistent error-checking habits.
Similarly, 46% of advantaged students and 41% of disadvantaged students reported carefully checking their homework before handing it in. This gap is largest in Iceland and Korea (over 15 percentage points) and smallest in Saudi Arabia and Spain (less than 5 percentage points). However, in a number of systems (12 countries), disadvantaged students reported checking homework more frequently, with gaps of more than 10 percentage points in Cambodia and Mongolia (Table V.B1.2.4). It is important to note that approaches to homework vary across contexts but it is not uncommon to find that aspects of students that may be positively associated with homework-checking, as a disadvantaged socio-economic background in these cases, do not correlate positively in predicting performance in mathematics. There may be several reasons for this; for example, in such contexts top performers may not need to spend much time on homework and may be less meticulous than low performers because they have good prior knowledge, the appropriate skills to complete the homework and feel more confident (Trautwein, 2007[18]). It may also be the case that in some systems homework is designed to give extra support or reinforcement to students with specific weaknesses (Epstein and Van Voorhis, 2001[19]). Due to the strong correlation between performance and socio-economic profile, in such contexts, disadvantaged students may be more inclined than advantaged students to engage in diligent homework practices because they may face more learning difficulties than their socio-economically advantaged peers.
Beyond carefulness, when it comes to seeking help in mathematics in the classroom or with teachers, 52% of advantaged students reported frequently asking questions when they do not understand the material on average across the OECD compared to 40% of disadvantaged students. This difference is particularly large in Denmark*, Iceland, Korea, Lithuania, Saudi Arabia and the United States* and (at least 20 percentage points) while it is around 7 percentage points in Kazakhstan (Table V.B1.2.6). Similarly, socio-economically advantaged students also exhibit higher proactive mathematics study behaviour in several areas. For example, across the OECD, about half of advantaged students reported trying to connect new material to what they had previously learned (52%) but only 39% of disadvantaged students did. This difference is most significant in Australia*, Greece, Korea, Malta, Poland, and the Ukrainian regions (18 of 27), (at least 20 percentage points), and smallest in Argentina and Mexico (slightly less than 6 percentage points) (Table V.B1.2.21).
Likewise, advantaged students are more likely to engage in critical-thinking practices. For instance, 64% of advantaged students reported trying to consider everyone's perspective before taking a position compared to 53% of disadvantaged students, on average. The largest differences are in Brunei Darussalam, Iceland, Malaysia and the Ukrainian regions (18 of 27) (at least 20 percentage points) while Kazakhstan and Mongolia show gaps of less than 5 percentage points (Table V.B1.2.10).
An average of around 63% of advantaged students agreed that they can view almost all things from different angles compared to 50% of disadvantaged students, resulting in a 13-percentage point gap. Hungary shows the largest gap (over 20 percentage points) whereas Thailand shows the smallest (less than 5 percentage points) (Table V.B1.2.12). Lastly, 55% of advantaged students disagreed with the statement that there is only one correct position in a disagreement compared to 39% of disadvantaged students, indicating a 16-percentage point gap. Australia*, Belgium, Estonia, France, Hungary, Macao (China), Singapore, Switzerland, and Chinese Taipei, show the largest gaps (at least 20 percentage points) while Croatia, Thailand, and Türkiye show gaps of around 5 percentage points (Table V.B1.2.14).
These findings suggest that students’ socio-economic profiles need to be taken in consideration when analysing what shapes students' learning practices. To address disparities, targeted interventions that consider both socio-economic and contextual factors are essential. Improving access to resources, providing support for disadvantaged students, and fostering an inclusive learning environment can help bridge the gap, enhancing educational outcomes and promoting lifelong learning for all students.
References
[7] Corno, L. (2000), “Looking at Homework Differently”, The Elementary School Journal, Vol. 100/5, pp. 529-548, https://doi.org/10.1086/499654.
[6] Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (2020), Pan-Canadian Global Competencies, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5af1e87f5cfd79c163407ead/t/5c6597f353450a15233b6e7c/1550161912721/Pan-Canadian+Global+Competencies+Backgrounder_EN.pdf,%20Canada%20CMEC%20(2020)s (accessed on 24 May 2024).
[5] Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (2018), Pan-Canadian Systems-Level Framework on Global Competencies, https://www.globalcompetencies.cmec.ca/ (accessed on 24 May 2024).
[15] Crant, J. (2000), “Proactive Behavior in Organizations”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26/3, pp. 435-462, https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600304.
[19] Epstein, J. and F. Van Voorhis (2001), “More Than Minutes: Teachers’ Roles in Designing Homework”, Educational Psychologist, Vol. 36/3, pp. 181-193, https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3603_4.
[9] Garrison, D. (1992), “Critical Thinking and Self-Directed Learning in Adult Education: An Analysis of Responsibility and Control Issues”, Adult Education Quarterly, Vol. 42/3, pp. 136-148, https://doi.org/10.1177/074171369204200302.
[8] Hong, E., R. Milgram and L. Rowell (2004), “Homework Motivation and Preference: A Learner-Centered Homework Approach”, Theory Into Practice, Vol. 43/3, pp. 197-204, https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4303_5.
[14] Johnson, D. and R. Johnson (2009), “An Educational Psychology Success Story: Social Interdependence Theory and Cooperative Learning”, Educational Researcher, Vol. 38/5, pp. 365-379, https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x09339057.
[13] Kennedy, R. (2007), “In-Class Debates: Fertile Ground for Active Learning and the Cultivation of Critical Thinking and Oral Communication Skills”, International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, Vol. 2/19, pp. 183-190, https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-70349297674&partnerID=40&md5=fbe61550fe8ec2bcc637c950d4b805c3.
[12] Kokotsaki, D., V. Menzies and A. Wiggins (2016), “Project-based learning: A review of the literature”, Improving Schools, Vol. 19/3, pp. 267-277, https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480216659733.
[11] OECD (2024), PISA 2022 Results (Volume III): Creative Minds, Creative Schools, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/765ee8c2-en.
[3] OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The State of Learning and Equity in Education, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en.
[4] OECD (2020), What Students Learn Matters: Towards a 21st Century Curriculum, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d86d4d9a-en.
[2] Paris, S. and A. Paris (2001), “Classroom Applications of Research on Self-Regulated Learning”, Educational Psychologist, Vol. 36/2, pp. 89-101, https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3602_4.
[17] Pedaste, M. et al. (2015), “Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle”, Educational Research Review, Vol. 14, pp. 47-61, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003.
[1] Schraw, G., K. Crippen and K. Hartley (2006), “Promoting Self-Regulation in Science Education: Metacognition as Part of a Broader Perspective on Learning”, Research in Science Education, Vol. 36/1-2, pp. 111-139, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-005-3917-8.
[16] Seibert, S., M. Kraimer and J. Crant (2001), “What Do Proactive People Do? A Longitudinal Model Linking Proactive Personality And Career Success”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 54/4, pp. 845-874, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00234.x.
[10] Southworth, J. (2022), “Bridging critical thinking and transformative learning: The role of perspective-taking”, Theory and Research in Education, Vol. 20/1, pp. 44-63, https://doi.org/10.1177/14778785221090853.
[18] Trautwein, U. (2007), “The homework–achievement relation reconsidered: Differentiating homework time, homework frequency, and homework effort”, Learning and Instruction, Vol. 17/3, pp. 372-388, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.02.009.
← 1. There are six proficiency Levels in mathematics in PISA. For further information see (OECD, 2023[3])
← 2. In the PISA 2022 student questionnaire, what is measured are students agreeing or strongly agreeing with the statement “I like to make sure there are no mistakes” and their reports on frequency (“more than half of the time” or “all or almost all the time”) in “I asked questions when I did not understand the mathematics material that was being taught”.
← 3. Students endorsing this approach outperform students who did not by 22 score points in mathematics, after accounting for students’ and schools’ socio-economic profile (Table V.B1.2.8).
← 4. In terms of top performance, Singapore, Macao (China), Chinese Taipei, Hong Kong (China)*, Japan, Korea. Estonia and Switzerland (in order of performance) outdid all other countries and economies in mathematics (with mean score in mathematics over 500), which was the focus subject of PISA 2022.
← 5. Analyses of the relationship between strategies and mathematics performance include analyses focusing on the 25th and 75th percentiles of the performance scale to analyse how changes in students’ reports on learning strategies and other variables relate to performance in mathematics at the lower and top quarters of the distribution. For example, the coefficients in a 75th percentile quantile regression show how a one-unit increase in each variable is associated with changes in mathematics performance at the 75th percentile. This percentile captures the performance dynamics among students who are performing better than the bottom three-quarters of the sample.
← 6. The proactive mathematics study behaviour index used in PISA measures the frequency of students’ engagement in such activities. It includes the three questions mentioned here, and a number of others, including “I put effort into my assignments for mathematics class”, “I made time to learn the material for mathematics class” or “I put effort into my assignments for mathematics class”.