Collaborative Problem Solving: HKPISA Performance of Hong ...
51
Results from HKPISA 2015 Collaborative Problem Solving: Performance of Hong Kong students in PISA 2015 Esther Sui-chu HO Director Hong Kong Centre for International Student Assessment 21 November 2017 The Chinese University of Hong Kong HKPISA
Transcript of Collaborative Problem Solving: HKPISA Performance of Hong ...
Results from HKPISA 2015
Collaborative Problem Solving:
Performance of Hong Kong students in PISA 2015
Esther Sui-chu HO Director
Hong Kong Centre for International Student Assessment 21 November 2017
The Chinese University of Hong Kong
HK
PIS
A
Computer-based Assessment of Collaborative Problem Solving in PISA 2015
• In PISA 2015, 52 countries and economies participated in a computer-based assessment (CBA) of students’ Collaborative Problem Solving competency
• PISA 2015: The first international test of students’ ability to work with others to solve problems
2
Overview
• Collaborative Problem Solving: Definition and test design in PISA 2015
• Quality: Overall performance of Hong Kong students in computer-based assessment of Collaborative Problem Solving
• Equality: Distribution of CBA Collaborative Problem Solving performance by socio-economic status, gender and immigrant status
• Attitudes towards Collaborative Problem Solving
• Factors related to Collaborative Problem Solving performance and attitudes
3
I. Definition of Collaborative Problem Solving
…the capacity of an individual to effectively engage in a process whereby two or more agents attempts to solve a problem by sharing the understanding and effort required to come to a solution and pooling their knowledge, skills and efforts to reach that solution.
(OECD, 2017: PISA 2015 Assessment and Analytical Framework)
4
Definition of Collaborative Problem Solving
• In addition to individual problem solving competencies, there are 3 competencies specific to Collaborative Problem Solving:
1) Establishing and maintaining shared understanding
2) Taking appropriate action to solve the problem
3) Establishing and maintaining team organisation
5
Test Design
• Test units are interactive scenarios that students must work through while interacting with programmed computer agents
• Students may be asked to:
Select one response out of possible options while in a conversation with the computer agent;
Provide a solution to a problem using information gathered with the other agents, by clicking on a region in the visual display area
• Students’ actions will change the state of the problem
6
Test Design
7 Sample screenshot of a test unit
Chat space Task space
Test Design
• PISA 2015 includes 6 units of Collaborative Problem Solving, with a total of 117 items
• Sample items can be found in OECD/PISA website:
Released Field Trial item: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/PISA2015-Released-FT-Cognitive-Items.pdf
PISA in Focus: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/f21387f6-en
8
PISA 2015 Top 10 Countries/Economies in CBA Collaborative Problem Solving
Country/Economies Mean S.E.
Singapore 561 (1.2)
Japan 552 (2.7)
Hong Kong-China 541 (2.9)
Korea 538 (2.5)
Canada 535 (2.3)
Estonia 535 (2.5)
Finland 534 (2.6)
Macao-China 534 (1.2)
New Zealand 533 (2.4)
Australia 531 (1.9)
10
Performance of Hong Kong Students in CBA Collaborative Problem Solving
• Attain a mean score of 541
• Rank 3rd (3rd-7th) among the 52 participating countries/economies
• Of the top 10 countries/economies, Hong Kong students perform:
Significantly worse than Singapore (561) and Japan (522)
Not significantly different from Korea (538), Canada (535), Estonia (535) and Finland (534)
Significantly better than Macao (534), New Zealand (533) and Australia (531)
11
Distribution of Students at Each Proficiency Level of CBA Collaborative Problem Solving
12
1.9
11.7
33.6
39.7
13.0
5.7
22.4
36.2
27.8
7.9
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Below Level 1 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
% o
f St
ud
en
ts
Proficiency Level
Hong Kong
OECD Average
• Among the five levels of CBA Collaborative Problem Solving scale, level 4 is the top level while below level 1 is the lowest level
• There are more high achievers (attaining level 3 and 4) in Hong Kong than in OECD countries
Percentage of Students at Level 4 in CBA Collaborative Problem Solving in Top 10 Countries/Economies
13
At the upper end, 13.0% of Hong Kong students reach level 4, outperforming the OECD average of 7.9%, but being outperformed by Singapore (21.4%) and Japan (14.0%)
14
Percentage of Students at Level 1 and below in CBA Collaborative Problem Solving in Top 10 Countries/Economies
11.4 10.1
13.7 12.9
18.5
15.2
18.1
14.9
19.7 19.9
0
5
10
15
20
25
% o
f st
ud
en
ts
At the lower end, 13.7% of Hong Kong students perform at level 1 and below, which is lower than the OECD average of 28.1% but higher than Japan (10.1%) and Singapore (11.4%)
1. CBA Collaborative Problem Solving Performance by Socio-Economic Status
16
Socio-economic status of HK students has a relatively small impact on their performance (14) compared with OECD average (30)
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
400
440
480
520
560
600
640
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Co
llab
ora
tive
Pro
ble
m S
olv
ing
Mea
n S
core
Index of Economic, Social and Cultural Status (ESCS)
China (B-S-J-G) Chinese Taipei Korea Hong Kong Japan Macao
Singapore Finland Estonia Canada New Zealand Australia
Hong Kong (14)
China (B-S-J-G) (35)
Singapore (33) Macao
(8)
CBA Collaborative Problem Solving Performance and the Impact of Socio-Economic Status
17
Singapore
Belgium Czech Republic
China (B-S-J-G) France
Luxembourg
Hungary
Chile
Bulgaria Uruguay
Mexico Colombia
Peru
New Zealand
Australia
Chinese Taipei
Germany United States
United Kingdom Netherlands Sweden
Austria
Slovenia
Portugal Spain
Italy
Russian Federation Croatia Israel Lithuania
Slovak Republic Greece
Costa Rica Malaysia
Thailand Turkey
Brazil
Tunisia
Japan Hong Kong-China
Korea
Canada
Estonia
Finland
Macao-China Denmark
Norway Iceland
Latvia
Cyprus
United Arab Emirates
Montenegro
350
400
450
500
550
600
0510152025
Me
an C
olla
bo
rati
ve P
rob
lem
So
lvin
g Sc
ore
Percentage of variation in performance explained by socio-economic status (R2 x 100)
Strength of the relationship between performance and socio-economic status is above the average
Strength of the relationship between performance and socio-economic status is not statistically significantly different from the average
Strength of the relationship between performance and socio-economic status is below the average
OEC
D a
vera
ge =
7.9
OECD average
Hong Kong belongs to the group of “high performance/ low socio-economic impact” countries/economies (upper right quadrant)
2. Gender Difference in CBA Collaborative Problem Solving Performance (Top 10 Countries/Economies)
Country/Region Boys (B) Girls (G) Difference (B - G)#
Mean score
S.E. Mean score
S.E. Score
dif. S.E.
Singapore 552 (1.7) 572 (2.1) -20 (2.9)
Japan 539 (3.6) 565 (2.6) -26 (3.7)
Hong Kong-China 523 (3.7) 559 (3.4) -36 (4.4)
Korea 522 (3.5) 556 (3.3) -33 (4.4)
Canada 516 (2.8) 555 (2.4) -39 (2.6)
Estonia 522 (2.9) 549 (2.7) -27 (2.8)
Finland 511 (3.2) 559 (3.0) -48 (3.6)
Macao-China 515 (1.9) 553 (2.0) -38 (2.9)
New Zealand 513 (3.2) 553 (3.0) -41 (3.8)
Australia 511 (2.5) 552 (2.5) -41 (3.1)
OECD Average 486 (0.6) 515 (0.5) -29 (0.6)
18
Values that are statistically significant are indicated in bold. # The minor discrepancy in the difference is due to rounding of numbers.
HK girls’ advantage (36) is greater than the average gender gap of OECD (29)
3. CBA Collaborative Problem Solving Performance by Immigrant Status
19
547
505
536
482
529
459
400
420
440
460
480
500
520
540
560
Hong Kong-China OECD Average
Co
llab
ora
tive
Pro
ble
m S
olv
ing
Me
an S
core
Nativestudents
Second-generationimmigrants
First-generationimmigrants
• Second-generation immigrants: Students who are born in the country of assessment but both of their parents are foreign-born
• First-generation immigrants: Students whose parents and they themselves are not born in the country of assessment
No sig. diff.
Sig. diff.
Sig. diff.
Sig. diff.
1. Attitudes towards Collaborative Problem Solving
• “Valuing relationships” index (重視關係)
Altruistic attitude held by a student when engaging in collaborative activities not for his or her own benefit
Students were asked to report to what extent they disagreed or agreed with each of the 4 statements about themselves:
1) I enjoy considering different perspectives.
2) I am a good listener.
3) I take into account what others are interested in.
4) I enjoy seeing my classmates be successful.
21
• Coded as: 1 for “Strongly disagree”; 2 for “Disagree”; 3 for “Agree” and 4 for “Strongly agree”.
• Items are coded and scaled such that higher scores on this index mean a higher level of valuing relationships.
• “Valuing teamwork” index (重視團隊)
Emphasis put on what teamwork, as opposed to working alone, can produce
Students were asked to report to what extent they disagreed or agreed with each of the 4 statements about themselves:
1) I enjoy cooperating with peers.
2) I find that teams make better decisions than individuals.
3) I find that teamwork raises my own efficiency.
4) I prefer working as part of a team to working alone.
22
• Coded as: 1 for “Strongly disagree”; 2 for “Disagree”; 3 for “Agree” and 4 for “Strongly agree”.
• Items are coded and scaled such that higher scores on this index mean a higher level of valuing teamwork.
Attitudes towards Collaborative Problem Solving
Attitudes towards Collaborative Problem Solving of Hong Kong Students (% of Agree or Strongly Agree)
23
91.7% 89.8% 89.7% 84.8% 84.5%
80.2% 76.9%
71%
86.8% 87% 86.3% 87.8% 87%
73.5% 69.8%
67.3%
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
I enjoyconsidering
differentperspectives
I am a goodlistener
I take intoaccount what
others areinterested in
I enjoy seeingmy
classmates besuccessful
I enjoy co-operating with
peers
I find thatteams make
betterdecisions than
individuals
I find thatteamwork
raisesmy own
efficiency
I preferworking as part
ofa team to
working alone
Valuing Relationships Valuing Teamwork
% o
f st
ud
en
ts
Hong Kong OECD Average
Indices of Attitudes towards Collaborative Problem Solving of Students in East Asian Societies
24
OECD average = 0.00
Hong Kong students’ indices of attitudes towards Collaborative Problem Solving are similar to OECD average
-0.60
-0.40
-0.20
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
Latv
iaSl
ova
k R
epu
blic
Cze
ch R
epu
blic
Jap
anR
uss
iaP
ola
nd
Ital
yN
eth
erla
nd
sFi
nla
nd
Mo
nte
ne
gro
Slo
ven
iaB
elg
ium
Cro
atia
Pe
ruFr
ance
Un
ite
d K
ingd
om
Mac
ao (
Ch
ina)
Bu
lgar
iaH
un
gary
Ire
lan
dEs
ton
iaIc
ela
nd
Turk
ey
New
Zea
lan
dO
ECD
ave
rage
Luxe
mb
ou
rgD
en
mar
kH
on
g K
on
g (C
hin
a)N
orw
ayG
ree
ceC
olo
mb
iaB
razi
lSw
ede
nK
ore
aC
hile
B-S
-J-G
(C
hin
a)A
ust
ralia
Ger
man
ySw
itze
rlan
dLi
thu
ania
Can
ada
Au
stri
aTu
nis
iaQ
atar
Uru
guay
Me
xico
Thai
lan
dU
nit
ed
Sta
tes
Isra
elSp
ain
Ch
ine
se T
aip
eiD
om
inic
an R
epu
blic
Un
ite
d A
rab
Em
irat
es
Po
rtu
gal
Co
sta
Ric
aSi
nga
po
re
Mea
n in
dex
Boys Girls
Index of Valuing Relationships, by Gender
Table V.5.4a
V
alu
e re
lati
on
ship
s m
ore
Girls are more likely to value relationships
-0.40
-0.30
-0.20
-0.10
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
Net
her
lan
ds
No
rway
Fin
lan
dR
uss
iaIc
ela
nd
Slo
vak
Rep
ub
licM
on
ten
egr
oLa
tvia
Swed
en
Jap
anEs
ton
iaIs
rael
Be
lgiu
mD
en
mar
kB
ulg
aria
Turk
ey
Po
lan
dU
nit
ed
Kin
gdo
mM
acao
(C
hin
a)H
un
gary
Cze
ch R
epu
blic
Luxe
mb
ou
rgSl
ove
nia
OEC
D a
vera
geIr
ela
nd
Ho
ng
Ko
ng
(Ch
ina)
Ital
yA
ust
ralia
Can
ada
Pe
ruFr
ance
New
Zea
lan
dU
nit
ed
Sta
tes
Spai
nG
erm
any
Gre
ece
Qat
arA
ust
ria
Ko
rea
Bra
zil
Uru
guay
Co
lom
bia
Swit
zerl
and
Ch
ileC
roat
iaM
exi
coSi
nga
po
reP
ort
uga
lLi
thu
ania
Co
sta
Ric
aB
-S-J
-G (
Ch
ina)
Ch
ine
se T
aip
eiTh
aila
nd
Tun
isia
Un
ite
d A
rab
Em
irat
es
Do
min
ican
Rep
ub
lic
Me
an in
de
x
Boys Girls
Table V.5.4b
V
alu
e te
amw
ork
mo
re
Boys are more likely to value teamwork
Index of Valuing Teamwork, by Gender
Relationship between Attitudes towards Collaborative Problem Solving and Student Performance in Hong Kong
27
532
549
537
539
548
538
548
538
520
525
530
535
540
545
550
555
Index of Valuing Relationships Index of Valuing Teamwork
Co
lla
bo
rati
ve P
rob
lem
So
lvin
g M
ea
n S
core
Bottom quarter Second quarter Third quarter Top quarter
HK students’ attitude of valuing relationships has a positive relationship, but their attitude of valuing teamwork has a negative relationship with Collaborative Problem Solving performance
1. ICT Resources in Family and Student Performance in Hong Kong
29
545
505
480
490
500
510
520
530
540
550
With access tocomputers at home
(93%)
Without access tocomputers at home
(7%)
Co
llab
ora
tive
Pro
ble
m S
olv
ing
Me
an S
core
Sig. diff.
HK students having access to computers at home outperform significantly those without by 40 points in CBA Collaborative Problem Solving
2. Online Activities in and outside School
• In Hong Kong, moderate users of ICT (once or twice a week or a month) outside school tend to have better performance of CBA Collaborative Problem Solving than frequent users (every day) or non-users
• However, use of ICT in school has a negative relationship with Collaborative Problem Solving performance Students who need to use ICT in school may be the disadvantaged
students who cannot afford ICT facilities at home
30
Relationship between Online Activities in and outside School and CBA Collaborative Problem Solving Performance (Hong Kong)
31
495
519
525
519
550
552
542
547
550
540
551
551
557
553
554
550
530
525
536
533
538
547
488
487
440 460 480 500 520 540 560 580
Browsing the Internetfor schoolwork
(e.g. for preparingan essay or
presentation)
Browsing the Internetto follow up lessons
(e.g. for findingexplanations)
Obtaining practicalinformation
from the Internet
Reading newson the Internet
(e.g. current affairs)
Using email at school
Doing homeworkon a school computer
Mean Collaborative Problem Solving Score
Never or hardly ever
Once or twice a month
Once or twice a week
Almost every day/Every day
400
440
480
520
560
600
Me
xico
Bra
zil
-24
Co
lom
bia
-1
6
Pe
ru -
33
Co
sta
Ric
a -
19
Thai
lan
d -
29
Uru
guay
-4
7
Ch
ile -
36
Slo
vak
Rep
ub
lic -
35
Bu
lgar
ia -
65
Lith
uan
ia -
53
Cro
atia
-3
8
Gre
ece
-6
8
Hu
nga
ry -
48
Isra
el -
60
Ru
ssia
-4
0
Ital
y -
40
Spai
n
Fran
ce -
19
Be
lgiu
m -
12
Latv
ia -
51
Ice
lan
d -
25
Slo
ven
ia -
28
Luxe
mb
ou
rg -
46
OEC
D a
vera
ge -
29
B-S
-J-G
(C
hin
a) -
33
Po
rtu
gal
-50
Au
stri
a -
30
Net
her
lan
ds
-2
4
Cze
ch R
epu
blic
-4
6
Ch
ine
se T
aip
ei
Au
stra
lia 1
4
Un
ite
d K
ingd
om
-1
4
Mac
ao (
Ch
ina)
Swed
en
-3
9
De
nm
ark
-2
1
Fin
lan
d -
29
Ger
man
y -
22
Esto
nia
-4
2
New
Zea
lan
d -
29
Ko
rea
-2
4
Ho
ng
Ko
ng
(Ch
ina)
-3
4
Jap
an 1
4
Sin
gap
ore
-1
8
Mean score
Top quarter Third quarter Second quarter Bottom quarterIndex of ICT use at school:
Using ICT and Digital Devices in School and Collaborative Problem Solving Performance
Figure V.3.12
Performance difference between top and bottom quarters of the index of ICT use at school
In most countries/ economies, use of ICT in school has a negative relationship with Collaborative Problem Solving performance
3. Learning Environment in Science Class
PISA asked students about how often they engage in communication-intensive activities such as
• explaining one’s ideas in science class;
• spending time in the laboratory doing practical experiments;
• arguing about science questions; and
• taking part in class debates about investigations.
Positive relationship between these activities and attitudes towards collaboration
0
1
2
3
I am a goodlistener
I enjoy seeingmy classmatesbe successful
I take intoaccount what
others areinterested in
I enjoyconsidering
differentperspectives
I preferworking as
part of a teamto working
alone
I find thatteams make
betterdecisions than
individuals
I find thatteamwork
raises my ownefficiency
I enjoy co-operating with
peers
Perc
enta
ge-p
oin
t d
iffe
ren
ce
After accounting for gender and students' and schools' socio-economic profile
Before accounting for gender and students' and schools' socio-economic profile
Students who report that more communication-intensive activities take
place in science class have more positive attitudes towards collaboration
Student Interaction in Science Class and Attitudes towards Collaboration (OECD Countries)
Figure V.6.9
Items comprising the index of valuing relationships Items comprising the index of valuing teamwork
Figure V.6.9
Items comprising the index of valuing relationships Items comprising the index of valuing teamwork
0.7
1.9
0.6 0.6
0.8
1.0 1.0
0.7
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
I am a goodlistener
I enjoy seeingmy classmatesbe successful
I take intoaccount what
others areinterested in
I enjoyconsidering
differentperspectives
I preferworking as
part of a teamthan working
alone
I find thatteams make
betterdecisions than
individuals
I find thatteamwork
raises my ownefficiency
I enjoy co-operating with
peers
Pe
recn
tage
-po
int
dif
fere
nce
After accounting for gender, and student and school socio-economic profile
Before accounting for gender, and student and school socio-economic profile
Students who report that more communication-intensive activities take place in science class have more positive attitudes towards
collaboration
Student Interaction in Science Class and Attitudes towards Collaboration (Hong Kong)
4. Disciplinary Environment in School
PISA asked students about
• Being Bullied: e.g. being threatened by other students;
• Truancy: e.g. skipping a school day, some classes or arriving late for school.
Negative relationship between these disciplinary problems and CPS performance and attitudes towards collaboration
-0.30
-0.25
-0.20
-0.15
-0.10
-0.05
0.00
Skipping a wholeday of school
Skipping someclasses
Arriving late forschool
Skipping a wholeday of school
Skipping someclasses
Arriving late forschool
Ch
ange
in in
dex
After accounting for gender and students' and schools' socio-economic profile
Before accounting for gender and students' and schools' socio-economic profile
Student Truancy and Attitudes towards Collaboration (OECD Countries)
Figure V.6.7
Index of valuing relationships Index of valuing teamwork
Students who play truant are more likely to show negative attitudes towards
collaboration
Student Truancy and Attitudes towards Collaboration (Hong Kong)
Figure V.6.7
-0.35
-0.30
-0.25
-0.20
-0.15
-0.10
-0.05
0.00
0.05
Skipping a whole day ofschool
Skipping some classes Arriving late for school
Dif
fere
nce
Index of valuing relationships
-0.35
-0.30
-0.25
-0.20
-0.15
-0.10
-0.05
0.00
0.05
Skipping a whole day ofschool
Skipping some classes Arriving late for school
Dif
fere
nce
Index of valuing teamwork
Before accounting for gender and students' and schools' socio-economic profile After accounting for gender and students' and schools' socio-economic profile
Students who play truant are more likely to show negative attitudes towards
collaboration
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Luxe
mb
ou
rg
Gre
ece
Sin
gap
ore
Un
ite
d S
tate
s
No
rway
Mac
ao (
Ch
ina)
Spai
n
Can
ada
New
Zea
lan
d
De
nm
ark
Ch
ine
se T
aip
ei
Ho
ng
Ko
ng
(Ch
ina)
Cze
ch R
epu
blic
Fin
lan
d
Esto
nia
Un
ite
d A
rab
Em
irat
es
Au
stra
lia
Po
rtu
gal
B-S
-J-G
(C
hin
a)
Thai
lan
d
Swed
en
OEC
D a
vera
ge
Slo
ven
ia
Pe
ru
Ice
lan
d
Latv
ia
Ch
ile
Slo
vak
Rep
ub
lic
Bra
zil
Mo
nte
ne
gro
Au
stri
a
Co
lom
bia
Cro
atia
Jap
an
Bu
lgar
ia
Lith
uan
ia
Un
ite
d K
ingd
om
Uru
guay
Ru
ssia
Be
lgiu
m
Net
her
lan
ds
Hu
nga
ry
Me
xico
Turk
ey
Ger
man
y
Tun
isia
Fran
ce
Co
sta
Ric
a
Ko
rea
Sco
re-p
oin
t d
iffe
ren
ce
At the school level At the student level
Being Bullied: Students Being Threatened by Other Students and Collaborative Problem Solving Performance
Figure V.7.3
In most countries, students score higher when they reported not
being threatened by other students
Change in score after accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile
Being Bullied: Percentage of Hong Kong is Higher Than OECD Average
40
2 2.3
5.8 6.3 6.9 7 7.4 7.5 8.3 8.5 8.6 8.7 9.1 9.2 9.5 9.7 9.9 10 10.1 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.5 10.7 10.8 11 11 11.5 11.6 11.6 11.9 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.8 13.5 13.5 14 14.7 14.9 14.9 15.1 15.3 15.3 15.4 16 16.8 18.1 18.5 18.8 19.4 20.2 21.1
23.4 24.5 25.6
05
1015202530
Ko
rea
Ch
ine
se T
aip
eiG
erm
any
Net
her
lan
ds
Mo
nte
ne
gro
Po
rtu
gal
Ru
ssia
n…
Ice
lan
dB
razi
lLu
xem
bo
urg
Co
sta
Ric
aFr
ance
Swit
zerl
and
Do
min
ican
…H
un
gary
Spai
nTu
rke
yC
hile
Gre
ece
Ire
lan
dU
rugu
ayB
elg
ium
Po
lan
dC
hin
a (B
-S-J
-G)
Un
ite
d S
tate
sA
ust
ria
Cro
atia
Pe
ruSl
ova
k R
epu
blic
Mac
ao-C
hin
aO
ECD
Ave
rage
De
nm
ark
Co
lom
bia
Lith
uan
iaN
orw
aySl
ove
nia
Fin
lan
dEs
ton
iaU
nit
ed
Kin
gdo
mSi
nga
po
reTh
aila
nd
Me
xico
Can
ada
Cyp
rus
Mal
aysi
aA
ust
ralia
Swed
en
New
Zea
lan
dJa
pan
Cze
ch R
epu
blic
Un
ite
d A
rab
…H
on
g K
on
g-C
hin
aQ
atar
Bu
lgar
iaTu
nis
iaLa
tvia
Percentage of students reported physically bullied in school (PISA2015)
% reported get hit or pushed around by other students
5. Parent Factors
Parental Involvement
• Science activity
• Academic communication
• Social communication
Emotional Support
• Emotional support (student report)
• Emotional support (parent report)
41
Items for Science Activity, Academic and Social Communication
PISA asked parents about their child’s engagement in science activities at about age 10 such as: • Watching TV programmes about science • Reading books on scientific discoveries
PISA asked parents about their academic communication with their child. Examples are: • Helping my child with his/her science homework • Asking how my child is performing in science class PISA asked parents about their social communication with their child. Examples are: • Eating dinner with my child around a table • Spending time just talking to my child
42
Parental Involvement Indices and Collaborative Problem Solving Performance (Hong Kong)
43
533
542
530
542
550
540
549
545 545 543
528
551
510
520
530
540
550
560
Previous science activities Current academiccommunication
Current socialcommunication
Co
llab
ora
tive
Pro
ble
m S
olv
ing
Mea
n S
core
Bottom quarter Second quarter Third quarter Top quarter
Parental social communication is the most important!
PISA asked parents about their emotional support for their child. Examples are:
• I am interested in my child’s school activities
• I encourage my child to be confident
PISA asked students about their parents’ emotional support for them. Examples are:
• My parents are interested in my school activities
• My parents encourage me to be confident
44
Items for Emotional Support
535
530
537
540
547
550
545 546
520
530
540
550
560
Parent Emotional support(student report)
Parent Emotional support(parent report)
Co
llab
ora
tive
Pro
ble
m S
olv
ing
Mea
n S
core
Bottom quarter Second quarter Third quarter Top quarter
Parental Support Indices and Collaborative Problem Solving Performance (Hong Kong)
45
Parental emotional support is the most important!
Parent Factors and Collaborative Problem Solving Performance (Hong Kong)
46
Parental Factors and Attitudes towards Collaboration (Hong Kong)
47
Parental emotional support (student report) is the most important!
Index of valuing relationships Index of valuing team work
Conclusions
1) Hong Kong students’ performance in CBA Collaborative Problem Solving Similar to their performances in CBA science, reading and mathematics in
PISA 2015, Hong Kong students’ performance in Collaborative Problem Solving are among the top 10 of all participating countries and economies
2) Low impact of SES on CBA Collaborative Problem Solving performance Socio-economic status of Hong Kong students has a relatively small
impact on their Collaborative Problem Solving performance
Among all participating countries and economies, Hong Kong belongs to the group of high performance/ low socio-economic impact countries and economies
48
Conclusions 3) Gender gap in CBA Collaborative Problem Solving
Hong Kong girls outperform boys in Collaborative Problem Solving
4) Immigrant students’ disadvantage in CBA Collaborative Problem Solving Similarly to CBA science, reading and mathematics, immigrant students
in Hong Kong perform significantly more poorly than native students in Collaborative Problem Solving
5) Attitudes towards Collaborative Problem Solving Hong Kong students’ attitudes of “valuing relationships” and “valuing
teamwork” are near to international average
Students’ attitude of “valuing relationships” has a positive relationship whereas attitude of “valuing teamwork” has a negative relationship with Collaborative Problem Solving performance
49
Conclusions 6) ICT resources in Family
A great majority of Hong Kong students (93%) have access to computers and internet at home
Students having access to computers at home perform better than those without in Collaborative Problem Solving
7) Online activities Moderate users of ICT at home perform better than frequent users or non-
users in Collaborative Problem Solving
8) Learning environment in class and in school
Positive relationship between interactive science activities and attitudes towards collaboration
Negative association between truancy and attitudes towards collaboration
Negative association between bullying and Collaborative Problem Solving performance
9) Family factors Social communication and emotional support have positive relationships
with Collaborative Problem Solving performance and attitudes 50
Thank you!
For further information:
OECD/PISA
Website: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/
Email: [email protected]
HKCISA Centre
Website: www.fed.cuhk.edu.hk/~hkcisa
Email: [email protected]
HK
PIS
A
