Educational Outcomes of Middle School in the Context of International Research

The article describes the three main international programs assessing the quality of educational outcomes – PISA, TIMSS, and PIRLS. Results of the Russian students in comparison with international average and states-leaders results show the gap especially on scales concerning the students’ ability to apply the school knowledge to real life situations. The unique configuration of Russian students’ results in different studies is identified and described. High level of results in primary school (PIRLS) and low level in medium school indicate that the gap is localized exactly at the second stage of education. Further analysis demonstrates that the Russian results are unique and reflect the commitment of the Russian educational system to the principles of academic orientation (high level of substantive results and low ability to apply them in my life). The psychological and pedagogical aspects of school life are presented and analyzed as follows: personal relationships of teachers and students, disciplinary climate, forms of pupils’ encouragement to learning. It is shown that these indicators in Russia are strongly positive for students’ responses, and often negative for teachers. It is argued that the impact of these indicators has an important potential of development of the Russian educational system. Authors believe that the described peculiarities reflect the real discrepancies in Russian school and can be a resource for the development of the Russian school.

1. Agranovich M.L., Kovaleva G.S., Polivanova K.N., Fateeva A.V. Rossiiskoe obrazovanie v kon­tekste mezhdunarodnykh indikatorov. Analiticheskii doklad [Russian education in the context of inter­national indicators. Analytical report]. Moscow: IF «Sentyabr’», 2010. 184 p.
2. Polivanova K.N. (ed.) Kachestvo obrazovaniya v rossiiskoi shkole: po rezul’tatam mezhdunarodnykh issledovanii [The quality of education in Russian schools: the results of international studies]. Mos­cow: Logos, 2006. 208 p.
3. Frumin I.D. (ed.) Neozhidannaya pobeda: ros­siiskie shkol’niki chitayut luchshe drugikh [Unex­pected victory: Russian pupils read better than oth­ers]. Moscow: Izd. dom Gos. Un-ta– Vysshei shkoly ekonomiki, 2010. 307 p.
4. Novyi vzglyad na gramotnost’. Po rezul’tatam mezhdunarodnogo issledovaniya PISA-2000 [A new look at literacy. According to the results of an inter­national study PISA-2000]. Moscow: Logos, 2004. 196 p.
5. Kasprzhak A.G. (eds.) Rossiiskaya shkola: ot PISA 2000 k PISA 2003 [Russian school: from PISA 2000 to PISA 2003]. Moscow: Logos, 2006.
6. Tyumeneva Yu. A., Val’dman A. I., Karnoi M. Chto dayut predmetnye znaniya dlya umeniya pri­menyat’ ikh v novom kontekste. Pervye rezul’taty sravnitel’nogo analiza TIMSS-2011 i PISA-2012 [What do subject knowledge give to the ability to ap­ply them in new conditions. First results from studies timss-2011 and pisa-2012]. Voprosy obrazovaniya [Questions of education], 2014, no. 1, pp. 8–24.
7. Bandura A. Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies. Self-Effic. Chang. Soc, 1995. Vol. 15. P. 334.
8. Cohen J. et al. School climate: Research, policy, practice, and teacher education. The Teachers Col­lege Record, 2009. Vol. 111, no. 1. pp. 180–213
9. Gamoran A., Nystrand M. “Taking Students Se­riously”. In Newman F. (ed.) Student Engagement and Achievement in American Secondary Schools, 1992. New York City, New York. Teachers College Press, 1992, pp. 40–62.
10. OECD (2010), PISA 2009 Results: What Makes a School Successful? – Resources, Poli­cies and Practices (Volume IV). Available at: http:// dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264091559-en (Accessed 2.12.2015)
11. OECD (2013), PISA 2012 Results: Ready to learn: Students’ Engagement, Drive and Self-beliefs (Volume 3). PISA OECD Publishing. 2012. Vol. 3. 520 p. Available at: http://dx.doi. org/10.1787/97892642091170-en (Accessed 2.12.2015)