Understanding the PISA 2018

Science Framework
and its Implications to the
K to 12 Science Curriculum

Rosario M. Belmi, PhD

Faculty of Science Technology and Mathematics
Philippine Normal University
 Goals of the Topic 1 in Module 3
• Dissect the different aspects of the PISA framework and visualize how
they are reflected in every assessment item.

• Critically examine the curriculum mapping done by several researches

presented in the ppt presentation

• Reflect and compare the findings / conclusions / recommendations

with how you actually see and use the K to 12 Science Curriculum vis a
vis your intentions to improve your quality of teaching..
 SHARING POINTS

TOPIC 1 TOPIC 2 TOPIC 3

PISA 2018 TIMSS 2019 Researches on
Science Assessment Curriculum
Framework Framework Mapping and
more..
 PISA is the OECD's Programme for International Student Assessment.

It measures 15-year-olds’ ability to use their reading, mathematics and science

knowledge and skills to meet real-life challenges.

• https://www.
oecd.org/pisa
/

Source: https://www.oecd.org/pisa/
 PISA 2018 Science
Framework
• Looks into the following aspects:

• Contexts
• Domains of Knowledge
• Level of Cognitive Demand
• Scientific Literacy Competencies
 Contexts for Assessment Items
• PISA 2018 assesses scientific knowledge using contexts that raised pertinent
issues that were often relevant to the science education curricula of
participating countries.

• The context may involve technology or, in some cases, a historical element
that may be used to assess students’ understanding of the processes and
practices involved in advancing scientific knowledge.

• These contexts have been chosen in light of their relevance to students’

interests and lives and because they are the areas in which scientific literacy
has particular value in enhancing and sustaining quality of life and in the
development of public policy. Source: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org
 National /Local

Personal

Local / National
Global
 Knowledge in Assessment Items
PISA 2018 believes that in the process of acquiring specific scientific literacy
competencies, scientific knowledge is inevitable. In this assessment framework
3 forms of knowledge is considered:

1. Content Knowledge

• The content knowledge that PISA assesses is selected from the major fields of physics,
chemistry, biology, and earth and space sciences
• Is relevant to real-life situations
• Represents an important scientific concept or major explanatory theory that has enduring
utility;
• Is appropriate to the developmental level of 15-year-olds. Source: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org
Prepared by: Rosario M. Belmi, PhD
Faculty of Science Technology and Mathematics
Philippine Normal University
Physical-Chemistry Earth Systems

Living Systems
Physical-Physics
 Knowledge in Assessment Items
In this assessment framework 3 forms of knowledge is considered:

2. Procedural Knowledge
• knowledge needed to both to undertake scientific enquiry and engagement
• knowledge of the standard concepts and procedures essential to scientific enquiry
that underpins the collection, analysis and interpretation of scientific data and the
critical review of the evidence that might be used to support particular claims
• knowledge that help produce well-established concepts and methods such as the
notion of dependent and independent variables, the control of variables, various types
of measurement and forms of error, methods for minimizing error, a recognition of
common patterns observed in data, and methods of presenting data
Source: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org
Prepared by: Rosario M. Belmi, PhD
Faculty of Science Technology and Mathematics
Philippine Normal University
 Procedural

Prepared by: Rosario M. Belmi, PhD

Faculty of Science Technology and Mathematics
Philippine Normal University
 Knowledge in Assessment Items
In this assessment framework 3 forms of knowledge is considered:

3. Epistemic Knowledge
• knowledge of the constructs and defining features essential to the process of
knowledge building in science (e.g. hypotheses, theories and observations) and
their role in justifying the knowledge produced by science (Duschl, 2008)
• knowledge used to explain, with examples, the difference between a scientific
theory and a hypothesis or between a scientific fact and an observation
• knowledge required to explain (provides a rationale) why the use of the control
of variables strategy is central to establishing scientific knowledge
Source: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org
Prepared by: Rosario M. Belmi, PhD
Faculty of Science Technology and Mathematics
Philippine Normal University
 Epistemic

Prepared by: Rosario M. Belmi, PhD

Faculty of Science Technology and Mathematics
Philippine Normal University
 Level of Cognitive Demand of Assessment Items
• The definition of levels of cognitive demand within the assessment of scientific
literacy and across all three competencies of the framework is a key feature where
each PISA item can be mapped based on the depth of knowledge on the following
categories /level:

1. Low (L) Carrying out a one-step procedure, such as recalling a fact, term, principle or concept
or locating a single point of information from a graph or table.
2. Medium (M) Using and applying conceptual knowledge to describe or explain phenomena;
selecting appropriate procedures involving two or more steps; organising or displaying data; or
interpreting or using simple data sets or graphs.
3. High (H) Analysing complex information or data; synthesising or evaluating evidence; justifying;
reasoning given various sources; developing a plan or sequence of steps to approach a
problem.
Source: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org
LEVEL OF COGNITIVE DEMAND

• Levels of Cognitive Demand

• - in three levels: low, medium and high
• - adapted by the PISA framework from
Webb’s Depth of Knowledge grid which is
determined by the complexity and range of
both the content and the task required (OECD,
2019)
• - the model is originally captured in four levels
namely: 1) Level 1 (recall); 2) Level 2 (using
skills and / or conceptual knowledge; 3) Level 3
(strategic thinking); and 4) Level 4 (extended
thinking) (Webb, 1997; 2006).

Prepared by: Rosario M. Belmi, PhD

Faculty of Science Technology and Mathematics
Philippine Normal University
 Medium

Low High
 - perceived to be a key competency which is defined in
terms of the ability to use knowledge and information
interactively (Rychen and Salganik, 2001)

Two scenarios that exemplifies how people variably make use of their knowledge/information
in science in relation to their way of life and thinking, preferences and valuation of things.
Two opinions that exemplifies how economist and medical experts variably make use of their
knowledge/information on COVID-19 in making vital decisions for the people
 Scientific Literacy Competencies in Assessment Items
• All these competencies are framed as actions, conveying what the
scientifically literate person both understands and is capable of doing.

Competency 1: Explaining phenomena scientifically

-Recognising, offering and evaluating explanations for a range of natural and technological phenomena.
Competency 2: Evaluating and designing scientific enquiry
-Describing and appraising scientific investigations and proposing ways of addressing questions
scientifically.
Competency 3: Interpreting data and evidence scientifically
-Analysing and evaluating data, claims and arguments in a variety of representations and drawing
appropriate scientific conclusions.
Source: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org
SCIENTIFIC LITERACY COMPETENCIES:

They cut across the 3 knowledge domains and levels of cognitive

demand.

• Types of Scientific Literacy

Competencies
• - Explaining phenomena scientifically
• - Evaluate and design scientific
enquiry
• - Interpret data and evidence
scientifically

Prepared by: Rosario M. Belmi, PhD

Faculty of Science Technology and Mathematics
Philippine Normal University
Prepared by: Rosario M. Belmi, PhD
Faculty of Science Technology and Mathematics
Philippine Normal University
Specific competency :
Offering explanatory hypothesis
Specific competency :
Identifying the question being
explored in the study
Prepared by: Rosario M. Belmi, PhD
Faculty of Science Technology and Mathematics
Philippine Normal University
Specific competency :
Analyze and interpret data and draw
appropriate conclusions
 SHARING POINTS

TOPIC 1 TOPIC 2 TOPIC 3

PISA 2018 TIMSS 2019 Researches on
Science Assessment Curriculum
Framework Framework Mapping and
more..
Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)

• a well-established international assessment of mathematics and

science at the fourth and eighth grades

• TIMSS 2019 is the most recent in the TIMSS trend series, which
began with the first assessments in 1995 and continued every
four years—1999, 2003, 2007, 2011, 2015, and 2019

• It is directed by the TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center in

the Lynch School of Education at Boston College.
Target Percentages of the TIMSS 2019 Science Assessment
Devoted to Content Domains at the Fourth Grade

Content Domains Percentages

Life Science 45%
Physical Science 35%
Earth Science 20%
CONTENT DOMAIN: Sample Questions - 4th Grade
Target Percentages of the TIMSS 2019 Science Assessment
Devoted to Content Domains at the Eighth Grade

Content Domains Percentages

Biology 35%
Chemistry 20%
Physics 25%
Earth Science 20%
CONTENT DOMAIN: Sample Questions - 8th Grade
 Target Percentages of the TIMSS 2019 Science Assessment
Devoted to Cognitive Domains at the Fourth and Eighth Grade

Cognitive Domains Percentages

Fourth Grade Eighth Grade
Knowing 40% 35%
Applying 40% 35%
Reasoning 20% 30%
 Sample Questions
Knowing
Grade 4 (Physical Science)
 Sample Questions
Knowing
Grade 8 (Biology)
 Sample Questions
Applying
Grade 4 (Life Science)
 Sample Questions
Applying
Grade 8 (Earth Science)
 Sample Questions
Reasoning
Grade 4 (Earth Science)
Sample Questions
Reasoning

Grade 8 (Chemistry)
 TIMSS Philippines Participation Over the Years
[Performance in Science]

1995 1999 2003 2019

G4 G8 G8 G4 G8 G4 G8
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
23rd 58th
What does the official report say?
 SHARING POINTS

TOPIC 1 TOPIC 2 TOPIC 3

PISA 2018 TIMSS 2019 Researches on
Science Assessment Curriculum
Framework Framework Mapping and
more..
 Why is the
Philippine
performance
this way?
- analysis of the Kto12
Science Curriculum for
Grades 7 to 10 vis-a-
vis the PISA 2018
Science Framework

- examine the degree of

alignment and identify
possible gaps on the
knowledge domains
(content, procedural
and epistemic),
scientific literacy
competencies, and
levels of cognitive
demand.
 Methods
Phase 1 involved mapping of the Grades 7 to 10 Science curriculum components such as content
standards, performance standards, and learning competencies vis-a-vis the following components in the
PISA 2018 Science framework: 1) content and knowledge domains; 2) learning competencies; and 3)
levels of cognitive demands as the standard.

Part of the mapping involved the assessment of the explicitness and implicitness of the content topics
covered.

Coherence of the learning competencies and the levels of cognitive demand were also analyzed based
on verbal cues of cognitive behavior used in competencies in the Kto12 science curriculum since there
is no specific categorization of scientific literacies and levels of cognitive demand found.
Characterization of levels of cognition were also grounded on the PISA literacy competencies and levels
of proficiency

Phase 2 involved an inter-analyst deliberation of the results of the mapping done after determining the
identified gaps/alignments and the coherence of the components.
Prepared by: Rosario M. Belmi, PhD
Faculty of Science Technology and Mathematics
Philippine Normal University
Findings: CONTENT Knowledge Mapping

The Science Curriculum is 98% aligned with the content

domains of PISA. However, it does not explicity include
the history of the earth and universe which is a content
of PISA
Findings: PROCEDURAL Knowledge Mapping

• Given that there are 87

procedural knowledge-based
competencies identified out of the
162 competencies mapped in the
Kto12 curriculum, it is evident
that more than half of the total
competencies in the curriculum
are procedural knowledge-based.
Findings: EPISTEMIC Knowledge Mapping
Grade 7 is expected to be allotted
with more content-based
competencies, and Grades 9 and
10 with more challenging and
complex procedural and
epistemic knowledge-based
competencies. But apparently,
Grade 8 is overwhelmingly
packed with many competencies
be it content, procedural or
epistemic. On the other hand,
Grade 10 does not even
represent any of the epistemic
competencies.
 Implications: Knowledge Mapping
There seems to be an imbalance in the distribution of content, procedural and
epistemic knowledge domains within and across grades 7-10 levels.

The spiral progression structure of the curriculum pre-supposes that the level
of complexity and depth of knowledge goes with increasing grade level.

While all these three domains of knowledge are equally important to be

developed in any level of learning progression, the application of procedural
and epistemic knowledge will prove to be useful for learners as they move to
higher grade levels where they are expected to perform more complicated
tasks.
Findings: SCIENTIFIC LITERACY COMPETENCIES Mapping
Findings: SCIENTIFIC LITERACY COMPETENCIES Mapping
• Majority of the learning
competencies in the K to12
Curriculum is focused on
the low-level sub-skills of
identifying, using, and
generating explanatory
models and
representations.
• Grade 10 which is
expected to be more
exposed with higher
competencies of
interpreting and evaluating
have the greatest
percentage of
representation of the
explaining competencies
 Implications: Competency Mapping
If the competency of explaining represents a lower level of cognitive demand among the three
clusters of competencies in the PISA 2018 Science Framework, then it is expected that these
competencies should be mastered in the lower grades, and the more complex set of scientific
literacies like interpreting and evaluating must gradually be mastered in the higher grades. Skills
that elicit higher levels of cognitive demand belong to the highest end of the continuum of the
cognitive process (Davis & Buckendahl, 2011),

Interpreting data is a core activity of all scientists and is therefore essential in scientific literacy
(OECD, 2018), and yet the K to 12 Science Curriculum barely reflected these competencies along
with evaluating scientific studies.

This observation is important to note since the K to 12 Science Curriculum Framework was
designed to be learner-centered and inquiry-based, emphasizing the use of evidence in
constructing explanations more than just simply knowing facts or reading about them.
Findings: LEVEL OF COGNITIVE DEMAND Mapping
• Low level cognitive demand
increases in number of
representations as the
grade level increases
• On the other hand, higher
levels of cognitive demand
(medium and high levels)
relatively decreases as the
grade level increases.
• With reference to PISA
distribution on far-right bar,
K to 12 Curriculum has
greater percentage of low-
level cognitive demand
competencies.
 Level of Proficiency vis a vis Level of Cognitive Demand

HIGH
Evaluating
Interpreting

MEDIUM
Evaluating
Interpreting

LOW
Explaining
 Scientific Literacy Competencies vis a vis Levels of Cognitive Demand
Complexity of PISA Item Format
LOW
Explaining
Evaluating
Interpreting

MEDIUM TO HIGH
Explaining
Evaluating
Interpreting
 Implications: Level of Cognitive Demand Mapping

The result runs contrary to the more logical learning goal which is to increasingly develop
among students more complex and deeper thinking skills as they age and go up one grade
level each year.
In both observations (competency and level of cognitive demand mapping), the concern
lies in the distribution of the competencies vis-a-vis its level of cognitive demand or
complexity, and not on the issue of whether to have them or not in a certain grade level.
This is because the K to 12 Science Curriculum is designed to promote scientific literacy
as early as the formative years of kindergarten.

While the curriculum is faithful in representing majority of the competencies as reflected

in the PISA framework, the balanced distribution and the increasing level of complexity of
such competencies presents some inconsistencies within and across grade levels.
 K I T E General Recommendations
• Kto12 Science Curriculum Review and Update. The science curriculum
should be unpacked and the content topics and learning competencies across
grade levels should be proportionately distributed based on the level of
cognitive demand and proficiency that a progressive learner should acquire. It
should likewise consider the explicit inclusion of content topics (i.e. history of
the Earth and universe).

• Improvement of the Learning Environment. DepEd schools and other

stakeholders (e.g. publishing companies, teacher education institutions)
should take the lead to develop accessible learning and assessment materials
that are similar or responsive to the PISA assessment structure on scientific
literacy
 K I T E General Recommendations
• Teachers’ Upskilling and Re-skilling. A wide-scale information dissemination on the
results of the curriculum review and evaluation needs to be done to make the teachers
understand and find ways to address the gaps in the curriculum they are implementing
considering the global standards for scientific literacy emphasized in PISA.

• Engagement of Stakeholders for Support and Collaboration. A stakeholders’

forum may be initiated by DepEd to disseminate the overall results of the curriculum
evaluation done and share the possible initiatives that can be implemented by any
sector of the society to support the advocacies of Sulong Edukalidad (e.g. publishing
companies hosting and funding meaningful trainings/workshops/seminars;
international agencies or NGOs to finance the upgrading of science laboratory facilities
of schools or put up a sophisticated regional science laboratory center; and local
officials to create city/municipal ordinances to provide funds for internet accessibility in
every public school within their domain.
Source: Directions and Competencies Set in ILSAs: Input to the Philippine Curriculum Reform
Statement of Purpose
Findings: ILSA Directions

PISA and TIMSS envision producing scientifically

literate learners who possess high levels of
cognitive skills and can explain the various
phenomena of the natural and material world.

It is also expected that can apply the scientific

procedures and practices in conducting research
and continue building knowledge that will inform
technology for national and global
advancements.
 Conclusions and Implications: ILSA Directions
The directions and competencies set on
The current structure of
scientific literacy in two ILSAs (i.e. TIMSS
Grade 4 and 8, and PISA) are towards the K to 12 Science
producing scientifically literate learners curriculum meets to a
who possess high levels of cognitive greater extent, the said
skills; can explain the various
phenomena of the natural and material
directions but not to the
world; apply the scientific procedures extent of producing
and practices in conducting research; learners of high levels of
and build knowledge that could inform cognitive skills and who
technology for national and global
advancements. are research – oriented.
 Findings: ILSA Competencies Alignments and Gaps Identified

120

100

80
Percentage

60

40

20

0
Content Cognitive Demand Content Cognitive Demand Types of Knowledge Scientific Literacy Cognitive Demand
TIMSS Grade 4 TIMSS Grade 8 PISA 2018 & 2021 for 15-Yr Olds
% of Alignment with K to 12 % Gap of K to 12

Figure 5: ILSA Science Competencies vis-à-vis K to 12 Science Curriculum

 Findings: ILSA Competencies Alignments and Gaps Identified

There are gaps in the K to 12

Curriculum in Science based on the
directions and competencies of
TIMSS Grade 4 and 8 and PISA and
these are limited to the following:
ASTERISK LEGEND:
1) isolated few but clearly identified * Found in Higher Grade Levels
** Not found in the Curriculum
topics for the content which are
either not included in the curriculum
or implicitly reflected and / or not
found in the targeted grade level but
may however be represented in the
higher grade levels;
 Findings: ILSA Competencies Alignments and Gaps Identified

Gaps

2) minimal if not
lacking scientific
learning competencies
that are focused on
research-related
knowledge and skills
and/or found wanting
in higher grade levels
 Findings: ILSA Competencies Alignments and Gaps Identified

Gaps

3) lacking scientific
literacy competencies
under some specific
evaluating category
and level 6
proficiency is not
represented as well
 Conclusions and Implications: Competencies
Learning competencies in the Science Curriculum are linked to those
competencies considered by both TIMSS and PISA to a large extent.

However, there are clearly identified content in the ILSAs which are implicitly
reflected, not found in the targeted grade level, or not there at all in the
curriculum.
The K to 12 Science Curriculum lacks scientific learning competencies that are
focused on research-related knowledge and skills.
The learning competencies disproportionately reflect more low-level cognitive
skills or imbalance in the distribution of competencies vis-a-vis the various levels
of cognitive demand across grade levels.
 K I T E General Recommendations
Kto12 Science Curriculum
• Revisit and unpack the curriculum to properly situate the appropriate content and
content standards and the level of cognitive demands required in every learning
competency vis-à-vis the grade levels.

Improvement of the Learning Environment.

• Evaluate what actually transpires in every Philippine Science classroom to see if well-
designed Science Curriculum is implemented as intended.
• Provide favorable learning and working science laboratory where simple scientific
research can be conducted even in lower grades.
• Provide for appropriate teaching and learning platforms and alternative mechanisms
to enable student learning despite disturbances—environmental, the pandemic, or
otherwise.
• Introduce research-oriented activities as early as in the studentsʼ lower grade levels.
The level of complexity and sophistication of the experimental designs can be
structured in accordance to their cognitive maturity.
 K I T E General Recommendations
Teachers’ Upskilling and Re-skilling.
• Expose Science teachers to conducting scientific researches to be able to demonstrate and model the research
skills and competencies before their students.
• Deepen teachers’ content knowledge in all four science disciplines, and not just in their specialization given the
spiral approach in teaching the content of science.
• Orient teachers of the concept of scientific literacy and high cognitive level of knowledge.
• Expose teachers to alternative teaching strategies that will increase the learners’ competencies in the
abovementioned aspects.

Engagement of Stakeholders for Support and Collaboration.

• Tap stakeholders to help realize research capability needs in the form of research funding to operationalize
more sophisticated research proposals and/or sponsorship or arrangement with private or public entities for the
use of research facilities or equipment where students can conduct sophisticated scientific research.
• Engage multi-stakeholders in redesigning the structure and format of the assessment tools used in the country,
especially the standardized tests used in public and private schools to be comparable with international
assessments.
• Encourage publishing companies/textbook writers to design science worktext materials (if not have them built-
in the textbooks) that contain engaging activities (involving medium to high level of cognitive demand) to help
elevate the proficiency level of the Filipino learners at least to the OECD level mark.
 PROJECT AIMS

This report comprises the ff:

1. a review of prerequisites
to identify any gaps or
redundancies within the
spiraling of the curriculum

2. a cognitive demand
This report was authored by: comparison to examine the
Therese Bustos consistency of cognitive
Field Rickards
This report was authored by: demand across different
Pam Robertson learning areas within the
Pam Robertson
Julie Dela Cruz
Therese Bustos grade levels
Field Rickards
Marlene Ferido
Lalaine Bagui 3. an international
Julie Dela Cruz comparison to provide an
Thida Kheang
outside perspective on the
emphasis of different topics
and levels of cognitive
demand within the
curriculum.
 Methods
The workshop covered a review of learning competencies as stated within the Curriculum Guide. It
involved the identification of prerequisite concepts and skills – those a student needs to attain prior
to learning the competency in question– and the cognitive load of the competencies. The workshop
included five tasks. The first three tasks identified learning competencies and their prerequisites; the
fourth task explored cognitive demand; and the fifth task involved an international comparison.

COGNITIVE DEMAND COMPARISON

The cognitive demand comparison was designed to examine the consistency in cognitive
demand of learning competencies employing three verbs, or equivalents, used frequently
across different learning areas. The verbs were ‘identify’, ‘explain’ and ‘apply’, which are
present in many learning competencies across all learning areas
• ACT RC study experts within each
of the nine groups were given the
cognitive demand levels for
Science used by Blank, Porter, and
Smithson (2001):
Level 1: Memorise
facts/definitions/formulas

Level 2: Perform procedures/investigate

Level 3: Communicate understanding of

science concepts

Level 4: Analyse information and advance

scientific argument

Level 5: Apply concepts/make connections

Source: ACT RC: Review of the Intended Curriculum Phase 2
Source: ACT RC: Initial Review of the Intended Curriculum (Phase 1)
Initial Intended Curriculum Review
Source: ACT RC: Report of the Intended Curriculum Review
 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The review of the intended curriculum of Grades 3, 6 and 10 within Phase 2 of the overall curriculum
review indicated that the current curricula have a substantial number of essential learning competencies.

While some of the prerequisites of the essential learning competencies were explicitly stated in the
curriculum, others were implicit and/or misplaced.

The inclusion of implicit and misplaced prerequisites may have a negative impact on the implementation of
the intended curriculum in the classroom.

The cognitive demand comparison indicated that the use of verbs is not a reliable indicator of a
competency’s level of cognitive demand. All groups used the same core definitions of levels of cognitive
demand, but it is not possible to verify the consistency of the judgements across groups.

International comparison indicates that while similar topics are taught, the Philippine curriculum tends to
have higher cognitive demand than its comparator countries. (This is not indicative of Grade 10 Science.)
Conclusions and Implications: Comparative Findings on Level of Cognitive Demand

All 3 studies agree that the level of cognitive demand reflected in the K to 12
Curriculum is comparable to a certain extent to international curricula/standards.

For grades 4 and 8 findings (these are the only grade levels comparable for the TIMSS
standard), both ILSA study and ACT RC research presents a full percentage
representation of the various levels of cognitive demand. The same is true for grade 10
mapping for both ACT RC and PNU reports.

The standards by which ACT RC Report (5 levels) and PNU report (3 levels across
scientific literacy and proficiency levels) though may not be clearly comparable mainly
due to the complexity of how PISA framework is structured, still the recommendations
from both reports would show agreements of the general findings of the curriculum
mapping done.
 Reflection Activity Sheet
• Due to the limitation of our online platform
facilitation of this topic (designed for
asynchronous study) and considering the
number of participants, may I invite you to
please answer the Reflection Activity Sheet I
prepared.

• It covers 5-point questions and can be accessed

through this LINK: https://bit.ly/3EeAYoE
This is the end of my
presentation

THANK YOU!!!

You may request a copy of this

material through this email:
[email protected]
 References
REFERENCES
• Balagtas, MU. Belmi, RM, Ngo, DC et al. (20@0. Intenational Large-Scale Assessments: In put to the Philippine Curriculum Reform. Copyrighted and
published by Rex Institute for Student Excelence, Inc. Queon City Philippines. ISBN 978-621-428-389-7
• Belmi, R.M. & Mangali, G.R. (2020). PISA Scientific Literacy Framework vis-à-vis the Kto12 Science Curriculum. In M.U. Balagtas & MA. C. Montealegre
(Eds), Challenges of PISA: The PNU Report (pp.101-141). Philippine Normal University and Rex Institute for Student Excellence, Inc.
• Bustos, T., Rickards, F., Robertson, P. & Dela Cruz, J. (2019). Phase One Curriculum Review: Initial Review of the Intended Curriculum. Report to the Basic
Education Sector Transformation (BEST). Assessment Curriculum and Technology Research Centre (ACTRC). Melbourne and Manila.
• European Commission (EC). Communication from the Commission: Guidelines on COVID-19 in vitro diagnostic tests and their performance. Brussels,
15.4.2020 C(2020) 2391 final. Brussels: EC; [cited 21 April, 2020]. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/testing_kits_communication.pdf.
• OECD website, http://www.oecd.org/pisa/35070367.pdf.
• OECD (2019), “PISA 2018 Science Framework”, in PISA 2018 Assessment and Analytical Framework,
• OECD Publishing, Paris. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/f30da688-en
• OECD (2018), PISA Results in focus 2015, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisa-2015- results-in-focus.pdf
• PISA 2018 National Report of the Philippines December 2019 Department of Education
• Robertson, P., Bustos, T., Rickards, F., Ferido, M., Bagui, L., Dela Cruz, J. & Kheang, T. (2020). Review of the Intended Curriculum. Assessment Curriculum
and Technology Research Centre (ACTRC)
• Rychen, D. and L. Salganik (eds.) (2001), The Definition and Selection of Key Competencies
• Sample PISA Items: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisa-2015-science-test-questions.htm