As pointed out earlier, compared to OECD countries, different OIC countries participated in

different international assessments and different rounds of a given assessment. This makes it

difficult to generalize OIC-wide trends vis-à-vis rest of the world. Therefore, specific country

experiences are zoomed into and group-specific aggregate trends are avoided.

Figure 2.14

plots

country-level data for OIC countries that participated in TIMSS and PIRLS grade 4 assessments.

Although the temporal evolutions of test scores in

Figure 2.11

suggest divergence between OIC

and other groups of countries, a detailed country-level inspection reveals important cases of

positive deviations in the OIC sample countries. Nine OIC member states participated in grade 4

assessment in 2011. For comparison purpose, non-OIC countries are organized in two groups –

OECD and non-OECD. However, country labels are only used for OIC countries.

There is considerable variation within the OIC in terms of performance in grade 4 mathematics

and science in TIMSS. Kazakhstan is the leading performer in math and science, with an average

country score of above 500 points. Turkey, also a member of the OECD, is ranked second among

OIC states. Both countries also register progress between 2011 and 2015. On the other hand,

laggards include Kuwait for whom the average score also experienced a sharp fall between 2011

and 2015. The gap in country average scores between Kazakhstan and Kuwait is more than 200

points in math and science. The country-specific trend is not known in case of PIRLS as the

participation of OIC countries is not balanced across rounds.

Figure 2.15: Grade 8 TIMSS Scores in Mathematics and Science by Country, 1999-2015

Source: Author’s calculation based on OECD data

Figure 2.15

repeats the country-level analysis plotting average scores for OIC countries that

participated in TIMSS grade 8 assessments. Compared to grade 4, two OIC member states

(Malaysia and Jordan) participated in the early rounds of grade 8 assessments so that long-term

trend analysis is possible. Malaysia as one of the two participation OIC countries in 1999 round

enjoyed a high average score while Jordan was nearly 100 points behind. However, both

countries saw a slide in their absolute score as well as relative rank in the next four rounds of

PISA assessment. In the latest round, Malaysia has recovered somewhat though the score still

remains below the average for the 2000s. Two member states that defied the overall negative

time trend are Kazakhstan and Turkey.

BHR

JOR

KAZ

KWT

LBN

MYS

MAR

OMN

QAT

TUR

ARE

350 400 450 500 550 600

Mean math score in TIMSS

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

year

OIC

OECD

NON-OECD Maths score in TIMSS

BHR

JOR

KAZ

KWT

LBN

MYS

MAR

OMN

QAT

TUR

ARE

300

400

500

600

Mean science score in TIMSS