PISA 2022 Results (Volume V)

11. From data to insights

Abstract

Results from PISA offer a wealth of data points that can highlight aspects of education policy that merit further investigation and reflection. This chapter provides a summary and interpretation of the key messages highlighted throughout the volume, with a view to suggesting how policies and practices might be improved to support students' needs. It emphasises the need for students to acquire and develop the right set of strategies, motivation and self-belief to become positive lifelong learners and to be prepared for a challenging and uncertain future.

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).

Introduction

How prepared are 15-year-olds for lifelong learning? This report analyses their use of learning strategies, motivation to learn and self-beliefs. Students’ attitudes about learning and whether or not they use learning strategies are not only likely to be related to the support they receive at school but to other aspects of their background.

Learning strategies, motivation, and self-belief form a crucial triangle in the learning process, each playing a unique role in student success. Learning strategies encompass techniques for searching for, understanding and retaining information while motivation drives student effort and engagement. Students who have self-belief or confidence in their abilities accept challenges and persevere in spite of setbacks, making them resilient. Together, these three elements promote lifelong learning in students.

PISA data show that learning strategies, motivation, and self-belief correlate positively with performance in mathematics. Students with weak performance in mathematics (i.e. scoring below Level 2) are often doubly challenged. Not only are they lower academic achievers, but they are less motivated and less self-confident, and lack strategic learning skills. That said, students do not have to be top performers (at Level 5 or 6) to be positive lifelong learners. PISA 2022 data show that skilled performers (i.e. students whose scoring begins at Level 3) also show strong motivation to learn, confidence in their abilities, and use of a variety of learning strategies. What is important is to identify students' strengths and weaknesses early on and provide the kind of support that meets their individual learning needs. This creates multiple pathways to success.

Lifelong learning is not just about updating and upgrading one's skills and knowledge but about better overall well-being. Because continuous learning helps us become more cognitively flexible, adaptable and resilient we are, as a result, better primed for social engagement and personal achievement. We have greater self-esteem, life satisfaction, and personal growth (Hammond, 2004[1]; Schuller and Watson, 2009[2]). The relationship between lifelong learning and well-being is a reciprocal one, with the benefits of learning improving quality of life and a strong sense of well-being motivating individuals to continue learning.

This report offers valuable insights for lifelong learning on at least six different axes:

Not all students use learning strategies for sustained lifelong learning

This report analyses three student learning strategies that involve processing and encoding information, and active participation in one's own learning:

•  students' active questioning when they do not understand something as well as their meticulous schoolwork, both of which indicate control of one's own work and learning processes;

•  using critical-thinking (perspective-taking) skills to analyse issues from different perspectives and to consider different opinions;

•  proactive learning behaviours such as connecting new information with previously acquired knowledge, carrying out tasks diligently, and managing workload efficiently.

Students rarely ask questions when they are unsure of something

Students who ask questions when they are not sure of something are involved in their learning process and readjust their learning when needed. PISA data show that less than half of students (47%) on average across OECD countries frequently ask questions when they do not understand something being taught in mathematics (i.e. over half of the time they have doubts).

Skilled performers do not ask questions enough either

An average of only 52% of skilled performers ask questions frequently when they are unsure of something being taught. In Macao (China), Poland and Chinese Taipei, only about 32% or less of skilled performers ask questions frequently. In contrast, over 70% of skilled performers in Albania, Iceland and Uzbekistan do (Figure V.2.1 and Table V.B1.2.7).

Low performers not only lack basic mathematics skills but lifelong learning strategies

Less than 40% of low performers (scoring below Level 2 in mathematics) frequently ask questions when they do not understand what is being taught, on average. This suggests that those who need the most support are the ones most reluctant to ask questions when they need to. 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. 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 (Table V.B1.2.7).

Two-thirds of all students are meticulous and double-check their work for mistakes

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. PISA 2022 data show that 64% of students, on average, agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “I like to make sure there are no mistakes” (Table V.B1.2.1).

Skilled performers especially check for errors (71% on average) (Figure V.2.2 and Table V.B1.2.3). The share of skilled performers is at least 60% in all countries and economies except for Croatia and top-performing Estonia, Hong Kong (China)* and Macao (China). However, only about half of low performers double-check for errors, on average. Yet, there is wide variation across countries: slightly over one-third in Estonia and New Zealand* reported checking compared to over 80% in Indonesia, Korea and Mongolia (Table V.B1.2.3).

Open-mindedness is something that needs improving

Slightly over half (54%) of students did not challenge the notion there is only one correct position in a disagreement and only in 12 countries did at least half of students disagree with this statement. Instead, the most widespread perspective-taking strategies in most countries and economies are trying to consider everybody’s perspective before forming one’s own opinions and viewing issues from different angles, which over half of students say they do. Only in Iceland, Jordan, Kosovo and the Palestinian Authority did less than half of students report both these strategies.

Skilled performers often consider multiple perspectives (over 60% on average) and about half of low performers do the same. Yet, only 31% of low performers rejected the notion that there is only one correct position in a disagreement, on average, compared to 57% of skilled performers (Tables V.B1.2.11, V.B1.2.13 and V.B1.2.15).

Top performers readily integrate information from diverse sources, a flexible thinking strategy that should be strengthened in all students

Of the students who try to consider everyone's perspective before taking a position, about half surprisingly still believe there is only one correct position in a disagreement. As many as 67% of low performers hold these two contradictory positions but only 38% of skilled performers do, on average. When looking at top performers alone, only 27% consider everyone’s perspective while still believing there is only one correct position in a disagreement, suggesting that it is because of top performers that there is a relatively small percentage of skilled performers who hold these contradictory positions (Figure V.2.4, Figures V.2.4b and V.2.4c (available online), and Table V.B1.2.28)

It is unusual for students to connect to make their own connections between what they are learning and what they already know

Connecting what you are learning to what you already know is an essential proactive study habit. Yet, less than half of students (46%) in OECD countries try to relate new material to what they have learned in previous mathematics lessons more than half of the time on their own. The same share reported that they often start their work on mathematics assignments right away – another proactive study habit. In both cases, about half of skilled performers reported frequently connecting new and previous things learned, and starting mathematics assignments right away. Less than 40% of low performers did (Tables V.B1.2.22 and V.B1.2.24).

Low performers need extra help from teachers connecting new and prior learning

Teachers would do well to reinforce students’ habit of making links between something they are learning to something they have already learned. Only 31% of students say their teachers encourage them to do this in mathematics, on average (Table V.B1.3.20). Roughly the same percentage of both low and skilled performers on average across OECD countries – slightly more than 30% – reported their teachers encourage them to connect new information to what they have already learned. When adding this to the already small percentage of low performers who proactively do this on their own, this suggests that teachers should focus on helping low performers internalise this strategy (Table V.B1.3.27).

Students’ attitudes towards learning are positively related to their commitment to learn

A major part of students’ commitment to learning, intrinsic motivations can boost students’ uptake of learning strategies

Students who are positive about learning tend to employ effective learning strategies. Intrinsic motivations such as enjoying learning new things in school consistently relate to the uptake of learning strategies. For example, students who are intrinsically motivated are more likely to employ control and self-monitoring strategies as well as critical-thinking (perspective-taking) strategies like viewing things from different angles, demonstrating a robust association between them (Figure V.3.1).

At the country level, these relationships are largely positive, particularly for intrinsic motivations such as enjoying learning new things in school. It is also so for the more instrumental motivation of wanting to do well in mathematics class – this is strongly related to the study behaviour of asking questions when one does not understand something (Figures V.3.1b-V.3.1g [available online]).

There are similar relationships between intrinsic and instrumental motivations, and learning strategies that make up students’ proactive mathematics study behaviours (e.g. connecting new and prior knowledge, actively participating in group discussions, and doing mathematics assignments right away). Yet, the main driver for proactivity is wanting to do well in mathematics class even though liking schoolwork that is challenging is a stronger driver in two OECD countries, Mexico and the Slovak Republic (Table V.B1.3.50).

These relationships remain broadly consistent even after controlling for students’ and schools’ socio-economic profile. This highlights the importance of fostering all students’ motivation to learn, regardless of their socio-economic status or academic achievement.

Fostering social and emotional skills like persistence goes hand-in-hand with the development of learning strategies

PISA 2022 data highlight the relationship between social and emotional skills (SES) and learning strategies for sustained lifelong learning. Persistence is the SES with the strongest relationships (Figure V.3.6). With a one-unit increase in the persistence index, students are almost twice as likely to be meticulous about their schoolwork. This relationship is particularly strong in Bulgaria and Hong Kong (China)*. Persistent students are also more proactive, particularly in linking new material to previous lessons. This is especially so in Australia*, where persistent students are almost twice as likely to engage in such practices (Table V.B1.3.56).

Curiosity and co-operation also coincide with learning strategy use

Students who are curious as well as those who manage their emotions well are more likely to proactively connect new material to prior knowledge. This deepens their understanding of what is being taught (Table V.B1.3.60). Likewise, co-operation is most strongly related to critical-thinking attitudes such as considering multiple perspectives before forming an opinion. This relationship is particularly strong in top-performing systems like Hong Kong (China)*, Korea, Singapore and Chinese Taipei, suggesting there is a strong cultural and educational emphasis on cooperative learning and considering multiple perspectives there (Table V.B1.3.57). These relationships remain broadly consistent even after controlling for students’ and schools’ socio-economic profile, and students’ mathematics performance.

Growth mindset is strongly linked to using learning strategies

Self-belief in the form of a growth mindset in mathematics is strongly associated with higher persistence, greater confidence (self-efficacy) in mathematics, and proactive study behaviour in mathematics. These relationships are robust across countries and economies but, in many, are influenced by mathematics performance (Table V.B1.3.46). This suggests that success in mathematics helps sustain growth mindset and related behaviours.

Parents, teachers and schools should cultivate a growth mindset in students of all achievement levels. Students who are resilient and believe they can develop their abilities – and make the effort to do so – can maintain motivation and effective learning strategies no matter what kind of performers they are.

But, there are large margins for improvement in students’ self-beliefs

Across the OECD, 58% of students reported having a growth mindset but this varies significantly by country. When looking at mathematics-specific growth mindset, only 35% of students reported they disagree that “Some people are just not good at mathematics, no matter how hard they study”. In countries like Georgia, New Zealand*, Peru, Singapore, and Sweden, at least half of their students reported having a mathematics growth mindset while in Czechia, Japan, Poland, and Slovenia, fewer than 20% did (Table V.B1.3.43).

Even when they say they have a growth mindset in general, many students still hold on to negative mathematics-learning stereotypes (Figure V.3.3 and Table V.B1.3.44). Slightly over half of students with a general growth mindset reported a fixed mindset in mathematics. Argentina, Georgia, Peru, Singapore, and the United Arab Emirates show the smallest share of students with a contradictory combination of a general growth mindset and fixed mathematical mindset.

Confident students are also more intrinsically motivated

Students who are motivated to learn and enjoy challenging schoolwork are more likely to be confident they can succeed. Mathematics self-efficacy or confidence is positively associated with all forms of motivation even after considering socio-economic factors and performance (see Table V.B1.4.10). The largest association is found between mathematics self-efficacy and liking schoolwork that is challenging. Students who like challenging schoolwork are particularly likely to feel confident they can solve mathematics tasks.

Australia*, Canada*, Denmark*, Finland, Hong Kong (China)*, Ireland*, Macao (China), New Zealand*, Norway and the United Kingdom* show wider differences between their shares of confident and less confident students liking challenging schoolwork. Differences range between 40 and 48 percentage points compared to 30 percentage points on average across OECD countries. On the contrary, Albania, Brunei Darussalam, Colombia, Georgia, Serbia, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia and Uruguay show smaller differences between confident and less confident students, ranging between 11 and 20 percentage points (see Figures V.4.3 and V.4.3b [available online], and Table V.B1.4.8).

Confidence, however, is just one measure of self-belief. Student self-beliefs also include anxiety about failing in mathematics.

Students feel more anxious about mathematics in 2022 than they did 10 years ago, impacting their readiness for lifelong learning

Fifteen-year-olds in most countries and economies are more anxious about mathematics than they were in 2012, the last time this was measured (Figure V.4.4). Students are anxious not only about their grades and failing in mathematics but about dealing with mathematical tasks in general (see Table V.B1.4.12).

Since 2003, PISA has shown a negative association between mathematics anxiety and mathematics performance in every education system that has participated in PISA. A one-point increase in the index of mathematics anxiety on average across OECD countries is associated with a decrease in mathematics achievement of 18 score points after accounting for students’ and schools’ socio-economic profile (see Table V.B1.4.14).

Systems can work against this trend. While anxiety levels rose sharply, especially in most European and Latin American countries, it fell significantly from 2012 levels in Korea.

Students need different kinds of support to develop the right set of strategies and attitudes for sustained lifelong learning

Girls and boys perceive and engage with learning strategies differently – sometimes very differently

Girls consistently exhibit higher control and self-monitoring strategies, particularly in checking for mistakes and reviewing homework before submission. Among skilled performers, girls outstrip boys by 8 percentage points in checking for mistakes and 14 percentage points in checking homework, on average across OECD countries. Among low performers, these differences are 7 and 10 percentage points, respectively (Table V.B1.3.48).

Gender differences persist in critical thinking (perspective-taking) as well. Girls generally reported assimilating multiple viewpoints before taking a position more than boys. Among skilled performers, girls outstripped boys by 8 percentage points in terms of considering everyone's perspective and 5 percentage points in being able to see things from different angles, on average across OECD countries. For low performers, these gaps increase to 11 and 9 percentage points, respectively. Additionally, girls are more likely to disagree with the notion that there is only one correct position in a disagreement, with gaps favouring girls by an average of 14 percentage points among skilled performers and 7 percentage points among low performers (Table V.B1.3.49).

Girls and boys perceive their capacity to work hard to improve in mathematics differently, suggesting mathematics gender stereotypes

Unlike a general growth mindset, gender differences in mathematics growth mindset are more pronounced across most countries and economies. Boys are more likely to report a growth mindset in mathematics than girls by an average of 7 percentage points. This gap can be as sizeable as over 15 percentage points in Jordan and the Palestinian Authority (Table V.B1.3.42).

Similar results can be seen in mathematics anxiety. In most countries and economies, 15-year-old girls reported significantly higher levels of mathematics anxiety than boys. While this partly reflects differences in mathematics performance related to gender, the gender gap in anxiety persists even among top-performing students, suggesting that girls feel more anxious than boys even when they perform at similarly high levels (Table V.B1.4.16). This suggests that focusing solely on performance cannot reduce students' anxiety. Neither is it an effective way to tackle gender gaps. Instead, schools would do well to help girls perceive learning outcomes like performance in mathematics not as something inherently difficult or beyond their capabilities. This is key to both lifelong learning and equity in learning in general.

Socio-economically advantaged students use learning strategies for sustained lifelong learning more than their disadvantaged peers

Socio-economically advantaged students consistently check for mistakes, review homework, ask questions, show proactive study behaviours and use critical thinking more than their socio-economically disadvantaged peers.

For example, while an average of 52% of advantaged students in the OECD often ask questions when they do not understand the material, only 40% of disadvantaged students do. This difference is particularly large in Denmark*, Iceland, Korea, Lithuania, Saudi Arabia, and the United States* (at least 20 percentage points) while it is around 7 percentage points in Kazakhstan (Table V.B1.2.6).

Similarly, advantaged students exhibit higher proactive mathematics study behaviour in several areas. About half of advantaged students in the OECD try to connect new material to what they have previously learned (52%) while only 39% of disadvantaged students do. 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).

Students suffering from food insecurity are less likely to employ certain self-regulated learning strategies and, generally, are more passive learners

Students suffering from food insecurity are somewhat less likely to carefully check their homework, on average across the OECD, even after considering students’ and schools’ socio-economic profile, and students’ mathematics performance. In general, these students also show lower levels of proactive study behaviour (Figure V.7.4). Economic deprivation seems to distract students from schoolwork as they are less likely to have the time or energy for proactive and self-regulated learning, suggesting they are more passive learners.

PISA data suggest that long-term absenteeism for economic reasons could be particularly related to less control of one’s own learning

Students who miss school for an extended period for economic reasons not only have lower learning outcomes but use sustained learning strategies less. For example, they are less likely to make sure there are no mistakes in their work or check their homework before turning it in (31% and 27% less likely, respectively, among OECD countries after accounting for socio-economic background and mathematics performance). The widening of the gap between students who have missed a great deal of school for economic reasons and those who have not can be attributed to differences in students’ controlling their own learning (Figure V.7.8).

Yet, economically deprived students have positive attitudes towards learning, and are motivated to learn and interested in learning

While economic deprivation in the form of food insecurity is related to negative self-beliefs about learning, students holding part-time jobs, on the other hand, tend to feel more positive about learning, especially in mathematics class. Students with part-time jobs often feel more motivated to learn than students without (Figure V.7.6). Likewise, students who experience food insecurity are just as curious and open-minded about the world as their peers who do not have food insecurity when accounting for both socio-economic profile and mathematical performance on average across OECD countries (Tables V.B1.7.7 and V.B1.7.8).

Enabling economically disadvantaged students to combine their studies with work or re-entry points into schooling can prevent them from dropping out of formal education.

Students’ confidence learning outside the classroom tells us about their readiness for lifelong learning

PISA 2022 asked students how confident they would be learning on their own if schools ever had to close as they did during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data show that students with confidence in their self-directed learning capacities are often the same as those who use learning strategies for sustained lifelong learning.

Students who are most confident in their self-directed learning skills are the most meticulous and often ask questions in class when they are not sure of something

PISA data show that students who are confident about their self-directed learning frequently ask questions in class when they do not understand what is being taught – significantly more than their less confident peers (22 percentage-point gap, on average) (Figure V.9.2). This gap is significant and large in all countries and economies, ranging from 12 percentage points in Poland to 35 in Viet Nam. Similarly, more confident, self-directed students check their work for mistakes (20 percentage-point difference) and check their homework before handing it in (24 percentage points), on average as well as across countries. The gap between confident and less confident students in these two types of meticulousness are the largest in New Zealand*, at 39 and 37 percentage points, respectively (Tables V.B1.9.12, V.B1.9.13 and V.B1.9.17). The relationships between these self-monitoring strategies and confidence in self-directed learning are positive and hold after accounting for students’ and schools’ socio-economic profile, and students’ performance in mathematics across countries (Table V.B1.9.10).

Findings in this report show the interconnectedness of self-directed learning, meticulousness and self-monitoring, highlighting the need for learning environments that foster student autonomy and positive mindsets (Figure V.9.2 and Figures V.9.1f and V.9.1g [available online]).

Intrinsic motivations are strongly linked to students' confidence in self-directed learning

The relationship between students' confidence in self-directed learning and intrinsic motivations like enjoying challenging schoolwork and learning new things in school is positive and strong on average and across countries and economies. These relationships hold after accounting for students’ and schools’ socio-economic profile, and students’ performance in mathematics (Table V.B1.9.2).

Students with greater self-directed learning confidence also have greater instrumental motivation. Confident, self-directed learners who believe school teaches them things that can be useful in a job show a 17 percentage-point gap, on average, when compared to their less confident peers. The gap stretches to over 25 percentage points in Albania, Croatia and the United Kingdom* (Figures V.9.4d and V.9.4e [available online]). Still, believing that what one learns in school can be useful for jobs has a comparatively weaker relationship with confidence than intrinsic motivations. While instrumental motivations are important, they are secondary to intrinsic motivations in driving students' confidence in self-directed learning, on average across the OECD countries (Figures V.9.4c and V.9.4d [available online]).

Young people need help learning how to judge online information quality

Accessing and assessing information are key skills for lifelong learning in the digital age. Students must be comfortable finding information online and able to judge its reliability. PISA 2022 data show that while 73% of students have no trouble finding learning resources online by themselves (Figure V.9.1c [available online] and Table V.B1.9.2), what they do find more difficult is judging the quality of this information. Only 51% of students in OECD countries can easily evaluate the quality of online information and 33% reported they can do so with some effort. Some 9% struggle and 4% are unable to judge the quality of online information at all (Figure V.10.2). In countries like Brunei Darussalam, Croatia, Estonia, Japan, Macao (China), and Slovenia, at least 40% of students can evaluate information quality with some effort (Figure V.10.2b [available online] and Table V.B1.10.15). Developing students’ ability to identify reliable online information sources should be a priority for education systems.

Strikingly, most low performers (60%) cannot easily judge the quality of information found online while 57% of skilled performers are able to do so easily, on average across OECD countries (Figure V.10.2). Only in Costa Rica and the United States* can slightly over half of low performers easily do so. This tells us that a significant proportion of students, especially low performers, are unable to navigate the vast amount of information available on the Internet (Table V.B1.10.19).

Reinforcing students’ meticulousness could help them better judge online information quality

The relationship between readily judging online information quality and checking homework before handing it in is positive and strong across all countries and economies after accounting for students’ and schools’ socio-economic profile, and students’ mathematics performance. The strongest relationship is in Ireland* (Table V.B1.10.26).

Students who can gauge the quality of online information tend to be critical thinkers

Students who check the quality, credibility and accuracy of online information are more likely to look at things from different angles and consider everybody’s perspective before taking a position. Both relationships are positive in all countries and economies after accounting for students’ and schools’ socio-economic profile, and students’ mathematics performance. In Macao (China) the relationship is the strongest for both critical-thinking (perspective-taking) strategies (Table V.B1.10.26).

Proactive learners who make connections between what they learn and what they know are also those who ably assess the quality of online information

The practice of building on solid, acquired knowledge is a powerful tool for distinguishing valid information from falsehood. This relationship is positive and strong across all countries and economies after accounting for students’ and schools’ socio-economic profile, and students’ mathematics performance. In Ireland* we find the strongest relationship: students who critically evaluate online information are the most likely to be those who try to make connections between new and previously learned material (Table V.B1.10.26).

Students’ perceptions of their teachers’ digital proficiency relate positively to their online information habits

Students’ perception that their teachers are sufficiently digitally literate seems to relate positively to their own digital literacy, which is important for lifelong learning. Students who believe their teachers have the necessary skills to use digital devices in class are more likely to compare different sources when searching for information online. They are also more likely to check the accuracy of online information before sharing it on social networks. This holds even after accounting for students’ and schools’ socio-economic profile, and students’ performance in mathematics (Table V.B1.10.31).

How are students being empowered for future learning and educational or professional pathways?

PISA 2022 asked students about their confidence completing a range of 21^st-century mathematical tasks. These tasks include their ability to interpret and analyse mathematical data, apply real-world problem-solving, use statistical reasoning and engage in mathematical modelling, among other key skills. These skills are crucial for thriving in the data-driven, technology-rich environments and workplaces of the 21st century.

Just over a third of students in the OECD have been introduced to tasks that involve extracting mathematical information

Students reported the highest exposure to tasks that involve extracting mathematical information, with just over a third of students across the OECD (35%). In some education systems such as in Canada*, Denmark*, Kazakhstan, the Netherlands*, Singapore and the United Kingdom*, about half of students reported frequent exposure to this task. Conversely, in Czechia and Slovenia, less than one in five students did (Figure V.8.7 and Table V.B1.8.1).

Fewer than a third of students frequently represent situations mathematically

Representing situations mathematically, reported by just under a third of students (31%), is crucial for translating real-world problems into a mathematical framework. This is an important step in effective analysis, solution, and communication of complex situations. In Canada*, Singapore and the United States*, about half of students reported teachers had introduced them to this technique. In Estonia, Finland, Iceland and Poland, however, less than one in five students reported exposure (Figure V.8.7 and Table V.B1.8.1).

Only one in five students frequently interpret mathematical solutions in real-life contexts in class

On average, only about 20% of students reported being frequently asked to interpret mathematical solutions in the context of a real-life challenge. This percentage is notably low in Czechia, Hong Kong (China)*, Korea, Macao (China) and Poland, where only about 11% of students have encountered this task. In contrast, over 40% of students in Uzbekistan have (Table V.B1.8.1).

Other 21st-century mathematics tasks have been presented to about one in five students or less. Notably, coding/programming computers is the least widespread task, with less than 10% of students, on average, indicating frequent exposure. This falls to around 6% or less in countries such as Australia*, Estonia, Germany, Hong Kong (China)*, Ireland*, the Netherlands*, Portugal, Singapore and Chinese Taipei (Figure V.8.7 and Table V.B1.8.1).

Exposure to 21st-century mathematics tasks is important for student confidence but there are other aspects at play too

PISA 2022 data suggest that student confidence and how frequently they encounter 21st-century mathematics tasks are positively related. But, frequent exposure to tasks does not guarantee confidence, at least not in every education system. PISA data reveal a statistically significant but moderate correlation between the frequency of exposure to 21st-century mathematics tasks and students' confidence completing them. This suggests that exposure alone does not substantially boost confidence and that other aspects are at play.

The way teachers present these tasks in the classroom, for instance, may also help improve students' confidence.

Confidence in 21st-century mathematics is related to teaching practices like cognitive activation

Cognitive activation practices such as teachers encouraging students to think about how to solve mathematics problems in different ways and asking students to explain their reasoning when solving a mathematics problem are positively and strongly related to confidence in 21^st-century mathematics skills (Figure V.8.3).

Explaining the chain of reasoning involved in solving a mathematics problem is driven by students’ performance in mathematics in some countries but remains positive for all participants in PISA 2022. This is something that over half of confident learners reported being exposed to (54%) compared to only 38% of learners who are not confident, across OECD countries. The gap between the two groups is the largest in Albania and the Dominican Republic, where it is at least 30 percentage points, and the smallest in Hungary, Japan, the Netherlands* and the Slovak Republic, where it is about 10 percentage points or less (Table V.B1.8.10).

Learning strategies for sustained lifelong learning are positively related to confidence in 21st-century mathematics

Critical-thinking (perspective-taking) strategies, including considering others’ perspectives and seeing issues from different angles, are positively related to confidence in 21st-century mathematics skills. Confident learners consider others' perspectives before taking a position to a greater extent than their less confident peers, with an average difference of 10 percentage points across OECD countries, rising to 23 in Albania, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Only in Chile and Latvia* is the difference between the two groups not significant (Table V.B1.8.10).

Students with strong social and emotional skills are more mathematically confident

Persistent, stress-resistant and curious students are, on average, the most confident in their 21st-century mathematics skills. The relationship holds for all three SES after accounting for performance in mathematics, which positively influences the relationship (Figure V.8.4).

Confident mathematics students enjoy challenging schoolwork

Liking challenging schoolwork stands out as the type of motivation with the strongest link to confidence in 21st-century tasks. While more instrumental motivations such as wanting to do well in mathematics class also show a strong relationship, they are, unsurprisingly, strongly driven by performance in mathematics. Similarly, seeing school as a place that teaches useful skills for future jobs is positively related to confidence in 21st-century tasks, but to a lesser degree (Figure V.8.6).

At the country level, enjoying challenging schoolwork is strongly related to confidence in Hong Kong (China)* while the relationship is the weakest, albeit positive, in Italy and Spain, after accounting for students’ and schools’ socio-economic profile, and students’ performance in mathematics. Viewing school as a place that teaches useful skills for future jobs, while positive and significant, is the least relevant of these four motivations in most countries after accounting for students’ and schools’ socio-economic profile, and students’ performance in mathematics. While in the Dominican Republic we find the strongest relationship, it is not significant in Colombia and Indonesia. (Figure V.8.6).

Students who know what job they would like to have in the future are more likely to be both intrinsically and instrumentally motivated

Students who have a strong idea about careers are especially more likely to enjoy schoolwork that is challenging and to learn new things. These motivations can encourage students to think about the future and how they can apply what they have learned to new challenging situations. In Malaysia, Malta, North Macedonia and the Philippines, the likelihood of students having a clear idea about future jobs when reporting loving learning new things is higher than in other countries (see Table V.B1.6.14).

Students who know what job they want are also more likely to want to do well in class and think that school has taught them things that could be useful for a job. These associations are found even when accounting for students’ and schools’ socio-economic profile, and students’ mathematics performance. Students who see the link between school and the world of work, and between their grades and consequences for their future can probably better project themselves into the future and are more likely to ask themselves what job they would like to do when they are older. In the Dominican Republic, Malaysia and the Ukrainian regions (18 of 27), the likelihood of students having a clear idea about future jobs when reporting that school has taught them things that could be useful for a job is higher than in other countries and economies.

Students in vocational education probably better understand how their education relates to future jobs

Vocational programmes prepare students for the labour market and train them for a specific occupation. Not surprisingly, more vocational students than general students agreed that school has taught them things that could be useful in a job. This is especially true in Austria, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Korea, Poland and Chinese Taipei, where the difference between vocational and general students who think that school has taught them things that could be useful in a job is more than 10 percentage points (see Figure V.6.1). This suggests that students in vocational education have more opportunities to see the relationship between their education and future jobs, and to be duly motivated. This can be fundamental later in life, both for finding a job that they enjoy and re-entering education or upskilling.

On the other hand, a larger share of general students than vocational students are motivated to do well in mathematics class. This difference is more pronounced in Greece, Hungary, Lithuania and Thailand, where it is more than 15 percentage points (see Figure V.6.1). Students enrolled in general education might be more motivated in mathematics than vocational students, but their focus may be more on grades rather than learning as they are generally more oriented towards entering tertiary education with the requisite grades for acceptance.

Being able to search for information about future jobs and study is an important life skill for young people, especially in a rapidly changing world

Interestingly, students in OECD countries who do research about their futures scored 3 points below those who do not in mathematics. In 48 countries and economies that participated in PISA, seeking information about one’s future is negatively related to mathematics performance even when accounting for students’ and schools’ socio-economic profile. In Greece, Israel, the Philippines, and Switzerland, students who research future opportunities performed more poorly than those who do not by a score-point difference of between 9 and 13 points. Only in Denmark*, Korea and Chinese Taipei is the relationship positive, though small (see Table V.B1.6.3). This suggests that students’ academic performance is not always a good indicator of how future-oriented and prepared for lifelong learning they are.

How can parents and teachers work together to support students?

PISA 2022 data show a positive relationship between parental support and students’ motivation to learn and use learning strategies for sustained lifelong learning. Students whose parents take an interest in what they learn at school enjoy learning new things more than those whose parents are less involved. Similarly, students who are supported by their teachers show greater motivation to learn.

Students who interact often with their parents are more proactive in mathematics learning

Students whose parents interact regularly with them have higher levels of proactive learning attitudes towards mathematics than those whose parents interact less (Figures V.5.2 and V.5.2b [available online] ). This is true even after accounting for students’ and schools’ socio-economic profile. Learning-focused conversations (e.g. about what students are learning, what problems they may be facing, their relationships with other students) show the strongest associations with students’ proactive mathematics behaviours and is positive across all countries and economies – Albania, Cambodia, Paraguay, the Philippines and the United Arab Emirates show the strongest relationships (Table V.B1.5.3).

Future-oriented conversations between parents and children (e.g. about future education) are more weakly associated with students’ proactive mathematics learning behaviours but the relationships are still positive. These results suggest that students whose parents simply show interest in their learning are more actively engaged in their own learning. And, students who have ordinary everyday interactions with their parents (e.g. eating meals together) are more likely to be proactive in learning mathematics than those who do not. These relationships hold true even after accounting for students' and schools’ socio-economic profile (Tables V.B1.5.2 and V.B1.5.3).

Students who regularly interact with their parents are more meticulous about their schoolwork and report more critical thinking

Students whose parents frequently interact with them are also more meticulous about their learning (e.g. more careful about their schoolwork and careful not to make mistakes). An average of at least 45% of students in OECD countries who interact with their parents often carefully check their homework before turning it in. This is 9 to 14 percentage points higher than students with fewer parental interactions (Figures V.5.3 and V.5.3b [available online], Tables V.B1.5.7, V.B1.5.9, V.B1.5.10 and V.B1.5.12).

Parental interactions are also positively associated with students’ critical thinking (perspective-taking). Approximately 60% of students whose parents generally interact with them often try to consider everybody’s perspective before taking a position and can view almost all things from different angles, compared to around 50% of students with less frequent parental interactions, on average across OECD countries (see Figure V.5.4). In most countries and economies, students who have more frequent daily routine interactions with their parents reported critical-thinking strategies more, even after accounting for students’ and schools’ socio-economic profile. A similar relationship can be seen among those who have more frequent learning-oriented and future-oriented conversations with their parents albeit weaker compared to daily routine interactions. This suggests that frequent communication with parents – particularly around daily routines could help create an environment that supports students’ consideration of other opinions and perspectives (Tables V.B1.5.22, V.B1.5.24, V.B1.5.25 and V.B1.5.27). 

Parents interacting with their children especially encourages low performers to use learning strategies

Among low performers, there is a large and significant gap in the use of learning strategies between students who interact more often with their parents and those who do so less in most countries and economies. For all forms of parental interaction (daily routine; learning-oriented conversations about school; and future-oriented conversations about education), low performers show a greater use of learning strategies when they interact more often with their parents. However, this gap is mostly non-significant among skilled performers in most countries and economies. This suggests that students who are at the lower end of the performance scale, may benefit the most from parental interactions.

Teacher support is key to lifelong learning skills: Supported students are more proactive in learning mathematics

Education systems can do a great deal to help teachers cultivate lifelong learning skills in their students. PISA 2022 data show a strong and positive relationship between support from teachers and 15-year-old students’ proactiveness in learning mathematics (Figures V.5.7, V.5.7b [available online] and V.5.8). Students with more teacher support pay more attention and put more effort into their assignments for mathematics class (around 78% and 67%, respectively; among students who receive teacher support less often, this is 68% and 53%, respectively, on average across OECD countries). Students who have less teacher support say they give up when they do not understand the learning material and lose interest during mathematics lessons (around 26% and 40%, respectively; among students who receive teacher support more often, this is 18% and 25%, respectively, on average across OECD countries) (Tables V.B1.5.67, V.B1.5.69, V.B1.5.71 and V.B1.5.79).

Teacher-supported students use critical-thinking skills and take control of their learning

Teacher support also relates positively to students’ critical thinking and control of their own learning even after accounting for students’ and schools’ socio-economic profile. Approximately 60% of students who have more support of any kind from their teachers try to consider everybody’s perspective before taking a position and can view almost all things from different angles, on average across OECD countries. Interestingly, students who try to consider everybody’s perspective reported, on average, more teacher support than students who agreed or strongly agreed that they can view almost all things from different angles. And, around 47% of students who reported more teacher support carefully check their homework before turning it in compared to less than 40% of students with less teacher support, on average across OECD countries (Tables V.B1.5.64, V.B1.5.66, V.B1.5.84, V.B1.5.86, V.B1.5.87 and V.B1.5.89).

Teacher support is also related to students’ love of learning and motivation

Students with supportive teachers are more motivated. More specifically, teacher support is associated with students’ love of learning at school. Across all types of teacher support, around 55% of students with more support like to learn new things in school compared to 43% of students with less support, on average across OECD countries (Table V.B1.5.96).

Students who have supportive teachers also want to do well in mathematics class more than students with less frequent support, even after accounting for students’ and schools’ socio-economic profile. This is true across most countries and economies. The difference in the percentage of students who want to do well in mathematics class is more than 10 percentage points across all forms of teacher support in Finland, Hong Kong (China)* and Kazakhstan. And an average of more than 90% of students in OECD countries who have very supportive teachers want to do well in mathematics class (Tables V.B1.5.101 and V.B1.5.103).

Positive teacher-student relationships can encourage students to use learning strategies and believe in themselves

Students who have good relationships with their teachers reported using all learning strategies more than those who do not and they are also more motivated (Tables V.B1.4.25 and V.B1.4.26). Good teacher-student relationships are also associated with less mathematics anxiety in all countries and economies (Table V.B1.4.29). Conversely, the more students feel intimidated by teachers at school the greater their anxiety about mathematics (Figure V.4.7).

Box V.11.1. How can teachers adapt to students’ different needs, and teachers and parents collaborate to make positive learning environments for students?

For a whole host of reasons, students feel differently about learning and have different approaches to learning strategies. Socio-economically advantaged and disadvantaged students, and boys and girls, for example, differ in their beliefs about whether they can improve their skills and knowledge through effort and persistence. This is especially true of mathematics, which in some contexts, seems influenced by stereotypes about who is or can be a good learner of mathematics.

Teachers and parents have a role to play in building students' unique strengths and opening up multiple pathways to success. Creating a holistic support system for young people’s individuated and continuous growth is important. But, teachers also need time resources to put in place the right approach for each student’s learning. What follows are three ways teachers and parents can work together and schools can better respond to students’ varying needs. Homework brings parents, teachers and students together, and so does promoting young people’s social and emotional skills in the classroom and the home. And lastly, adjusting depth and breadth in the curriculum can adapt teaching to students’ different needs.

Interacting through homework

Homework is a broad concept that encompasses different educational practices in different education systems. The complex relationship between homework and academic performance has been extensively explored in the literature, highlighting its positive and negative aspects (Cooper, Robinson and Patall, 2006[3]; Trautwein, 2003[4]). This report focuses on homework not just as a means of improving students' performance but a way to enhance their willingness to learn and refine their learning strategies and self-directed learning skills. As a way for students, teachers and parents to interact, homework helps develop independent lifelong learners.

While teachers are an integral part of the homework process, parents and tutors are also crucial. Studies suggest that when parents provide guidance in the homework process – not necessarily through direct intervention – it may help students develop better self-directedness (Núñez et al., 2015[5]). But, not all parents are equally equipped to support their children. Socio-economically disadvantaged parents, non-native speakers, and those with lower educational backgrounds often have difficulties providing academic support (Hill et al., 2004[6]). Socio-economic inequalities also limit access to books, the Internet and a quiet place to study, which students need to work well (OECD, 2013[7]). For these reasons, it is important to emphasise that parental support does not necessarily mean parents have to sit down with their children and help them with homework. Other types of support and guidance are positive and improve students’ learning outcomes too. Simply eating dinner together, spending time just talking and parents asking what their children have done at school that day all relate positively to performance in mathematics (OECD, 2023[8]).

Still, there are ways to help disadvantaged parents better support their children directly. Workshops can improve parents' understanding of the curriculum and what their children should be learning. Research suggests that workshops positively influence parental involvement and improve student learning outcomes, starting as early as the preschool years (Starkey and Klein, 2000[9]; Chrispeels and González, 2004[10]).

Other ways to make up for inequalities in parental support are free tutoring and mentoring programmes at school. These provide individual academic support and personalised guidance tailored to students' needs (Kraft and Falken, 2021[11]).

As for the homework itself, here are three ways to make it most effective:

• Make it relevant: Students become more interested when they perceive homework as meaningful and connected to their personal challenges, interests and goals (Xu, 2009[12]). Homework that encourages students to be autonomous by allowing them to choose from a variety of tasks or determine the order in which they complete them will boost students’ motivation and independence (Patall, Cooper and Wynn, 2010[13]). So does detailed feedback, which helps students reflect on their learning and make adjustments.

• Extend concepts outside of the classroom: Homework that requires students to apply classroom concepts to new situations and encourages students to use metacognitive strategies can enable students to take control over their educational journey. It can also help them to develop confidence in their self-directed learning skills (Zimmerman and Kitsantas, 2005[14]) and better manage their time, set goals proactively, and develop independent critical thinking and problem-solving skills.

• Keep homework regular and short: Research has found that the overall amount of homework may be positively associated with performance but the time each person spends on homework has diminishing returns (Fernández-Alonso et al., 2017[15]). Assigning excessive homework can overwhelm students, particularly those with greater learning difficulties or from less privileged backgrounds. Regularly assigning short homework assignments provides reasonable benefits without exacerbating inequalities (Fernández-Alonso et al., 2017[15]).

Homework design is a crucial part of the educational process. Teachers should consider not only the purpose and format of homework but students' skills, abilities, needs and the characteristics of their households (Epstein and Van Voorhis, 2001[16]). By taking these factors into account, teachers can create homework that is meaningful and supportive, and allow parents to get involved. To do this, teachers need time and resources to combine curricular elements and individual learning needs. Homework is not just a supplement to teaching or a remedial element but another component of the whole learning process.

Fostering social and emotional skills

The use of learning strategies, motivation to learn, and confidence in self-directed learning constitute the lifelong learning triangle at the centre of this report. But, it is very much bolstered by one other element: students’ social and emotional skills (SES).

Effective school-based SES learning programmes can be most effective when there is a strong partnership between educators and families (Weiss et al., 2009[17]) (Zins et al., 2007[18]). While teachers provide structured opportunities for students to develop social and emotional skills in the classroom, parents reinforce these skills at home by providing consistency and a supportive environment, and engaging in practices that promote emotional intelligence.

When teachers and parents work together, students experience a cohesive and supportive learning environment, which significantly enhances their social and emotional development (Weiss et al., 2009[17]). Children get consistent messages about the importance of social and emotional skills at school and at home. It can help students apply SES to different contexts while keeping routines (Jones, Bouffard and Weissbourd, 2013[19]), leading to more effective learning and personal growth, and better learning outcomes (OECD, 2023[8]).

It is important to consider, as well, the role of teachers' own social and emotional skills in fostering a positive learning environment. Research suggests that teachers who are emotionally competent are better equipped to model and teach SES effectively (Jones, Bouffard and Weissbourd, 2013[19]). Their ability to manage their own emotions, empathise with students, and create a supportive classroom atmosphere is crucial to the success of SES learning programmes.

To support the development of students' social and emotional skills, educational policies could encourage strong partnerships between teachers and parents. And, professional development can help teachers enhance their own social and emotional skills, and equip them with strategies for effectively implementing SES curricula. Schools could also provide resources to help parents actively support their children's SES at home. Open communication and shared goals between educators and families create a more cohesive and supportive learning environment for students.

Balancing depth and breadth in education curricula

Debate over the right balance between depth and breadth in educational curricula highlights the fact that an overly broad coverage of topics can lead to superficial rather than deep understanding (Schmidt, McKnight and Raizen, 2007[20]). A balanced curriculum prioritises core concepts, enabling in-depth exploration of key areas. It allows teachers to use adaptive teaching methods to meet the diverse learning needs of students. It also allows students to gain a broad overview of essential topics and a deeper understanding of the principles. This enhances students’ retention and application of knowledge in the long term (Schmidt, McKnight and Raizen, 2007[20]).

When teachers have the flexibility to use adapted strategies, learning can go beyond content knowledge. It can encompass students’ self-belief, motivation to learn and learning strategies. Cognitive activation practices like asking students to think about how new and previously learned mathematics topics and materials are related require substantial teacher preparation and content knowledge, and are more effective in less academically segregated classrooms. Interestingly, while a similar percentage of low and skilled performers in OECD countries reported that their teachers use cognitive activation methods, few low performers use this strategy on their own without prompting from their teachers. This suggests that low performers may struggle to internalise cognitive activation and need more support.

There is a case to be made for an optimal balance between covering necessary content and allowing time for in-depth exploration. Effective mathematics teaching and student learning strategies are part of this balanced time model. Not only should adjustments be made to learning and teaching time but policy changes need to allow for curricular flexibility and teachers’ professional development focused on adaptive teaching techniques. This approach ensures that teachers can balance comprehensive content coverage with in-depth learning opportunities and adapted support. Learning outcomes, including the three core aspects of sustained learning analysed in this report, stand to benefit.

References

[10] Chrispeels, J. and M. González (2004), “Do educational programs increase parents’ practices at home? Factors influencing Latino parent involvement”, Center for Educational Leadership, University of California, https://archive.globalfrp.org/publications-resources/publications-series/family-involvement-research-digests/do-educational-programs-increase-parents-practices-at-home-factors-influencing-latino-parent-involvement (accessed on 23 August 2024).

[3] Cooper, H., J. Robinson and E. Patall (2006), “Does Homework Improve Academic Achievement? A Synthesis of Research, 1987–2003”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 76/1, pp. 1-62, https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543076001001.

[16] 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.

[15] Fernández-Alonso, R. et al. (2017), “Students’ Achievement and Homework Assignment Strategies”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 8, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00286.

[1] Hammond, C. (2004), “Impacts of lifelong learning upon emotional resilience, psychological and mental health: fieldwork evidence”, Oxford Review of Education, Vol. 30/4, pp. 551-568, https://doi.org/10.1080/0305498042000303008.

[6] Hill, N. et al. (2004), “Parent Academic Involvement as Related to School Behavior, Achievement, and Aspirations: Demographic Variations Across Adolescence”, Child Development, Vol. 75/5, pp. 1491-1509, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00753.x.

[19] Jones, S., S. Bouffard and R. Weissbourd (2013), “Educators’ Social and Emotional Skills Vital to Learning”, Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 94/8, pp. 62-65, https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171309400815.

[11] Kraft, M. and G. Falken (2021), “A Blueprint for Scaling Tutoring and Mentoring Across Public Schools”, AERA Open, Vol. 7, p. 233285842110428, https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211042858.

[5] Núñez, J. et al. (2015), “Relationships between perceived parental involvement in homework, student homework behaviors, and academic achievement: differences among elementary, junior high, and high school students”, Metacognition and Learning, Vol. 10/3, pp. 375-406, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-015-9135-5.

[8] OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume II): Learning During – and From – Disruption, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a97db61c-en.

[7] OECD (2013), PISA 2012 Results: What Makes Schools Successful (Volume IV): Resources, Policies and Practices, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264201156-en.

[13] Patall, E., H. Cooper and S. Wynn (2010), “The effectiveness and relative importance of choice in the classroom.”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 102/4, pp. 896-915, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019545.

[20] Schmidt, W., C. McKnight and S. Raizen (2007), A splintered vision: An investigation of US science and mathematics education, Springer Science & Business Media.

[2] Schuller, T. and D. Watson (2009), Learning through life, London: Niace.

[9] Starkey, P. and A. Klein (2000), “Fostering Parental Support for Children’s Mathematical Development: An Intervention with Head Start Families”, Early Education & Development, Vol. 11/5, pp. 659-680, https://doi.org/10.1207/s15566935eed1105_7.

[4] Trautwein, U. (2003), , Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 15/2, pp. 115-145, https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1023460414243.

[17] Weiss, H. et al. (2009), Reframing Family Involvement in Education: Supporting Families to Support Educational Equity, Teachers College, Columbia University.

[12] Xu, J. (2009), “Homework Purpose Scale for High School Students: A Validation Study”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 70/3, pp. 459-476, https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164409344517.

[14] Zimmerman, B. and A. Kitsantas (2005), “Homework practices and academic achievement: The mediating role of self-efficacy and perceived responsibility beliefs”, Contemporary Educational Psychology, Vol. 30/4, pp. 397-417, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.05.003.

[18] Zins, J. et al. (2007), “The Scientific Base Linking Social and Emotional Learning to School Success”, Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, Vol. 17/2-3, pp. 191-210, https://doi.org/10.1080/10474410701413145.