PISA 2006: An assessment of scientific literacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article introduces the essential features of the science component of 2006 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA). Administered every 3 years, PISA alternates emphasis on Reading, Mathematics, and Science Literacy. In 2006, PISA emphasized science. This article discusses PISA's definition of scientific literacy, the three competencies that constitute scientific literacy, the contexts used for assessment units and items, the role of scientific knowledge, and the importance placed on attitude toward science. PISA 2006 included a student test, a student questionnaire, and a questionnaire for school administrators. The student test employed a balanced incomplete block design involving thirteen 30‐minute clusters of items, including nine science clusters. The 13 clusters were arranged into thirteen 2‐hour booklets and each sampled student was assigned one booklet at random. Mean literacy scores are presented for all participating countries, and the percentages of OECD students at the six levels of proficiency are given for the combined scale and for the competency scales. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 46: 865–883, 2009
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".