top of page

Things you probably didn't know about PISA


The recent PISA results have made the news for Malaysia’s underperformance, casting a spotlight on the nation's education system. But there's more to PISA than meets the eye. This global measure has set educational standards and provided a clear picture of where countries stand in relation to each other. While Malaysia's scores have raised concerns, PISA’s in-depth analysis offers a broader perspective that extends beyond mere rankings — it provides actionable data that can help nations like Malaysia pinpoint specific areas for improvement. As a tool for informing educational reform and policy innovation, here are some facets of PISA that you probably didn't know about.  


The OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) has been around for over 2 decades and has been the yardstick for understanding 15-year-old students’ capabilities in terms of mathematics, reading, and science from different economics and regions. In the latest PISA, Malaysian students’ performance in all three tested categories has declined and fallen to the lower quartile. Alarmingly, the signs of decline predated the COVID pandemic, and among the ASEAN countries, the plunge in Malaysia is the most drastic. 


The unimpressive PISA results certainly do not bode well for the country’s decades-long, yet-to-be-realised aspiration of becoming a high-income country. In realising that aspiration and enhancing our global competitiveness, the government has laid out the 2013-2025 Malaysian Education Blueprint (MEB). A centrepiece of the MEB is the emphasis on STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics), the importance of which cannot be overstated in today’s technology- and data-driven world. Yet, Malaysian students’ scores in mathematics and science are well below the OECD average, putting the effectiveness of the MEB in question. 


A Brief Background of PISA


PISA was first implemented in 2000 and is held every three years with the exception of 2021, which was postponed to 2022 in order to "reflect post-COVID difficulties" (OECD, 2023). According to OECD (n.d.), 15-year-olds are selected as the study subjects because "it is when young people in most OECD countries are nearing the end of compulsory education." For sampling, schools with diverse populations within the same nation are chosen to offer greater inclusion and to have a wider variety of data. In the first assessment, 43 countries and economies participated in PISA, and the number almost doubled in the latest 2022 assessment to 81. 


In addition to academic assessment on mathematics, science, reading and creative thinking, the students are also given a questionnaire which surveys their "attitudes, dispositions and beliefs, their homes, and their school and learning experiences" (OECD, 2023b). There are other questionnaires answered by the directors of the schools that provide additional information on the school’s background regarding management, organisation, and learning environment. 


Malaysia’s Latest Overall Performance 


In mathematics, the main focus of PISA 2022, Malaysian students scored an average of 409 points, trailing behind the OECD average of 472 points, representing roughly 3 years of formal schooling behind the OECD average. Notably, only 41% of Malaysian students attained at least Level 2 proficiency, essential for basic mathematical comprehension. Moreover, a mere 1% were top performers, which would suggest a scarcity of competency in mathematics among local 15-year-olds. 


Putting things into perspective, Malaysian students were roughly 8 years behind Singaporean students, who scored 575 points in mathematics. A staggering 92% of Singaporean students achieved at least Level 2 proficiency, and 41% were top performers. Vietnam, closer to the OECD average, scored 460 points on average, which would suggest roughly 2-3 years of formal schooling ahead of Malaysia. The country had 72% of students achieving Level 2 proficiency and 5% reading top performer status. 


In reading, Malaysian students averaged 388 points, below the OECD average of 476 points, Singaporean students’ average of 543 points, and Vietnamese students’ average of 462 points. In science, Malaysia scored an average of 416 points, also below the OECD average and that of Singapore and Vietnam. 


Source: OECD, 2022


In fact, without comparing with other countries but looking at the previous test in 2018, Malaysia’s performance declined in all key subjects. This downward trend in mathematics was particularly notable, as it fell below the scores recorded in 2012. Additionally, mean scores in reading and science in 2022 returned to levels akin to those observed a decade ago, negating the improvements made since. 


A Common Assessment Benchmark 


While there are credible criticisms of PISA, its relevance should not be dismissed. As economies become more globalised, there is a need for a common assessment standard to assess and compare education levels so as to facilitate the mobility of labour and human resource management (Sjøberg, 2015; Grek, 2009). To that end, PISA represents the first-ever attempt by the OECD to create an international standard for comparison across different education systems, and the programme is very well-funded and the largest in scale. Thus, notwithstanding its limitations, PISA does carry reference value in its own right, providing insights into the differential academic attainments across countries and the structural differences leading to the discrepancy in academic achievements. 


Informing Policy-making


While the comparative performance of students has garnered the most attention, the PISA goes beyond assessing students’ academic competence. The report also covers aspects of education policies, thus serving as a proxy for school system performance, as well as covering the socio-economic circumstances of the different countries, providing additional context for the interpretation of students’ PISA scores. Thus, PISA is considered to have an explicit policy orientation, providing useful insights that would prompt policymakers to implement measures to address shortcomings which account for differential performances (Breakspear, 2014). For example, the discovery of surprisingly low PISA performance might function as a spur for significant policy reforms, a phenomenon known as 'PISA shock' (Breakspear, 2014). Germany, Denmark, and Japan have all experienced this, prompting significant revisions in reaction to their PISA scores (Ertl, 2007; Egelund, 2008; Takayama, 2008). Germany, for example, responded to its PISA results in 2000 by creating national standards and providing greater support to disadvantaged kids, notably those from immigrant families (Ertl, 2007). 


What Policy Insights Can Malaysia Draw? 


It is reported that Malaysia is among the few nations which observe the highest increase in the share of socio-economically disadvantaged low-performing students (>10%). The country also has a low index of social inclusion, which means the schools in Malaysia are socially not heterogeneous, implying that the schools are socio-economically segregated. For instance, schools in rural areas tend to comprise only students coming from B40 families. Thus, according to PISA, students in Malaysia would best benefit from socio-economically targeted policies, which “aim to compensate for educational inequalities by providing additional resources, support or assistance to disadvantaged students and schools”. 


A separate study focusing on Malaysia’s PISA scores in 2009 and 2012 found that the students underperformed despite heavy public expenditure on education, highlighting an issue of ineffective resource allocation (Thien, 2016). Among other factors are the quality of teachers, and teacher training and professional development, which were more likely the contributing factors of Malaysia’s poor performance. Unlike Korea and Singapore, where only top-tier graduates are recruited and trained as teachers, Malaysia fails to attract high-performing individuals into the education sector, with most applicants not meeting the desired academic requirements (Sander et al., 2013). 


Criticisms of PISA


Despite its widespread use and acceptance as a benchmark, a singular emphasis should not be attributed to PISA results and policy recommendations, considering the significant level of criticism the program has received over the past 2 decades. These criticisms include the lack of transparency in methodology (Araujo, Saltelli and Schnepf, 2017) and underlying issues in the methodology of analysis (Zhao, 2020). These claims have led to PISA’s results being used to analyse education outcomes between countries and, over time, to be fundamentally flawed (Hopmann, Brinek and Retzl, 2007).\


Doubts have also been raised with regard to the rationale of the PISA test. According to the OECD, the PISA “assesses the extent to which 15-year-old students near the end of their compulsory education have acquired the knowledge and skills essential for full participation in modern societies.” (OECD, 2023). This claim has been found to lack any empirical evidence since the introduction of the PISA in 1998 (Hopmann, Brinek and Retzl, 2007). Furthermore, no correlation has been observed between an increase in PISA outcomes and economic growth. PISA has also been criticised in its assumption of similar life skills across substantially different countries, as noted by (Sjøberg 2015, p. 116): “One can hardly assume that the 15-year olds in e.g. USA, Japan, Turkey, Mexico and Norway are preparing for the same challenges and that they need identical life skills and competencies”.


PISA’s policy recommendations and its influence on education has also been subject to significant criticism. These include claims such that hiring top graduates as teachers creates positive educational outcomes, which has not been shown to be the case (Zhao, 2020). It has also helped prevent innovation in education systems, instead homogenising education systems, with countries pursuing short-term goals with the aim of boosting PISA results rather than long-term structural changes (The Guardian, 2014) (Zhao, 2020), which are considered harmful to educational systems.


Conclusion


The latest PISA results clearly illustrate that Malaysia has a serious education issue, which cannot be mitigated by the various criticisms directed against PISA. A recent survey among high school students has found that more than 70% of them do not intend to pursue higher education, which may be deemed befitting with unsatisfactory academic performance. That is concerning. The matter in question is as much an economic one as it is an educational one. The academic attainment of students directly affects the quality of Malaysian human capital, and ultimately dictates the structure, productivity and efficiency of the future economy. 


While the PISA scores certainly do not encapsulate the entirety of Malaysia’s education landscape, they certainly highlight critical areas needing urgent attention and reform. This will not only improve PISA rankings but also cultivate a well-rounded, globally competitive, and highly-skilled workforce, crucial for paving the way for Malaysia to move up the value chain and, eventually, transition to a high-income economy. This concerted effort in revamping the education system is not just a response to a global assessment but a strategic move towards sustainable, long-term national development. 


Authors: Lau Hui Geng, Abdul Mugeeth, and Nur Farhana Khairul Azhar. 


References


Sander, F. G., Jalil, I. N., Ali, R., Lathapipat, D., Jithitikulchai, T., Taglioni, D., ... & Verghis, M. (2013). Malaysia economic monitor: high-performing education. Disclosure. 


Thien, L. M. (2016). Malaysian students’ performance in mathematics literacy in PISA from gender and socioeconomic status perspectives. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(4), 657-666.


Ertl, H. (2007). Educational standards and the changing discourse on education: The reception and consequences of the PISA study in Germany. In Comparative Inquiry and Educational Policy Making (pp. 75-90). Routledge.


Breakspear, S. (2014, November). How does PISA shape education policy making? Why how we measure learning determines what counts in education. In Centre for Strategic Education: Seminar Series (Vol. 240, p. 16).


Egelund, N. (2008). The value of international comparative studies of achievement–a Danish perspective. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 15(3), 245-251.


Takayama, K. (2008). The politics of international league tables: PISA in Japan’s achievement crisis debate. Comparative Education, 44(4), 387-407.


Grek, S. (2009). Governing by numbers: The PISA ‘effect’in Europe. Journal of education policy, 24(1), 23-37. 


Sjøberg, S. (2015). PISA and global educational governance–A critique of the project, its uses and implications. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11(1), 111-127.


Waldow, F. (2009). What PISA Did and Did Not Do: Germany after the ‘PISA-shock’. European Educational Research Journal, 8(3), 476-483. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2009.8.3.476


OECD (n.d.). FAQ - PISA. [online] www.oecd.org. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisafaq/. 


OECD (n.d.). Innovation - PISA. [online] www.oecd.org. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/pisa/innovation/. 


OECD (2019). PISA . [online] Oecd.org. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/pisa/. 


OECD (2023a). PISA 2022 Assessment and Analytical Framework. OECD Publishing. 


OECD (2023b). PISA 2022 Results (Volume I) The State of Learning and Equity in Education. OECD Publishing. 









Comments

© Copyright 2025-2026. All rights reserved.
A student society of University of Nottingham Malaysia

bottom of page