2018 Insights and Interpretations - Andreas Schleicher - OECD
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
2018
Insights and Interpretations
Andreas Schleicher
PISA 2018: Insights and Interpretations
“
Equipping citizens with the knowledge and
skills necessary to achieve their full potential,
to contribute to an increasingly interconnected
world, and to convert better skills into better lives
needs to become a more central preoccupation
of policy makers around the world. Fairness,
integrity and inclusiveness in public policy thus
all hinge on the skills of citizens. In working to
About PISA
achieve these goals, more and more countries are Up to the end of the 1990s, the OECD’s comparisons might remember enough to follow in our footsteps;
of education outcomes were mainly based on but if they learn how to learn, and are able to think
looking beyond their own borders for evidence measures of years of schooling, which are not reliable for themselves, and work with others, they can go
indicators of what people actually know and can do. anywhere they want.
of the most successful and efficient education The Programme for International Student Assessment
(PISA) changed this. The idea behind PISA lay in Some people argued that the PISA tests are unfair,
policies and practices. testing the knowledge and skills of students directly, because they may confront students with problems they
through a metric that was internationally agreed upon; have not encountered in school. But then life is unfair,
linking that with data from students, teachers, schools because the real test in life is not whether we can
and systems to understand performance differences; remember what we learned at school, but whether we
PISA is not only the world’s most comprehensive will be able to solve problems that we can’t possibly
and then harnessing the power of collaboration to
act on the data, both by creating shared points of anticipate today.
and reliable indicator of students’ capabilities, it is
reference and by leveraging peer pressure. But the greatest strength of PISA lies in its working
also a powerful tool that countries and economies The aim with PISA was not to create another layer methods. Most assessments are centrally planned and
of top-down accountability, but to help schools and then contracted to engineers who build them. That’s
can use to fine-tune their education policies…That policy makers shift from looking upward within the how tests are created that are owned by a company
education system towards looking outward to the next – but not by the people who are needed to change
is why the OECD produces this triennial report on teacher, the next school, the next country. In essence, education. PISA turned that on its head. The idea of
PISA counts what counts, and makes that information PISA attracted the world’s best thinkers and mobilised
the state of education around the globe: to share available to educators and policy makers so they can hundreds of experts, educators and scientists from the
make more informed decisions. participating countries to build a global assessment.
Today, we would call that crowdsourcing; but
evidence of the best policies and practices, and
The OECD countries that initiated PISA tried to whatever we call it, it created the ownership that was
make PISA different from traditional assessments in critical for success.
to offer our timely and targeted support to help other ways too. In a world that rewards individuals
increasingly not just for what they know, but for what In a nutshell, PISA owes its success to a collaborative
countries provide the best education possible for they can do with what they know, PISA goes beyond effort between the participating countries, the national
“
assessing whether students can reproduce what they and international experts and institutions working within
all of their students. have learned in school. To do well in PISA, students the framework of the PISA Consortium, and the OECD.
have to be able to extrapolate from what they Subject-matter experts, practitioners and policy makers
know, think across the boundaries of subject-matter from the participating countries worked tirelessly to
disciplines, apply their knowledge creatively in novel build agreement on which learning outcomes are
Angel Gurría situations and demonstrate effective learning strategies. important to measure and how to measure them best;
OECD Secretary-General If all we do is teach our children what we know, they to design and validate assessment tasks that can reflect
© OECD 2019 3
PISA 2018: Insights and Interpretations
“
Equipping citizens with the knowledge and
skills necessary to achieve their full potential,
to contribute to an increasingly interconnected
world, and to convert better skills into better lives
needs to become a more central preoccupation
of policy makers around the world. Fairness,
integrity and inclusiveness in public policy thus
all hinge on the skills of citizens. In working to
About PISA
achieve these goals, more and more countries are Up to the end of the 1990s, the OECD’s comparisons might remember enough to follow in our footsteps;
of education outcomes were mainly based on but if they learn how to learn, and are able to think
looking beyond their own borders for evidence measures of years of schooling, which are not reliable for themselves, and work with others, they can go
indicators of what people actually know and can do. anywhere they want.
of the most successful and efficient education The Programme for International Student Assessment
(PISA) changed this. The idea behind PISA lay in Some people argued that the PISA tests are unfair,
policies and practices. testing the knowledge and skills of students directly, because they may confront students with problems they
through a metric that was internationally agreed upon; have not encountered in school. But then life is unfair,
linking that with data from students, teachers, schools because the real test in life is not whether we can
and systems to understand performance differences; remember what we learned at school, but whether we
PISA is not only the world’s most comprehensive will be able to solve problems that we can’t possibly
and then harnessing the power of collaboration to
act on the data, both by creating shared points of anticipate today.
and reliable indicator of students’ capabilities, it is
reference and by leveraging peer pressure. But the greatest strength of PISA lies in its working
also a powerful tool that countries and economies The aim with PISA was not to create another layer methods. Most assessments are centrally planned and
of top-down accountability, but to help schools and then contracted to engineers who build them. That’s
can use to fine-tune their education policies…That policy makers shift from looking upward within the how tests are created that are owned by a company
education system towards looking outward to the next – but not by the people who are needed to change
is why the OECD produces this triennial report on teacher, the next school, the next country. In essence, education. PISA turned that on its head. The idea of
PISA counts what counts, and makes that information PISA attracted the world’s best thinkers and mobilised
the state of education around the globe: to share available to educators and policy makers so they can hundreds of experts, educators and scientists from the
make more informed decisions. participating countries to build a global assessment.
Today, we would call that crowdsourcing; but
evidence of the best policies and practices, and
The OECD countries that initiated PISA tried to whatever we call it, it created the ownership that was
make PISA different from traditional assessments in critical for success.
to offer our timely and targeted support to help other ways too. In a world that rewards individuals
increasingly not just for what they know, but for what In a nutshell, PISA owes its success to a collaborative
countries provide the best education possible for they can do with what they know, PISA goes beyond effort between the participating countries, the national
“
assessing whether students can reproduce what they and international experts and institutions working within
all of their students. have learned in school. To do well in PISA, students the framework of the PISA Consortium, and the OECD.
have to be able to extrapolate from what they Subject-matter experts, practitioners and policy makers
know, think across the boundaries of subject-matter from the participating countries worked tirelessly to
disciplines, apply their knowledge creatively in novel build agreement on which learning outcomes are
Angel Gurría situations and demonstrate effective learning strategies. important to measure and how to measure them best;
OECD Secretary-General If all we do is teach our children what we know, they to design and validate assessment tasks that can reflect
© OECD 2019 3
PISA 2018: Insights and Interpretations PISA 2018: Insights and Interpretations
those measures adequately and accurately across Since 2000, PISA has shown that education systems
countries and cultures; and to find ways to compare can provide both high-quality instruction and equitable
the results meaningfully and reliably. The OECD learning opportunities for all, and that they can
co-ordinated this effort and worked with countries to support academic excellence in an environment that
make sense of the results and compile the reports. also nurtures students’ well-being. PISA shows what
countries are doing to support their students and
PISA 2018 was the seventh round of the international provides an opportunity for countries to learn from
assessment since the programme was launched in each other. This brochure summarises some of the initial
2000. Every PISA test assesses students’ knowledge findings from PISA 2018 and puts them into context.
and skills in reading, mathematics and science; The full set of initial results can be found in PISA 2018
each assessment focuses on one of these subjects Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do;
and provides a summary assessment of the other PISA 2018 Results (Volume II): Where All Students Can
two. In 2018, the focus was on reading in a digital Succeed; and PISA 2018 Results (Volume III): What
environment; but the design of the assessment also School Life Means for Students’ Lives. Three additional
made it possible to measure trends in reading literacy volumes of PISA 2018 Results – Are Students Smart
over the past two decades. PISA 2018 defined about Money?; Effective Policies, Successful Schools;
reading literacy as understanding, using, evaluating, and Are Students Ready to Thrive in Global Societies?
reflecting on and engaging with texts in order to – will be published in 2020.
achieve one’s goals, to develop one’s knowledge and
potential, and to participate in society. PISA 2018 also
Improving education
collected extensive data on students’ attitudes and
well-being.
Over ten million students represented by PISA in average student in OECD countries, and performed on
PISA 2018 assessed the cumulative outcomes of 2018 were not able to complete even the most basic a par with the 10% most advantaged students in some
education and learning at a point at which most reading tasks – and these were 15-year-olds living of them (Figure 4). True, these four provinces in eastern
children are still enrolled in formal education: the in the 79 high- and middle-income countries that China are far from representing China as a whole, but
age of 15. The 15-year-olds in the PISA sample must participated in the test. In many countries, the quality the size of each compares to that of a typical OECD
also have been enrolled in an educational institution of the education a student acquires can still best be country, and their combined populations amount
at grade 7 or higher. All such students were eligible predicted by the student’s or his or her school’s socio- to over 180 million. What makes their achievement
to sit the PISA assessment, regardless of the type of economic background. In fact, the 10% most socio- even more remarkable is that the level of income of
educational establishment in which they were enrolled economically advantaged students outperformed these four Chinese regions is well below the OECD
and whether they were enrolled in full-time or part-time their 10% most disadvantaged counterparts in reading average. At the same time, they have a long way to go
education. Not all of the students who were eligible by 141 score points, on average across OECD when it comes to improving the social and emotional
to sit the PISA assessment were actually assessed. countries. This adds up to the equivalent of over three outcomes, and other aspects of students’ well-being
A two-stage sampling procedure first selected years of schooling in the countries which were able that were measured by PISA 2018, areas where other
a representative sample of at least 150 schools, to estimate learning progress across school grades, countries excel (more on that later).
taking into account factors such as location (state and this gap has essentially remained unchanged over
the past decade. Moreover, there has also been no It is also noteworthy that some of today’s highest-performing
or province; but also whether the school is located
real overall improvement in the learning outcomes of education systems have only recently attained their
in a rural area, town or city) and level of education.
students in OECD countries, even though expenditure top positions. Less than 17% of 55-65 year-old
Then, in the second stage, roughly 42 15-year-old
on schooling rose by more than 15% over the past Singaporeans scored at level 3 or higher in literacy
students were randomly selected from each school to
decade alone. in the Survey of Adult Skills (a product of the OECD
sit the assessment. Most countries assessed between
Programme for the International Assessment of Adult
4 000 and 8 000 students. Students selected to sit the
It might be tempting to drop this report, and any further Competencies, a kind of PISA for adults) – one of the
PISA assessment received sampling weights so as to
thought about improving education, right about now. smallest proportions amongst participating countries
represent the entire PISA-eligible cohort.
Impossible to change anything as big, complex and – while 63% of 16-24 year-olds did so, one of the
Over the past two decades, PISA has become the entrenched in vested interests as education. largest proportions. And, as noted before, in PISA
world’s premier yardstick for comparing quality, equity 2018, 15-year-old Singaporeans scored not statistically
But keep reading. Why? Because 15-year-old differently from the four provinces/municipalities of China
and efficiency in learning outcomes across countries,
students in four provinces/municipalities of China in reading. Amongst OECD countries, Estonia has
and an influential force for education reform. It has
– Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu and Zhejiang – advanced steadily to the top, despite the fact that its
helped policy makers lower the cost of political action
outperformed their peers in all of the other 78 expenditure per student remains about 30% lower than
by backing difficult decisions with evidence – but
participating education systems – in mathematics the OECD average (Figures 5 and 6).
it has also raised the political cost of inaction by
and science by a wide margin, and in reading, only
exposing areas where policy and practice have been
Singapore came close (Figures 1, 2 and 3). In fact, Portugal advanced to the OECD average level
unsatisfactory.
the 10% most disadvantaged students in these four despite being severely hit by the financial crisis.
provinces showed better reading skills than those of the Some countries that still perform well below the
4 © OECD 2019 © OECD 2019 5PISA 2018: Insights and Interpretations PISA 2018: Insights and Interpretations
those measures adequately and accurately across Since 2000, PISA has shown that education systems
countries and cultures; and to find ways to compare can provide both high-quality instruction and equitable
the results meaningfully and reliably. The OECD learning opportunities for all, and that they can
co-ordinated this effort and worked with countries to support academic excellence in an environment that
make sense of the results and compile the reports. also nurtures students’ well-being. PISA shows what
countries are doing to support their students and
PISA 2018 was the seventh round of the international provides an opportunity for countries to learn from
assessment since the programme was launched in each other. This brochure summarises some of the initial
2000. Every PISA test assesses students’ knowledge findings from PISA 2018 and puts them into context.
and skills in reading, mathematics and science; The full set of initial results can be found in PISA 2018
each assessment focuses on one of these subjects Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do;
and provides a summary assessment of the other PISA 2018 Results (Volume II): Where All Students Can
two. In 2018, the focus was on reading in a digital Succeed; and PISA 2018 Results (Volume III): What
environment; but the design of the assessment also School Life Means for Students’ Lives. Three additional
made it possible to measure trends in reading literacy volumes of PISA 2018 Results – Are Students Smart
over the past two decades. PISA 2018 defined about Money?; Effective Policies, Successful Schools;
reading literacy as understanding, using, evaluating, and Are Students Ready to Thrive in Global Societies?
reflecting on and engaging with texts in order to – will be published in 2020.
achieve one’s goals, to develop one’s knowledge and
potential, and to participate in society. PISA 2018 also
Improving education
collected extensive data on students’ attitudes and
well-being.
Over ten million students represented by PISA in average student in OECD countries, and performed on
PISA 2018 assessed the cumulative outcomes of 2018 were not able to complete even the most basic a par with the 10% most advantaged students in some
education and learning at a point at which most reading tasks – and these were 15-year-olds living of them (Figure 4). True, these four provinces in eastern
children are still enrolled in formal education: the in the 79 high- and middle-income countries that China are far from representing China as a whole, but
age of 15. The 15-year-olds in the PISA sample must participated in the test. In many countries, the quality the size of each compares to that of a typical OECD
also have been enrolled in an educational institution of the education a student acquires can still best be country, and their combined populations amount
at grade 7 or higher. All such students were eligible predicted by the student’s or his or her school’s socio- to over 180 million. What makes their achievement
to sit the PISA assessment, regardless of the type of economic background. In fact, the 10% most socio- even more remarkable is that the level of income of
educational establishment in which they were enrolled economically advantaged students outperformed these four Chinese regions is well below the OECD
and whether they were enrolled in full-time or part-time their 10% most disadvantaged counterparts in reading average. At the same time, they have a long way to go
education. Not all of the students who were eligible by 141 score points, on average across OECD when it comes to improving the social and emotional
to sit the PISA assessment were actually assessed. countries. This adds up to the equivalent of over three outcomes, and other aspects of students’ well-being
A two-stage sampling procedure first selected years of schooling in the countries which were able that were measured by PISA 2018, areas where other
a representative sample of at least 150 schools, to estimate learning progress across school grades, countries excel (more on that later).
taking into account factors such as location (state and this gap has essentially remained unchanged over
the past decade. Moreover, there has also been no It is also noteworthy that some of today’s highest-performing
or province; but also whether the school is located
real overall improvement in the learning outcomes of education systems have only recently attained their
in a rural area, town or city) and level of education.
students in OECD countries, even though expenditure top positions. Less than 17% of 55-65 year-old
Then, in the second stage, roughly 42 15-year-old
on schooling rose by more than 15% over the past Singaporeans scored at level 3 or higher in literacy
students were randomly selected from each school to
decade alone. in the Survey of Adult Skills (a product of the OECD
sit the assessment. Most countries assessed between
Programme for the International Assessment of Adult
4 000 and 8 000 students. Students selected to sit the
It might be tempting to drop this report, and any further Competencies, a kind of PISA for adults) – one of the
PISA assessment received sampling weights so as to
thought about improving education, right about now. smallest proportions amongst participating countries
represent the entire PISA-eligible cohort.
Impossible to change anything as big, complex and – while 63% of 16-24 year-olds did so, one of the
Over the past two decades, PISA has become the entrenched in vested interests as education. largest proportions. And, as noted before, in PISA
world’s premier yardstick for comparing quality, equity 2018, 15-year-old Singaporeans scored not statistically
But keep reading. Why? Because 15-year-old differently from the four provinces/municipalities of China
and efficiency in learning outcomes across countries,
students in four provinces/municipalities of China in reading. Amongst OECD countries, Estonia has
and an influential force for education reform. It has
– Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu and Zhejiang – advanced steadily to the top, despite the fact that its
helped policy makers lower the cost of political action
outperformed their peers in all of the other 78 expenditure per student remains about 30% lower than
by backing difficult decisions with evidence – but
participating education systems – in mathematics the OECD average (Figures 5 and 6).
it has also raised the political cost of inaction by
and science by a wide margin, and in reading, only
exposing areas where policy and practice have been
Singapore came close (Figures 1, 2 and 3). In fact, Portugal advanced to the OECD average level
unsatisfactory.
the 10% most disadvantaged students in these four despite being severely hit by the financial crisis.
provinces showed better reading skills than those of the Some countries that still perform well below the
4 © OECD 2019 © OECD 2019 5S.D.* Mean score S.D.* Mean score
L. 4
B-S-J-Z (China) 87 555 B-S-J-Z (China) 80 591
Level 4
Singapore 109 549 Singapore 94 569
Macao (China) 92 525
Figure 1 Macao (China) 81 558
Figure 2
Hong Kong (China)1 Hong Kong (China)¹ 94 551
Reading
99 524
Estonia
Canada
Finland
93
100
100
523
520
520 Comparing countries’ and economies’
Chinese Taipei
Japan
Korea
100
86
100
531
527
526
Mathematics
Comparing countries’ and economies’
Ireland 91 518
performance in reading Estonia 82 523
performance in mathematics
Korea 102 514 Netherlands¹ 93 519
Poland 97 512 Poland 90 516
Sweden 108 506 Switzerland 94 515
New Zealand 106 506 Canada 92 512
United States¹ 108 505 Denmark 82 509
United Kingdom 100 504 Slovenia 89 509
Level 3
Japan 97 504 Belgium 95 508
Australia 109 503 Finland 82 507
Chinese Taipei 102 503 Sweden 91 502
United Kingdom 93 502
Level 3
Denmark 92 501
Norway 106 499 Norway 90 501
Germany 106 498 Germany 95 500
Slovenia 94 495 Ireland 78 500
Belgium 103 493 Czech Republic 93 499
France 101 493 Austria 93 499
Portugal¹ 96 492 Latvia 80 496
Czech Republic 97 490 France 93 495
Netherlands¹ 105 485 Iceland 90 495
Austria 99 484 New Zealand 93 494
Switzerland 103 484 Portugal¹ 96 492
Croatia 89 479 Australia 92 491
Latvia 90 479 Russia 86 488
Italy 94 487
Russia 93 479
Slovak Republic 100 486
Italy 97 476
Luxembourg 98 483
Hungary 98 476
Spain 88 481
Lithuania 94 476
Lithuania 91 481
Iceland 105 474
Hungary 91 481
Belarus 89 474
United States¹ 92 478
Israel 124 470
Belarus 93 472
Luxembourg 108 470
Malta 102 472
Ukraine 93 466
Croatia 87 464
Turkey 88 466
Israel 108 463
Slovak Republic 100 458
Turkey 88 454
Greece 97 457
Ukraine 94 453
Chile 92 452
Level 2
Level 2
Greece 89 451
Malta 113 448
Cyprus 95 451
Serbia 96 439
Serbia 97 448
United Arab Emirates 113 432
Malaysia 83 440
Romania 98 428
Albania 83 437
Uruguay 96 427
Bulgaria 97 436
*S.D. = standard deviation *S.D. = standard deviation
Costa Rica 81 426
United Arab Emirates 106 435
Cyprus 98 424 1. Did not meet response-rate standards; further 1. Data did not meet the PISA technical standards but
analyses could exclude a large bias in the published Brunei Darussalam 91 430
were accepted as largely comparable (see Annexes
Moldova 93 424
Romania 94 430
results due to non-response (see Annexes A2 and A4 A2 and A4 in OECD (2019), PISA 2018 Results
Montenegro 86 421
in OECD (2019), PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Montenegro 83 430 (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do, PISA,
Mexico 84 420 Students Know and Can Do, PISA, OECD Publishing, Kazakhstan 87 423 OECD Publishing, Paris;
Bulgaria 101 420 Paris; https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en). https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en.
Moldova 94 421
Jordan 87 419
Source : OECD, PISA 2018 Baku (Azerbaijan) 89 420 Source : OECD, PISA 2018
Malaysia 85 415 Database, Table I.B1.4; Figure I.4.1. Thailand 88 419 Database, Table I.B1.5; Figure I.4.2.
Brazil 100 413
Uruguay 85 418
Colombia 89 412
Chile 85 417
Brunei Darussalam 97 408
Level 6 Above 698.32 score points Qatar 98 414 Level 6 Above 669.30 score points
Qatar 110 407
Mexico 78 409
From 625.61 From 606.99
Albania 80 405 Level 5 Bosnia and Herzegovina 82 406 Level 5
to less than 698.32 score points to less than 669.30 score points
Bosnia and Herzegovina 79 403
Costa Rica 75 402
From 552.89 From 544.68
Argentina 98 402 Level 4 Peru 84 400 Level 4
to less than 625.61 score points to less than 606.99 score points
Level 1
Peru 92 401
From 480.18 Jordan 85 400
From 482.38
Saudi Arabia 84 399 Level 3 Level 3
to less than 552.89 score points Georgia 88 398 to less than 544.68 score points
Thailand 79 393
From 407.47 North Macedonia 93 394
From 420.07
North Macedonia 94 393 Level 2 Level 2
to less than 480.18 score points Lebanon 106 393 to less than 482.38 score points
Baku (Azerbaijan) 74 389
From 334.75 Colombia 81 391 From 357.77
Level 1a Level 1
Kazakhstan 77 387 to less than 407.47 score points to less than 420.07 score points
Level 1
Brazil 88 384
Georgia 84 380 From 262.04 Argentina 84 379
Below level 1 Below 357.77 score points
Level 1b
Panama 88 377 to less than 334.75 score points Indonesia 79 379
Indonesia 75 371
Level 1c
From 189.33 Saudi Arabia 79 373
Morocco 75 359 to less than 262.04 score points Morocco 76 368
Lebanon 113 353
Below level 1c Less than 189.33 score points Kosovo 77 366
Kosovo 68 353 Panama 77 353
Dominican Republic 82 342 Philippines
Below Level 1
78 353
Philippines 80 340 Dominican Republic 71 325
300 400 500 600 300 400 500 600
OECD average 487 (99) OECD average 489 (91)S.D.* Mean score S.D.* Mean score
L. 4
B-S-J-Z (China) 87 555 B-S-J-Z (China) 80 591
Level 4
Singapore 109 549 Singapore 94 569
Macao (China) 92 525
Figure 1 Macao (China) 81 558
Figure 2
Hong Kong (China)1 Hong Kong (China)¹ 94 551
Reading
99 524
Estonia
Canada
Finland
93
100
100
523
520
520 Comparing countries’ and economies’
Chinese Taipei
Japan
Korea
100
86
100
531
527
526
Mathematics
Comparing countries’ and economies’
Ireland 91 518
performance in reading Estonia 82 523
performance in mathematics
Korea 102 514 Netherlands¹ 93 519
Poland 97 512 Poland 90 516
Sweden 108 506 Switzerland 94 515
New Zealand 106 506 Canada 92 512
United States¹ 108 505 Denmark 82 509
United Kingdom 100 504 Slovenia 89 509
Level 3
Japan 97 504 Belgium 95 508
Australia 109 503 Finland 82 507
Chinese Taipei 102 503 Sweden 91 502
United Kingdom 93 502
Level 3
Denmark 92 501
Norway 106 499 Norway 90 501
Germany 106 498 Germany 95 500
Slovenia 94 495 Ireland 78 500
Belgium 103 493 Czech Republic 93 499
France 101 493 Austria 93 499
Portugal¹ 96 492 Latvia 80 496
Czech Republic 97 490 France 93 495
Netherlands¹ 105 485 Iceland 90 495
Austria 99 484 New Zealand 93 494
Switzerland 103 484 Portugal¹ 96 492
Croatia 89 479 Australia 92 491
Latvia 90 479 Russia 86 488
Italy 94 487
Russia 93 479
Slovak Republic 100 486
Italy 97 476
Luxembourg 98 483
Hungary 98 476
Spain 88 481
Lithuania 94 476
Lithuania 91 481
Iceland 105 474
Hungary 91 481
Belarus 89 474
United States¹ 92 478
Israel 124 470
Belarus 93 472
Luxembourg 108 470
Malta 102 472
Ukraine 93 466
Croatia 87 464
Turkey 88 466
Israel 108 463
Slovak Republic 100 458
Turkey 88 454
Greece 97 457
Ukraine 94 453
Chile 92 452
Level 2
Level 2
Greece 89 451
Malta 113 448
Cyprus 95 451
Serbia 96 439
Serbia 97 448
United Arab Emirates 113 432
Malaysia 83 440
Romania 98 428
Albania 83 437
Uruguay 96 427
Bulgaria 97 436
*S.D. = standard deviation *S.D. = standard deviation
Costa Rica 81 426
United Arab Emirates 106 435
Cyprus 98 424 1. Did not meet response-rate standards; further 1. Data did not meet the PISA technical standards but
analyses could exclude a large bias in the published Brunei Darussalam 91 430
were accepted as largely comparable (see Annexes
Moldova 93 424
Romania 94 430
results due to non-response (see Annexes A2 and A4 A2 and A4 in OECD (2019), PISA 2018 Results
Montenegro 86 421
in OECD (2019), PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Montenegro 83 430 (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do, PISA,
Mexico 84 420 Students Know and Can Do, PISA, OECD Publishing, Kazakhstan 87 423 OECD Publishing, Paris;
Bulgaria 101 420 Paris; https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en). https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en.
Moldova 94 421
Jordan 87 419
Source : OECD, PISA 2018 Baku (Azerbaijan) 89 420 Source : OECD, PISA 2018
Malaysia 85 415 Database, Table I.B1.4; Figure I.4.1. Thailand 88 419 Database, Table I.B1.5; Figure I.4.2.
Brazil 100 413
Uruguay 85 418
Colombia 89 412
Chile 85 417
Brunei Darussalam 97 408
Level 6 Above 698.32 score points Qatar 98 414 Level 6 Above 669.30 score points
Qatar 110 407
Mexico 78 409
From 625.61 From 606.99
Albania 80 405 Level 5 Bosnia and Herzegovina 82 406 Level 5
to less than 698.32 score points to less than 669.30 score points
Bosnia and Herzegovina 79 403
Costa Rica 75 402
From 552.89 From 544.68
Argentina 98 402 Level 4 Peru 84 400 Level 4
to less than 625.61 score points to less than 606.99 score points
Level 1
Peru 92 401
From 480.18 Jordan 85 400
From 482.38
Saudi Arabia 84 399 Level 3 Level 3
to less than 552.89 score points Georgia 88 398 to less than 544.68 score points
Thailand 79 393
From 407.47 North Macedonia 93 394
From 420.07
North Macedonia 94 393 Level 2 Level 2
to less than 480.18 score points Lebanon 106 393 to less than 482.38 score points
Baku (Azerbaijan) 74 389
From 334.75 Colombia 81 391 From 357.77
Level 1a Level 1
Kazakhstan 77 387 to less than 407.47 score points to less than 420.07 score points
Level 1
Brazil 88 384
Georgia 84 380 From 262.04 Argentina 84 379
Below level 1 Below 357.77 score points
Level 1b
Panama 88 377 to less than 334.75 score points Indonesia 79 379
Indonesia 75 371
Level 1c
From 189.33 Saudi Arabia 79 373
Morocco 75 359 to less than 262.04 score points Morocco 76 368
Lebanon 113 353
Below level 1c Less than 189.33 score points Kosovo 77 366
Kosovo 68 353 Panama 77 353
Dominican Republic 82 342 Philippines
Below Level 1
78 353
Philippines 80 340 Dominican Republic 71 325
300 400 500 600 300 400 500 600
OECD average 487 (99) OECD average 489 (91)S.D.* Mean score
L. 4
B-S-J-Z (China) 83 590
Singapore 97 551
PISA 2018: Insights and Interpretations
Macao (China) 83 544
Figure 3
Estonia 88 530
Science
Figure 4•Mean performance in reading, by international decile of socio-economic status
Japan 92 529
Finland 96 522
Korea 98 519 Comparing countries’ and economies’ Country / Economy
Canada 96 518
performance in science Kosovo Top decile
Hong Kong (China)1 86 517 Dominican Republic
Lebanon Second decile
Chinese Taipei 99 516
Qatar Ninth decile
Poland 92 511
Philippines
New Zealand 102 508 Morocco Bottom decile
Slovenia 88 507 Georgia
Panama Middle decile
United Kingdom 99 505
North Macedonia
Level 3
Netherlands1 104 503 Kazakhstan
Germany 103 503 Indonesia
Baku (Azerbaijan)
Australia 101 503 United Arab Emirates
United States1 99 502 Saudi Arabia
Brunei Darussalam
Sweden 98 499
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Belgium 99 499 Montenegro
Czech Republic 94 497 Albania
Bulgaria
Ireland 88 496
Thailand
Switzerland 97 495 Argentina
France 96 493 Peru
Malaysia
Denmark 91 493
Colombia
Portugal1 92 492 Jordan
Brazil
Norway 98 490
Romania
Austria 96 490 Costa Rica
Latvia 84 487 Iceland
Mexico
Spain 89 483
Israel
Lithuania 90 482 Serbia
Hungary 94 481 Moldova
Malta
Russia 84 478
Uruguay
Luxembourg 98 477 Luxembourg
Greece
Iceland 91 475
Slovak Republic
Croatia 90 472 Chile
Belarus 85 471 Lithuania
Netherlands
Ukraine 91 469
Russia
Turkey 84 468 Latvia
Italy 90 468 Belarus
Ukraine
Slovak Republic 96 464
Denmark
Israel 111 462 Hungary
Croatia
Malta 107 457
Norway
Greece 86 452 OECD average
Chile 83 444 Switzerland
Slovenia
Level 2
Serbia 92 440
Belgium
Cyprus 93 439 Italy
Malaysia 77 438 Turkey
Sweden
United Arab Emirates 103 434
France
Brunei Darussalam 96 431 Australia
Jordan 88 429 *S.D. = standard deviation Austria
New Zealand
Moldova 89 428
1. Data did not meet the PISA technical standards but Czech Republic
Thailand 82 426
were accepted as largely comparable (see Annexes United States
Portugal
Uruguay 87 426 A2 and A4 in OECD (2019), PISA 2018 Results United Kingdom
Romania 90 426 (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do, PISA, Korea
Bulgaria 95 424 OECD Publishing, Paris; Canada
https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en. Finland
Mexico 74 419
Poland
Qatar 103 419 Source : OECD, PISA 2018 Japan
Albania 74 417 Database, Table I.B1.6; Figure I.4.3. Germany
Chinese Taipei
Costa Rica 73 416
Ireland
Montenegro 81 415 Estonia
Level 6 Above 707.93 score points Macao (China)
Colombia 82 413
Hong Kong (China)
North Macedonia 92 413
From 633.33 Singapore
Peru 80 404 Level 5 B-S-J-Z (China)
to less than 707.93 score points
Argentina 90 404
From 558.73 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650
Level 4
Brazil 90 404 to less than 633.33 score points
Mean score
Bosnia and Herzegovina 77 398
From 484.14
Level 3
Baku (Azerbaijan) 74 398 to less than 558.73 score points Note: Bottom, second, ninth and top deciles correspond to the average performance of students who are in the corresponding deciles of the distribution of the PISA index of economic,
Kazakhstan 76 397 From 409.54 social and cultural status across all countries and economies; the middle decile corresponds to students whose socio-economic status ranges from the 45th to the 55th percentile of this
Level 2
Indonesia 69 396 to less than 484.14 score points distribution.
Saudi Arabia 79 386 From 334.94 Only results of countries and economies with at least 3% of students in each international decile are shown.
Level 1a
Level 1
to less than 409.54 score points Countries and economies are ranked in ascending order of the mean reading performance of students in the international middle decile of socio-economic status.
Lebanon 95 384
From 260.54 Source: OECD, PISA 2018 Database, Table II.B1.2.2; Figure II.2.2.
Georgia 81 383
Level 1b
Morocco 67 377 to less than 334.94 score points
Kosovo 65 365 Below level 1b Below 260.54 score points
Panama 85 365
Philippines 75 357
Dominican Republic 71 336
300 400 500 600
© OECD 2019 9
OECD agerage 489 (94)S.D.* Mean score
L. 4
B-S-J-Z (China) 83 590
Singapore 97 551
PISA 2018: Insights and Interpretations
Macao (China) 83 544
Figure 3
Estonia 88 530
Science
Figure 4•Mean performance in reading, by international decile of socio-economic status
Japan 92 529
Finland 96 522
Korea 98 519 Comparing countries’ and economies’ Country / Economy
Canada 96 518
performance in science Kosovo Top decile
Hong Kong (China)1 86 517 Dominican Republic
Lebanon Second decile
Chinese Taipei 99 516
Qatar Ninth decile
Poland 92 511
Philippines
New Zealand 102 508 Morocco Bottom decile
Slovenia 88 507 Georgia
Panama Middle decile
United Kingdom 99 505
North Macedonia
Level 3
Netherlands1 104 503 Kazakhstan
Germany 103 503 Indonesia
Baku (Azerbaijan)
Australia 101 503 United Arab Emirates
United States1 99 502 Saudi Arabia
Brunei Darussalam
Sweden 98 499
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Belgium 99 499 Montenegro
Czech Republic 94 497 Albania
Bulgaria
Ireland 88 496
Thailand
Switzerland 97 495 Argentina
France 96 493 Peru
Malaysia
Denmark 91 493
Colombia
Portugal1 92 492 Jordan
Brazil
Norway 98 490
Romania
Austria 96 490 Costa Rica
Latvia 84 487 Iceland
Mexico
Spain 89 483
Israel
Lithuania 90 482 Serbia
Hungary 94 481 Moldova
Malta
Russia 84 478
Uruguay
Luxembourg 98 477 Luxembourg
Greece
Iceland 91 475
Slovak Republic
Croatia 90 472 Chile
Belarus 85 471 Lithuania
Netherlands
Ukraine 91 469
Russia
Turkey 84 468 Latvia
Italy 90 468 Belarus
Ukraine
Slovak Republic 96 464
Denmark
Israel 111 462 Hungary
Croatia
Malta 107 457
Norway
Greece 86 452 OECD average
Chile 83 444 Switzerland
Slovenia
Level 2
Serbia 92 440
Belgium
Cyprus 93 439 Italy
Malaysia 77 438 Turkey
Sweden
United Arab Emirates 103 434
France
Brunei Darussalam 96 431 Australia
Jordan 88 429 *S.D. = standard deviation Austria
New Zealand
Moldova 89 428
1. Data did not meet the PISA technical standards but Czech Republic
Thailand 82 426
were accepted as largely comparable (see Annexes United States
Portugal
Uruguay 87 426 A2 and A4 in OECD (2019), PISA 2018 Results United Kingdom
Romania 90 426 (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do, PISA, Korea
Bulgaria 95 424 OECD Publishing, Paris; Canada
https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en. Finland
Mexico 74 419
Poland
Qatar 103 419 Source : OECD, PISA 2018 Japan
Albania 74 417 Database, Table I.B1.6; Figure I.4.3. Germany
Chinese Taipei
Costa Rica 73 416
Ireland
Montenegro 81 415 Estonia
Level 6 Above 707.93 score points Macao (China)
Colombia 82 413
Hong Kong (China)
North Macedonia 92 413
From 633.33 Singapore
Peru 80 404 Level 5 B-S-J-Z (China)
to less than 707.93 score points
Argentina 90 404
From 558.73 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650
Level 4
Brazil 90 404 to less than 633.33 score points
Mean score
Bosnia and Herzegovina 77 398
From 484.14
Level 3
Baku (Azerbaijan) 74 398 to less than 558.73 score points Note: Bottom, second, ninth and top deciles correspond to the average performance of students who are in the corresponding deciles of the distribution of the PISA index of economic,
Kazakhstan 76 397 From 409.54 social and cultural status across all countries and economies; the middle decile corresponds to students whose socio-economic status ranges from the 45th to the 55th percentile of this
Level 2
Indonesia 69 396 to less than 484.14 score points distribution.
Saudi Arabia 79 386 From 334.94 Only results of countries and economies with at least 3% of students in each international decile are shown.
Level 1a
Level 1
to less than 409.54 score points Countries and economies are ranked in ascending order of the mean reading performance of students in the international middle decile of socio-economic status.
Lebanon 95 384
From 260.54 Source: OECD, PISA 2018 Database, Table II.B1.2.2; Figure II.2.2.
Georgia 81 383
Level 1b
Morocco 67 377 to less than 334.94 score points
Kosovo 65 365 Below level 1b Below 260.54 score points
Panama 85 365
Philippines 75 357
Dominican Republic 71 336
300 400 500 600
© OECD 2019 9
OECD agerage 489 (94)PISA 2018: Insights and Interpretations PISA 2018: Insights and Interpretations
OECD average saw remarkable improvements in the determination to build a first-class education Figure 5•Curvilinear trajectories of average performance in reading across PISA assessments
their students’ performance, most notably Albania, system can achieve this even in adverse economic Direction and trajectory of trend in mean performance
the Republic of Moldova, Peru and Qatar. Turkey’s circumstances, and their schools today will be their
improvement between 2003 and 2018 may look economy and society tomorrow. So it can be done. Increasingly positive Steadily positive Positive, but flattening
(less positive over more recent years)
somewhat less impressive, but Turkey was able to
And it must be done. Without the right education,
with a positive average trend
PISA reading score PISA reading score PISA reading score
double the coverage of the 15-year-olds who are
people will languish on the margins of society,
Countries/economies
enrolled in school and covered by PISA from 36% to
73% during that period. Five other countries – namely countries will not be able to benefit from technological
Albania, Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico and Uruguay advances, and those advances will not translate into
– also significantly increased enrolment rates in social progress. It will not be possible to develop fair
secondary education over their participation in PISA and inclusive policies and engage all citizens if a lack
and maintained or improved their mean reading, of education prevents people from fully participating in
mathematics and science performance. This shows that society. 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018
Jordan (06) Estonia (06) Albania (01) Montenegro (06)
the quality of education does not have to be sacrificed But change can be an uphill struggle. Young people Macao (China) (03) Portugal (00) Chile (01) Peru (01)
Russia (00) Colombia (06) Poland (00)
when increasing access to schooling. are less likely to invest their time and energy in better Germany (00) Qatar (06)
Israel (02) Romania (06)
Some countries were able to move to a more positive education if that education seems irrelevant to the
trajectory in recent years after a period of stagnation demands of the “real” world. Businesses are less likely U-shaped Flat Hump-shaped
(more positive over more recent years) (more negative over more recent years)
or decline. Sweden showed an improving trend in all to invest in their employees’ lifelong learning if those
with no significant average trend
PISA reading score PISA reading score PISA reading score
three subjects between 2012 and 2018, reversing workers might move away for a better job. Policy makers
earlier declines in mean performance. Argentina, the often prioritise the urgent over the important – even if
Countries/economies
Czech Republic and Ireland saw recent improvements the latter includes education, an investment in the future
in reading; Denmark, Ireland, Jordan, Slovenia and well-being of society.
the United Kingdom in mathematics; and Jordan and
Montenegro in science. In some countries, some
of these trends can be related to changes in the Read more about these issues in Chapters 4
2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018
demographic composition of the student body; but in and 9 in PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Argentina (01) Austria (00) Italy (00) OECD average-23 (00) Latvia (00)
no country do such demographic changes alter the Students Know and Can Do. Czech Republic (00)
Ireland (00)
Bulgaria (01)
Canada (00)
Japan (00)
Mexico (00)
Belgium (00)
Greece (00)
Luxembourg (03)
Switzerland (00)
picture dramatically. https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en Slovenia (06) Croatia (06) Norway (00) Hong Kong (China) (02) Chinese Taipei (06)
Uruguay (03) Denmark (00) United States (00) Hungary (00) Turkey (03)
France (00) Indonesia (01)
PISA also shows that in most countries excellence And in Chapter 2 in PISA 2018 Results
in education is apparent amongst some of the most (Volume II): Where All Students Can Succeed. Increasingly negative Steadily negative Negative, but flattening
disadvantaged students and schools. On average https://doi.org/ 10.1787/b5fd1b8f-en (less negative over more recent years)
across OECD countries, one in ten disadvantaged
with a negative average trend
PISA reading score PISA reading score PISA reading score
students was able to score in the top quarter of
Countries/economies
reading performance in his or her country, indicating
that disadvantage is not destiny. In fact, in Australia,
Canada, Estonia, Ireland and the United Kingdom, all
of which scored above the OECD average, more than
13% of disadvantaged students were academically
resilient. Similarly, more than 30% of immigrant students 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018
in Brunei Darussalam, Jordan, Panama, Qatar, Saudi Korea (00)
Netherlands (03)
Australia (00)
Finland (00)
Sweden (00)
Arabia and the United Arab Emirates scored in the top Thailand (01) Iceland (00)
New Zealand (00)
quarter of reading performance. These successes do
not come about by chance. Factors that PISA shows Notes: Figures are for illustrative purposes only. Countries and economies are grouped according to the overall direction of their trend (the sign and significance of the average three-
to be positively associated with academic resilience year trend) and to the rate of change in the direction of their trend (the sign and significance of the curvature in the estimate of quadratic trends).
Only countries and economies with data from at least five PISA reading assessments are included. Not all countries and economies can compare their students’ performance over the
include support from parents, a positive school climate same period. For each country/economy, the base year, starting from which reading results can be compared, is indicated in parentheses next to the country’s/economy’s name (“00” =
and having a growth mindset (see more on this later). 2000, “01” = 2001, etc.). Both the overall direction and the change in the direction may be affected by the period considered.
OECD average-23 refers to the average of all OECD countries with valid data in all seven assessments; Austria, Chile, Estonia, Israel, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic,
Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States are not included in this average.
In the same way as social disadvantage does not Source: OECD, PISA 2018 Database, Table I.B1.10; Figure I.9.1.
automatically lead to poor educational performance
for students and schools, the world is no longer
divided between rich and well-educated nations and
poor and badly educated ones. When comparing
countries that score similarly in PISA, their income
levels vary widely. History shows that countries with
10 © OECD 2019 © OECD 2019 11PISA 2018: Insights and Interpretations PISA 2018: Insights and Interpretations
OECD average saw remarkable improvements in the determination to build a first-class education Figure 5•Curvilinear trajectories of average performance in reading across PISA assessments
their students’ performance, most notably Albania, system can achieve this even in adverse economic Direction and trajectory of trend in mean performance
the Republic of Moldova, Peru and Qatar. Turkey’s circumstances, and their schools today will be their
improvement between 2003 and 2018 may look economy and society tomorrow. So it can be done. Increasingly positive Steadily positive Positive, but flattening
(less positive over more recent years)
somewhat less impressive, but Turkey was able to
And it must be done. Without the right education,
with a positive average trend
PISA reading score PISA reading score PISA reading score
double the coverage of the 15-year-olds who are
people will languish on the margins of society,
Countries/economies
enrolled in school and covered by PISA from 36% to
73% during that period. Five other countries – namely countries will not be able to benefit from technological
Albania, Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico and Uruguay advances, and those advances will not translate into
– also significantly increased enrolment rates in social progress. It will not be possible to develop fair
secondary education over their participation in PISA and inclusive policies and engage all citizens if a lack
and maintained or improved their mean reading, of education prevents people from fully participating in
mathematics and science performance. This shows that society. 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018
Jordan (06) Estonia (06) Albania (01) Montenegro (06)
the quality of education does not have to be sacrificed But change can be an uphill struggle. Young people Macao (China) (03) Portugal (00) Chile (01) Peru (01)
Russia (00) Colombia (06) Poland (00)
when increasing access to schooling. are less likely to invest their time and energy in better Germany (00) Qatar (06)
Israel (02) Romania (06)
Some countries were able to move to a more positive education if that education seems irrelevant to the
trajectory in recent years after a period of stagnation demands of the “real” world. Businesses are less likely U-shaped Flat Hump-shaped
(more positive over more recent years) (more negative over more recent years)
or decline. Sweden showed an improving trend in all to invest in their employees’ lifelong learning if those
with no significant average trend
PISA reading score PISA reading score PISA reading score
three subjects between 2012 and 2018, reversing workers might move away for a better job. Policy makers
earlier declines in mean performance. Argentina, the often prioritise the urgent over the important – even if
Countries/economies
Czech Republic and Ireland saw recent improvements the latter includes education, an investment in the future
in reading; Denmark, Ireland, Jordan, Slovenia and well-being of society.
the United Kingdom in mathematics; and Jordan and
Montenegro in science. In some countries, some
of these trends can be related to changes in the Read more about these issues in Chapters 4
2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018
demographic composition of the student body; but in and 9 in PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Argentina (01) Austria (00) Italy (00) OECD average-23 (00) Latvia (00)
no country do such demographic changes alter the Students Know and Can Do. Czech Republic (00)
Ireland (00)
Bulgaria (01)
Canada (00)
Japan (00)
Mexico (00)
Belgium (00)
Greece (00)
Luxembourg (03)
Switzerland (00)
picture dramatically. https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en Slovenia (06) Croatia (06) Norway (00) Hong Kong (China) (02) Chinese Taipei (06)
Uruguay (03) Denmark (00) United States (00) Hungary (00) Turkey (03)
France (00) Indonesia (01)
PISA also shows that in most countries excellence And in Chapter 2 in PISA 2018 Results
in education is apparent amongst some of the most (Volume II): Where All Students Can Succeed. Increasingly negative Steadily negative Negative, but flattening
disadvantaged students and schools. On average https://doi.org/ 10.1787/b5fd1b8f-en (less negative over more recent years)
across OECD countries, one in ten disadvantaged
with a negative average trend
PISA reading score PISA reading score PISA reading score
students was able to score in the top quarter of
Countries/economies
reading performance in his or her country, indicating
that disadvantage is not destiny. In fact, in Australia,
Canada, Estonia, Ireland and the United Kingdom, all
of which scored above the OECD average, more than
13% of disadvantaged students were academically
resilient. Similarly, more than 30% of immigrant students 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018
in Brunei Darussalam, Jordan, Panama, Qatar, Saudi Korea (00)
Netherlands (03)
Australia (00)
Finland (00)
Sweden (00)
Arabia and the United Arab Emirates scored in the top Thailand (01) Iceland (00)
New Zealand (00)
quarter of reading performance. These successes do
not come about by chance. Factors that PISA shows Notes: Figures are for illustrative purposes only. Countries and economies are grouped according to the overall direction of their trend (the sign and significance of the average three-
to be positively associated with academic resilience year trend) and to the rate of change in the direction of their trend (the sign and significance of the curvature in the estimate of quadratic trends).
Only countries and economies with data from at least five PISA reading assessments are included. Not all countries and economies can compare their students’ performance over the
include support from parents, a positive school climate same period. For each country/economy, the base year, starting from which reading results can be compared, is indicated in parentheses next to the country’s/economy’s name (“00” =
and having a growth mindset (see more on this later). 2000, “01” = 2001, etc.). Both the overall direction and the change in the direction may be affected by the period considered.
OECD average-23 refers to the average of all OECD countries with valid data in all seven assessments; Austria, Chile, Estonia, Israel, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic,
Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States are not included in this average.
In the same way as social disadvantage does not Source: OECD, PISA 2018 Database, Table I.B1.10; Figure I.9.1.
automatically lead to poor educational performance
for students and schools, the world is no longer
divided between rich and well-educated nations and
poor and badly educated ones. When comparing
countries that score similarly in PISA, their income
levels vary widely. History shows that countries with
10 © OECD 2019 © OECD 2019 11PISA 2018: Insights and Interpretations PISA 2018: Insights and Interpretations
Getting ready for the digital world
While people have different views on the role that on weekend days. For young people, the digital world
digital technology can and should play in schools, we is becoming a sizeable part of the real world.
cannot ignore how digital tools have so fundamentally
transformed the world outside of school. Everywhere, While improved access to new technologies provides
digital technologies are offering firms new business unprecedented opportunities, it also raises the bar
models and opportunities to enter markets and of what it means to be proficient in reading. Students
transform their production processes. They can make growing up with a great smartphone but a poor
us live longer and healthier, help us with boring or education will face real risks. The smartphone has
dangerous tasks, and allow us to travel into virtual transformed the ways in which people read and
worlds. People who cannot navigate through the exchange information; and digitalisation has resulted
digital landscape can no longer participate fully in our in the emergence of new forms of text, ranging
social, economic and cultural life. from the concise (text messages; annotated search-
engine results) to the lengthy and unwieldy (tabbed,
PISA shows how access to new technologies has multipage websites or complex archival material). In
increased at a remarkable rate. In the 2009 PISA the past, students could find clear and often singular
assessment, about 15% of students in OECD countries, answers to their questions in carefully curated and
on average, reported that they did not have access government-approved textbooks, and they could
to the Internet at home. By 2018, that proportion had generally trust those answers to be true. Today, they
shrunk to less than 5%. The growth in access to online will find hundreds of thousands of answers to their
services is likely to be even steeper than suggested by questions on line, and it is up to them to figure out
these percentages, which hide the improvements in the what is true and what is false, what is right and what is
quality of Internet services and the explosion of mobile wrong. While in many offline situations readers can
Internet access over the past decade. assume that the author of the text they are reading
is competent, well-informed and benevolent, when
Furthermore, in all countries that distributed an optional reading online blogs, forums or news sites readers
questionnaire on students’ familiarity with these must constantly assess the quality and reliability of the
technologies as part of PISA 2018, the amount of time information, based on implicit or explicit cues related
that 15-year-old students in OECD countries spent to the content, format or source of the text.
on line outside of school increased between 2012
and 2018 – by an average of more than 1 hour per This is not exactly a new phenomenon, but the speed,
day (on both weekdays and weekends). Students volume and reach of information flows in the current
now spend about 3 hours on line outside of school on digital ecosystem have created the perfect conditions
weekdays, on average, and almost 3.5 hours on line for fake news to thrive, affecting public opinion and
12 © OECD 2019 © OECD 2019 13You can also read
