CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,350Global Educational Policies and ReformsLiteracy and Educational PracticesEducational Assessment and Improvement

PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do

OECD·2019·PISA
DOI 10.1787/5f07c754-en
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Among its many findings, our PISA 2018 assessment shows that 15-year-old students in the four provinces/municipalities of China that participated in the study -Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu and Zhejiang -outperformed by a large margin their peers from all of the other 78 participating education systems, in mathematics and science.Moreover, the 10% most disadvantaged students in these four jurisdictions also showed better reading skills than those of the average student in OECD countries, as well as skills similar to the 10% most advantaged students in some of these countries.True, these four provinces/municipalities in eastern China are far from representing China as a whole, but the size of each of them compares to that of a typical OECD country, and their combined populations amount to over 180 million.What makes their achievement even more remarkable is that the level of income of these four Chinese regions is well below the OECD average.The quality of their schools today will feed into the strength of their economies tomorrow.In this context, and given the fact that expenditure per primary and secondary student rose by more than 15% across OECD countries over the past decade, it is disappointing that most OECD countries saw virtually no improvement in the performance of their students since PISA was first conducted in 2000.In fact, only seven of the 79 education systems analysed saw significant improvements in the reading, mathematics and science performance of their student…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1787/5f07c754-en

Cites

74 of 74 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • PISA surveys routinely point to significant inequalities in the academic skills of French pupils, and their average level of mathematics performance has declined since the early 2000s.

    “results of the large-scale PISA surveys (performed on about 7.000 pupils) routinely point to significant inequalities in the academic skills of French pupils, and their average level of mathematics performance has declined since the early 2000s (e.g.OECD, 2019).”

    From No negative Flynn effect in France: Why variations of intelligence should not be assessed using tests based on cultural knowledge (2021) · cites this paper as OECD, 2019

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
OECD
Corresponding author
OECD
Venue
PISA
Publisher
OECD Publishing
Published
2019-12-03
ISSN
  • 1990-8539 (ISSN-L)
  • 1996-3777
DOI
10.1787/5f07c754-en
OpenAlex
W4230906942
Cited by
2,350
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 512 · 2025: 436 · 2024: 316 · 2023: 362 · 2022: 296 · 2021: 227 · 2020: 174 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 1 · 2013: 2
FWCI
183.36
Type
book
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Programme for international student assessment/Internationale Schulleistungsstudie (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Global Educational Policies and Reforms
  • Social Sciences › Education › Literacy and Educational Practices
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Educational Assessment and Improvement
Keywords
PISA 2018, reading literacy, reading comprehension, reading level, reading materials, teaching aids, student observation, informed consent

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review