Assessing educational progress: A comparative analysis of PISA results (2018 vs.

2022) and HDI correlation in the Philippines

Josephine V. Acido * and Dennis G. Caballes

Graduate Program School of Teacher Education, The National Teachers College, Manila, 1001 Metro, Manila, Philippines.

World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2024, 21(01), 462–474

Publication history: Received on 25 November 2023; revised on 01 January 2024; accepted on 05 January 2024

Article DOI: https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2024.21.1.0020

Abstract
The Philippines took part in PISA 2018 and 2022 conducted by OECD. Filipino students are still among the least
proficient in math, reading, and science. Its performance did not significantly improve from the assessment in 2018.
Through statistical analysis design, the PISA score (2018 and 2022) was compared to all countries' PISA scores and
correlated to HDI in the Philippines, with the use of T-test and Pearson r. Results showed that there is a notable variation
in the Philippines' PISA score compared to all countries participating in PISA. In addition, there is a robustly positive
correlation between the PISA score and the HDI in the Philippines.

Keywords: PISA; OECD; Human Development Index; Philippines

1. Introduction
The foundation of the educational system is the advancement of society, and an assessment of it offers important
information on how a country's intellectual capital is developing. Since education plays such an important role in our
society, it seems sensible to argue that it should be upheld throughout life to keep a workforce that is competitive and
a cohesive citizenry [1]. In this context, the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) compares educational
standards across countries, serving as a benchmarking tool. This began in 2000 and is carried out every three years by
the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). OECD was established in 1961, it is an
international organization with 38 member countries. The OECD aims to advance policies that enhance the global
population's economic and social welfare. Moreover, the institution carries out in-depth research, offers analysis, and
releases reports on various subjects, such as trade, taxation, economic growth, innovation, and environmental
sustainability. Its main goal is to help governments create effective policies through data-driven research and
recommendations.

OECD’s engagement in PISA is the assessment's design, coordination, and analysis. Policymakers, educators, academics,
and other stakeholders worldwide frequently reference and use the data and insights from PISA reports to understand
educational performance better and make evidence-based decisions that will improve educational outcomes.
Meanwhile, COVID-19 has significantly exaggerated the global education crisis [2], and the PISA 2021 was canceled and
moved to 2022 by the OECD.

So, the PISA 2022 result just came out last December 5, 2023. According to the report, 31 economies and countries have
at least maintained their math performance since PISA 2018 under challenging circumstances [3]. As a PISA participant,
the Philippines has been evaluated on multiple occasions, most recently in 2018 and 2022, which has made for an
interesting longitudinal analysis of its educational system. According to recent results from the Program for
International Student Assessment (PISA), students from the Philippines are still among the least proficient in the world


Corresponding author: Josephine V. Acido
Copyright © 2024 Author(s) retain the copyright of this article. This article is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Liscense 4.0.
 World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2024, 21(01), 462–474

in math, reading, and science. The nation's performance in 2018 did not significantly improve as measured by the most
current PISA 2022 test results [4]. Moreover, way back in November 2023, Vice President Sarah Duterte, also a secretary
of the Department of Education, had foreseen the poor Pisa results already. "Our educational system is not the only
thing reflected in the Pisa scores. It is a mirror that reflects our combined efforts, financial commitments, and—above
all—our dedication to learnings and the future we want for our kids,” [5].

This study is based on the concept of Human Capital Theory which was notably developed and popularized by
economists Gary Becker and Theodore Schultz in the 1960s and 1970s. According to Becker's [6] research, spending on
education and training boosts productivity both individually and as a society, which is why it is essential for economic
growth and development. Furthermore, Schultz [7] made a substantial contribution to the advancement of the human
capital theory. His research highlighted the significance of investing in human capital, including health, education, and
on-the-job training, to boost economic growth and productivity. Their groundbreaking studies and writings established
the groundwork for the Human Capital Theory, influencing our knowledge of how investments in knowledge and skills
promote social and economic progress. Meanwhile, Social Capital Theory [8] in Education complements Human Capital
theory, by focusing on the social relationships, networks, and collaborations within educational set-ups. It examines
how social interactions contribute to educational outputs and skills development.

PISA results can be used to gauge educational progress. The book edited by Heinz-Dieter Meyer and Aaron Benavot [9]
"PISA, Power, and Policy: The Emergence of Global Educational Governance" (2013)., provides knowledge regarding the
impact of PISA and other global assessments on educational policy and governance structures worldwide. It dives into
the methods via which global assessments impact national education policies. Moreover, PISA tests evaluate students'
academic performance globally, including in the Philippines. Higher educational attainment is associated with better
human capital, leading to increased productivity and societal growth, according to the Human Capital Theory. On top of
that, the HDI considers several factors, including income, health, and education. PISA results show that educational
attainment has a considerable impact on the HDI's education dimension, consistent with the philosophies focused on
education as the foundation for creating human capital.

The study focusing on comparing PISA results from 2018 to 2022 and analyzing their correlation with the HDI in the
Philippines reveals potential gaps in existing research. Firstly, prior studies may have separately analyzed either PISA
results or HDI in the Philippines, overlooking the examination of how educational achievements measured by PISA have
evolved and their correlation with broader developmental indicators. This lack of analysis might hinder a
comprehensive understanding of the changes in educational outcomes between 2018 and 2022 and their implications
within the context of broader development. Secondly, many studies have been produced to identify the dimensions that
are related to students' academic success. These variables include the abilities and competencies of teachers [10, 11, 12,
13], as well as their awareness, perceptions, and barriers [14, 15, 16, 17], modern pedagogies [18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23,],
and others [24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30], nevertheless, minimal has been done on investigating the relationship of PISA
score and the HDI in the student’s academic success. Lastly, potential research might have compared the OECD average
only without delving into specific comparisons between different countries that participated in PISA and the Philippines.
Consequently, there could be a gap in understanding how the Philippines' educational performance contrasts or aligns
with specific countries rather than just the broader OECD average, impacting the depth of analysis regarding the
country's educational standing on a global scale.

By identifying and filling in these possible gaps in the study, the existing literature in this area will be enhanced and a
more thorough understanding of the relationship between educational achievements as measured by PISA and more
general developmental indicators like the HDI within the Philippines will result.

Thus, this study does a thorough investigation to evaluate the educational development in the Philippines through a
comparison of PISA 2018 and 2022 findings. The research goes beyond just measuring educational outcomes; it also
looks at more general developmental indices, such as the HDI. This item explores the complex relationships between
educational accomplishments, societal advancement, and the general well-being of the Filipino people to connect
educational attainment with the larger human development paradigm.

By analyzing comparable PISA results over the specified years, this study endeavors to identify trends, shifts, or
advancements in educational performance across multiple subjects such as mathematics, reading, and science, shedding
light on the nation's educational trajectory. Concurrently, the relationship between PISA scores and the Human
Development Index introduces a comprehensive viewpoint, investigating possible connections between academic
achievement and the other dimensions of human development, including income, health, and social progress. Thus, the
findings of this study are significant to the Philippine Education Policymakers, Government, Educators, Parents,
Students, Researchers, International Organizations, and Education Agencies.

463
 World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2024, 21(01), 462–474

This study aims to determine the trend of PISA 2018 and 2022 results in the Philippines and compare it to all countries’
averages. It seeks to determine the extent of the relationship between educational performance, as indicated by PISA
scores, and the overall human development status of the country, represented by HDI.

Specifically, this study aims to answer the following questions:

What is the trend in PISA scores between 2018 and 2022 in various educational domains in the Philippines such as:

 Mathematics;
 Reading; and
 Science?

Is there a significant difference between the average scores of all countries in the PISA score (2018 and 2022) and the
PISA score (2018 and 2022) in the Philippines in terms of the following dimensions:

 Mathematics;
 Reading; and
 Science?

Is there a statistically significant correlation between PISA scores in 2018 and HDI levels across different regions within
the Philippines?

1.1. Hypotheses
There is no significant difference in terms of the average score of all countries in the PISA 2018 and PISA scores 2018
in the Philippines.

There is no significant difference in terms of the average score of all countries in the PISA 2022 and PISA scores 2022
in the Philippines.

There is no significant correlation in terms of the PISA scores in 2018 and HDI levels across different regions in the
Philippines.

1.2. Scope and Limitation

This study is focused on the trend of Philippine PISA results for 2018 and 2022 and the significant differences in the
averages of math, reading, and science of all countries who participated in the PISA 2018 and 200 with the Philippine
average in the said subjects in PISA 2018 and 2022. In addition, the significant correlational analyses of the PISA 2018
results to the Human Development Index in the Philippines setting are also being assessed.

There are potential limitations that were considered in this study, the availability and completeness of data and the
scope of correlational analyses. The available data in the Philippines on PISA scores is limited to two years only, 2018
and 2022 since the Philippines joined the PISA last 2018. The mean score in the Philippine PISA result is already
calculated for each subject of math, reading, and science but the individual score for each student in the Philippines is
not available. Meanwhile, PISA scores 2018 are the only available data in each region in the Philippines and are utilized
to correlate with the Human Development Index in each region in the Philippines. Some data are not available for the
year studied since the Philippine Statistics Office does not conduct a yearly survey instead, they do it every two to three
years or so.

Moreover, only sixteen regions were included in the study. The BARMM region was not involved because the said region
was not included in taking the exam. So, therefore, there will be no data on the region to be compared.

2. Review of Related Literature

2.1. Program for International Student Assessment (PISA)

An international study called PISA (Program for International Student Assessment) got underway in 2000. The OECD is
conducting a global survey to assess the academic achievement of 15-year-old students across a range of nations. PISA
evaluates students' ability to apply math, reading, and science to real-world scenarios. It attempts to discover effective

464
 World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2024, 21(01), 462–474

educational policies and practices and gives governments information about how their education systems are doing
about those in other nations. A reasonable indication of the latitude that local or national governments may have been
provided by the numerous restrictions to which they may be subject [31]. Every three years, PISA examinations are
carried out, and participating nations use the findings to enhance their educational programs, [3]. PISA results serve as
a benchmark for participating countries to gauge their educational systems' strengths and weaknesses compared to
other nations. It helps policymakers identify areas for improvement and implement strategies to enhance educational
outcomes.

In PISA 2018, 79 participating nations and economies with 660,000 pupils representing about 32 million took the 2-
hour exam. Moreover, 690,000 15-year-old pupils took the test in 2022 from 29 million students in schools of the
81 participating nations and economies [32]. The OECD average PISA 2018 for mathematics is 489 points, reading is
487 points, and science is 489 points. While the OECD average PISA 2022 for math is 472 points, reading is 476 points,
and science is 485 points. The OECD [3] reports that there is no discernible variation between the PISA 2018 and 2022
scores for any given subject's average.

Meanwhile, in the Philippines, there were 7,233 pupils from 187 schools who finished the assessment in 2018,
accounting for 1,400,584 kids, or 68% of the total number of 15-year-olds. Moreover, in PISA 2022, there were 7,193
students, in 188 schools, who completed the exam in mathematics, reading, and science, representing about 1,782 900
15-year-old students [33].

Moreover, in the past PISA 2018 Philippines results, math subjects got 353 points, reading got 340 points and science
got 357 points on average. Meanwhile, the latest result of PISA 2022 which was just released last December 5, 2023,
revealed that math has 355 points, reading has 347 points and science has 356 points averages[3]. Each 20-point
shortfall from the OECD average implies a one-year lag in the annual learning pace of 15-year-olds in PISA-participating
nations, [3]. Thus, the Philippines performed poorly than the OECD average in those three criteria, mathematics,
reading, and science, in prior PISA cycles 2018 and 2022. Usman [34] states that to minimize expenses and raise the
caliber of teaching and learning in the classroom, the education system must include the following requirements to
actualize academic goals and objectives: adequate resource accessibility, complete use, and appropriate management
of educational resource objectives. In general, institutions should prioritize initiatives that are in line with strategic
main objectives and find a comfortable striking balance between continuing obligations and spending [35].

However, the PISA 2018 and 2022 mean scores in the Philippines compared only with the OECD average in the subject’s
math, reading, and science, despite that, the PISA score in the Philippines must also be compared to the countries’
average that participated in PISA, to measure how far is the Philippines behind all countries joined the PISA. According
to Reimers and Chung [36], global learning philosophy's main goal is to use education to promote intercultural
competency and global citizenship. It places a strong emphasis on how educational curricula should incorporate diverse
cultural perspectives, global perspectives, and cross-cultural understanding. Therefore, all countries' scores
participating in PISA must be compared to determine how far each country's strengths and weaknesses in academic
performance to adopt and implement changes. According to Bray and Adamson [37], Cross-cultural comparative
education theory makes a comparison between educational systems and practices in various cultures and nations. It
investigates how cultural variations affect trends and educational outcomes in international assessments such as PISA.

According to the Department of Education [38] in the PISA score 2018, the overall reading literacy, of students from
Region 11 (Southern Mindanao) Region 7 (Central Visayas), and the National Capital Region (NCR), scored highest in
the island groups of Mindanao, Visayas, and Luzon, respectively. Moreover, the mean score of six regions was greater
than the 340-point national average. The National Capital Region (NCR), the Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR),
Region 7 (Central Visayas), Region 8 (Eastern Visayas), and Region 3 (Central Luzon) were among them. Meanwhile, the
nation's highest average score for mathematical literacy was attained by the National Capital Region (NCR). In Mindanao
and, respectively, Regions 11 (Southern Mindanao) and 7 (Central Visayas) had the highest average scores.

The nation's top ratings for Scientific Literacy were attained by the NCR. The highest mean scores were obtained in
Visayas (Region 7) and Mindanao (Southern Mindanao) correspondingly. Moreover, the NCR, CAR, Region 7, and Region
4A all had average scores greater than the 357-point national average. However, the mean scores for Scientific Literacy
fell into Proficiency Level 1b in Region 9 (Western Mindanao), Region 12, and CARAGA Administrative Region, while
Proficiency Level 1a was achieved in the remaining areas.

The findings have highlighted aspects of the nation's educational system that need to be improved. To address these
issues, the Philippine government has implemented changes meant to raise educational standards and boost student
performance. Revisions to the curriculum, efforts to improve school facilities and resources, and teacher training

465
 World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2024, 21(01), 462–474

programs are examples of initiatives. After two years of research, the Department of Education released the MATATAG
K-10 curriculum, which lowered the competencies that pupils must master. To better allocate time to basic skills for
improved learning outcomes, almost 70% of the current curriculum was eliminated, bringing the total number of
learning competencies down from over 11,000 to roughly 3,600, [39]. According to Duterte [5], the pilot implementation
phase will cover Kindergarten, Grades 1, 4, and 7 for the school year 2023-2024. The theory of Diffusion of Innovations
by Rogers [40] explores how new ideas, processes, or laws proliferate in various contexts. It investigates the variables
affecting the uptake, modification, and application of innovations or policies in education.

2.2. Human Development Index

The main goals of the study of human development are to characterize patterns of consistency and change throughout
life and to pinpoint the underlying mechanisms responsible for these patterns, [41]. These mechanisms, the so-called
Human Development Index (HDI), were created by the Indian economist Amartya Sen and Pakistani economist Mahbub
ul Haq. HDI was initially presented by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) in its Human Development
Report in 1990.

HDI is a combined statistic used to measure a country's average accomplishments in three key dimensions of human
development: education, health, and gross national income, [42]. The purpose of education is to produce productive
citizens who will make major contributions to all areas of human development [43].

The three indicators, income, education, and health are combined and normalized to construct the HDI formula, which
yields a single index with a range of 0 to 1, where a value closer to 1 dictate higher human development, [44]. Utilizing
the HDI and other indicators, the UNDP's annual Human Development Report offers in-depth analysis, trends, and
insights into global human development. Policymakers, scholars, and organizations who strive to improve human well-
being globally can benefit greatly from it.

In the Philippines, HDI is usually calculated at the national level as opposed to the regional level. The HDI is a composite
index that evaluates a nation's overall level of human development by taking into account variables including life
expectancy, education (including enrollment rates and literacy), and GDP.

Periodically, the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) publishes reports that offer regional summaries of several
variables, such as income, health, education, and other facets of human development. These studies frequently provide
statistical information and analysis on various Philippine regions. Additionally, publications and studies that may
analyze regional differences in human development are published by (National Economic Development and Authority)
NEDA. They frequently emphasize social and economic trends in various locations in their publications. Even though
the UNDP periodically publishes assessments that concentrate on particular areas inside nations, like the Philippines.
These studies could shed light on differences in human development metrics between regions. According to Alkire and
Santos [45], Multi-dimensional Poverty theory, which draws inspiration from the MPI (Multidimensional Poverty
Index), evaluates poverty by taking into account a variety of deprivations in terms of living standards, health, education,
and other areas in addition to money. This approach helps to provide a more thorough understanding of poverty and
development.

In 2021, the HDI of the Philippines is 0.699 which is at the medium level. Based on the HDI category according to UNDP
[41], there are four levels of HDI, 0.550 or less is low HDI, 0.550-0.699 is for medium HDI, 0.700-0.799 belongs to high
HDI lastly, 0.800 or greater is a very high HDI. Meanwhile, the last recorded HDI for 2023, is 0.718. There is a slight
increase in HDI from 2021. According to Sachs [46], Sustainable Development theory integrates economic, social, and
environmental facets of development. It highlights the necessity of meeting present demands without compromising
the ability of coming generations to meet their requirements.

2.3. PISA to HDI

The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) is a standard test by which students from all around the
world are measured for academic achievement. The Philippines took part in the PISA exams in 2018, which gave
important information on how well its children performed academically in reading, science, and math. Simultaneously,
the HDI is a commonly employed measure to measure the entirety of human development, integrating factors other
than schooling, like income and life expectancy, into a composite index.

Several studies have looked into the connection between the larger human development measures like the Human
Development Index (HDI) and education indicators like academic success as determined by tests like PISA which
evaluates the academic achievement of 15-year-old students worldwide in mathematics, reading, and science. These

466
 World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2024, 21(01), 462–474

two are distinct indices used to measure different aspects of societal development. A 2011 study ("International norm
dynamics and the 'end' of the MDGs: understanding current development challenges") by Fukuda-Parr and Hulme [47]
proposed a positive relationship between a country's HDI and its pupils' performance on PISA tests. PISA results are
higher among students in higher HDI nations, suggesting a possible relationship between overall development
measures and academic performance. In a similar study, they concentrated on the policy implications that result from
the correlation between PISA scores and HDI scores. The significance of school quality as determined by assessments
such as PISA in promoting economic growth is highlighted by research conducted by Hanushek and Woessmann ("The
Role of Cognitive Skills in Economic Development") [48]. They contend that spending on raising educational standards,
as determined by PISA, can favor a nation's overall human development, as demonstrated by the HDI.

However, critics argue that evaluating a country's development or educational system exclusively based on HDI or PISA
scores oversimplifies complicated facts. For instance, a paper by Adamson, et.al, [49] emphasizes that although these
indices may show some correlations, they are not able to fully capture the range of progress or quality of education.
They support a more thorough evaluation that considers additional socioeconomic and cultural aspects.

Some research investigates how HDI serves as a predictor of educational attainment and achievement. According to
research, countries with higher HDI typically have better educational results, such as greater enrolment rates, better
infrastructure, and better access to education [50]. This suggests a connection between chances for education and
general measures of human development. Moreover, PISA results frequently influence Participating nations'
educational strategies and reforms. The article "PISA as a Lever for Changing Educational Governance" by Grek and
Lindgren [51] explores how PISA has evolved into a tool for influencing educational policies, resulting in modifications
to curricula, instructional strategies, and assessment procedures across national boundaries. PISA comparisons and
rankings act as a spark for changes in education that are meant to raise student achievement.

Meanwhile, the focus on standardized testing, such as PISA, as a gauge of educational quality is criticized by certain
academics. In the book of Maranto, "The Death and Life of the Great American School System,", [52] education historian
Diane Ravitch makes the case that a well-rounded education is compromised by a heavy reliance on standardized
testing. Critics contend that a "teach to the test" approach can result from a restricted concentration on test results,
ignoring other important facets of learning and growth.

Studies frequently emphasize how crucial context is for understanding PISA findings. Researchers like Sellar and
Lingard,[53], "The OECD and Global Governance in Education", highlight how social, cultural, political, and economic
circumstances have a big impact on how well students score on PISA exams. To avoid oversimplified interpretations or
policy suggestions based only on test results, they argue for a more comprehensive understanding of these contextual
aspects when examining PISA outcomes. These viewpoints go further into the HDI's predictive capacity for education,
PISA's impact on educational policies, the critique of standardized testing, and the importance of contextual elements
in interpreting PISA results.

The differences between various areas and nations as indicated by the HDI and PISA scores are heavily emphasized.
Both indexes are frequently used in reports such as the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO), Global Education Monitoring Report to highlight the differences in educational access and quality and their
consequences for human development in general. These ideas and discussions warn against simplifying or over-reliance
on these indices to quantify complicated societal progress, while also highlighting the connections between educational
attainment (as measured by PISA) and broader measures of human development (as measured by HDI).

3. Research methodology
Research design is the entire plan for conducting a study to successfully resolve the research concerns and challenges
[54]. It is also known as the "blueprint" for data gathering, measurement, and analysis. This study employs a statistical
analysis design to comprehensively analyze the relationship between PISA results (2018 vs. 2022) and the correlation
between these scores and the HDI in the context of the Philippines. The combination of quantitative analysis of PISA
data and correlational assessment with HDI indicators offers a multi-dimensional understanding of the educational
landscape and its implications for broader developmental aspects. The research problems identify the research design
to be used, [55].

PISA scores in the Philippines 2018 and 2022 are based on quantitative data obtained from the OECD database and the
Department of Education (DepEd). These databases include performance measures of each region in the Philippines
related to science, math, and reading for Filipino pupils. There were 7,233 pupils from 187 schools who finished the test
in 2018, accounting for 1,400,584 kids, or 68% of the total number of 15-year-olds. Then, for the year 2022, 7,193

467
 World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2024, 21(01), 462–474

students from 188 schools—representing roughly 1,782,900 15-year-old kids—completed the evaluation in science,
arithmetic, and reading. This represents an estimated 83% of the 15-year-old population.

Furthermore, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) [42] database and the Philippine Statistics Authority
(PSA) [56] provide a broader developmental background for each region in the Philippines throughout the stated period
for the HDI statistics.

Descriptive and inferential statistics are the tools used in the quantitative analysis to compare PISA scores from 2018
to 2022 and the average of countries to the Philippine PISA score from 2018 and 2022. But first, Shapiro-Wilk was being
utilized to test the Normality of the data. Moreover, a significance level of 0.05 is being utilized to measure the normality
of the data. Meanwhile, graphical representations of trends and significant differences between all countries and the
Philippines' PISA score means are produced using statistical tools like Excel, T-test software for unequal variances, and
SPSS. Correlational analyses are used to look at the relationship between PISA scores and HDI components. Pearson
correlation coefficient will be used for normal distribution.

The responsible use of publicly available data without violating someone's privacy or confidentiality is ensured by
ethical concerns. The methodological approach integrates quantitative analyses of PISA results with correlational
assessments of HDI components, providing a comprehensive understanding of educational trends and their connections
to broader developmental indices within the Philippines.

4. Results and discussion

In this section, the data that was obtained from the OECD, UNDP, and Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) are presented,
interpreted, and analyzed. This has three sections which include: Section I explains the assessments of the trends of
PISA scores in the Philippines and all countries, Section II focuses on the results of the test of significant differences of
the PISA results of all countries with the Philippines based on the T-test and Section III highlights the significant
correlational analyses between the PISA scores and Human Development Index.

To facilitate understanding, the data is given in narrative form; also, tabular formats are constructed to offer a more
comprehensive picture of the values and data interpretation. The corresponding analysis and interpretation are
provided in six tables. The complete set of results is now on display.

4.1. Section I: Assessment of trends in PISA scores between 2018 and 2022 in various educational domains in
the Philippines

Figure 1 Trends in PISA 2018 and 2022 score in math, reading and science performances in the Philippines

Figure 1 showcases the trend in Pisa scores 2018 and 2022 average in math, reading, and science in the Philippines. In
2018 in terms of the math subject, it has an average score of 353 and 355 mean score for 2022. There is a shift of 2
points in the average score from 2018 to 2022. For the reading subject average, there was an increase of 7 points from
340 to 347 in 2018 and 2022 consecutively. However, there was a decrease of 1 point in science subjects from 357 down
to 356, from 2018 to 2022 sequentially. Overall, there was no impact from the change in the average scores from 2018
to 2022 of the PISA score due to a minimal shift of points. Educational Policy theory [57] analyzes how educational

468
 World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2024, 21(01), 462–474

policies are created and implemented. It focuses on the ways that policies including those about international
examinations such as PISA affect curriculum, instructional methods, and educational systems. The government of the
Philippines should extend its investigation into the curriculum of education, not only that but the educational resources
must be also put into the right allocation, to upgrade the status of the academic performance of the students. Santos
[58] asserts that there is still much to learn about the distribution of institutional resources and how they work toward
the institution's ultimate goals of generating graduates of the highest caliber and offering the greatest possible teaching-
learning experience.

Table 1 Results of the PISA score 2018 and 2022 in all countries and the Philippines

Results of the PISA Scores 2018 and 2022

2018 2022
Population Mean S.D. Population Mean S.D.
Math (Philippines) 7,233 353.00 78.00 7,193 355.00 65.00
Reading (Philippines) 7,233 340.00 80.00 7,193 347.00 85.00
Science (Philippines) 7,233 357.00 75.00 7,193 356.00 78.00
Total Average (Philippines) 7,233 350.00 77.67 7,193 352.67 76.00
Math (All countries) 609,673 454.78 88.90 620,259 437.65 84.88
Reading (All countries) 609,673 453.12 94.64 620,259 435.02 93.85
Science (All countries) 609,673 457.94 89.13 620,259 446.86 89.89
Total Average (All countries) 609,673 455.28 90.89 620,259 439.85 89.54

Table 1 shows the results of PISA scores in 2018 and 2022 in all countries that participated in PISA and the Philippines.
The Philippines trend has already been shown in Figure 1 and explained briefly above. Specifically, the number of
students that joined the PISA 2018 had 609,673 pupils while in PISA 2022 620,259 students joined the PISA in all
countries. In terms of all countries that participated in PISA 2018, math subject has a mean of 454.78 and 437.65 mean
scores in PISA 2022. It has a decrease of 17.13 points, but it does not have a big impact since it drops down points and
is not that large enough. For the reading subject, it has 453.12 and 435.02 mean 2018 and 2022 respectively. It has an
18.76-point decrease in the mean. Lastly, Science has a score of 457.94 and 446.86 mean for 2018 and 2022
consecutively, with a drop point of 11.08. Thus, the overall scores for all countries that participated in PISA 2018 and
2022 have a decline in the mean score of all dimensions, but the OECD reported that there is no significant difference in
the changes of the scores from PISA 2018 to 2022.

4.2. Section II - Test of Hypotheses (T-test)

This study promoted the null hypothesis, which examined the at-the-0.05 threshold of significance utilizing the T-test
software for populations with unequal variances. In this section, the results of the hypothesis test are presented,
analyzed, and interpreted.

Table 2 T-test PISA Score 2018 (All countries vs. Philippines)

T-test PISA Score 2018 (All countries vs. Philippines)

Subject t-value p-value Remarks Decision to Ho
Math 110.13 0.00 significant Reject
Reading 119.27 0.00 significant Reject
Science 113.52 0.00 significant Reject
Overall 118.40 0.00 significant Reject

469
 World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2024, 21(01), 462–474

Table 2 presents the T-test result of the Pisa score 2018 of all countries vs. the Philippines. It shows that the test statistics
for math is 110.13 with a p-value of 0.00, this is lower than the significant level of 0.05 which means that there is a
significant difference between all countries and the Philippines. In terms of the reading test statistics is 119.27 with a
p-value of 0.00, therefore there is a significant difference between all countries and the Philippines. For the science
subject, the test statistics is 113.52 with a p-value the same as the other subjects, which leads to the conclusion of
significant differences between all countries and the Philippines. The overall results showed that significant differences
are comparing the average of all countries and the Philippines in the PISA score 2018. This must be addressed by the
Philippine government, especially the education sector which is the Department of Education (DepEd). VP Duterte, also
the secretary of DepEd already created a new curriculum Matatag K-10 and it is in the pilot implementation phase this
school year. This will lower the number of curricula to master the basic competencies for basic education.

Table 3 T-test PISA Score 2022 (All countries vs. Philippines)

T-test PISA Score 2022 (All countries vs. Philippines)

Subject t-value p-value Remarks Decision to Ho
Math 106.80 0.00 significant Reject
Reading 87.22 0.00 significant Reject
Science 98.05 0.00 significant Reject
Overall 96.51 0.00 significant Reject

Table 3 depicts the T-test result between all countries and the Philippines in the PISA score 2022 average. The Math
subject has the test statistics outcome of 106.80 and the p-value is 0.00, it is lesser than the significance level of 0.05,
which means that there is a significant difference in the PISA score 2022 of all countries with the Philippines average.
The next one is Reading with a test statistic of 87.22 and a p-value of 0.00, which is less than the significant level of 0.05,
therefore there is a significant difference between all countries and the Philippines average in the PISA 2022 result.
Lastly, the science has a test statistic of 98.05 with a p-value of 0.00, it is the same as the math and reading result that
there is a significant difference between all countries and Philippines in the result of PISA 2022 averages. Therefore, the
overall averages have a significant difference comparing all countries that joined the PISA 2022 and the Philippines.
According to Cizek [59], Educational Assessment theory is very important to investigate how assessment procedures
affect current developments in education. It examines how PISA and other standardized tests influence educational
practices and policy. The DepEd must be focused on examining the various assessments given to the students to align if
the main objective of the competencies is being met. Immanuel Wallerstein's theory [60] looks at how international
economic systems affect social systems. It investigates how shifts in the world economy impact educational practices
and policies.

4.3. Section III – Test Hypotheses of Correlational Analyses

Table 4 Correlational analysis of the PISA score of the Philippines vs. Human Development Index (Pearson r)

Variables Pearson r Sig. value Remarks Strength of relationship Decision to Ho

Math*HDI 0.798** 0.000 Significant Positive strong Reject
Reading*HDI 0.747** 0.001 Significant Positive strong Reject
Science*HDI 0.738** 0.001 Significant Positive strong Reject
Overall*HDI 0.772** 0.000 Significant Positive strong Reject
*Correlation is significant at a 0.05 level : **Correlational significant at 0.01 level

Table 4 shows the association of the Philippine PISA score and the Human Development Index using by utilizing Pearson
R since the data are in normal distribution that were measured by Shapiro-Wilk. Results present a significant strong
positive relationship between the HDI in the PISA score of Math (r=0.798, p-value=0.0), Reading (0.747, p-value=0.001),
and Science (r=0.738, p-value=0.001). The relationship exhibits that the higher the Human Development Index, the
higher the mean score result in PISA and vice versa. As mentioned earlier by Becker [6], spending on education and
training boosts productivity both individually and as a society, which is why it is essential for economic growth and

470
 World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2024, 21(01), 462–474

innovation. The increase in funding for education with the right allocation will result in a better economic status for a
country.

5. Conclusion
In light of the findings, the comparative analysis between the PISA results in 2018 and 2022 in the Philippines suggests
that there is a slight shift in results in the subjects of math and reading while science has decreased by a point only. This
means that there is no educational progress from 2018 to 2022 in the Philippines. Meanwhile, there is a significant
difference between the Philippine PISA average and all country's mean scores who participated in PISA 2018 and 2022
in terms of the subject’s math, reading, and science. Moreover, the correlation between these findings in the HDI shows
a potentially strong relationship between the quality of education and overall societal development. Still, more studies
are needed to fully comprehend the complexities of this correlation.

Recommendations
The recommendations listed below are based on the conclusions mentioned above:

Since there is no educational progress in the Philippine PISA results from 2018 and 2022 in all subjects and it is far away
from the average score of all countries, the Philippines educational sector needs to create focused interventions to
address weaknesses and replicate those observed in PISA assessment in other countries that obtained high PISA score.
Next, examine current policies for education to make sure they reflect current trends and fix any issues that have been
found. Consider global best practices and modify rules to meet regional requirements. Then, Place a strong emphasis on
educators' ongoing professional development. Provide them with cutting-edge teaching strategies and resources to
raise the standard of instruction.

In terms of the HDI and academic results, strategically distribute resources. Spend more funding on education based on
the standard of UNESCO because it is essential to the development of society as a whole. Next, create a mechanism for
ongoing assessments beyond PISA cycles to regularly track students' academic progress. Add qualitative metrics to
enhance quantitative information. Lastly, encourage community involvement. Involve parents, neighborhood
associations, and other interested parties to establish a conducive learning environment at home and in the classroom.

Compliance with ethical standards

Disclosure of conflict of interest

No conflict of interest to be disclosed.

References
[1] Hettleman, K. R.. Don't deny state's kids a quality education, The Baltmore Sun. Maryland. (October 28, 2007).
[2] Wajdi, M. B. N., Kuswandi, I., Al Faruq, U., Zulhijra, Z., Khairudin, K., and Khoiriyah, K. Education Policy Overcome
Coronavirus, A Study of Indonesians. Journal of Education and Technology, 2020; 3, 96-106.
[3] OECD. PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The State of Learning and Equity in Education, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris,
2023; https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/aboutpisa.htm.
[4] Chi, C., Philippines still lags behind the world in math, reading and science — PISA 2022/ Philstar.com. December
6, 2023.
[5] Duterte, S.Z., Poor PISA ranking a wake-up call – DepEd. INQINQUIRER.net. December 6, 2023.
[6] Becker, G. S. Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Special Reference to Education.
University of Chicago Press. 1964
[7] Schultz, T. W. Investment in Human Capital. The American Economic Review, 1961; 51(1), 1-17.
[8] Coleman, J. S. Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. American Journal of Sociology, 1998; 94, S95-S120.
[9] H.-D. Meyer & A. Benavot. Review of PISA, Power, and Policy: The Emergence of Global Educational Governance.
www.symposiumbooks.co.uk. United Kingdom. Symposium Books; June 1, 2013

471
 World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2024, 21(01), 462–474

[10] Dapitan, D. A., & Caballes, D. G. Determining the level of ICT skills of junior high school faculty of Tagumpay
National High School. CiiT International Journal of Wireless Communication, 2019; 11(5), 80-85.
[11] Tiria, R. A., & Caballes, D. G. The digital skills of secondary school teachers in Manila. CiiT International Journal of
Software Engineering and Technology, 2020; 12(3), 33-37.
[12] Caballes, D. G., Panol, R. F., Vasquez, A. G., & Valdez, M. R. Competency level of science teachers in teaching
evolution: basis for training design. Global Journal of Advanced Research, 2021; 8(8), 235-243.
[13] Doblada, J. C., & L.Caballes, D. G. Relationship of teachers’ technology skills and selected profile: basis for
redesigning training for online distance learning modality. Instabright International Journal of Multidisciplinary
Research, 2021; 3(1), 17-22.
[14] Dapitan, D. A., & Caballes, D. G. Teachers’ views on force and motion: towards the development of two-tier test.
CiiT International Journal of Automation and Autonomous System, 2020; 12(2), 44-48.
[15] Caballes, D. G., Peregrino, L. P., & Javillonar, M. G. Public secondary school teachers’ awareness of open
educational resources (OER). CiiT International Journal of Programmable Device Circuits and Systems, 2020;
12(4), 76-80.
[16] Narca, M. L., & Caballes, D. G. Philosophical bases of pedagogy in teaching knowledge, skills, attitudes of
Sebastinian graduates. CiiT International Journal of Digital Image and Processing, 2020; 12(3), 49-52.
[17] Gatilogo, L.M. & Tan, D.A. Teachers’ Motivation, Home Visitation and Performance of Academically At-Risk
Students. International Journal of English and Education, 8(2), 400-417, April 2019.
[18] Caballes, D. G., & Belen, J. L. Contextualization of activities in selected topics in molecular biology. CiiT
International Journal of Biometrics and Bioinformatics, 2020; 12(1), 6-10.
[19] Caballes, D. G., & Belen, J. L. The beginning teachers’ challenges in an inquiry-based approach to teaching science:
provision for a special science research elective course. CiiT International Journal of Software Engineering and
Technology, 2020; 12(3), 38-44.
[20] Capinig, R. A. V., & Caballes, D. G. DepEd commons: sustaining students’ learning in physical science. CiiT
International Journal of Data Mining and Knowledge Engineering, 2020; 12(3), 55-60.
[21] Caballes, D. G., & Abenes, F. M. D. Readiness of tertiary students in flexible learning approach. CiiT International
Journal of Automation and Autonomous System, 2020; 12(3), 62-69.
[22] Gayeta, N.E. & Caballes, D. G. Measuring conceptual change on stoichiometry using mental models and ill-
structured problems in a flipped classroom environment. Asia Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary Research,
2017; 5(2), 104-113.
[23] Dapitan, D. A., & Caballes, D. G. Exploratory effects of strategic intervention materials in general biology 2. CiiT
International Journal of Biometrics and Bioinformatics, 2019; 11(3), 37-41.
[24] Caballes, D. G., & Villena, R. R. Integration of information communication technology in teaching science,
technology and society. CiiT International Journal of Data Mining and Knowledge Engineering, 2020; 12(2), 34-
38.
[25] Asparin, A. A. & Tan, D. A. Students’ Problem-Solving Skills in Enhanced Gradual Release of Responsibility
Instruction Model. Asian Academic Research Journal of Multidisciplinary, 2018; 5(3), 121-128.
[26] Duque, C. & Tan, D. Students’ Mathematics Attitudes and Metacognitive Processes in Mathematical Problem
Solving. European Journal of Education Studies, 2018; 4(11), 1-25.
[27] Tan-Ucang, J. & Tan, D.A. Students’ Beliefs and Mathematics Performance in a Process-Oriented Guided-Inquiry
Learning (POGIL) Environment. CMU Journal of Science. 2013; 17 (2013), 141-157.
[28] Galarosa, K.J.D., & Tan, D.A. Students’ academic performance and motivation in Physics using Microlearning via
Cybergogy. Unpublished Thesis. Central Mindanao University. 2021
[29] Tan, R.D.A., Pañares, E.J.A., Pañares, F.J. A. Pagonzaga, E. D., Jumawid, J.A.M., Hinampas, R.T., Tan, D.A. Investigating
the Effect of Social Media on Students’ Academic Performance and Well-being During the Pandemic. International
Journal of Scientific & Technology Research, 2021; 10(7), 145-151.
[30] Pagtulon-an, E. & Tan D. Students’ Mathematics Performance and Self-efficacy Beliefs in a Rich Assessment Tasks
Environment. Asian Academic Research Journal of Multidisciplinary. 2018; 5(2), 54-64.

472
 World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2024, 21(01), 462–474

[31] Atkinson, M. et al. School Funding: A Review of Existing Models in European and OECD Countries, National
Foundation for Educational Research/Local Government Association, Slough. 2017
[32] OECD. Country Note: PISA Result 2018 (Philippines). OECD Publishing. Report for Selected Countries and
Subjects, (2018). www.imf.org. 2019
[33] OECD. PISA 2022 RESULTS: FACTSHEETS – PHILIPPINES © OECD 2023.
[34] Usman, Y.D. Educational Resources: An Integral Component for Effective School Administration in Nigeria.
Research on Humanities and Social Sciences, 2016; 6(13), 27 – 37.
[35] Nnebedum Chidi, & Egboka, Patience Ndidi. Analysis of Resource Management Strategies Adopted by Principals
for Secondary Schools Improvement in Enugu State, Nigeria. International Journal of Advance Research and
Innovative Ideas In Education, 2017; 3(3), 4124-4129.
[36] Reimers, F. M., & Chung, C. K. Teaching and Learning for the Twenty-First Century: Educational Goals, Policies,
and Curricula from Six Nations. Harvard Education Press. 2016
[37] Bray, M., & Adamson, B. Comparative Education Research: Approaches and Methods. Springer. 2007
[38] Department of Education. PISA 2018: National Report of the Philippines. 2019
[39] CNN Philippine Staff. DepEd releases list of schools for MATATAG K-10 curriculum pilot test. September 17,
2023. https://cnnphilippines.com.
[40] Rogers, E. M. Diffusion of Innovations. Free Press. 2003
[41] Kagan, J., & Snidman, N. Temperamental factors in human development. American Psychologist, 1991; 46(8),
856–862. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.46.8.856
[42] United Nations Development Programme, 2023. https://hdr.undp.org/data-center/human-development-
index#/indicies/HDI
[43] Abulencia, C. Why is education important and how does it affect one’s future? Organization, 2021, October 13.
https://www.worldvision.ca/stories/education/why-is-education-important#What-is-education.
[44] United Nations Development Programme. "Technical Notes: Human Development Report 2021-2022. 2021.
https://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/2021-22_HDR/hdr2021-22_technical_notes.pdf
[45] Alkire, S., & Santos, M. E. Measuring Acute Poverty in the Developing World: Robustness and Scope of the
Multidimensional Poverty Index. World Development, 2014; 59, 251-274.
[46] Sachs, J. D. The Age of Sustainable Development. Columbia University Press. 2015
[47] Fukuda-Parr, S., Hulme, D. International Norm Dynamics and ‘the End of Poverty’: Understanding the Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs). Brooks World Poverty Institute 2009, ISBN : 978-1-906518-95-0.
[48] Hanushek, E.A and Woessmann, L. The Role of Cognitive Skills in Economic Development. Journal of Economic
Literature 2008, 46:3, 607–668 http:www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/jel.46.3.607
[49] Adamson, F., Åstrand, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. Global education reform: How privatization and public
investment influence education outcomes. New York: Routledge. 2016. ISBN: 9781317396956.
[50] Psacharopoulos, G., Patrinos , H.A. Returns to Investment in Education A Further Update George. The World Bank
Latin America and the Caribbean Region Education Sector Unit September 2002. Policy Research Working Paper
2881.
[51] Grek, S., Lidgren, J. Governing by Inspection “PISA as a Lever for Changing Educational Governance”. 2015
Routledge Taylor and Francis.
[52] Maranto, R. PhD. The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are
Undermining Education by Diane Ravitch, Journal of School Choice, 2010; 4:4, 532-536, DOI:
10.1080/15582159.2010.526867.
[53] Sellar, S., Lingard, B. Testing Regimes, Accountabilities and Education Policy: The OECD and global governance in
education. 2016, Routledge Pages17 eBook ISBN9781315666082
[54] De Vaus, D. Survey research. Research methods for postgraduates, 202-213. 2016
[55] Creswell, W. Research Design: (Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods). 2017, London Press.

473
 World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2024, 21(01), 462–474

[56] Philippine Statistics Authority. Gender and Special Population Groups; Provincial Human Development Index.
2021
[57] Ball, S. J. Education Policy and Social Class: The Selected Works of Stephen J. Ball. Routledge. 1993
[58] Santos, J.L. Resource Allocation in Public Universities. The Review of Higher Education, 2007; 30, 125-144.
[59] Cizek, G. J. An Introduction to Formative Assessment: History, Characteristics, and Challenges. Handbook of
Formative Assessment, 2009; 20(3), 3-29.
[60] Wallerstein, I. The Modern World-System I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-
Economy in the Sixteenth Century. University of California Press. 1974

474