Measuring up: Canadian Results of the OECD PISA 2018 Study The Performance of Canadian 15-Year-Olds in Reading, Mathematics, and Science UNDER EMBARGO UNTIL TUESDAY, DECEMBER 3, AT 3 A.M. EST Measuring up: Canadian Results of the OECD PISA 2018 Study The Performance of Canadian 15-Year-Olds in Reading, Mathematics, and Science Authors Kathryn O’Grady, Council of Ministers of Education, Canada Marie-Anne Deussing, Employment and Social Development Canada Tanya Scerbina, Council of Ministers of Education, Canada Yitian Tao, Council of Ministers of Education, Canada Karen Fung, Council of Ministers of Education, Canada Vanja Elez, Council of Ministers of Education, Canada Jeremy Monk, Council of Ministers of Education, Canada The Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC) was formed in 1967 by the jurisdictional ministers responsible for education to provide a forum in which they could discuss matters of mutual interest, undertake educational initiatives cooperatively, and represent the interests of the provinces and territories with national educational organizations, the federal government, foreign governments, and international organizations. CMEC is the national voice for education in Canada and, through CMEC, the provinces and territories work collectively on common objectives in a broad range of activities at the elementary, secondary, and postsecondary levels. Through the CMEC Secretariat, the Council serves as the organization in which ministries and departments of education undertake cooperatively the activities, projects, and initiatives of particular interest to all jurisdictions. One of the activities on which they cooperate is the development and implementation of pan-Canadian testing based on contemporary research and best practices in the assessment of student achievement in core subjects. Note of appreciation The Council of Ministers of Education (Canada) would like to thank the students, teachers, and administrators whose participation in the Programme for International Student Assessment ensured its success. The quality of your commitment has made this study possible. We are truly grateful for your contribution to a pan-Canadian understanding of educational policy and practices in reading, mathematics, and science of 15-year-olds. Council of Ministers of Education, Canada 95 St. Clair West, Suite 1106 Toronto, Ontario M4V 1N6 Telephone: (416) 962-8100 Fax: (416) 962-2800 E-mail: cmec@cmec.ca © 2019 Council of Ministers of Education, Canada ISBN 978-0-88987-512-8 Ce rapport est également disponible en français. Table of Contents Introduction.........................................................................................................................1 The Programme for International Student Assessment......................................................................... 1 Why does Canada participate in PISA? ................................................................................................... 2 What is PISA 2018?.................................................................................................................................. 2 Objectives and organization of this report.............................................................................................. 5 Chapter 1: Canadian Students’ Performance in Reading in an International Context..........7 Defining reading...................................................................................................................................... 7 PISA achievement results by proficiency levels in reading..................................................................... 9 Results in reading.................................................................................................................................. 11 Results in reading by proficiency level............................................................................................ 11 Results in reading by average score ............................................................................................... 13 Equity in Canada.................................................................................................................................... 17 Achievement in reading by language of the school system.................................................................. 18 Achievement in reading by gender....................................................................................................... 24 Changes in reading performance over time......................................................................................... 30 Summary............................................................................................................................................... 32 Chapter 2: A Profile of Students and Their Engagement in Reading...................................33 PISA contextual questionnaires............................................................................................................. 33 Student demographic characteristics.................................................................................................... 33 Socioeconomic status...................................................................................................................... 33 Student economic, social, and cultural status ................................................................................ 34 Immigrant status................................................................................................................................... 35 Language spoken at home.................................................................................................................... 37 Learning in Canada’s official languages.......................................................................................... 37 Students’ attitudes and beliefs.............................................................................................................. 39 Attitude toward reading.................................................................................................................. 39 Reading self-efficacy.............................................................................................................................. 41 Reading preferences ............................................................................................................................. 43 Students’ reading strategies.................................................................................................................. 45 Summary............................................................................................................................................... 47 Chapter 3: Canadian Students’ Mathematics and Science Performance in an International Context...............................................................................49 Defining mathematics and science....................................................................................................... 49 PISA achievement results by proficiency levels in mathematics and science...................................... 49 Results in mathematics and science by average score ........................................................................ 54 Achievement in mathematics and science by language of the school system..................................... 61 Achievement in mathematics and science by gender.......................................................................... 64 Changes in mathematics and science performance over time............................................................ 68 Summary............................................................................................................................................... 70 Conclusion..........................................................................................................................71 Performance by language of the school system .................................................................................. 72 Performance by gender......................................................................................................................... 73 Performance comparisons over time.................................................................................................... 73 Contextual factors influencing reading scores...................................................................................... 73 Student demographic characteristics.................................................................................................... 74 Student engagement in reading, attitudes toward reading, and use of reading strategies................. 74 Final statement...................................................................................................................................... 75 References..........................................................................................................................77 Appendix A: PISA 2018 Sampling Procedures, Exclusion Rates, and Response Rates........81 Appendix B: PISA 2018 Data Tables....................................................................................84 List of Figures Chapter 1: Canadian Students’ Performance in Reading in an International Context..........7 Figure 1.1 Figure 1.2 Figure 1.3 Figure 1.4 Figure 1.5 Figure 1.6 Figure 1.7 Figure 1.8 Figure 1.9 Figure 1.10 Elements of the PISA 2018 reading framework................................................................. 8 PISA 2018 reading framework processes........................................................................... 8 Percentage of students at each proficiency level in reading............................................ 12 Achievement scores in reading......................................................................................... 16 Difference between high and low achievers in reading................................................... 18 Percentage of students at each proficiency level in reading in Canada, by language of the school system.................................................................................... 19 Canadian achievement scores in reading, by language of the school system................. 20 Percentage of students at each proficiency level in reading in Canada, by gender........ 26 Canadian achievement scores in reading overall, by gender........................................... 27 Canadian results in reading over time, 2000–2018 ......................................................... 31 Chapter 2: A Profile of Students and Their Engagement in Reading...................................33 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.4 Figure 2.5 Economic, social, and cultural status (ESCS) index scores............................................... 34 Percentage of students by their immigrant status .......................................................... 36 Relationship between immigrant status and reading achievement in Canada............... 37 Language spoken at home as reported by students ....................................................... 38 Relationship between students’ language spoken at home and reading achievement in Canada.................................................................................................... 38 Figure 2.6 Percentage of Canadian students by their responses to questionnaire items related to the enjoyment of reading................................................................................ 40 Figure 2.7 Percentage of students by time spent reading for enjoyment........................................ 40 Figure 2.8 Relationship between students’ time spent reading for enjoyment and reading achievement in Canada....................................................................................... 41 Figure 2.9 Percentage of Canadian students by their responses to questionnaire items related to reading self-efficacy ........................................................................................ 42 Figure 2.10 Percentage of Canadian students by their responses to questionnaire items related to their preferences for reading material ........................................................... 44 Figure 2.11 Canadian students’ preferences for reading print or digital material............................. 45 Figure 2.12 Relationship between students’ preferences for reading format and reading achievement in Canada.................................................................................................... 45 Figure 2.13 Canadian students’ perceptions of the usefulness of reading strategies for understanding and memorizing texts.............................................................................. 46 Chapter 3: Canadian Students’ Mathematics and Science Performance in an International Context...............................................................................49 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3 Figure 3.4 Figure 3.5 Percentage of students at each proficiency level in mathematics................................... 52 Percentage of students at each proficiency level in science............................................ 53 Difference between high and low achievers in mathematics ......................................... 60 Difference between high and low achievers in science .................................................. 61 Percentage of students at each proficiency level in mathematics in Canada, by language of the school system..................................................................................... 62 Figure 3.6 Figure 3.7 Percentage of students at each proficiency level in science in Canada, by language of the school system .................................................................................... 62 Canadian achievement scores in mathematics and science, by language of the school system .................................................................................... 63 List of Tables Introduction.........................................................................................................................1 Table 1 Overview of PISA 2018..................................................................................................... 4 Chapter 1: Canadian Students’ Performance in Reading in an International Context..........7 Table 1.1 Table 1.2 Table 1.3 Table 1.4 Table 1.5 Table 1.6 Table 1.7 Table 1.8 Table 1.9 Table 1.10 Table 1.11 Table 1.12 Table 1.13 Table 1.14 Table 1.15 Table 1.16 Table 1.17 Table 1.18 Table 1.19 Distribution of PISA 2018 reading tasks by cognitive process and text source................ 9 PISA 2018 reading proficiency levels – summary description ....................................... 10 Achievement scores in reading....................................................................................... 14 Comparison of provincial results to the Canadian average for achievement scores in reading subscales ....................................................................................................... 17 Comparison of Canadian and provincial results for percentage of students achieving at or above Level 2 in reading, by language of the school system................. 19 Comparison of provincial results for percentage of students achieving at or above Level 2 in reading, by language of the school system.......................................... 20 Comparison of Canadian and provincial results for reading achievement scores, by language of the school system .................................................................................. 21 Summary of differences in provincial reading achievement scores, by language of the school system ...................................................................................................... 21 Comparison of Canadian achievement scores for reading subscales between language systems ........................................................................................................... 22 Comparison of Canadian and provincial achievement scores for reading subscales, by language of the school system .................................................................................. 23 Summary of differences in provincial achievement scores in reading subscales, by language of the school system .................................................................................. 24 Percentage of students by gender self-identification..................................................... 25 Comparison of Canadian and provincial results for percentage of students achieving at or above Level 2 in reading, by gender ..................................................... 26 Comparison of Canadian and provincial results for percentage of students achieving at the lowest and highest proficiency levels in reading, by gender .............. 27 Comparison of Canadian and provincial achievement scores in reading, by gender.... 28 Canadian achievement scores in reading subscales, by gender .................................... 28 Comparison of Canadian and provincial achievement scores in reading subscales, by gender........................................................................................................................ 29 Summary of differences in provincial results in reading subscales, by gender.............. 30 Canadian results in reading over time, 2009–2018........................................................ 32 Chapter 2: A Profile of Students and Their Engagement in Reading...................................33 Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Table 2.3 Table 2.4 Table 2.5 Relationship between reading achievement and the ESCS index ................................. 35 Relationship between students’ language spoken at home and achievement in reading subscales in Canada....................................................................................... 39 Relationship between reading self-efficacy and reading achievement in Canada ........ 43 Relationship between reading preferences and reading achievement in Canada........ 44 Relationship between students’ perception of the usefulness of reading strategies and reading achievement............................................................................................... 47 Chapter 3: Canadian Students’ Mathematics and Science Performance in an International Context...............................................................................49 Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Table 3.4 Table 3.5 Table 3.6 Table 3.7 Table 3.8 Table 3.9 Table 3.10 Table 3.11 Table 3.12 Table 3.13 PISA 2018 mathematics proficiency levels – summary description.............................. 50 PISA 2018 science proficiency levels – summary description........................................ 51 Comparison of participating countries’ achievement scores to the Canadian average in mathematics and science.............................................................................. 54 Achievement scores in mathematics.............................................................................. 55 Achievement scores in science....................................................................................... 57 Comparison of provincial achievement scores to the Canadian average in mathematics and science............................................................................................ 59 Summary and comparison of achievement scores in mathematics and science for Canada and the provinces, by language of the school system................................. 64 Summary and comparison of highest and lowest levels of proficiency in mathematics for Canada and the provinces, by gender............................................. 65 Comparison of Canadian and provincial achievement scores in mathematics and science, by gender................................................................................................... 66 Summary of Canadian and provincial achievement scores in mathematics and science, by gender................................................................................................... 66 Summary and comparison of highest and lowest levels of proficiency in science for Canada and the provinces, by gender ...................................................................... 67 Canadian results in mathematics over time, 2012–2018............................................... 69 Canadian results in science over time, 2015–2018........................................................ 69 Appendix A: PISA 2018 Sampling Procedures, Exclusion Rates, and Response Rates........81 Table A.1a PISA 2018 student exclusion rate.................................................................................... 82 Table A.1b PISA 2018 student exclusion rate by type of exclusion.................................................. 82 Table A.2 PISA 2018 school and student response rates................................................................ 83 Appendix B: PISA 2018 Data Tables....................................................................................84 Table B.1.1a Percentage of students at each proficiency level: READING.......................................... 84 Table B.1.1b Proportion of students who performed below Level 2, at Level 2 or above, and at Levels 5 and 6: READING...................................................................................... 86 Table B.1.2 Average scores and confidence intervals: READING....................................................... 88 Table B.1.3 Average scores and confidence intervals: READING BY COGNITIVE PROCESS SUBSCALES...................................................................................................................... 89 Table B.1.4 Average scores and confidence intervals: READING BY TEXT STRUCTURE SUBSCALES...................................................................................................................... 90 Table B.1.5 Variation in student performance: READING................................................................. 91 Table B.1.6a Percentage of students at each proficiency level in anglophone and francophone school systems: READING......................................................................... 93 Table B.1.6b Proportion of students in anglophone and francophone school systems who performed below Level 2, at Level 2 or above, and at Levels 5 and 6: READING.......... 94 Table B.1.7 Average scores by language of the school system: READING........................................ 95 Table B.1.8 Average scores by language of the school system: READING BY COGNITIVE PROCESS SUBSCALES....................................................................................................... 96 Table B.1.9 Average scores by language of the school system: READING BY TEXT STRUCTURE SUBSCALES...................................................................................................................... 97 Table B.1.10a Percentage of students at each proficiency level by gender: READING......................... 98 Table B.1.10b Proportion of boys and girls who performed below Level 2, at Level 2 or above, and at Levels 5 and 6: READING...................................................................................... 99 Table B.1.11 Average scores by gender: READING............................................................................ 100 Table B.1.12 Average scores by gender: READING BY COGNITIVE PROCESS SUBSCALES................. 101 Table B.1.13 Average scores by gender: READING BY TEXT STRUCTURE SUBSCALES...................... 102 Table B.1.14a Comparisons of performance, PISA 2000, 2003, 2006, 2009, 2012, 2015, and 2018: READING...................................................................................................... 103 Table B.1.14b Comparisons of performance, PISA 2009, 2012, 2015, and 2018: READING.............. 103 Table B.1.15 Proportion of students who performed below Level 2 and at Levels 5 and 6, in PISA 2009 and 2018: READING................................................................................. 104 Table B.1.16 Gender differences in student performance, PISA 2009 and 2018: READING............. 105 Table B.2.1a Average index of economic, social, and cultural status (ESCS)..................................... 106 Table B.2.1b Average scores by index of economic, social, and cultural status (ESCS): READING.... 108 Table B.2.2 Average scores by index of economic, social, and cultural status (ESCS): READING BY COGNITIVE PROCESS SUBSCALES............................................................................. 110 Table B.2.3 Average scores by index of economic, social, and cultural status (ESCS): READING BY TEXT STRUCTURE SUBSCALES.................................................................................. 111 Table B.2.4a Percentage of students by immigrant status................................................................ 112 Table B.2.4b Average scores by immigrant status: READING............................................................ 113 Table B.2.5 Average scores by immigrant status: READING BY COGNITIVE PROCESS SUBSCALES.................................................................................................................... 114 Table B.2.6 Average scores by immigrant status: READING BY TEXT STRUCTURE SUBSCALES...... 115 Table B.2.7a Percentage of students by language spoken at home.................................................. 116 Table B.2.7b Average scores by language spoken at home: READING.............................................. 116 Table B.2.8 Average scores by language spoken at home: READING BY COGNITIVE PROCESS SUBSCALES.................................................................................................................... 117 Table B.2.9 Average scores by language spoken at home: READING BY TEXT STRUCTURE SUBSCALES.................................................................................................................... 118 Table B.2.10 Percentage and average scores of students by attitude toward reading: READING.... 119 Table B.2.11 Percentage and average scores of students by time spent reading for enjoyment: READING........................................................................................................................ 122 Table B.2.12 Percentage and average scores of students by reading self-efficacy: READING.......... 123 Table B.2.13 Percentage and average scores of students by type of reading material: READING... 126 Table B.2.14 Percentage and average scores of students by reading format: READING.................. 131 Table B.2.15 Percentage and average scores of students by reading strategy: READING................ 132 Table B.3.1a Percentage of students at each proficiency level: MATHEMATICS............................... 138 Table B.3.1b Proportion of students who performed below Level 2, at Level 2 or above, and at Levels 5 and 6: MATHEMATICS.......................................................................... 140 Table B.3.2a Percentage of students at each proficiency level: SCIENCE......................................... 142 Table B.3.2b Proportion of students who performed below Level 2, at Level 2 or above, and at Levels 5 and 6: SCIENCE..................................................................................... 144 Table B.3.3 Average scores and confidence intervals: MATHEMATICS........................................... 146 Table B.3.4 Average scores and confidence intervals: SCIENCE...................................................... 147 Table B.3.5 Variation in student performance: MATHEMATICS...................................................... 148 Table B.3.6 Variation in student performance: SCIENCE................................................................. 150 Table B.3.7a Percentage of students at each proficiency level in anglophone and francophone school systems: MATHEMATICS.................................................................................... 152 Table B.3.7b Proportion of students in anglophone and francophone school systems who performed below Level 2, at Level 2 or above, and at Levels 5 and 6: MATHEMATICS.............................................................................................................. 153 Table B.3.8a Percentage of students at each proficiency level in anglophone and francophone school systems: SCIENCE............................................................................................... 154 Table B.3.8b Proportion of students in anglophone and francophone school systems who performed below Level 2, at Level 2 or above, and at Levels 5 and 6: SCIENCE.......... 155 Table B.3.9 Average scores by language of the school system: MATHEMATICS............................. 156 Table B.3.10 Average scores by language of the school system: SCIENCE........................................ 156 Table B.3.11a Percentage of students at each proficiency level by gender: MATHEMATICS............. 157 Table B.3.11b Proportion of boys and girls who performed below Level 2, at Level 2 or above, and at Levels 5 and 6: MATHEMATICS.......................................................................... 158 Table B.3.12a Percentage of students at each proficiency level by gender: SCIENCE........................ 159 Table B.3.12b Proportion of boys and girls who performed below Level 2, at Level 2 or above, and at Levels 5 and 6: SCIENCE..................................................................................... 160 Table B.3.13 Average scores by gender: MATHEMATICS................................................................... 161 Table B.3.14 Average scores by gender: SCIENCE............................................................................. 161 Table B.3.15a Comparisons of performance, PISA 2003, 2006, 2009, 2012, 2015, and 2018: MATHEMATICS.............................................................................................................. 162 Table B.3.15b Comparisons of performance, PISA 2012, 2015, and 2018: MATHEMATICS............... 162 Table B.3.16a Comparisons of performance, PISA 2006, 2009, 2012, 2015, and 2018: SCIENCE...... 163 Table B.3.16b Comparisons of performance, PISA 2015 and 2018: SCIENCE..................................... 163 Table B.3.17 Proportion of students who performed below Level 2 and at Levels 5 and 6, in PISA 2012 and 2018: MATHEMATICS........................................................................ 164 Table B.3.18 Proportion of students who performed below Level 2 and at Levels 5 and 6, in PISA 2015 and 2018: SCIENCE................................................................................... 164 Introduction The skills and knowledge that individuals bring to their jobs, to further studies, and to society play an important role in determining economic success and overall quality of life, at both the individual and societal level. Today’s knowledge-based economy is driven by advances in information and communication technologies, reduced trade barriers, and the globalization of markets, all of which have changed the type of knowledge and skills required for success. As a result, individuals need a strong set of foundational skills upon which further learning can be built. Education systems play a central role in building this strong base. Students leaving secondary education without a strong foundation may experience difficulty accessing the postsecondary education system or the labour market, and they may benefit less when learning opportunities are presented later in life. Without the tools needed to be effective learners throughout their lives, individuals with limited skills risk economic and social marginalization. Governments in industrialized countries have devoted large portions of their budgets to provide high-quality schooling. Given these investments, they are interested in the relative effectiveness of their education systems. To address these issues, member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), along with partner countries,1 developed a common tool to improve their understanding of what makes young people — and entire education systems — successful. This tool is the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). It measures the extent to which youth, at age 15, have acquired some of the knowledge and skills that are essential for full participation in modern societies. The Programme for International Student Assessment PISA is a collaborative effort among member countries of the OECD. It is designed to provide policy-oriented international indicators of the skills and knowledge of 15-year-old students and to shed light on a range of factors that contribute to successful students, schools, education systems, and learning environments (OECD, 2019a). It measures skills that are generally recognized as key outcomes of the educational process. The assessment does not focus on whether students can reproduce knowledge but rather on young people’s ability to use their knowledge and skills to meet real-life challenges. These skills are believed to be prerequisites for efficient learning throughout life and for full participation in society. Information gathered through PISA enables a thorough comparative analysis of the performance of students near the end of their compulsory education. The assessment also permits exploration of the ways that achievement varies across different social and economic groups and the factors that influence achievement within and among countries. For almost two decades, PISA has brought significant attention to international assessments and related studies by generating data to inform the public and to enhance policy-makers’ ability to formulate decisions based on evidence. Canadian provinces have used information gathered from PISA, along with other sources of information such as the Pan-Canadian Assessment Program (PCAP) (see, e.g., O’Grady, Fung, Servage, & Khan, 2018), other international assessments, and their own provincial assessment programs, to inform various education-related initiatives. In Canada, PISA is carried out through a partnership between Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) and the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC). 1 In this report, the word countries will be used to denote countries and economies. PISA 2018 1 The project, which began in 2000, focuses on the capabilities of 15-year-olds as they near the end of compulsory education. Administered every three years, it reports on reading, mathematical, and scientific literacy and provides a more detailed look at one of those domains in the years when it is the major focus. As a major focus, the domain is tested in greater depth, taking up roughly one-half of the total testing time. The major domain in 2018 was reading, as it was in 2000 and 2009. Mathematics was the major domain in 2003 and 2012, and science was the major domain in 2006 and 2015. Students’ proficiency in an innovative domain is also assessed in each cycle. In 2018, the innovative domain was global competence — that is, students’ ability to interact with the wider world around them. Why does Canada participate in PISA? Canada’s continued participation in PISA stems from many of the same questions that motivate other participating countries. In Canada, the provinces and territories, which are responsible for education, invest significant public resources in the provision of elementary and secondary education, and Canadians are interested in the outcomes of compulsory education provided to their youth. A key question is, how can resources be directed to the achievement of higher levels of knowledge and skills upon which lifelong learning is founded and to the reduction of social inequality in life outcomes? Elementary and secondary education systems play a key role in providing students with the knowledge and skills that form an essential foundation for the further development of human capital, whether through participation in the workforce, postsecondary education, or lifelong learning. Previous studies based on PISA data have shown the relationship between strong skills in the core subject areas at age 15 and outcomes in later life. For example, results from the Youth in Transition Survey (YITS) show a strong association between reading proficiency and education attainment (OECD, 2010 and 2012). Canadian students in the bottom quartile of PISA reading scores were much more likely to drop out of secondary school and less likely to have completed a year of postsecondary education than those in the top quartile. In contrast, Canadian students at the top PISA level of reading performance (at the time, Level 5) were 20 times more likely to go to university than those at the lowest PISA levels (at or below Level 1) (OECD, 2010). Questions about educational effectiveness can be partly answered with data on the average performance of Canada’s youth in key subject areas. However, with respect to equity, other questions can be answered only by examining the distribution of competencies (e.g., Who are the students at the lowest levels of achievement? Do certain groups or regions appear to be at greater risk of low achievement?). These are important questions because, among other things, acquisition of knowledge and skills during compulsory schooling influences access to postsecondary education, success in the labour market, and the effectiveness of continuous, lifelong learning. What is PISA 2018? In 2018, the seventh cycle of PISA focused on reading literacy. PISA 2018 marks the third time that reading was the major domain: while reading was assessed in all previous PISA cycles, the domain was the major focus in 2000 and 2009. Students who participated in PISA 2018 entered primary school at about the time of the PISA 2009 survey, so the 2018 results provide an opportunity to relate policy changes to changes in learning outcomes using the benchmarks set by the previous surveys. Given its emphasis on reading in 2018, PISA reports on reading literacy as well as three cognitive process subscales (locating information, understanding, and evaluating and reflecting) and two text structure subscales (single-source texts and multiple-source texts), which are described in Chapter 1. The distinction between the major domain (reading) and the two minor domains (mathematics and science) are less prominent in PISA 2018 than in previous administrations. The test design in 2018 provided full coverage of the constructs for all three domains, although about one-half of the total testing time was dedicated to the major 2 PISA 2018 domain. For the reading assessment, a multi-stage adaptive test design (described in Chapter 1) was introduced, which provides a more efficient and precise measurement of ability across the proficiency scales. Seventy-nine countries participated in PISA 2018, including all 37 OECD countries.2 Typically, between 5,000 and 10,000 15-year-old students from at least 150 schools were tested in each country. In Canada, over 22,500 students from approximately 800 schools participated across the 10 provinces.3 The large Canadian sample was required to produce reliable estimates representative of each province and for both French- and English-language school systems in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta, and British Columbia.4 In Canada, PISA was administered in English and in French, depending on the school system in which students were enrolled. The 2018 PISA assessment was administered in schools during regular school hours in April and May 2018. The assessment was a two-hour computer-based test. Students also completed a 35-minute student background questionnaire, providing information about themselves and their home, while school principals completed a 45-minute questionnaire about their schools. As part of PISA 2018, international options could also be implemented. Canada chose to add a one-hour financial literacy assessment. Canada also implemented several national options in the form of short questionnaires to collect information on the attitudes of 15-year-old students toward trades, their participation in French immersion programs, Indigenous self-identity, and expectations related to educational attainment; however, only some provinces chose to participate in these options. Table 1 presents an overview of PISA 2018. It includes information on participants, test design and administration, and national and international options. The OECD countries are Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, and United States. Participating partner countries and economies are Albania, Argentina, Azerbaijan (Baku), Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, Zhejiang (B-S-J-Z) (China), Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Chinese Taipei, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Dominican Republic, Georgia, Hong Kong (China), Indonesia, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Lebanon, Macao (China), Malaysia, Malta, Moldova, Montenegro, Morocco, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of North Macedonia, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Singapore, Thailand, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, and Vietnam. 3 No data were collected in the three territories or in First Nations schools. Further information on sampling procedures and response rates for Canada can be found in Appendix A. 4 The samples of French-language schools were not sufficiently large to produce reliable estimates in Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan. 2 PISA 2018 3 Table 1 Overview of PISA 2018 International 5 Canada Participating countries/ provinces Population • 79 countries • 10 provinces • Youth aged 15 • Same Number of participating students • Between 5,000 and 10,000 per country, with some exceptions, for a total of around 600,000 students • Approximately 22,500 students Domains • Major: reading • Minor: mathematics and science • Innovative: global competence • Same Languages in which the test was administered • 47 languages • English and French International assessment • 2 hours of direct assessments of reading, mathematics, science, and global competence • 35-minute contextual questionnaire administered to students • 45-minute school questionnaire administered to school principals • UH (Une Heure [One Hour]) test designed for students with special education needs who cannot participate in the regular assessment • Same International options • 15-minute optional questionnaire on familiarity with information technology and communications administered to students • 8–10 minute optional questionnaire on educational careers administered to students • 10–14 minute optional questionnaire on wellbeing administered to students • 20-minute optional questionnaire administered to parents5 • 1-hour optional assessment of financial literacy, which includes cognitive components and a questionnaire • 30-minute optional teacher questionnaire • 1-hour optional assessment of financial literacy (includes cognitive components and a questionnaire), administered in Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, and British Columbia National options • Other options were undertaken in a limited number of countries • A maximum of 10 minutes (total) of additional questions administered to students, about: ŠŠ their attitudes toward trades (Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia) ŠŠ their participation in French immersion programs (Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Ontario, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia) ŠŠ Indigenous self-identity (Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia) ŠŠ their expectations, as well as their parents’ expectations (as perceived by the students), with regards to educational attainment (all 10 provinces) In this report, parents refers to parents or guardians. 4 PISA 2018 Objectives and organization of this report This report provides the initial results from the PISA 2018 assessment for Canada and the provinces. It presents the Canadian and provincial results in reading, mathematics, and science and complements the information presented in the PISA 2018 international report.6 It also compares results to those in other participating countries and across Canadian provinces. Chapter 1 provides information on the performance of Canadian 15-year-old students on the PISA 2018 assessment in reading, the primary focus of PISA 2018. It explains the five subscales that constitute the PISA assessment of reading literacy and describes the eight reading proficiency levels. Student achievement is presented by both proficiency levels and average scores. Chapter 2 presents data from the student questionnaire. It reports statistics for variables of interest and provides an analysis of the relationship between certain variables and student performance in reading, where pertinent. Chapter 3 presents performance results in the minor domains of mathematics and science. The Conclusion discusses the major findings and opportunities for further study. Finally, the appendices provide additional details on sampling and response rates as well as a number of data tables. 6 The PISA 2018 international report is being released in six volumes. Results presented in this report correspond to those in PISA 2018 results, Volume 1: What Students Know and Can Do (Paris: OECD 2019). Retrieved from https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/pisa-2018-results-volume-i_5f07c754en PISA 2018 5 Chapter 1 Canadian Students’ Performance in Reading in an International Context Defining reading In the PISA context, reading refers to reading literacy, which is defined as “an individual’s capacity to understand, use, evaluate, reflect on and engage with texts in order to achieve one’s goals, develop one’s knowledge and potential, and participate in society” (OECD, 2019a, p. 14). Reading literacy is a foundation for student achievement in other subject areas in school as well as a prerequisite for full participation in modern society. The reading framework was originally developed for PISA 2000. Since the initial development of the framework, the nature of reading contexts has significantly changed, especially with the introduction of new digital reading platforms and technologies. In light of changes in the field of reading, as well as changes to the PISA assessment administration mode, the reading framework has been updated over the years. For PISA 2009, two main modifications were made to the framework: the inclusion of digital texts and the elaboration of the constructs of reading engagement and metacognition. Although reading was a minor domain in PISA 2015, the wording of the framework was adjusted in that year to reflect the transition from a paper-based to a computer-based assessment mode. For PISA 2018, the main improvements made to the framework include the integration of new diverse forms of reading and considerations related to the impact of technology, the inclusion of basic reading process constructs, and the elaboration of reading processes to encompass skills needed in a digital reading context. While several updates have been made to the reading framework, the framework has also retained its essential features, which allows reporting on trends in performance over time. For the first time, PISA 2018 adopted a multi-stage adaptive testing approach for the computer-based reading assessment. With this approach, the reading materials were organized into blocks with units of items. There are three stages in the adaptive testing. The test starts with a core stage, with one random block consisting of 7 to 10 items assigned to students, followed by either an easy or a difficult block of units with 12 to 15 items each at Stage 1 and Stage 2. The Stage 1 and Stage 2 blocks were assigned based on the student’s performance (i.e., low, medium, or high achievement), as determined by the core stage. For example, students who displayed low performance at the core stage had a 90 per cent chance of being assigned to an easier Stage 1 block and a 10 per cent chance of being assigned to a more difficult Stage 1 block (OECD, 2019b, p. 37). In this way, through the assignment of units closer to each student’s ability level, performance can be estimated with more precision for each student as the assessment progresses. The use of adaptive testing ensures a higher level of measurement precision while administering fewer items to each student (OECD, 2019b, p. 37). The multi-stage adaptive testing was used only for reading, as it was the major domain in PISA 2018; the traditional nonadaptive testing approach was used for the two minor domains. The main elements of the PISA 2018 reading framework are presented in Figure 1.1. The cognitive assessment design includes test items that focus on different types of texts and situations and that address the cognitive processes readers use when they engage with texts. Overall, the framework aims to measure how well a student has mastered different reading cognitive processes by manipulating text and situational variables while using one or more texts (OECD, 2019a). PISA 2018 7 Figure 1.1 Elements of the PISA 2018 reading framework Reading processes Possible cognitive processes used when readers engage with text • Text processing • Task management Texts Text types, formats, and ranges • Single-source texts: texts with a definite author or group of authors, publication date, or reference title or number • Multiple-source texts: texts with different authors or groups of authors, publication dates, and/or reference titles or numbers • Static texts: texts with simple organizational structures and a low density of navigational tools • Dynamic texts: texts with more complex organizational structures and a higher density of navigational tools • Continuous texts: texts composed of sentences and paragraphs • Non-continuous texts: texts organized in matrix formats, lists, graphs, diagrams, etc. • Mixed texts: texts with both continuous and non-continuous elements Situation Text or reading purposes and contexts Figure 1.2 outlines the two categories of reading processes in the framework. In particular, the PISA cognitive reading assessment focuses on measuring and reporting on the cognitive processes that fall within the textprocessing category. Figure 1.2 PISA 2018 reading framework processes Text processing Loca�ng informa�on • Scanning and loca�ng/accessing and retrieving informa�on within a text • Searching for and selec�ng relevant text Understanding • Represen�ng literal meaning • Integra�ng and genera�ng references Evalua�ng and reflec�ng • Assessing quality and credibility • Reflec�ng on content and form • Corrobora�ng/detec�ng and handling conflict Task management Se�ng goals and plans Monitoring, regula�ng Adapted from Figure 2.2 in OECD, 2019a, p. 33. 8 PISA 2018 The reading framework covers several different elements. However, for PISA 2018 reporting purposes, a total of five subscales are used: three cognitive process subscales and two text structure subscales. The text-processing elements of locating information, understanding, and evaluating and reflecting represent the three cognitive process subscales, while the two text structure subscales are single-source texts and multiple-source texts. A fourth text process, “reading fluently,” underpins the three cognitive processes but is not reported as a separate subscale. PISA defines reading fluency as the ease and efficiency with which one can read and understand a piece of text. To assess this process, PISA 2018 presented students with relatively simple sentences and asked whether they made sense. The inclusion of tasks that assess reading fluency independently of other processes is new to the PISA 2018 assessment (OECD, 2019b). Table 1.1 provides an overview of the framework coverage in the PISA 2018 reading cognitive assessment and defines approximately how the cognitive assessment tasks are distributed across the five reporting subscales. Table 1.1 Distribution of PISA 2018 reading tasks by cognitive process and text source 2018 FRAMEWORK Single-source text 65% Multiple-source text 35% Locating information 25% Scanning and locating 15% Searching for and selecting relevant text 10% Understanding 45% Representing literal meaning 15% Integrating and generating references 15% Integrating and generating references 15% Evaluating and reflecting 30% Assessing quality and credibility, and 20% reflecting on content and form Corroborating and handling conflict 10% Adapted from Table 1.1 in OECD 2019b. PISA achievement results by proficiency levels in reading PISA has developed useful benchmarks relating a range of average scores in reading to levels of knowledge and skills measured by the assessment. Although these levels are not linked directly to any specific program of study in reading, they provide an overall picture of students’ accumulated understanding at age 15. PISA reading literacy is expressed on an eight-level proficiency scale whereby tasks at the lower end of the scale (Levels 1a–1c) are deemed easier and less complex than other tasks at the higher end (Level 6); this progression in task difficulty/complexity applies to both the overall reading scale and the reading subscales. A summary description of the tasks that students are able to do at the eight proficiency levels for overall reading is provided in Table 1.2, along with the corresponding lower score limit for the level. It is assumed that students classified at a given proficiency level can perform most of the tasks at that level as well as those at the lower level or levels. PISA 2018 9 Table 1.2 PISA 2018 reading proficiency levels – summary description Lower Level score limit 10 Percentage of students able to perform tasks at this level or above Task characteristics 6 698 1.3% of students across the OECD and 2.8% in Canada Students at Level 6 of the PISA reading assessment are able to successfully complete the most difficult PISA items. At Level 6, students can: ŠŠ comprehend lengthy and abstract texts in which the information of interest is deeply embedded and only indirectly related to the task ŠŠ compare, contrast, and integrate information representing multiple and potentially conflicting perspectives, using multiple criteria and generating inferences across distant pieces of information to determine how the information may be used ŠŠ reflect deeply on the text’s source in relation to its content, using criteria external to the text ŠŠ compare and contrast information across texts while identifying and resolving inter-textual discrepancies and conflicts through inferences about the sources of information, their explicit or vested interests, and other cues as to the validity of the information ŠŠ set up elaborate plans, combining multiple criteria and generating inferences to relate the task and the text(s) 5 626 8.7% of students across the OECD and 15.0% in Canada At Level 5, students can: ŠŠ comprehend lengthy texts, inferring which information in the text is relevant even though the information of interest may be easily overlooked ŠŠ perform causal or other forms of reasoning based on a deep understanding of extended pieces of text ŠŠ answer indirect questions by inferring the relationship between the question and one or several pieces of information distributed within or across multiple texts and sources ŠŠ produce or critically evaluate hypotheses, drawing on specific information ŠŠ establish distinctions between content and purpose, and between fact and opinion as applied to complex or abstract statements ŠŠ assess neutrality and bias based on explicit or implicit cues pertaining to the content and/or source of the information ŠŠ draw conclusions regarding the reliability of the claims or conclusions offered in a piece of text 4 553 27.6% of students across the OECD and 39.0% in Canada At Level 4, students can: ŠŠ comprehend extended passages in single- or multiple-text settings ŠŠ interpret the meaning of nuances of language in a section of text by taking into account the text as a whole ŠŠ demonstrate understanding and application of ad hoc categories ŠŠ compare perspectives and draw inferences based on multiple sources ŠŠ search for, locate, and integrate several pieces of embedded information in the presence of plausible distractors ŠŠ generate inferences based on the task statement in order to assess the relevance of target information ŠŠ handle tasks that require them to memorize prior task context ŠŠ evaluate the relationship between specific statements and a person’s overall stance or conclusion about a topic ŠŠ reflect on the strategies that authors use to convey their points, based on salient features of texts such as titles and illustrations ŠŠ compare and contrast claims explicitly made in several texts and assess the reliability of a source based on salient criteria 3 480 53.6% of students across the OECD and 66.1% in Canada At Level 3, students can: ŠŠ represent the literal meaning of single or multiple texts in the absence of explicit content or organizational clues ŠŠ integrate content and generate both basic and more advanced inferences ŠŠ integrate several parts of a piece of text in order to identify the main idea, understand a relationship, or construe the meaning of a word or phrase when the required information is featured on a single page ŠŠ search for information based on indirect prompts, and locate target information that is not in a prominent position and/or is in the presence of distractors ŠŠ recognize the relationship between several pieces of information based on multiple criteria ŠŠ reflect on a piece of text or a small set of texts, and compare and contrast several authors’ viewpoints based on explicit information ŠŠ demonstrate a detailed understanding of a piece of text dealing with a familiar topic and a basic understanding when dealing with less-familiar content ŠŠ take many features into account when comparing, contrasting, or categorizing information PISA 2018 Lower Level score limit Percentage of students able to perform tasks at this level or above Task characteristics 2 407 77.4% of students across the OECD and 86.2% in Canada Level 2 is considered the baseline level of reading proficiency that is required to participate fully in modern society. At Level 2, students can: ŠŠ identify the main idea in a piece of text of moderate length ŠŠ understand relationships or construe meaning within a limited part of the text when the information is not prominent by producing basic inferences, and/or when the text(s) include some distracting information ŠŠ select and access a page in a set based on explicit though sometimes complex prompts, and locate one or more pieces of information based on multiple, partly implicit criteria ŠŠ reflect on the overall purpose, or on the purpose of specific details, in texts of moderate length (when explicitly cued) ŠŠ reflect on simple visual or typographical features ŠŠ compare claims and evaluate the reasons supporting them based on short, explicit statements ŠŠ make a comparison or several connections between the text and outside knowledge by drawing on personal experience and attitudes 1a 335 92.3% of students across the OECD and 96.2% in Canada At Level 1a, students can: ŠŠ understand the literal meaning of sentences or short passages ŠŠ recognize the main theme or the author’s purpose in a piece of text about a familiar topic, and make a simple connection between several adjacent pieces of information, or between the given information and their own prior knowledge ŠŠ select a relevant page from a small set based on simple prompts, and locate one or more independent pieces of information within short texts ŠŠ reflect on the overall purpose and on the relative importance of information (e.g., the main idea vs. non-essential detail) in simple texts containing explicit cues 1b 262 98.6% of students across the OECD and 99.3% in Canada At Level 1b, students can: ŠŠ evaluate the literal meaning of simple sentences ŠŠ interpret the literal meaning of texts by making simple connections between adjacent pieces of information in the question and/or the text ŠŠ scan for and locate a single piece of prominently placed, explicitly stated information in a single sentence, a short text, or a simple list ŠŠ access a relevant page from a small set based on simple prompts when explicit cues are present 1c 189 99.9% of students across the OECD and 100.0% in Canada At Level 1c, students can: ŠŠ understand and affirm the meaning of short, syntactically simple sentences on a literal level, and read for a clear and simple purpose within a limited amount of time Note: In this report, “Level 1” and “Level 1a” are used interchangeably. Level 1b and 1c are also referred to as “below Level 1.” Adapted from OECD, 2019a, p. 55. Results in reading The results of student performance on the PISA 2018 reading assessment are presented in this report in two ways: as the percentage of students attaining proficiency levels and as overall average scores. Results are presented for Canada overall and by province, both for reading overall and by the subscales of reading. The performance of students enrolled in anglophone and francophone school systems is also presented for those provinces in which the two groups were sampled separately. This chapter also compares Canadian students’ performance in reading by gender. Given that PISA 2018 marks the third time that reading was assessed as a major domain (reading was also the major focus in 2000 and 2009), changes in reading performance over time are also discussed. Results in reading by proficiency level In PISA 2018, 86 per cent of Canadian students and 77 per cent of students in OECD countries performed at or above Level 2 in reading, which is the baseline level of reading literacy required to take advantage of further learning opportunities and to participate fully in modern society (Appendix B.1.1b). Across provinces, the percentage of Canadian students at or above the baseline level of performance ranges from 78 per cent in New Brunswick to 88 per cent in Quebec and Alberta (Figure 1.3). Inversely, 14 per cent of Canadian PISA 2018 11 students did not reach the baseline Level 2 in reading, compared to the OECD average of 23 per cent. More than 60 countries had a higher proportion of students performing below Level 2 compared to Canada. Within Canada, there is much variability among the provinces. Quebec (12 per cent), Alberta (12 per cent), and Ontario (13 per cent) had a lower proportion of low achievers in reading; whereas New Brunswick (22 per cent) and Manitoba (20 per cent) had a higher proportion of low achievers. At the higher end of the PISA reading scale, 15 per cent of Canadian students performed at Level 5 or above compared to 9 per cent performing at this level on average across OECD countries. Although the overall Canadian average is higher than in most other countries participating in PISA 2018, in seven countries — Macao (China), the United States, Estonia, Sweden, Korea, Hong Kong (China), and Finland — the proportion of students performing at Level 5 or above was similar to that in Canada. Two other countries (Singapore and B-S-J-Z (China)) had a statistically higher proportion of students at Level 5 or above than Canada. At the provincial level, more than 10 per cent of students in Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia achieved a proficiency level of 5 or higher in reading (Appendix B.1.1b). Students performing below Level 1 can locate explicitly stated information, recognize the main theme or author’s purpose in a text with a familiar topic, or make simple connections between the text and common, everyday knowledge. Across the OECD, 8 per cent of 15-year olds did not achieve Level 1, while this proportion was 4 per cent for Canada overall. Across the provinces, the proportion of students performing below Level 1 ranged from 3 per cent in Quebec and Alberta to 7 per cent in New Brunswick (Appendix B.1.1a). Figure 1.3 Percentage of students at each proficiency level in reading Newfoundland and Labrador 15 Prince Edward Island 21 18 Nova Sco�a 21 15 New Brunswick 28 29 21 12 21 Ontario 13 20 Manitoba 20 17 Alberta 15 Canada 14 OECD average 23 0 Below Level 2 Level 2 Level 3 9 18 26 24 16 27 24 15 26 40 9 20 26 24 20 16 19 29 26 20 13 24 28 19 9 25 26 18 14 19 30 25 12 Bri�sh Columbia 26 24 12 23 24 Quebec 13 20 28 22 Saskatchewan 23 Percentage 60 Level 4 19 80 9 100 Levels 5 and 6 Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding. 12 PISA 2018 Results in reading by average score The PISA scores for reading are expressed on a scale with an average or mean of 500 points for the OECD countries and a standard deviation of 100. This average was established in 2000 and decreased to 493 in 2009 and 487 in 2018 (Appendix A1.2). This means that approximately two-thirds of all students in OECD countries scored between 387 and 587 (i.e., within one standard deviation of the average) on the PISA 2018 reading assessment. International studies such as PISA summarize student performance by comparing the relative standing of countries based on their average test scores. This approach can be misleading because there is a margin of error associated with each score (see Box 1). When interpreting average performances between countries, only those differences that are statistically significant should be taken into account. Box 1: A note on statistical comparisons The purpose of PISA is to report results on the skills of 15-year-old students. Therefore, a random sample of 15-year-old students was selected to participate in the assessment. The averages (for mean scores and proficiency-levels proportions) were computed from the scores of these random samples of students from each country, and not from the overall population of 15-year-old students in each country. Consequently, it cannot be said with certainty that a sample average has the same value as the population average that would have been obtained had all 15-year-old students been assessed. Additionally, a degree of error is associated with the scores describing student performance, as these scores are estimated based on student responses to test items. A statistic, called the standard error, is used to express the degree of uncertainty associated with sampling error and measurement error. The standard error can be used to construct a confidence interval, which provides a means of making inferences about the population averages and proportions in a manner that reflects the uncertainty associated with sample estimates. A 95 per cent confidence interval is used in this report and represents a range of plus or minus about two standard errors around the sample average. Using this confidence interval, it can be inferred that the population mean or proportion would lie within the confidence interval in 95 out of 100 replications of the measurement, using different samples randomly drawn from the same population. When comparing scores among countries, provinces, or population subgroups, the degree of error in each average should be considered in order to determine if averages are significantly different from each other. Standard errors and confidence intervals may be used as the basis for performing these comparative statistical tests. Such tests can identify, with a known probability, whether actual differences are likely to be observed in the populations being compared. For example, when an observed difference is significant at the .05 level, it implies that the probability is less than .05 that the observed difference could have occurred because of sampling or measurement error. When comparing countries and/or provinces, extensive use is made of this type of statistical test to reduce the likelihood that differences due to sampling or measurement errors will be interpreted as real. A test of significance (t-test) was conducted in order to determine whether differences were statistically significant. In the case of multiple t-tests, no corrections were made to reduce the false positive, or Type-I error rate. Unless otherwise stated, only statistically significant differences at the .05 level are noted in this report, for proportions of students at proficiency levels and mean scores. Finally, when comparing results over time, the standard error includes a linking error to account for the fact that different cohorts of students have been tested over time with a test that also varied slightly over time. Overall, Canadian 15-year-old students achieved a mean score of 520 in reading, which is 33 points over the OECD average. As shown in Table 1.3, Canada was outperformed by only three countries (B-S-J-Z (China), Singapore, and Macao (China)). Canadian students performed as well as students from five countries (Hong Kong (China), Estonia, Finland, Ireland, and Korea). PISA 2018 13 Table 1.3 Achievement scores in reading B-S-J-Z (China) Singapore Alberta Macao (China) 14 555 549 532 525 550–561 546–553 523–540 523–528 Hong Kong (China) 524 519–530 Ontario 524 517–531 Estonia 523 519–527 CANADA 520 517–524 Finland 520 516–525 Quebec 519 513–526 British Columbia 519 511–528 Ireland 518 514–522 Nova Scotia 516 508–523 Korea 514 508–520 Newfoundland and Labrador 512 503–520 Poland 512 507–517 Sweden 506 500–512 New Zealand 506 502–510 United States 505 498–512 United Kingdom 504 499–509 Japan 504 499–509 Australia 503 499–506 Chinese Taipei 503 497–508 Prince Edward Island 503 486–519 Denmark 501 498–505 Norway 499 495–504 Saskatchewan 499 493–505 Germany 498 492–504 Slovenia 495 493–498 Manitoba 494 488–501 Belgium 493 488–497 France 493 488–497 Portugal 492 487–497 Singapore B-S-J-Z (China) Macao (China), Hong Kong (China), Ontario, Estonia Alberta, Hong Kong (China), Ontario, Estonia, Finland, Quebec, British Columbia Alberta, Macao (China), Ontario, Estonia, Canada, Finland, Quebec, British Columbia, Ireland, Nova Scotia Alberta, Macao (China), Hong Kong (China), Estonia, Canada, Finland, Quebec, British Columbia, Ireland, Nova Scotia Alberta, Macao (China), Hong Kong (China), Ontario, Canada, Finland, Quebec, British Columbia, Ireland, Nova Scotia Hong Kong (China), Ontario, Estonia, Finland, Quebec, British Columbia, Ireland, Nova Scotia, Korea, Newfoundland and Labrador Macao (China), Hong Kong (China), Ontario, Estonia, Canada, Quebec, British Columbia, Ireland, Nova Scotia, Korea, Newfoundland and Labrador Macao (China), Hong Kong (China), Ontario, Estonia, Canada, Finland, British Columbia, Ireland, Nova Scotia, Korea, Newfoundland and Labrador, Poland, Prince Edward Island Macao (China), Hong Kong (China), Ontario, Estonia, Canada, Finland, Quebec, Ireland, Nova Scotia, Korea, Newfoundland and Labrador, Poland, Prince Edward Island Hong Kong (China), Ontario, Estonia, Canada, Finland, Quebec, British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Korea, Newfoundland and Labrador, Poland, Prince Edward Island Hong Kong (China), Ontario, Estonia, Canada, Finland, Quebec, British Columbia, Ireland, Korea, Newfoundland and Labrador, Poland, United States, Prince Edward Island Canada, Finland, Quebec, British Columbia, Ireland, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Poland, Sweden, United States, Prince Edward Island Canada, Finland, Quebec, British Columbia, Ireland, Nova Scotia, Korea, Poland, Sweden, New Zealand, United States, United Kingdom, Japan, Chinese Taipei, Prince Edward Island Quebec, British Columbia, Ireland, Nova Scotia, Korea, Newfoundland and Labrador, Sweden, New Zealand, United States, Prince Edward Island Korea, Newfoundland and Labrador, Poland, New Zealand, United States, United Kingdom, Japan, Australia, Chinese Taipei, Prince Edward Island, Denmark, Norway, Saskatchewan, Germany Newfoundland and Labrador, Poland, Sweden, United States, United Kingdom, Japan, Australia, Chinese Taipei, Prince Edward Island, Denmark, Saskatchewan Nova Scotia, Korea, Newfoundland and Labrador, Poland, Sweden, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Japan, Australia, Chinese Taipei, Prince Edward Island, Denmark, Norway, Saskatchewan, Germany Newfoundland and Labrador, Sweden, New Zealand, United States, Japan, Australia, Chinese Taipei, Prince Edward Island, Denmark, Norway, Saskatchewan, Germany Newfoundland and Labrador, Sweden, New Zealand, United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Chinese Taipei, Prince Edward Island, Denmark, Norway, Saskatchewan, Germany Sweden, New Zealand, United States, United Kingdom, Japan, Chinese Taipei, Prince Edward Island, Denmark, Norway, Saskatchewan, Germany Newfoundland and Labrador, Sweden, New Zealand, United States, United Kingdom, Japan, Australia, Prince Edward Island, Denmark, Norway, Saskatchewan, Germany, Manitoba Quebec, British Columbia, Ireland, Nova Scotia, Korea, Newfoundland and Labrador, Poland, Sweden, New Zealand, United States, United Kingdom, Japan, Australia, Chinese Taipei, Denmark, Norway, Saskatchewan, Germany, Slovenia, Manitoba, Belgium, France, Portugal, Czech Republic, New Brunswick Sweden, New Zealand, United States, United Kingdom, Japan, Australia, Chinese Taipei, Prince Edward Island, Norway, Saskatchewan, Germany, Manitoba Sweden, United States, United Kingdom, Japan, Australia, Chinese Taipei, Prince Edward Island, Denmark, Saskatchewan, Germany, Slovenia, Manitoba Sweden, New Zealand, United States, United Kingdom, Japan, Australia, Chinese Taipei, Prince Edward Island, Denmark, Norway, Germany, Slovenia, Manitoba, Belgium, France, Portugal Sweden, United States, United Kingdom, Japan, Australia, Chinese Taipei, Prince Edward Island, Denmark, Norway, Saskatchewan, Slovenia, Manitoba, Belgium, France, Portugal Prince Edward Island, Norway, Saskatchewan, Germany, Manitoba, Belgium, France, Portugal, Czech Republic, New Brunswick Chinese Taipei, Prince Edward Island, Denmark, Norway, Saskatchewan, Germany, Slovenia, Belgium, France, Portugal, Czech Republic, New Brunswick Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, Germany, Slovenia, Manitoba, France, Portugal, Czech Republic, New Brunswick Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, Germany, Slovenia, Manitoba, Belgium, Portugal, Czech Republic, New Brunswick Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, Germany, Slovenia, Manitoba, Belgium, France, Czech Republic, New Brunswick, Netherlands Above the OECD average Country or province 95% Average confidence Countries or provinces whose mean score is not significantly different from the comparison score interval country or province PISA 2018 Czech Republic 490 485–497 New Brunswick 489 482–496 Netherlands Austria Switzerland 485 484 484 480–490 479–490 478–490 Croatia 479 474–484 Latvia Russian Federation Italy Hungary Lithuania Iceland Belarus Israel Luxembourg Ukraine Turkey Slovak Republic Greece Chile Malta Serbia United Arab Emirates 479 479 476 476 476 474 474 470 470 466 466 458 457 452 448 439 432 476–482 472–485 472–481 472–480 473–479 471–477 469–479 463–478 468–472 459–473 461–470 454–462 450–465 447–457 445–452 433–446 427–436 Romania 428 418–438 Uruguay Costa Rica Cyprusa Moldova Montenegro Mexico 427 426 424 424 421 420 422–433 420–433 422–427 419–429 419–423 415–426 Bulgaria 420 412–428 Jordan Malaysia Brazil Colombia Brunei Darussalam Qatar Albania Bosnia and Herzegovina Argentina Peru Saudi Arabia Thailand Republic of North Macedonia Baku (Azerbaijan) Kazakhstan Georgia Panama Indonesia Morocco Lebanon Kosovo Dominican Republic Philippines 419 415 413 412 408 407 405 403 402 401 399 393 413–425 409–421 409–417 406–419 406–410 406–409 402–409 397–409 396–407 395–406 393–405 387–399 Prince Edward Island, Slovenia, Manitoba, Belgium, France, Portugal, New Brunswick, Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland Prince Edward Island, Slovenia, Manitoba, Belgium, France, Portugal, Czech Republic, Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland Portugal, Czech Republic, New Brunswick, Austria, Switzerland, Croatia, Latvia, Russian Federation Czech Republic, New Brunswick, Netherlands, Switzerland, Croatia, Latvia, Russian Federation Czech Republic, New Brunswick, Netherlands, Austria, Croatia, Latvia, Russian Federation, Italy Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland, Latvia, Russian Federation, Italy, Hungary, Lithuania, Iceland, Belarus, Israel Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland, Croatia, Russian Federation, Italy, Hungary, Lithuania, Belarus Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland, Croatia, Latvia, Italy, Hungary, Lithuania, Iceland, Belarus, Israel Switzerland, Croatia, Latvia, Russian Federation, Hungary, Lithuania, Iceland, Belarus, Israel Croatia, Latvia, Russian Federation, Italy, Lithuania, Iceland, Belarus, Israel Croatia, Latvia, Russian Federation, Italy, Hungary, Iceland, Belarus, Israel Croatia, Russian Federation, Italy, Hungary, Lithuania, Belarus, Israel, Luxembourg Croatia, Latvia, Russian Federation, Italy, Hungary, Lithuania, Iceland, Israel, Luxembourg, Ukraine Croatia, Russian Federation, Italy, Hungary, Lithuania, Iceland, Belarus, Luxembourg, Ukraine, Turkey Iceland, Belarus, Israel, Ukraine, Turkey Belarus, Israel, Luxembourg, Turkey, Slovak Republic, Greece Israel, Luxembourg, Ukraine, Greece Ukraine, Greece, Chile Ukraine, Turkey, Slovak Republic, Chile Slovak Republic, Greece, Malta Chile United Arab Emirates, Romania Serbia, Romania, Uruguay, Costa Rica Serbia, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Moldova, Montenegro, Mexico, Bulgaria, Jordan United Arab Emirates, Romania, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Moldova, Mexico, Bulgaria United Arab Emirates, Romania, Uruguay, Cyprus, Moldova, Montenegro, Mexico, Bulgaria, Jordan Romania, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Moldova, Montenegro, Mexico, Bulgaria, Jordan Romania, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Montenegro, Mexico, Bulgaria, Jordan Romania, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Moldova, Mexico, Bulgaria, Jordan Romania, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Moldova, Montenegro, Bulgaria, Jordan, Malaysia, Colombia Romania, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Moldova, Montenegro, Mexico, Jordan, Malaysia, Brazil, Colombia Romania, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Moldova, Montenegro, Mexico, Bulgaria, Malaysia, Brazil, Colombia Mexico, Bulgaria, Jordan, Brazil, Colombia Bulgaria, Jordan, Malaysia, Colombia Mexico, Bulgaria, Jordan, Malaysia, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Qatar, Albania Colombia, Qatar, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Qatar, Albania Colombia, Brunei Darussalam, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Argentina Colombia, Brunei Darussalam, Qatar, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Argentina, Peru, Saudi Arabia Brunei Darussalam, Qatar, Albania, Argentina, Peru, Saudi Arabia Qatar, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Peru, Saudi Arabia Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Argentina, Saudi Arabia, Thailand Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Argentina, Peru, Thailand Peru, Saudi Arabia, Republic of North Macedonia, Baku (Azerbaijan), Kazakhstan 393 391–395 Thailand, Baku (Azerbaijan) 389 387 380 377 371 359 353 353 342 340 384–394 384–390 376–384 371–383 366–376 353–366 345–362 351–355 336–347 333–346 Thailand, Republic of North Macedonia, Kazakhstan Thailand, Baku (Azerbaijan) Panama Georgia, Indonesia Panama Lebanon, Kosovo Morocco, Kosovo Morocco, Lebanon Philippines Dominican Republic At the OECD average 95% Average Countries or provinces whose mean score is not significantly different from the comparison confidence score country or province interval Below the OECD average Country or province Note: OECD countries appear in italics. The OECD average was 487, with a standard error of 0.4. a See OECD (2019b), p. 21, for a note regarding Cyprus. Above the Canadian average At the Canadian average Below the Canadian average PISA 2018 Above the OECD average At the OECD average Below the OECD average 15 When interpreting provincial and international results, it should be kept in mind that PISA students were aged between 15 years and 3 months and 16 years and 2 months in participating countries. In Canada, 88 per cent of students were at the Grade 10/Secondary IV level; they achieved a mean score of 525. Grade 9/Secondary III students (10 per cent) achieved a mean score of 486. Small proportions of students participating in PISA 2018 were in lower or higher grades. Figure 1.4 presents reading achievement in the provinces along with the OECD and Canadian averages. Canada overall and eight provinces were above the OECD average, and two provinces (Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick) were at the OECD average. When compared to the results for Canada overall, Alberta students achieved scores that were above the Canadian average, while students in Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia achieved scores that were similar to the Canadian average. Students in four provinces (Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan) scored below the Canadian average (Appendix B.1.2). Figure 1.4 Achievement scores in reading 600 Average score in reading 580 560 540 520 500 480 460 440 420 400 512 503 516 489 519 524 494 499 532 519 520 487 NL PE NS NB QC ON MB SK AB BC CAN OECD Canadian results are also reported for the three cognitive processes and two text structure subscales. When analyzing results for the cognitive process subscales, it should be noted that students’ level of reading literacy is dependent on skills inherent in all three subscales. A closer analysis of results in each reading subscale can help inform policy-level discussions, curricular emphasis, and/or teaching practice. The Canadian averages for the three cognitive process subscales are 517 for locating information, 520 for understanding, and 527 for evaluating and reflecting. Across OECD countries, students scored 487, 487, and 489, respectively, on the three cognitive process subscales (Appendix B.1.3). On the text structure subscales, Canadian students achieved an average score of 521 on items associated with the single-text subscale and 522 on those related to multiple texts, while the OECD average on these subscales was 485 and 490, respectively (Appendix B.1.4). As shown in Table 1.4, there was variation across provinces on the cognitive process and text structure subscales. Alberta and Ontario students scored above the Canadian average on two or more of the subscales (Appendices B.1.3 and B.1.4). 16 PISA 2018 Table 1.4 Comparison of provincial results to the Canadian average for achievement scores in reading subscales Above* the Canadian average At the Canadian average Below* the Canadian average Reading – Cognitive process subscales Locating information Alberta Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan Ontario, Alberta Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Quebec, British Columbia Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan Ontario Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Alberta, British Columbia Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan Alberta Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan Understanding Evaluating and reflecting Reading – Text structure subscales Single-text structure Multiple-text structure *Denotes significant difference Equity in Canada Another way of studying differences in achievement is to look at the distribution of scores within a population. The difference between the mean score of students at the 90th percentile and those at the 10th percentile is often used as a proxy for equity in educational outcomes whereby the relative distribution of scores or the gap that exists between students with the highest and lowest levels of performance within each country or province is examined. Figure 1.5 and Appendix B.1.5 show the difference in average scores between lowest achievers and highest achievers in reading in Canada and the provinces. For Canada overall, those in the highest decile scored 259 points higher than those in the lowest decile, which is similar to the gap across OECD countries (260). At the provincial level, the smallest gaps (greater equity) are found in Quebec (242) and Saskatchewan (245), while the largest gaps (less equity) can be observed in Prince Edward Island (271), New Brunswick (269), and British Columbia (269). It is worth noting that, although high-achieving countries tend to have a larger gap, high achievement does not necessarily come at the cost of equity. For instance, B-S-J-Z (China) achieved the highest average score in reading (555) but has a smaller achievement gap (225), or greater equity, than Canada. Also of note, Macao (China) achieved a higher average score compared to Canada (525) and a similar achievement gap (238) (Appendix B.1.5). PISA 2018 17 Figure 1.5 Difference between high and low achievers in reading Difference between the 90th and 10th percen�les Quebec 242 Saskatchewan 245 Manitoba 255 Newfoundland and Labrador 256 Canada 259 OECD average 260 Ontario 260 Nova Sco�a 263 Alberta 263 New Brunswick 269 Bri�sh Columbia 269 Prince Edward Island 271 300 Lorem ipsum 350 400 450 500 550 Average score in reading 10th 25th 600 650 Percen�les of performance 75th 700 90th 95% confidence interval Note: Results are ordered from the smallest to the largest difference between the 90th and 10th percentiles. Achievement in reading by language of the school system In seven Canadian provinces (Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta, and British Columbia), samples were representative of both majority and minority official language groups.7 Figure 1.6 shows proficiency levels in reading by language of the school system in which students were enrolled.8 In Canada overall, similar proportions of students in francophone and anglophone schools (85 and 86 per cent, respectively) achieved Level 2 or above. English-language school systems had a greater proportion of students attaining the highest levels of performance (Levels 5 and 6), in comparison to their Frenchlanguage counterparts, while both systems had a similar proportion of students performing below Level 2 (Appendix B.1.6b). With respect to the two official languages in Canada, English is the majority language outside of Quebec — 74 per cent of Canadians report speaking English most often at home. In Quebec, French is the majority language —73 per cent of people in Quebec report speaking French most often (Statistics Canada, 2011). 8 Within anglophone school systems, students in French immersion programs completed the reading component in English. 7 18 PISA 2018 Figure 1.6 Percentage of students at each proficiency level in reading in Canada, by language of the school system English 14 French 15 0 20 27 21 29 20 Below level 2 24 40 Level 2 Percentage 16 23 60 Level 3 12 80 Level 4 100 Levels 5 and 6 Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding. When Canadian and provincial results at Level 2 or higher for English-language schools are compared, we see that students in Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia achieved these levels at a rate similar to those in Canada as a whole, while students in the remaining provinces achieved Level 2 or above at a rate lower than the Canadian average. With respect to French-language schools, a higher proportion of students in Quebec performed at or above the expected level of reading compared to the Canadian results, while students in Alberta achieved these levels at a rate similar to those in Canada as a whole; all other provinces had a lower percentage of students at Level 2 or above (Table 1.5, Appendix B.1.6b). New Brunswick, Quebec, and British Columbia were the only provinces with equity in reading achievement between the two language systems with respect to students at Level 2 or above. In the remaining provinces, performance on the overall reading scale was statistically different between the anglophone and francophone school systems. Students in the majority-language systems in Nova Scotia, Ontario, Manitoba, and Alberta performed better than their counterparts in the minority-language systems (Table 1.6, Appendix B.1.6b). Table 1.5 Comparison of Canadian and provincial results for percentage of students achieving at or above Level 2 in reading, by language of the school system Anglophone school systems Higher percentage than Canada The same percentage as Canada Lower* percentage than Canada Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan Francophone school systems Higher* percentage than Canada The same percentage as Canada Lower* percentage than Canada Quebec Alberta Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, British Columbia *Denotes significant difference Note: Because Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan did not oversample students by language, results for only English-language schools are available for these provinces. PISA 2018 19 Table 1.6 Comparison of provincial results for percentage of students achieving at or above Level 2 in reading, by language of the school system Higher* percentage in anglophone schools Higher percentage in francophone schools No significant difference between school systems Nova Scotia, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta New Brunswick, Quebec, British Columbia * Denotes significant difference Note: Because Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan did not oversample students by language, results for only English-language schools are available for these provinces. In Canada overall, students in English-language schools achieved higher average scores in reading than those in French-language schools (Figure 1.7, Appendix B.1.7). This differs from the results reported in the 2015 PISA study (O’Grady, Deussing, Scerbina, Fung, & Muhe, 2016) and for Canadian Grade 4 students in the PIRLS 2016 study (Brochu, O’Grady, Scerbina, & Tao, 2018); neither of these studies found a significant difference between the two language systems in reading. However, the results are consistent with those reported for Canadian Grade 4 students in ePIRLS 2016 (Brochu et al., 2018) and for Grade 8 students in PCAP 2016 (O’Grady, Fung, Servage, & Khan, 2018). Figure 1.7 Canadian achievement scores in reading, by language of the school system English 522 French 511 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560 580 600 Average score in reading Provincially, reading scores across the provinces in the minority language systems (the anglophone school system in Quebec and francophone school systems in other provinces) ranged from 435 in Nova Scotia to 527 in Quebec, and in the majority language systems ranged from 495 in Manitoba to 532 in Alberta (Appendix B.1.7). Table 1.7 presents a comparison of provincial achievements scores in reading with the Canadian means for both English- and French-language school systems. In English-language systems, Ontario and Alberta students scored above the Canadian English average, while the scores of students in Nova Scotia, Quebec, and British Columbia were at the Canadian English average. In French-language schools, Quebec students scored above the Canadian French average, and students in Alberta scored at the Canadian French average. The reading achievement scores for students in all remaining provinces for which reliable data are available are below the respective Canadian averages (Appendix B.1.7). 20 PISA 2018 Table 1.7 Comparison of Canadian and provincial results for reading achievement scores, by language of the school system Anglophone school systems Above* the Canadian English average Ontario, Alberta At the Canadian English average Nova Scotia, Quebec, British Columbia Below* the Canadian English average Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan Francophone school systems Above* the Canadian French average At the Canadian French average Quebec Alberta Below* the Canadian French average Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, British Columbia * Denotes significant difference Note: Because Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan did not oversample students by language, results for only English-language schools are available for these provinces. Equity between the two language systems in overall reading scores was achieved only in Quebec (Table 1.8). The data reveal significant differences in achievement between anglophone and francophone school systems within the remaining six provinces: students in English-language systems performed better than their counterparts in French-language systems, with differences ranging from 27 points in New Brunswick to 83 points in Nova Scotia (Appendix B.1.7). Table 1.8 Summary of differences in provincial reading achievement scores, by language of the school system Anglophone schools performed significantly better than francophone schools Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta, British Columbia Francophone schools performed significantly better than anglophone schools No significant differences between school systems Quebec Note: Because Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan did not oversample students by language, results for only English-language schools are available for these provinces. Differences between anglophone and francophone school systems were also evident in the reading subscales. At the Canadian level, students in anglophone schools performed better than their counterparts in francophone schools in the understanding cognitive process subscale and the single-text structure subscale. There was no significant difference between the two languages systems for the remaining three subscales (Table 1.9, Appendices B.1.8 and B.1.9). PISA 2018 21 Table 1.9 Comparison of Canadian achievement scores for reading subscales between language systems Anglophone school systems Francophone school systems Difference (English–French) Average score Standard error Average score Standard error Locating information 518 (2.5) 513 (4.6) 5 Understanding 523 (2.3) 509 (3.7) 14* Evaluating and reflecting 529 (2.6) 523 (4.0) 6 Single-text structure 524 (2.3) 507 (3.5) 18* Multiple-text structure 523 (2.3) 519 (3.8) 4 Reading – Cognitive process subscales Reading – Text structure subscales * Denotes significant difference Table 1.10 presents a comparison of provincial achievement scores to the Canadian averages for the five reading subscales for each of the two language systems. In English-language school systems, students in Ontario scored above the Canadian English average in three reading subscales: the understanding and evaluating and reflecting cognitive process subscales and the single-text structure subscale. Nova Scotia, Quebec, and British Columbia students were at the Canadian English average for all five subscales. In French-language school systems, Quebec students scored above the Canadian French average in all five reading subscales. Alberta students attending French-language schools achieved at the Canadian French mean for each of the reading subscales, and their peers in British Columbia achieved at this level for two of the three cognitive process subscales and one of the text structure subscales (Appendices B.1.8 and B.1.9). 22 PISA 2018 Table 1.10 Comparison of Canadian and provincial achievement scores for reading subscales, by language of the school system Above* the Canadian average At the Canadian average Below* the Canadian average Anglophone school systems Reading – Cognitive process subscales Locating information Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan Ontario Nova Scotia, Quebec, Alberta, British Columbia Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan Ontario Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Alberta, British Columbia New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan Ontario Nova Scotia, Quebec, Alberta, British Columbia Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan Alberta Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan Understanding Evaluating and reflecting Reading – Text structure subscales Single-text structure Multiple-text structure Francophone school systems Reading – Cognitive process subscales Locating information Quebec Manitoba, Alberta, British Columbia Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario Quebec Alberta Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, British Columbia Quebec Alberta, British Columbia Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba Quebec Alberta Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, British Columbia Quebec Alberta, British Columbia Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba Understanding Evaluating and reflecting Reading – Text structure subscales Single-text structure Multiple-text structure * Denotes significant difference Note: Because Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan did not oversample students by language, results for only English-language schools are available for these provinces. PISA 2018 23 Table 1.11 presents a comparison of provincial results for the five reading subscales for anglophone and francophone school systems. Table 1.11 Summary of differences in provincial achievement scores in reading subscales, by language of the school system Anglophone schools performed significantly better than francophone schools Francophone schools performed significantly better than anglophone schools No significant differences between school systems Reading – Cognitive process subscales Locating information Nova Scotia, Ontario New Brunswick, Quebec, Manitoba, Alberta, British Columbia Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta, British Columbia Quebec Understanding Evaluating and reflecting Nova Scotia, Ontario New Brunswick, Quebec, Manitoba, Alberta, British Columbia Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta, British Columbia Quebec Nova Scotia, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta, British Columbia New Brunswick, Quebec Reading – Text structure subscales Single-text structure Multiple-text structure Note: Because Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan did not oversample students by language, results for only English-language schools are available for these provinces. The results by language of the school system suggest that policy-makers may wish to analyze provincial results more closely, given that differences between the majority and minority language school systems are as high as 83 points for overall reading and 86 points for the cognitive process and text structure subscales. Achievement in reading by gender Policy-makers have an interest in reducing gender disparities in education. Canada, and indeed all countries participating in PISA, consistently reports gender gaps for 15-year-old students in reading proficiency, with girls outperforming boys by approximately one school year of learning (OECD, 2016a). This finding is consistent at the Grade 4 level, as reported in PIRLS 2016 (Brochu et al., 2018), although gender equity in reading achievement was found for some countries in that assessment. Weaker overall reading literacy among boys is an enduring and widespread phenomenon noted in studies of reading (OECD, 2016a). 24 PISA 2018 Inclusive education is valued in Canadian provinces and territories and has led to the development of policies and resources to support inclusion. One aspect of inclusive education relates to gender identity. In the Canadian version of the PISA 2018 student questionnaire, the question about the student’s gender was expanded from the female/male choices of previous assessments to allow two additional choices, as shown in the box below. How do you identify yourself? (Please select one response.) Female Male I identify myself in another way. I prefer not to say. In Canada overall, 96.9 per cent of students identified themselves as female or male, with similar proportions identifying with each gender, 48.8 and 48.1 per cent, respectively. A small proportion of students identified themselves in another way (1.5 per cent) or preferred not to say (1.6 per cent). Similar proportions are observed in the provinces, with those who chose to identify themselves in another way ranging from 1.4 to 2.5 per cent. The proportion of those who preferred not to say ranged from 1.3 to 2.0 per cent, with fewer than 30 students choosing this option in 6 of the 10 provinces (Table 1.12). Nevertheless, due to the relatively small proportions of students in Canada who did not identify themselves as either female or male, and in order to ensure international comparability, this report uses the two standardized gender categories from student administrative data to describe results for Canadian students by gender. Table 1.12 Percentage of students by gender self-identification Female I identify myself in another way Male I prefer not to say % SE % SE % SE % SE Canada 48.8 (0.6) 48.1 (0.6) 1.5 (0.1) 1.6 (0.1) Newfoundland and Labrador 50.4 (1.0) 47.2 (1.0) 1.7‡ (0.3) U‡ (0.3) Prince Edward Island 47.1 (2.9) 49.3 (2.6) 2.1‡ (0.3) U‡ (0.7) Nova Scotia 49.3 (1.0) 46.6 (1.2) 2.5 (0.5) 1.5‡ (0.4) New Brunswick 49.6 (1.1) 47.3 (1.1) 1.6 (0.3) 1.4‡ (0.3) Quebec 49.9 (1.0) 47.0 (1.0) 1.4 (0.2) 1.7 (0.2) Ontario 48.3 (1.3) 48.8 (1.2) 1.4 (0.2) 1.5 (0.3) Manitoba 48.0 (1.3) 48.5 (1.3) 1.6 (0.3) 1.8 (0.3) Saskatchewan 47.5 (1.0) 49.8 (1.0) 1.4 (0.2) 1.3‡ (0.3) Alberta 49.6 (0.7) 47.4 (0.7) 1.7 (0.3) 1.3‡ (0.3) British Columbia 48.4 (1.3) 48.1 (1.2) 1.5 (0.3) 2.0 (0.4) ‡ There are fewer than 30 observations. U Too unreliable to be published. As was the case in PISA 2009, the previous administration in which reading was the major domain of the assessment, girls performed significantly better than boys in PISA 2018. Eighty-two per cent of boys attained Level 2 or higher, compared with 90 per cent of girls (Figure 1.8, Appendix B.1.10b). This type of disparity is consistent across most countries participating in PISA 2018 (OECD, 2019b) as well as across all Canadian provinces. PISA 2018 25 Figure 1.8 Percentage of students at each proficiency level in reading in Canada, by gender Girls 10 Boys 19 18 0 28 26 22 26 20 Below Level 2 40 Level 2 Percentage 18 22 60 Level 3 12 80 Level 4 100 Levels 5 and 6 Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding. Compared to the respective Canadian averages, a similar percentage of both girls and boys in Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia achieved at or above the expected level of reading proficiency (Level 2) for 15-year-old students. In Saskatchewan, girls also attained results similar to those in Canada overall, while boys attained a lower percentage. The proportion of boys and girls achieving at or above Level 2 was lower in New Brunswick and Manitoba than the respective Canadian averages (Table 1.13). Within all provinces, a higher percentage of girls achieved at or above the expected level of achievement (Appendix B.1.10b). Table 1.13 Comparison of Canadian and provincial results for percentage of students achieving at or above Level 2 in reading, by gender Girls Higher percentage than Canada The same percentage as Canada Lower* percentage than Canada Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia New Brunswick, Manitoba Boys Higher percentage than Canada The same percentage as Canada Lower* percentage than Canada Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan * Denotes significant difference A higher proportion of boys than girls achieved below Level 2 in Canada and all provinces. Moreover, a higher proportion of girls than boys were high performers in reading (Levels 5 and 6) in Canada overall and in all provinces with the exception of Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, and New Brunswick, where no statistically significant difference was observed (Table 1.14, Appendix B.1.10b). 26 PISA 2018 Table 1.14 Comparison of Canadian and provincial results for percentage of students achieving at the lowest and highest proficiency levels in reading, by gender Levels 5 and 6 Percentage of girls is significantly higher than percentage of boys Percentage of boys is significantly higher than percentage of girls No significant differences in the percentage of boys and girls Canada, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick Below Level 2 Percentage of girls is significantly higher than percentage of boys Percentage of boys is significantly higher than percentage of girls No significant differences in the percentage of boys and girls Canada, all provinces On average across Canada, girls outperformed boys by 29 points on the PISA 2018 reading assessment (Figure 1.9). At the provincial level, the gender gap favouring girls ranged from 26 points in Newfoundland and Labrador, Ontario, and Manitoba, to 40 points in Nova Scotia (Appendix B.1.11). Figure 1.9 Canadian achievement scores in reading overall, by gender Girls 535 Boys 506 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560 580 600 Average score in reading Table 1.15 presents a comparison of provincial achievement scores to the Canadian means for girls and boys. Both female and male students in Alberta scored above the respective Canadian averages in reading, while those in New Brunswick, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan scored below the Canadian averages. In all other provinces, both genders scored at the Canadian averages except in Nova Scotia, where boys scored below the Canadian average (Appendix B.1.11). PISA 2018 27 Table 1.15 Comparison of Canadian and provincial achievement scores in reading, by gender Girls Above* the Canadian average for girls At the Canadian average for girls Below* the Canadian average for girls Alberta Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan Boys Above* the Canadian average for boys At the Canadian average for boys Below* the Canadian average for boys Alberta Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan * Denotes significant difference For Canada overall, girls outperformed boys in each of the five subscales in reading (Table 1.16). Table 1.17 compares the provincial results for boys and girls with the Canadian averages for the subscales in reading. Both female and male students in Ontario achieved scores above the Canadian averages in the understanding and single-text structure subscales. Furthermore, boys in Ontario scored above the Canadian average in evaluating and reflecting. In Alberta, girls achieved scores above the Canadian average in locating information, understanding, and multiple-text structure (Table 1.17). The results for the remaining provinces were more variable (Appendices B.1.12 and B.1.13). Table 1.16 Canadian achievement scores in reading subscales, by gender Girls Boys Difference (Girls–Boys) Average score Standard error Average score Standard error Locating information 531 (2.6) 503 (2.8) 28* Understanding 534 (2.2) 506 (2.4) 28* Evaluating and reflecting 541 (2.5) 514 (2.8) 26* Single-text structure 536 (2.2) 505 (2.4) 31* Multiple-text structure 535 (2.1) 509 (2.4) 25* Reading – Cognitive process subscales Reading – Text structure subscales * Denotes significant difference 28 PISA 2018 Table 1.17 Comparison of Canadian and provincial achievement scores in reading subscales, by gender Above* the Canadian average for girls Reading – Cognitive process subscales Locating information Alberta Understanding New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Quebec, British Columbia Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan Ontario Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Alberta, British Columbia Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan Alberta Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia Boys At the Canadian average for boys Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan Ontario Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Alberta, British Columbia Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan Ontario Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Alberta, British Columbia Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan Ontario Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Alberta, British Columbia Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan Evaluating and reflecting Multiple-text structure Above* the Canadian average for boys Reading – Cognitive process subscales Locating information Understanding Evaluating and reflecting Reading – Text structure subscales Single-text structure Multiple-text structure Below* the Canadian average for girls Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia Ontario, Alberta Reading – Text structure subscales Single-text structure Girls At the Canadian average for girls Below* the Canadian average for boys * Denotes significant difference PISA 2018 29 Girls achieved higher scores than boys in the five reading subdomains in all provinces except Prince Edward Island, where no difference in reading scores was observed for evaluating and reflecting and multiple texts structure (Table 1.18, Appendices B.1.12 and B.1.13). Table 1.18 Summary of differences in provincial results in reading subscales, by gender Girls performed significantly better than boys Boys performed significantly better than girls No significant difference between girls and boys Reading – Cognitive process subscales Locating information All provinces Understanding All provinces Evaluating and reflecting Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia Prince Edward Island Reading – Text structure subscales Single-text structure All provinces Multiple-text structure Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia Prince Edward Island Changes in reading performance over time The richness of the PISA data grows with every cycle. This is especially true of PISA 2018, which constitutes the seventh assessment of reading since 2000, when the first major assessment of reading took place. More importantly, this is the third PISA assessment with reading as the major domain, the second one being PISA 2009. Performance changes over time are always compared to a baseline year, an administration in which the subject was the major domain; as a result, PISA 2018 enables countries and provincial education systems to compare their own performance over time between 2000, 2009, and 2018. This provides important information on the performance of individual education systems for almost two decades and relative to other systems, which can be used to inform educational policy and instructional practices. While this section looks at changes over time, performance differences should be interpreted with caution. More specifically, in order to allow for comparability over time, some common assessment items were used in each survey and an equating procedure was used to align performance scales. However, all estimates of statistical quantities are associated with statistical uncertainty, and this is also true for the transformation parameters used to equate PISA scales over time. A linkage error that reflects this uncertainty is included in the estimate of the standard error for estimates of PISA performance trends and changes over time (OECD, 2019b). Consequently, only changes that are indicated as statistically significant should be considered. 30 PISA 2018 In Canada, as well as on average across the OECD countries, reading performance declined between 2000 and 2018. In the 37 countries that participated in both PISA 2000 and PISA 2018, reading performance improved on a statistically significant basis in 10 countries, while it decreased in 11 countries, with the other countries maintaining their scores. At the provincial level, no significant change in reading achievement was observed in Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, and Ontario between 2000 and 2018. However, a decline in reading performance was observed in all the remaining provinces between these two assessment years (Figure 1.10 and Appendix B.1.14a). Figure 1.10 Canadian results in reading over time, 2000–2018 Average score in reading 560 550 540 534 528 530 527 524 523 2009 2012 527 520* 520 510 500 2000 2003 2006 2015 2018 Year 2000 Reading as major domain 2003 Reading as minor domain * Significant difference compared with baseline (2000) In contrast to the decline between 2000 and 2018, reading performance remained unchanged in Canada and on average across the OECD countries between 2009 and 2018. It is worth noting that, out of the 62 countries that participated in both PISA 2009 and PISA 2018, reading performance improved in 15 countries and declined in 16 countries on a statistically significant basis between the baseline year 2009 and 2018. No changes were observed in the remaining countries. Provincially, no significant change in reading achievement was observed in any of the provinces between 2009 and 2018 (Table 1.19 and Appendix B.1.14b). PISA 2018 31 Table 1.19 Canadian results in reading over time, 2009–2018 2009 2012 2015 2018 Average Standard score error Average Standard score error Average Standard score error Average Standard score error Canada 524 (1.5) 523 (3.2) 527 (4.1) 520 (4.0) Newfoundland and Labrador 506 (3.7) 503 (4.5) 505 (4.9) 512 (5.6) Prince Edward Island 486 (2.4) 490 (3.7) 515* (7.0) 503 (9.0) Nova Scotia 516 (2.7) 508 (4.0) 517 (6.0) 516 (5.2) New Brunswick 499 (2.5) 497 (3.7) 505 (6.3) 489 (5.0) Quebec 522 (3.1) 520 (4.4) 532 (5.8) 519 (5.0) Ontario 531 (3.0) 528 (5.1) 527 (5.6) 524 (5.0) Manitoba 495 (3.6) 495 (4.2) 498 (6.0) 494 (4.9) Saskatchewan 504 (3.3) 505 (3.8) 496 (4.9) 499 (4.6) Alberta 533 (4.6) 525 (4.8) 533 (6.2) 532 (5.5) British Columbia 525 (4.2) 535 (5.2) 536 (6.5) 519 (5.7) * Significant difference compared with baseline (2009) Note: The linkage error is incorporated into the standard error for 2012, 2015, and 2018. At the Canadian level, the proportion of 15-year-old students who are low performers in reading increased between 2009 and 2018; this was also the case in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, and British Columbia. In contrast, the proportion of students achieving Levels 5 and 6 remained unchanged over the 2009 to 2018 period across Canada overall, while, at the provincial level, the proportion of high-performing students increased in Newfoundland and Labrador and Prince Edward Island (Appendix B.1.15). A gender gap in reading achievement favouring girls was observed in Canada and all provinces in 2009, and the same gender gap was again observed consistently across Canada and in all the provinces in 2018 (Appendix B.1.16). Summary Canada continues to perform well in reading, with close to 90 per cent of Canadian students reaching the baseline level of reading proficiency required to participate fully in modern society (Level 2), while almost one in six students reached Level 5 or 6. Globally, Canada ranked first (along with Estonia, Finland, Ireland, and Korea) among OECD countries and fourth among all participating countries, in reading on average. In spite of these strong results, PISA 2018 achievement in reading literacy also suggests that there is cause for some concern. Reading performance in PISA has declined in Canada overall and in many provinces since 2000. One in seven Canadian students scored at the lowest levels identified by PISA (below Level 2), and students in minority language settings achieved lower results in reading compared to their counterparts in majority-language settings in most provinces. Furthermore, the gap in reading achievement between girls and boys persists. 32 PISA 2018 Chapter 2 A Profile of Students and Their Engagement in Reading PISA contextual questionnaires As part of the PISA assessment, students and their school principals complete questionnaires that are designed to provide all provinces and territories with contextual information to aid in the interpretation of the performance results. Researchers, policy-makers, and practitioners can use the information provided by these questionnaires to help them determine what factors influence learning outcomes. The content of the contextual questionnaires changes depending on which of the three domains is the primary focus in a PISA assessment. As the major domain of PISA 2018 was reading, the contextual questions accompanying the assessment provided information on factors that have been found in the past cycles of PISA to correlate with reading achievement. The PISA student questionnaire gathers information about students’ home background, their approaches to learning, and their learning environments. Although this questionnaire covers many relevant areas, only a select number of results are presented here for illustrative purposes. More detailed analysis of the student and school questionnaires will be presented in future CMEC reports and publications. Student demographic characteristics A vast array of literature has illustrated that learning outcomes are affected by a student’s individual and family demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. These include gender, socioeconomic status, immigrant status, and language. This section reports descriptive results for three variables (economic, social, and cultural status; immigrant status; and language spoken at home) and their relationship with reading achievement. The relationship between gender and reading achievement has been reported in Chapter 1. Results are also compared with data from previous pan-Canadian and international assessments, when available. Socioeconomic status Socioeconomic status (SES), which comprises both cultural and economic factors, has often been represented by a complex cluster of variables that include parents’ occupations, parents’ educational attainment, learning resources in the home, and how parents communicate the value of education to their children, among other variables (Crowe, 2013; Chevalier, Harmon, O’Sullivan, & Walker, 2013). A consequence of SES and home environment is that educational attainment tends to have an intergenerational correlation: that is, highly educated parents are more likely to have children who obtain more education, while parents with less education are more likely to have children who obtain relatively low levels of education (Causa, Dantan, & Johansson, 2009; Chevalier et al., 2013; Onuzo, Garcia, Hernandez, Peng, & Lecoq, 2013). Because educational attainment is a central component of social mobility (i.e., the relationship between the socioeconomic status of parents and that of their offspring when they become adults), policy-makers have a strong interest in improving educational outcomes for all students, regardless of their socioeconomic backgrounds (Chevalier et al., 2013). Fortunately, evidence suggests that well-structured policy interventions, PISA 2018 33 such as income support policies, have a particularly strong positive effect on the most disadvantaged children and families (Causa et al., 2009; Merry, 2013). Student economic, social, and cultural status In PISA, SES is measured using the index of economic, social, and cultural status (ESCS), which is derived from three indices: the highest occupational status of students’ parents; the highest educational level attained by students’ parents; and a number of home possessions that can be used as proxies for material wealth, including the number of books and other educational resources available in the home (OECD, 2019c). It is important to sound a note of caution: as the OECD (2016a) warns, “the link between socio-economic status and student achievement is neither absolute nor automatic, and should not be overstated” (p. 63). Canada’s ESCS index was 0.42; only three of the participating countries and economies (Iceland, Norway, and Denmark) had higher scores on this index than Canada. A higher index signifies a higher average SES. At the provincial level, the ESCS index varied from a high of 0.48 in Ontario to a low of 0.17 in Manitoba (Figure 2.1, Appendix B.2.1a). Figure 2.1 Economic, social, and cultural status (ESCS) index scores Economic, social, and cultural status index score 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0.38 0.32 0.33 0.24 0.37 0.48 0.17 0.29 0.46 0.43 0.42 NL PE NS NB QC ON MB SK AB BC CAN Note: The OECD average for the ESCS index is -0.03, with a standard error of 0.0. For the purposes of reporting the ESCS index, the top 25 per cent (top quarter) of the index were defined as socioeconomically advantaged students, whereas the bottom 25 per cent (bottom quarter) were defined as socioeconomically disadvantaged students (OECD, 2017). The socioeconomically advantaged students outperformed the disadvantaged students in PISA 2018 across all countries and economies, although the difference in performance related to SES status varies considerably (OECD, 2019c). This performance pattern is found in all provinces in Canada. As shown in Table 2.1, 6.7 per cent of the variation in reading achievement results in Canada as a whole can be attributed to differences in socioeconomic status. This pattern holds true for reading overall, as well as for all reading subscales (Appendices B.2.2 and B.2.3). Provincially, socioeconomic status explained more of the variation in overall reading scores in Quebec (9.4 per cent) and less of the variation in Manitoba (4.6 per cent) (Appendix B.2.1b). 34 PISA 2018 Table 2.1 Relationship between reading achievement and the ESCS index Socioeconomically advantaged students Socioeconomically disadvantaged students Average score Average score Canada 553 Newfoundland and Labrador Difference (advantaged– disadvantaged) Percentage of variance explained by SES factors 485 68* 6.7 546 491 55* 5.1 Prince Edward Island 549 471 78* 7.9 Nova Scotia 543 480 63* 6.1 New Brunswick 524 460 63* 5.6 Quebec 554 482 71* 9.4 Ontario 555 492 63* 4.8 Manitoba 526 468 58* 4.6 Saskatchewan 539 465 74* 8.7 Alberta 568 492 76* 9.2 British Columbia 544 483 61* 5.7 OECD 534 445 89* 12.0 * Denotes significant difference Compared to other OECD countries, Canada has better-than-average social mobility (Causa et al., 2009; OECD, 2017; Parkin, 2015). However, further research is required, because averages can obscure important patterns of disparity. For example, in Canada the gap between the educational attainments of Indigenous and non-Indigenous people is particularly noteworthy, and is attributable partly to higher levels of poverty among Indigenous families (Banting, Soroka, & Koning, 2013; Britain & Blackstock, 2015; Collin & Jensen, 2009). Immigrant status Canada has the second-largest foreign-born population in the world in proportion to its overall population, behind only Australia (CMEC, 2015; Duff & Becker-Zayas, 2017; Parkin, 2015). Research has found that children in immigrant families are more likely to be educationally disadvantaged (Andon, Thompson, & Becker, 2014; Bruckauf, 2016; OECD, 2010). Using data from earlier cycles of PISA, PIRLS, and the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), Andon et al. (2014) have concluded that an achievement gap exists between immigrant and non-immigrants students in the three domains of reading, mathematics, and science across OECD countries. In Canada, immigrants are more likely than non-immigrants to fall into low-income categories (Collin & Jensen, 2009; CMEC, 2015). Despite this disadvantage, Canada is among the OECD countries that are more successful in closing the “immigrant achievement gap” (Parkin, 2015; Wech & Weinkam, 2016). Comparisons of average achievement between students who are immigrants and those who were born in Canada must be treated with caution, as scores may obscure important disparities among immigrant groups (Schnepf, 2008). Immigrant children and youth are not homogeneous (Andon et al., 2014; OECD, 2010; Parkin, 2015; Schnepf, 2008; Wech & Weinkam, 2016). They vary with respect to where they completed their previous education, at what age they were immersed in schooling in one of Canada’s official languages, and whether they already spoke English or French upon arriving in Canada (Bruckauf, 2016; OECD, 2016a). Like their domesticborn counterparts, immigrant children and youth also vary in the levels of education held by their parents. PISA 2018 35 In PISA, students are classified using three categories related to immigrant status (OECD, 2019c, Chapter 9, p. 4): • Non-immigrant students have at least one parent who was born in the country in which the assessment was administered, regardless of whether the student himself or herself was born in that country. • Second-generation immigrant students were born in the country in which the assessment was administered but have foreign-born parents. • First-generation immigrant students are foreign-born students whose parents are also foreign-born. In Canada, 35 per cent of students identified themselves as having an immigrant background. Provincially, the highest proportion of immigrant students were in Ontario (44 per cent) and British Columbia (41 per cent) (Figure 2.2, Appendix B.2.4a). In the majority of countries participating in PISA 2018, non-immigrant students outperformed their first- and second-generation immigrant peers. This finding has been consistent across previous cycles of PISA (OECD, 2019c). However, this pattern is not observed in all countries, including Canada. Figure 2.2 Percentage of students by their immigrant status Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island Nova Sco�a New Brunswick Quebec Ontario Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta Bri�sh Columbia Canada OECD 97 2 87 92 94 76 11 56 27 69 9 79 4 65 59 65 14 20 18 87 0 Non-immigrant 20 40 Percentage Second-genera�on immigrant 60 80 11 2 6 1 6 13 18 21 17 22 21 17 8 5 100 First-genera�on immigrant Note: Owing to the small sample size, percentages for second-generation immigrant students participating in Newfoundland and Labrador and Prince Edward Island are not indicated separately, and so percentages may not add up to 100. In general, Canadian immigrant students performed as well as non-immigrant students on the reading assessment. However, if we look at the different immigrant groups, first-generation immigrant students in Canada were outperformed by their non-immigrant and second-generation immigrant peers. As well, secondgeneration immigrant students had significantly higher average reading scores compared to non-immigrant students (Figure 2.3). These comparisons are quite variable across provinces (see Appendix B.2.4b). The most notable differences were observed in Quebec, where non-immigrant students outperformed both first- and second-generation immigrant students, and in New Brunswick, where first-generation immigrant students outperformed non-immigrant students. The results by the reading subscales are presented in Appendices B.2.5 and B.2.6. 36 PISA 2018 Figure 2.3 Relationship between immigrant status and reading achievement in Canada Non-immigrant 525 Second-genera�on immigrant 535 First-genera�on immigrant 508 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560 580 600 Average score in reading Language spoken at home Canada is a multilingual and multicultural country with various immigrant and Indigenous populations. In the 2016 census, over 200 languages were reported as a mother tongue (Statistics Canada, 2017b). “Mother tongue,” as used in Statistics Canada data reports, may be considered synonymous with “first language spoken.” Canada’s language groups may be classified into three distinct categories: official languages, non-official or heritage languages, and Indigenous languages (Duff & Becker-Zayas, 2017). Learning in Canada’s official languages The two official languages of instruction in Canada are English and French, but the majority of students in Canada receive their first-language instruction in English. Although Canada is officially bilingual, New Brunswick is the only province outside Quebec with a substantial francophone population (31 per cent) (Statistics Canada, 2016b). Canada’s federal government and provincial and territorial governments, both in principle and practice, support opportunities for all Canadians to learn one or both of Canada’s official languages (Government of Canada, 2017; Statistics Canada, 2016a). To ensure that all students have the opportunity to learn both of Canada’s official languages, all school systems offer English or French as second language courses, and French immersion programs are offered in public education systems throughout Canada.9 Some provinces also offer bilingual programs that combine instruction in an official language and a heritage language or an Indigenous language. As well, many schools offer second-language courses in languages other than English or French (Government of Canada, 2017). Provinces and territories are differently impacted by immigration, and this affects findings with respect to mother tongue. Immigrants are heavily concentrated in Canada’s urban centres in British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec (Statistics Canada, 2015). Canadian census data from 2016 show that 72.5 per cent of immigrants have a first language other than French or English (Statistics Canada, 2017c). As part of the PISA student questionnaire, participants were asked, “What language do you speak at home most of the time?” The three response options were “English,” “French,” and “another language.” The majority of students who participated in PISA 2018 spoke one of Canada’s official languages at home. In Canada overall, 65 per cent of students participating in PISA spoke English at home, while about equal proportions of students spoke French or another language at home (17 and 18 per cent, respectively). Quebec is the only province where French was spoken at home by the majority of students (74 per cent), while one in four students spoke French at home in New Brunswick. The proportion of students speaking a language other than French or English at home ranges from 24 per cent in British Columbia to 3 per cent in Newfoundland and Labrador (Figure 2.4, Appendix B.2.7a). 9 For a more detailed description of language policies in Canada, see the country chapter for Canada in the PIRLS 2016 Encyclopedia (Mullis, Martin, Goh, & Prendergast, 2017). PISA 2018 37 Figure 2.4 Language spoken at home as reported by students Newfoundland and Labrador 97 Prince Edward Island 3 88 Nova Sco�a 9 94 New Brunswick 1 4 71 Quebec 24 13 4 74 Ontario 13 77 Manitoba 2 80 Saskatchewan 21 1 0 85 Alberta 80 Bri�sh Columbia 0 65 0 20 19 24 17 40 English 14 1 76 Canada 19 Percentage French 60 18 80 100 Other Note: Owing to the small sample size, percentages for francophone students participating in Newfoundland and Labrador and Prince Edward Island are not indicated separately, and so percentages may not add up to 100. According to the 2016 census, over 70 per cent of immigrants to Canada report a language other than English or French as their mother tongue (Statistics Canada, 2017c). At the same time, the ability of immigrants to speak one of Canada’s official languages is an important condition for their full participation in Canadian society. As shown in Figure 2.5, students who spoke a language at home other than English or French had lower achievement in reading compared to those who spoke either of the two official languages at home. Students who spoke English at home outperformed students who spoke a language other than English or French in Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia. Students who spoke French at home outperformed students who spoke a language other than French or English in Quebec and Saskatchewan, but performed lower than students in the same category in Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, and Ontario (Appendix B.2.7b). Figure 2.5 Relationship between students’ language spoken at home and reading achievement in Canada English 527 French 520 Other 506 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560 580 600 Average score in reading Students who spoke a language other than French or English at home outperformed those who spoke French at home in Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, and Ontario; but they performed lower than those who spoke French at home in Quebec and Saskatchewan (Appendix B.2.7b). 38 PISA 2018 The results for the reading subscales were also examined by language spoken at home. For Canada overall, students who spoke a language other than English or French at home had lower achievement in three subscales — locating information, evaluating and reflecting, and multiple-text structure. For the remaining two subscales (understanding and single-text structure), students who spoke another language at home were outperformed by their English-speaking peers, but there was no significant difference compared to their French-speaking counterparts (Table 2.2, Appendices B.2.8 and B.2.9). These results varied within the provinces. Table 2.2 Relationship between students’ language spoken at home and achievement in reading subscales in Canada English French Other Average score Standard error Average score Standard error Average Standard score error Locate information 523 (2.6) 520 (4.4) 504 (4.0) Understand 526 (2.3) 517 (3.3) 510 (3.8) Evaluate and reflect 533 (2.5) 531 (4.1) 515 (4.4) Single-text structure 528 (2.3) 515 (3.2) 510 (3.9) Multiple-text structure 527 (2.3) 527 (3.4) 510 (3.9) Difference English– English– French Other * * * * * * French– Other * * * * * Denotes significant difference Students’ attitudes and beliefs This section focuses on students’ attitudes toward reading (enjoyment of reading and time spent reading for enjoyment), reading self-efficacy, reading preferences (types of reading materials and digital versus paper formats), and reading strategies. Further results from the student and school questionnaires on these issues will be published in forthcoming reports and in issues of Assessment Matters!  10 Attitude toward reading As students progress through public education, they learn increasingly challenging and sophisticated curriculum. In recent decades, curriculum and pedagogy have evolved in response to increasing information, increasing demands for skilled work and knowledge on the job, and increasing social and citizenship complexities in a globalized world. The literature refers to these changes as requiring “21st century knowledge and skills” and recognizes that assessing learning processes are as important as assessing learning outcomes (Goldman, 2012; Learned, Stockdill, & Moje, 2011; OECD, 2010). The student questionnaire that accompanied PISA 2018 provides insights into the attitudes, motivations, and skills that students are bringing to the process of “learning how to learn.” In PISA 2018, students were asked to respond to five items concerning attitudes toward reading, as shown in Figure 2.6 (Appendices B.2.10a–e). In Canada overall, close to 40 per cent of 15-year-old students reported that reading is one of their favourite hobbies and that they like talking about books with other people. However, one in four students reported that reading is a waste of time (Figure 2.6). This is a proportion similar to the results from PCAP 2016, in which almost one in five Grade 8/Secondary II students reported that they consider reading a waste of time (O’Grady, Fung, Brochu, Servage, & Tao, 2019). Additionally, approximately one out of two students across Canada and in the OECD countries reported that they read only if they have to or only to get the information that they need. Assessment Matters! is a series of articles and research notes available on the CMEC website, at https://cmec.ca/459/Overview.html 10 PISA 2018 39 Figure 2.6 Percentage of Canadian students by their responses to questionnaire items related to the enjoyment of reading Reading is one of my favourite hobbies 27 37 24 I like talking about books with other people 28 33 29 I read only to get informa�on that I need 19 34 I read only if I have to 21 32 For me, reading is a waste of �me 16 30 18 41 20 Strongly disagree 10 31 33 0 13 40 Percentage Disagree 16 60 10 80 Agree 100 Strongly agree Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding. Positive attitudes toward reading were positively related to student reading achievement (Appendices B.2.10a–e). Students who indicated that they enjoy reading outperformed those who did not, as reported by their responses to statements on attitudes toward reading. This finding was consistent across the OECD countries and in all Canadian provinces except Prince Edward Island, where students’ scores did not significantly differ by their responses to two of the five reading statements (Appendices B.2.10b and B.2.10c). Students were also asked how much time they spent reading for enjoyment. As shown in Figure 2.7, 40 per cent of Canadian students did not read for enjoyment, which is similar to the proportion across the OECD countries (42 per cent). The proportion ranged from 37 per cent in Alberta and British Columbia to 49 per cent in Newfoundland and Labrador (Appendix B.2.11). The proportion of Canadian students who spent one or more hours per day reading for enjoyment was also similar to that in the OECD countries (16 and 17 per cent, respectively). Within Canada, the proportion of students in this category ranged from 12 per cent in Prince Edward Island to 18 per cent in Alberta (Appendix B.2.11). Figure 2.7 Percentage of students by time spent reading for enjoyment Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island Nova Sco�a New Brunswick Quebec Ontario Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta Bri�sh Columbia Canada OECD 49 47 47 46 44 39 41 43 37 37 40 42 0 20 21 26 26 26 29 26 17 29 29 26 28 Percentage 15 14 19 19 17 17 27 24 40 15 15 14 15 14 60 I do not read for enjoyment More than 30 minutes to less than 60 minutes a day More than 2 hours a day 10 7 8 7 8 11 9 9 11 10 10 11 80 5 5 5 6 4 7 6 5 7 6 6 6 100 30 minutes or less a day 1 to 2 hours a day Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding. 40 PISA 2018 Student motivation to read has been shown to be an important factor that influences reading ability. Reading motivation involves a variety of factors, including self-efficacy, reading goals, social motivation, and intrinsic and extrinsic influences (Aarnoutse & Schellings, 2003). While reading strategies have been shown to be successful in the classroom, that success is contingent on the motivation of students to learn and use those strategies. Better readers tend to read more because of their higher motivation for reading; in turn, reading for pleasure is more strongly linked to cognitive progress in adolescence than to SES factors such as parental education (Sullivan & Brown, 2015). As shown in Figure 2.8, Canadian students who enjoy reading are more likely to have higher achievement in reading, although there appears to be a threshold, with little further improvement in reading scores when time spent on reading for enjoyment surpasses 30 minutes per day (Appendix B.2.11). This general pattern was observed in most of the provinces. Notable exceptions include students in New Brunswick and British Columbia who reported reading more than two hours a day for enjoyment: in the former province, scores were lower, while, in the latter, scores were higher compared to students who spent 30 to 60 minutes reading for enjoyment. In Quebec, students who reported reading for enjoyment for more than two hours a day scored lower than who read one to two hours a day (Appendix B.2.11). Figure 2.8 Relationship between students’ time spent reading for enjoyment and reading achievement in Canada More than 2 hours a day 556 1 to 2 hours a day 560 More than 30 minutes to less than 60 minutes a day 555 30 minutes or less a day 538 I do not read for enjoyment 488 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560 580 600 Average score in reading Reading self-efficacy Self-efficacy refers to a student’s belief that, by engaging in specific activities, he or she can produce desired effects, such as achieving a personal goal (Bandura, 1977). Although cognitive processes and strategies have been the focus of learning-to-read research for many years, student self-efficacy with respect to reading has been shown to be associated with reading ability. Research has revealed that students reporting higher levels of self-efficacy obtained higher reading comprehension scores than students reporting lower levels of perceived competence (Schunk & Pajares, 2009). In PISA 2018, students were asked to respond to six items, shown in Figure 2.9, that gauged their feelings about their ability to read. Students responding positively to the first three items and negatively to the last three would have higher self-efficacy and be considered as confident in their reading abilities. For Canada overall, over 80 per cent of 15-year-olds believe that they are good readers and/or fluent readers, while a slightly smaller proportion of students reported that they are able to understand difficult texts. However, close to 20 per cent of students reported having difficulty with reading, while just over 40 per cent struggle with comprehension (Appendices B.2.12a–f ). PISA 2018 41 Figure 2.9 Percentage of Canadian students by their responses to questionnaire items related to reading self-efficacy I am a good reader 5 I am able to understand difficult texts 4 I read fluently 4 13 18 30 57 14 I have always had difficulty with reading 18 I find it difficult to answer ques�ons about a text 41 40 14 33 51 20 Disagree 30 43 20 0 21 52 39 I have to read a text several �mes before completely understanding it Strongly disagree 53 Percentage Agree 8 23 60 5 80 6 100 Strongly agree Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding. Students’ reading self-efficacy varied across provinces. In six of the provinces, at least 85 per cent of students believe that they are good readers (Appendix B.2.12a). The proportion of students that reported reading fluently ranged from 76 per cent in Newfoundland and Labrador to 84 per cent in Ontario and Alberta (Appendix B.2.12c). On the other hand, the proportion of students who reported difficulty with reading comprehension ranged from 35 per cent in Prince Edward Island to 46 per cent in Alberta (Appendix B.2.12e), while more than one-third of students in New Brunswick reported difficulty with reading and answering questions (Appendices B.2.12d and B.2.12f ). As shown in Table 2.3, there is a positive relationship between students’ confidence in their ability to read well and their success in reading. Average reading scores were significantly lower for students with less confidence in their reading abilities and higher for those with more confidence. This is consistent with the pattern reported for Grade 4 students in PIRLS 2016 (Brochu et al., 2018) and for Grade 8 students in PCAP 2016 (O’Grady et al., 2019). Higher reading proficiency by confident readers in comparison to less confident readers was observed in all provinces. 42 PISA 2018 Table 2.3 Relationship between reading self-efficacy and reading achievement in Canada Average score Standard error Average score Standard error Confident– not confident Difference Standard error Very confident Average score Confident Standard error Not confident Average score Not confident at all 446 (4.4) 477 (2.9) 518 (2.0) 573 (2.1) 40* 445 (4.5) 485 (2.4) 528 (1.9) 572 (2.3) 43* 439 (4.6) 473 (2.7) 517 (1.8) 576 (2.2) 45* I have always had difficulty with readingb 456 (3.6) 468 (2.9) 520 (2.0) 562 (1.8) 52* I have to read a text several times before completely understanding itb 482 (3.1) 504 (2.2) 542 (2.0) 550 (2.7) 37* I find it difficult to answer questions about a textb 475 (3.5) 495 (2.6) 536 (1.8) 552 (2.7) 41* I am a good readera I am able to understand difficult texts I read fluently a a * Denotes significant difference Note: For this table, responses were converted from a four-point agreement–disagreement scale to a four-point level-of-confidence scale. a Students who answered “strongly agree” are considered “very confident”; those who answered “strongly disagree” are considered “not confident at all.” b Students who answered “strongly disagree” are considered “very confident”; those who answered “strongly agree” are considered “not confident at all.” Reading preferences A big challenge for teachers is not simply getting students to read — it is getting them to enjoy it too. In motivating their students to read, language arts teachers are encouraged to expose students to a wide variety of genres in their classrooms and to allow students some choice in their reading materials to increase their engagement and to accommodate different reading skill levels (Gambrell, Marinak, Brooker, & McCreaAndrews, 2011; Merga, 2015; Sturtevat, Boyd, Brozo, Hinchman, Moore, & Alvermann, 2010). In PISA 2018, students were asked about the types of reading materials that they read because they wanted to. As shown in Figure 2.10, Canadian students reported a higher preference for reading fiction and a lower preference for magazines and comic books (Appendices B.2.13a–e). This general pattern holds up across participating countries as well as the Canadian provinces. If reading a particular type of reading material once a month or more, in comparison to reading it a few times a year or less frequently, is taken to represent student’s preference for reading that type of material, then interesting patterns in reading preferences emerge. Notably, compared to Canada, more students across the OECD countries preferred reading magazines (37 versus 25 per cent) and newspapers (41 versus 30 per cent). In the Canadian provinces, students’ preferences for types of reading materials varied greatly. Notable findings were a high preference for reading magazines in Quebec, fiction and newspapers in Prince Edward Island, and non-fiction books in British Columbia, and a low preference for reading comic books in Prince Edward Island (Appendices B.2.13a–e). PISA 2018 43 Figure 2.10 Percentage of Canadian students by their responses to questionnaire items related to their preferences for reading material Fic�on (e.g., novels, narra�ves, stories) 19 Non-fic�on books (e.g., informa�onal, documentary) 27 20 31 19 30 Newspapers 47 Magazines 46 Comic books 19 23 14 40 Percentage 10 11 60 A few �mes a year Several �mes a week 5 15 27 20 Never or almost never Several �mes a month 14 29 50 0 15 5 7 8 2 5 80 100 About once a month Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding. As shown in Table 2.4, in Canada, there is a positive relationship between reading achievement and increasing frequency of reading fiction, non-fiction books, and newspapers, while reading magazines and comic books has little impact on reading scores (Appendices B.2.13a–e). On average across the OECD countries, only reading fiction is associated with a continual upward trend in reading scores, where the results did not taper off with increased frequency of reading. Provincially, results varied, but a positive relationship between reading achievement and an increase in the frequency of reading was found in most provinces for reading fiction and non-fiction books. Table 2.4 Relationship between reading preferences and reading achievement in Canada Average score Standard error Average score Standard error Average score Standard error Several times a week Standard error Several times a month Average score About once a month Standard error A few times a year Average score Never or almost never Fiction (e.g., novels, narratives, stories) 479 (2.4) 520 (2.2) 526 (2.8) 544 (2.9) 572 (2.9) Non-fiction books (e.g., informational, documentary) 507 (2.1) 534 (2.3) 531 (3.1) 539 (2.9) 537 (4.5) Newspapers 518 (1.7) 532 (2.5) 532 (2.8) 537 (3.6) 536 (4.9) Magazines 524 (2.0) 530 (1.9) 529 (3.2) 521 (4.2) 508 (7.3) Comic books 525 (2.1) 531 (2.3) 520 (3.4) 522 (3.7) 526 (6.1) The PISA 2018 student questionnaire asked students about whether they preferred to read print or digital books. As shown in Figure 2.11, more than twice as many students in Canada overall preferred to read books in paper compared to in digital format. Similar proportions were found across the provinces, with the proportion of students who preferred to “read books more often in paper format” ranging from 32 per cent in Newfoundland and Labrador to 46 in Prince Edward Island, and those who preferred to “read books more often on digital devices” ranging from 11 per cent in New Brunswick to 19 per cent in Ontario (Appendix B.2.14). This preference for paper formats was consistent with the finding for Grade 8/Secondary II students in PCAP 2016, 44 PISA 2018 in which the majority of students prefer to read on paper, both when reading for themselves and when reading for school (O’Grady et al., 2019). Figure 2.11 Canadian students’ preferences for reading print or digital material I rarely or never read books 17% I read books more o�en in paper format 30% 17% I read books more o�en on digital devices I read books equally o�en in paper format and on digital devices 37% In Canada overall, students who preferred to read in paper format achieved higher scores than those who preferred a digital format or who read in both formats with equal frequency. For the 30 per cent of students who reported rarely or never reading books, reading achievement was significantly lower than that of their peers who read in any format (Figure 2.12, Appendix B.2.14). In all provinces, students who preferred reading in paper format outperformed their peers who reported rarely or never reading books as well as those who preferred reading on digital devices. In the majority of the provinces, there was no statistically significant difference in reading scores between students who read in both formats with equal frequency and students who read more often in paper format, except for Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, and British Columbia, where the latter had higher reading achievement. Figure 2.12 Relationship between students’ preferences for reading format and reading achievement in Canada I rarely or never read books 481 I read books more o�en in paper format 558 I read books more o�en on digital devices 516 I read books equally o�en in paper format and on digital devices 544 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560 580 600 Average score in reading Students’ reading strategies As Jang (2016) observes, “One of the most notable trends in literacy theory and research is the increasing interest in the reading and writing practices of adolescents” (p. 7). Interest has been driven in part by concerns about adolescent disengagement from reading, and the demands of complex global societies and knowledge economies (Goldman, 2012; Guthrie, Wigfield, & You, 2012; McKenna, Conradi, Lawrence, Jang, & Meyer, 2012; OECD, 2010). These factors have caused policy-makers and some researchers to call for a shift in the role of the language arts teacher from literature teacher to literacy teacher. In other words, language arts teachers in high school, and indeed high-school teachers in other subject areas, need to recognize that, over and above being content area teachers, they are also reading teachers, instructing students in the use of effective reading strategies (Wigent, 2013). PISA 2018 45 Good pedagogy in secondary-school grades thus calls for teachers to explicitly teach and guide students in the practice of effective reading strategies (Goldman, 2012). More and less effective reading strategies have been widely researched, and this research has established that students can learn strategies to help themselves when they encounter difficulties in their reading (Learned et al., 2011). Pedagogically, it is most helpful when the teacher can teach, and give students the opportunity to practise, an array of strategies and guide students effectively toward independent use of these strategies (Goldman, 2012; Wigent, 2013). Reading literacy is an important skill that is necessary for full participation in society. Students are taught to read in the earliest grades, and reading-related activities become increasingly challenging throughout schooling. The reading strategies employed and the effort applied to reading activities might be expected to have some impact on reading performance. This section looks at students’ perceptions of the use of reading strategies for understanding and memorizing texts. There are several factors to consider when interpreting the usefulness of reading strategies as reported by students. Students may apply different strategies to different kinds of texts, depending on genre and level of difficulty. Both genres and modes of disciplinary thinking influence the ways in which students approach texts and the kinds of reading strategies that might be effective for comprehension (Goldman, 2012; Yoo, 2015). Students require a degree of metacognition to identify the strategies they are using. While effective reading instruction helps students develop such metacognition (Learned et al., 2011; Wigent, 2013), they may not be able to name some of the strategies they are using, or they may lack the metacognitive awareness to be able to identify that they are using particular strategies (Yoo, 2015). In PISA 2018, students were given six reading strategies and asked to rank them on a six-point scale from “not useful” to “very useful,” according to their usefulness for helping them understand and memorize texts. As shown in Figure 2.13, students reported that the most useful strategies were summarizing the text in their own words and underlining the important parts of the text. The same preferences were also reported in the provinces, but the proportions varied. The proportion of students who reported that summarizing the text in their own words was a very useful strategy ranged from 16 per cent in New Brunswick to 28 per cent in Quebec, and those who reported underlining the important parts of the text as a very useful strategy ranged from 17 per cent in Saskatchewan to 32 per cent in Quebec. The two strategies that were considered the least useful across Canada were reading the text aloud to another person and quickly reading through the text twice (Appendices B.2.15a–f ). Figure 2.13 Canadian students’ perceptions of the usefulness of reading strategies for understanding and memorizing texts I concentrate on the parts of the text that are easy to understand 13 I quickly read through the text twice 15 A�er reading the text, I discuss its content with other people 9 I summarize the text in my own words 8 14 10 18 2 13 18 10 17 21 22 22 21 22 19 40 3 20 11 21 19 20 14 21 17 26 0 25 23 16 10 I read the text aloud to another person 23 19 12 I underline important parts of the text Not useful 1 14 Percentage 4 15 60 11 80 5 10 100 Very useful 6 Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding. 46 PISA 2018 Three strategies were found to be positively related to reading scores. Students who reported that discussing content with other people and summarizing the text in their own words were very useful strategies achieved significantly higher scores (by 45 and 39 points, respectively) than those who found that these strategies were not useful. To a lesser extent, students who reported underlining the important parts of the text scored higher (by 10 points) than those who found this strategy not useful (Table 2.5, Appendices B.2.15a–f ). Both discussing content with others and summarizing in their own words are associated with a higher level of metacognition in reading. Higher reading scores for students who reported these two strategies as very useful, in comparison to those who did not find them useful, were observed in all provinces except in Prince Edward Island, where there was no significant difference with respect to discussing content with other people. Table 2.5 Relationship between students’ perception of the usefulness of reading strategies and reading achievement Not useful 1 2 3 4 Very useful 5 6 I concentrate on the parts of the text that are easy to understand 523 540* 526 525 531 516 I quickly read through the text twice 526 533* 525 521 533 526 After reading the text, I discuss its content with other people 507 515 511 528* 542* 552* I underline important parts of the text 522 523 518 524 538* 531* I summarize the text in my own words 506 517 516* 524* 534* 544* I read the text aloud to another person 523 532* 528 526 528 527 * Denotes significant difference compared to category 1 (not useful) Summary In PISA 2018, Canada placed near the top of all participating countries on the index of economic, social, and cultural status. In Canada overall and all the provinces, socioeconomically advantaged students outperformed disadvantaged students in reading achievement. In contrast to the majority of countries participating in PISA 2018, where non-immigrant students outperformed their first- and second-generation immigrant peers in reading, Canadian immigrant students performed as well as non-immigrant students. However, first-generation immigrant students did not perform as well as their non-immigrant and second-generation immigrant peers, while second-generation immigrant students had significantly higher average reading scores than non-immigrant students. In terms of language spoken at home, Canadian students who spoke a language other than English or French at home had lower reading achievement than those who spoke either of the two official languages at home. In PISA 2018, students who reported that they enjoy reading and who are more confident about their reading abilities were more likely to have higher reading scores, although the patterns vary depending on time spent reading for enjoyment and type of reading material. For example, reading for enjoyment, even 30 minutes or less per day, was associated with higher average reading scores relative to not reading at all, and a positive association between reading scores and reading frequency was observed only among students who prefer to read fiction books. In terms of reading strategies, students who found discussing content with other people, summarizing the text in their own words, and underlining important parts of the text as very useful achieved significantly higher reading scores than those who did not find these strategies useful. These findings highlight not only the relevance of the sociodemographic characteristics of students in determining reading achievement, but also the importance of their attitudes toward reading, sense of selfefficacy, reading preferences, and use of effective reading strategies. PISA 2018 47 Chapter 3 Canadian Students’ Mathematics and Science Performance in an International Context This chapter presents the overall results of the PISA 2018 assessments in the minor domains of mathematics and science. For each domain, the performance of 15-year-old students is first described in terms of PISA proficiency levels for Canada and the 10 provinces. The average mathematics and science scores of Canadian students are then compared to those from the other countries that participated in PISA 2018. Next, the performance of students enrolled in anglophone and francophone school systems in Canada is presented for those provinces where the samples of the two groups were of sufficient size. This is followed by a comparison between the performance of boys and girls in Canada and the provinces. Lastly, changes over time are discussed. Defining mathematics and science Since mathematics and science were minor domains in PISA 2018, there were fewer assessment items in these two areas than in the major domain of reading. As a result, PISA 2018 allows for an update only on overall performance in mathematics and science, and not on their subscales. With an emphasis on functional knowledge and skills that facilitate active participation in society, the PISA definition of mathematical literacy and scientific literacy are as follow: • Mathematical literacy is “an individual’s capacity to formulate, employ and interpret mathematics in a variety of contexts. It includes reasoning mathematically and using mathematical concepts, procedures, facts and tools to describe, explain and predict phenomena. It assists individuals to recognise the role that mathematics plays in the world and to make the well-founded judgements and decisions needed by constructive, engaged and reflective citizens” (OECD, 2019a, p. 75). • Scientific literacy is an individual’s “ability to engage with science-related issues, and with the ideas of science, as a reflective citizen. A scientifically literate person is willing to engage in reasoned discourse about science and technology, which requires the competencies to explain phenomena scientifically, evaluate and design scientific enquiry, and interpret data and evidence scientifically” (OECD, 2019a, p. 15). PISA achievement results by proficiency levels in mathematics and science PISA has developed useful benchmarks that relate a range of average scores to levels of knowledge and skills, as measured by the assessment. Although these levels are not linked directly to any specific program of study, they provide an overall picture of students’ accumulated understanding at age 15. PISA mathematical literacy is expressed on a six-level proficiency scale, whereas PISA scientific literacy is expressed on a seven-level proficiency scale. Tasks at the lower end of the scale (Level 1 in mathematics; Levels 1a and 1b in science) are deemed easier and less complex than tasks at the higher end (Level 6). Tables 3.1 and 3.2 provide summary descriptions of the tasks that students are able to do at each proficiency level for mathematics and science, and include the corresponding lower limit for each level. It is assumed that students classified at a given proficiency level can perform most of the tasks at that level as well as those at the lower levels. PISA 2018 49 Table 3.1 PISA 2018 mathematics proficiency levels – summary description Level Lower score limit Percentage of students able to perform tasks at this level or above Characteristics of tasks 6 669.30 2.4% of students across the OECD and 4.0% in Canada Students at Level 6 of the PISA mathematics assessment are able to successfully complete the most difficult PISA items. At Level 6, students can: ŠŠ conceptualize, generalize, and utilize information based on their investigations and modelling of complex problem situations, and can use their knowledge in relatively non-standard contexts ŠŠ link different information sources and representations and flexibly translate among them ŠŠ apply advanced mathematical insight and understanding, along with a mastery of symbolic and formal mathematical operations and relationships, to develop new approaches and strategies for attacking novel situations ŠŠ reflect on their actions, and formulate and precisely communicate their actions and reflections regarding their findings, interpretations, and arguments, and the appropriateness of these to the original situation 5 606.99 10.9% of students across the OECD and 15.3% in Canada At Level 5, students can: ŠŠ develop and work with models for complex situations, identifying constraints and specifying assumptions ŠŠ select, compare, and evaluate appropriate problem-solving strategies for dealing with complex problems related to these models ŠŠ work strategically using broad, well-developed thinking and reasoning skills, appropriate linked representations, symbolic and formal characterizations, and insight pertaining to these situations ŠŠ begin to reflect on their work and formulate and communicate their interpretations and reasoning 4 544.68 29.5% of students across the OECD and 37.1% in Canada At Level 4, students can: ŠŠ work effectively with explicit models for complex concrete situations that may involve constraints or call for making assumptions ŠŠ select and integrate different representations, including symbolic representations, linking them directly to aspects of real-world situations ŠŠ utilize their limited range of skills and reason with some insight, in straightforward contexts ŠŠ construct and communicate explanations and arguments based on their interpretations, arguments, and actions 3 482.38 53.8% of students across the OECD and 62.9% in Canada At Level 3, students can: ŠŠ execute clearly described procedures, including those that require sequential decisions ŠŠ use their interpretations as a base to build a simple model or to select and apply simple problem-solving strategies ŠŠ interpret and use representations based on different information sources, and reason directly from them ŠŠ handle percentages, fractions, and decimal numbers, and work with proportional relationships ŠŠ engage in basic interpretation and reasoning 2 420.07 76.0% of students across the OECD and 83.7% in Canada Level 2 is considered the baseline level of mathematics proficiency that is required to participate fully in modern society. At Level 2, students can: ŠŠ interpret and recognize situations in contexts that require no more than direct inference ŠŠ extract relevant information from a single source and make use of a single representational mode ŠŠ employ basic algorithms, formulae, procedures, or conventions to solve problems involving whole numbers ŠŠ make literal interpretations of the results 1 357.77 90.9% of student across the OECD and 95.0% in Canada At Level 1, students can: ŠŠ answer questions involving familiar contexts where all relevant information is present and the questions are clearly defined ŠŠ identify information and carry out routine procedures according to direct instructions in explicit situations ŠŠ perform actions that are almost always obvious and follow immediately from the given stimuli Adapted from OECD 2019a, p. 92. 50 PISA 2018 Table 3.2 PISA 2018 science proficiency levels – summary description Lower score limit Percentage of students able to perform tasks at this level or above 6 707.93 0.8% of students across the OECD and 1.8% in Canada Students at Level 6 of the PISA science assessment are able to successfully complete the most difficult PISA items. At Level 6, students can: ŠŠ draw on a range of interrelated scientific ideas and concepts from the physical, life, and earth and space sciences and link different information sources and representations and move flexibly among them ŠŠ use content, procedural, and epistemic knowledge in order to offer explanatory hypotheses of novel scientific phenomena, events, and processes or to make predictions ŠŠ discriminate between relevant and irrelevant information and draw on knowledge external to the normal school curriculum when interpreting data and evidence ŠŠ distinguish between arguments that are based on scientific evidence and theory and those based on other considerations ŠŠ evaluate competing designs of complex experiments, field studies, or simulations, and justify their choices 5 633.33 6.8% of students across the OECD and 11.3% in Canada At Level 5, students can: ŠŠ use abstract scientific ideas or concepts to explain unfamiliar and more complex phenomena, events, and processes involving multiple causal links ŠŠ apply more sophisticated epistemic knowledge to evaluate alternative experimental designs and justify their choices, and use theoretical knowledge to interpret information or make predictions ŠŠ evaluate ways of exploring a given question scientifically and identify limitations in interpretations of data sets including sources and the effects of uncertainty in scientific data 4 558.73 24.9% of students across the OECD and 34.8% in Canada At Level 4, students can: ŠŠ use more complex or more abstract content knowledge, which is either provided or recalled, to construct explanations of more complex or less familiar events and processes ŠŠ conduct experiments involving two or more independent variables in a constrained context ŠŠ justify an experimental design, drawing on elements of procedural and epistemic knowledge ŠŠ interpret data drawn from a moderately complex data set or less familiar context, draw appropriate conclusions that go beyond the data, and provide justifications for their choices 3 484.14 52.3% of students across the OECD and 64.2% in Canada At Level 3, students can: ŠŠ draw upon moderately complex content knowledge to identify or construct explanations of familiar phenomena ŠŠ construct explanations with relevant cueing or support in less familiar or more complex situations ŠŠ draw on elements of procedural or epistemic knowledge to carry out a simple experiment in a constrained context ŠŠ distinguish between scientific and non-scientific issues and identify the evidence supporting a scientific claim 2 409.54 78.0% of students across the OECD and 86.6% in Canada Level 2 is considered the baseline level of science proficiency that is required to participate fully in modern society. At Level 2, students can: ŠŠ draw on everyday content knowledge and basic procedural knowledge to identify an appropriate scientific explanation, interpret data, and identify the question being addressed in a simple experimental design ŠŠ use basic or everyday scientific knowledge to identify a valid conclusion from a simple data set ŠŠ demonstrate basic epistemic knowledge by being able to identify questions that could be investigated scientifically 1a 334.94 94.1% of student across the OECD and 97.0% in Canada At Level 1a, students can: ŠŠ use basic or everyday content and procedural knowledge to recognize or identify explanations of simple scientific phenomena ŠŠ undertake structured scientific enquiries with no more than two variables, with support ŠŠ identify simple causal or correlational relationships and interpret graphical and visual data that require a low level of cognitive demand ŠŠ select the best scientific explanation for given data in familiar personal, local, and global contexts 1b 260.54 99.3% of student across the OECD and 99.6% in Canada At Level 1b, students can: ŠŠ use basic or everyday scientific knowledge to recognize aspects of familiar or simple phenomena ŠŠ identify simple patterns in data, recognize basic scientific terms, and follow explicit instructions to carry out a scientific procedure Level Characteristics of tasks Adapted from OECD 2019a, p. 115. PISA 2018 51 In PISA 2018, 84 per cent of Canadian students and 76 per cent of students in the OECD countries performed at or above Level 2 in mathematics, which the OECD defines as the baseline level of mathematical proficiency that is required to participate fully in modern society (Appendix B.3.1b). Across the provinces, the percentage of Canadian students at or above the baseline level of proficiency ranges from 75 per cent in Manitoba to close to 90 per cent in Quebec (Figure 3.1). In contrast, 16 per cent of Canadian students did not reach the baseline level in mathematics, compared to an average of 24 per cent across the OECD countries. More than 60 countries had a higher proportion of low performers (below Level 2) in mathematics relative to Canada. Within Canada, there is a lot of variability among the provinces. Quebec (12 per cent) had the lowest proportion of low achievers in mathematics, and Manitoba (25 per cent) had the highest. Students performing at Level 5 or above in mathematics are considered high-achieving students in this report. In Canada, 15 per cent of students performed at Level 5 or above, compared to an average of 11 per cent across the OECD countries (Figure 3.1). Although Canada had a higher proportion of students at Level 5 or above than most other countries participating in PISA 2018, eight countries (B-S-J-Z (China), Singapore, Hong Kong (China), Macao (China), Chinese Taipei, Korea, the Netherlands, and Japan) had a statistically higher proportion of high achievers than Canada; of these, Singapore and B-S-J-Z (China) had over 35 per cent of students performing at Level 5 or 6. Provincially, slightly more than 1 in 5 students in Quebec performed at this level. Conversely, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan had fewer than 1 in 10 high-performing students (Appendix B.3.1b). Figure 3.1 Percentage of students at each proficiency level in mathematics Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island 24 Nova Sco�a New Brunswick 22 Quebec 24 16 Manitoba 22 Alberta 24 Level 2 15 26 26 18 7 15 14 22 24 Level 3 8 21 25 40 17 22 22 20 21 22 27 21 0 10 25 22 16 OECD average 19 28 21 19 Canada 25 26 16 Bri�sh Columbia 10 25 25 Saskatchewan 19 26 21 9 26 26 17 12 Ontario Below Level 2 25 9 18 26 23 20 17 27 27 21 Percentage 60 Level 4 15 19 80 11 100 Levels 5 and 6 Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding. Students achieving below Level 1 may still be able to perform very direct and straightforward mathematical tasks, such as reading a single value from a well-labelled chart or table where the labels match the words in the question, or performing arithmetic calculations with whole numbers by following clear and well-defined instructions. Across the OECD countries, 9 per cent of participants did not achieve Level 1, while the proportion in Canada was 5 per cent. Provincially, the proportion of students that did not achieve Level 1 in mathematics varied between 4 per cent in Quebec and 8 per cent in Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, and Manitoba (Appendix B.3.1a). 52 PISA 2018 In science, 87 per cent of Canadian students and 78 per cent of students in the OECD countries performed at or above Level 2 on the PISA 2018 assessment (Appendix B.3.2b). Across the provinces, the percentage of Canadian students performing at or above this baseline level of proficiency ranges from 79 per cent in Manitoba to 89 per cent in Alberta (Figure 3.2). In Canada, 13 per cent of students did not reach the baseline level in science, compared to 22 per cent of students on average across the OECD countries. More than 60 countries had a higher proportion of low performers in science relative to Canada. Provincially, just over 1 in 5 students in Manitoba were low achievers in science, compared to around 1 in 10 students in Ontario, Quebec, and Alberta (Appendix B.3.2a). At the higher end of the science achievement scale, 11 per cent of Canadian students performed at Level 5 or above, compared to an OECD average of 7 per cent (Figure 3.2). In fact, Canada is among the countries with the highest share of high-performing students in science, surpassed only by B-S-J-Z (China), Singapore, and Macao (China) (Appendix B.3.2b). Provincially, 10 per cent or more of students in Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia performed at Level 5 or above. Figure 3.2 Percentage of students at each proficiency level in science Newfoundland and Labrador 15 Prince Edward Island 26 19 Nova Sco�a 15 New Brunswick 24 19 Quebec 12 Ontario 13 Manitoba Bri�sh Columbia 9 20 10 23 11 18 27 27 13 24 11 27 Level 3 Percentage 60 Level 4 7 15 23 29 40 6 20 28 26 7 25 31 22 22 18 28 22 Level 2 21 29 19 0 8 31 26 13 OECD average 21 27 15 Canada 30 28 23 11 9 30 21 16 Alberta 20 27 21 Saskatchewan Below Level 2 22 30 18 80 7 100 Levels 5 and 6 Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding. Across the OECD countries, 6 per cent of participants did not achieve Level 1 in science, while this proportion was 3 per cent in Canada. Provincially, 5 per cent of students in New Brunswick and Manitoba did not achieve Level 1, compared to 2 per cent of students in Quebec and Alberta (Appendix B.3.2a). PISA 2018 53 Results in mathematics and science by average score One way to summarize student performance and compare the relative standing of countries is by examining average test scores by country. However, simply ranking countries based on their average scores can be misleading because there is a margin of uncertainty associated with each score. As discussed in Chapter 1, when interpreting average scores, only those differences between countries that are statistically significant should be considered (see the note on statistical comparisons in Box 1 in that chapter). On average, Canadian 15-year-olds performed well in mathematics and science (Tables 3.3–3.5). Canadian students had an average score of 512 in mathematics and 518 in science, well above the OECD average of 489 in both domains (Appendices B.3.3 and B.3.4). Table 3.3 shows the countries that performed significantly better than or the same as Canada in mathematics and science. The average achievement scores of the students in all the remaining countries were significantly below those of Canada. Among the 79 countries that participated in PISA 2018, nine outperformed Canada in mathematics while five outperformed Canada in science. Table 3.3 Comparison of participating countries’ achievement scores to the Canadian average in mathematics and science Above* the Canadian average At the Canadian average B-S-J-Z (China), Singapore, Macao (China), Hong Kong (China), Chinese Taipei, Japan, Korea, Estonia, the Netherlands Poland, Switzerland, Denmark, Slovenia, Belgium, Finland B-S-J-Z (China), Singapore, Macao (China), Estonia, Japan Finland, Korea, Hong Kong (China), Chinese Taipei Mathematics Science * Denotes significant difference 54 PISA 2018 Table 3.4 Achievement scores in mathematics PISA 2018 591 569 558 551 532 531 527 526 523 519 516 515 513 512 586–596 566–572 555–561 545–557 525–539 525–537 522–532 520–532 520–527 514–524 511–521 510–521 504–521 507–517 Alberta 511 501–521 Denmark Slovenia 509 509 506–513 506–512 Belgium 508 504–513 Finland 507 503–511 British Columbia 504 494–515 Sweden 502 497–508 United Kingdom 502 497–507 Norway 501 497–505 Germany 500 495–505 Ireland 500 495–504 Czech Republic 499 495–504 Austria 499 493–505 Latvia 496 492–500 France 495 491–500 Iceland 495 491–499 New Zealand 494 491–498 Nova Scotia 494 482–507 Portugal 492 487–498 Australia 491 488–495 New Brunswick 491 480–502 Newfoundland and Labrador 488 476–501 Russian Federation 488 482–494 Italy 487 481–492 Hong Kong (China) Macao (China) Chinese Taipei, Japan, Korea Quebec, Japan, Korea Quebec, Chinese Taipei, Korea, Estonia Quebec, Chinese Taipei, Japan, Estonia, Netherlands Japan, Korea, Netherlands Korea, Estonia, Poland, Switzerland, Ontario, Alberta Netherlands, Switzerland, Ontario, Canada, Alberta, British Columbia Netherlands, Poland, Ontario, Canada, Alberta, Denmark, British Columbia Netherlands, Poland, Switzerland, Canada, Alberta, Denmark, Slovenia, Belgium, Finland, British Columbia Poland, Switzerland, Ontario, Alberta, Denmark, Slovenia, Belgium, Finland, British Colombia Netherlands, Poland, Switzerland, Ontario, Canada, Denmark, Slovenia, Belgium, Finland, British Columbia, Sweden, United Kingdom, Norway, Germany Switzerland, Ontario, Canada, Alberta, Slovenia, Belgium, Finland, British Columbia Ontario, Canada, Alberta, Denmark, Belgium, Finland, British Columbia Ontario, Canada, Alberta, Denmark, Slovenia, Finland, British Columbia, Sweden, United Kingdom, Prince Edward Island Ontario, Canada, Alberta, Denmark, Slovenia, Belgium, British Columbia, Sweden, United Kingdom, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island Poland, Switzerland, Ontario, Canada, Alberta, Denmark, Slovenia, Belgium, Finland, Sweden, United Kingdom, Norway, Germany, Ireland, Czech Republic, Austria, Latvia, France, Iceland, New Zealand, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island Alberta, Belgium, Finland, British Columbia, United Kingdom, Norway, Germany, Ireland, Czech Republic, Austria, Latvia, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island Alberta, Belgium, Finland, British Columbia, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Ireland, Czech Republic, Austria, Latvia, France, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island Alberta, British Columbia, Sweden, United Kingdom, Germany, Ireland, Czech Republic, Austria, Latvia, France, Iceland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island Alberta, British Columbia, Sweden, United Kingdom, Norway, Ireland, Czech Republic, Austria, Latvia, France, Iceland, New Zealand, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island British Columbia, Sweden, United Kingdom, Norway, Germany, Czech Republic, Austria, Latvia, France, Iceland, New Zealand, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island British Columbia, Sweden, United Kingdom, Norway, Germany, Ireland, Austria, Latvia, France, Iceland, New Zealand, Nova Scotia, Portugal, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island British Columbia, Sweden, United Kingdom, Norway, Germany, Ireland, Czech Republic, Latvia, France, Iceland, New Zealand, Nova Scotia, Portugal, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island British Columbia, Sweden, United Kingdom, Norway, Germany, Ireland, Czech Republic, Austria, France, Iceland, New Zealand, Nova Scotia, Portugal, Australia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island British Columbia, United Kingdom, Norway, Germany, Ireland, Czech Republic, Austria, Latvia, Iceland, New Zealand, Nova Scotia, Portugal, Australia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan British Columbia, Norway, Germany, Ireland, Czech Republic, Austria, Latvia, France, New Zealand, Nova Scotia, Portugal, Australia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan British Columbia, Germany, Ireland, Czech Republic, Austria, Latvia, France, Iceland, Nova Scotia, Portugal, Australia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan Finland, British Columbia, Sweden, United Kingdom, Norway, Germany, Ireland, Czech Republic, Austria, Latvia, France, Iceland, New Zealand, Portugal, Australia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Russian Federation, Italy, Prince Edward Island, Slovak Republic, Saskatchewan, Luxembourg, Manitoba Czech Republic, Austria, Latvia, France, Iceland, New Zealand, Nova Scotia, Australia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Russian Federation, Italy, Prince Edward Island, Slovak Republic, Saskatchewan Latvia, France, Iceland, New Zealand, Nova Scotia, Portugal, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Russian Federation, Italy, Prince Edward Island, Slovak Republic, Saskatchewan British Columbia, Sweden, United Kingdom, Norway, Germany, Ireland, Czech Republic, Austria, Latvia, France, Iceland, New Zealand, Nova Scotia, Portugal, Australia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Russian Federation, Italy, Prince Edward Island, Slovak Republic, Saskatchewan, Luxembourg, Manitoba, Spain, Lithuania, Hungary, United States British Columbia, United Kingdom, Norway, Germany, Ireland, Czech Republic, Austria, Latvia, France, Iceland, New Zealand, Nova Scotia, Portugal, Australia, New Brunswick, Russian Federation, Italy, Prince Edward Island, Slovak Republic, Saskatchewan, Luxembourg, Manitoba, Spain, Lithuania, Hungary, United States Nova Scotia, Portugal, Australia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Italy, Prince Edward Island, Slovak Republic, Saskatchewan, Luxembourg, Manitoba, Spain, Lithuania, Hungary Nova Scotia, Portugal, Australia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Russian Federation, Prince Edward Island, Slovak Republic, Saskatchewan, Luxembourg, Manitoba, Spain, Lithuania, Hungary, United States Above the OECD average B-S-J-Z (China) Singapore Macao (China) Hong Kong (China) Quebec Chinese Taipei Japan Korea Estonia Netherlands Poland Switzerland Ontario CANADA At the OECD average Country or province 95% Average confidence Countries or provinces whose mean score is not significantly different from the comparison score interval country or province 55 95% Average confidence Countries or provinces whose mean score is not significantly different from the comparison score interval country or province Prince Edward Island 487 465–508 Slovak Republic 486 481–491 Saskatchewan 485 475–495 Luxembourg 483 481–486 Manitoba 482 474–489 Spain 481 479–484 Lithuania 481 477–485 Hungary 481 477–486 United States 478 472–485 Belarus Malta Croatia Israel Turkey Ukraine Greece Cyprusa Serbia Malaysia Albania Bulgaria United Arab Emirates Brunei Darussalam 472 472 464 463 454 453 451 451 448 440 437 436 435 430 467–477 468–475 459–469 456–470 449–458 446–460 445–457 448–453 442–454 435–446 432–442 429–444 431–439 428–432 Romania 430 420–440 Montenegro Kazakhstan Moldova Baku (Azerbaijan) Thailand Uruguay Chile Qatar Mexico Bosnia and Herzegovina Costa Rica Peru Jordan Georgia Republic of North Macedonia Lebanon Colombia Brazil Argentina Indonesia Saudi Arabia Morocco Kosovo Panama Philippines Dominican Republic 430 423 421 420 419 418 417 414 409 427–432 419–427 416–425 414–425 412–425 413–423 413–422 412–417 404–414 Belgium, Finland, British Columbia, Sweden, United Kingdom, Norway, Germany, Ireland, Czech Republic, Austria, Latvia, France, Iceland, New Zealand, Nova Scotia, Portugal, Australia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Russian Federation, Italy, Slovak Republic, Saskatchewan, Luxembourg, Manitoba, Spain, Lithuania, Hungary, United States, Belarus, Malta Nova Scotia, Portugal, Australia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Russian Federation, Italy, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, Luxembourg, Manitoba, Spain, Lithuania, Hungary, United States France, Iceland, New Zealand, Nova Scotia, Portugal, Australia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Russian Federation, Italy, Prince Edward Island, Slovak Republic, Luxembourg, Manitoba, Spain, Lithuania, Hungary, United States Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Russian Federation, Italy, Prince Edward Island, Slovak Republic, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Spain, Lithuania, Hungary, United States Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Russian Federation, Italy, Prince Edward Island, Slovak Republic, Saskatchewan, Luxembourg, Spain, Lithuania, Hungary, United States New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Russian Federation, Italy, Prince Edward Island, Slovak Republic, Saskatchewan, Luxembourg, Manitoba, Lithuania, Hungary, United States New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Russian Federation, Italy, Prince Edward Island, Slovak Republic, Saskatchewan, Luxembourg, Manitoba, Spain, Hungary, United States New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Russian Federation, Italy, Prince Edward Island, Slovak Republic, Saskatchewan, Luxembourg, Manitoba, Spain, Lithuania, United States New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Italy, Prince Edward Island, Slovak Republic, Saskatchewan, Luxembourg, Manitoba, Spain, Lithuania, Hungary, Belarus, Malta Prince Edward Island, United States, Malta Prince Edward Island, United States, Belarus Israel Croatia Ukraine, Greece, Cyprus, Serbia Turkey, Greece, Cyprus, Serbia Turkey, Ukraine, Cyprus, Serbia Turkey, Ukraine, Greece, Serbia Turkey, Ukraine, Greece, Cyprus, Malaysia Serbia, Albania, Bulgaria, United Arab Emirates, Romania Malaysia, Bulgaria, United Arab Emirates, Romania Malaysia, Albania, United Arab Emirates, Brunei Darussalam, Romania, Montenegro Malaysia, Albania, Bulgaria, Romania Bulgaria, Romania, Montenegro Malaysia, Albania, Bulgaria, United Arab Emirates, Brunei Darussalam, Montenegro, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Baku (Azerbaijan), Thailand Bulgaria, Brunei Darussalam, Romania Romania, Moldova, Baku (Azerbaijan), Thailand, Uruguay, Chile Romania, Kazakhstan, Baku (Azerbaijan), Thailand, Uruguay, Chile Romania, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Thailand, Uruguay, Chile, Qatar Romania, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Baku (Azerbaijan), Uruguay, Chile, Qatar Kazakhstan, Moldova, Baku (Azerbaijan), Thailand, Chile, Qatar Kazakhstan, Moldova, Baku (Azerbaijan), Thailand, Uruguay, Qatar Baku (Azerbaijan), Thailand, Uruguay, Chile, Mexico Qatar, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Costa Rica 406 400–412 Mexico, Costa Rica, Peru, Jordan 402 400 400 398 396–409 395–405 393–406 392–403 Mexico, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Peru, Jordan, Georgia, Lebanon Bosnia and Herzegovina, Costa Rica, Jordan, Georgia, Republic of North Macedonia, Lebanon Bosnia and Herzegovina, Costa Rica, Peru, Georgia, Republic of North Macedonia, Lebanon Costa Rica, Peru, Jordan, Republic of North Macedonia, Lebanon, Colombia 394 391–398 Peru, Jordan, Georgia, Lebanon, Colombia 393 391 384 379 379 373 368 366 353 353 325 386–401 385–397 380–388 374–385 373–385 367–379 361–374 363–369 348–358 346–359 320–330 Costa Rica, Peru, Jordan, Georgia, Republic of North Macedonia, Colombia Georgia, Republic of North Macedonia, Lebanon Argentina, Indonesia Brazil, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia Brazil, Argentina, Saudi Arabia Argentina, Indonesia, Morocco Saudi Arabia, Kosovo Morocco Philippines Panama Below the OECD average Country or province Note: OECD countries appear in italics. The OECD average was 489, with a standard error of 0.4. a See OECD (2019b), p. 21, for a note regarding Cyprus. Above the Canadian average At the Canadian average Below the Canadian average 56 Above the OECD average At the OECD average Below the OECD average PISA 2018 Table 3.5 Achievement scores in science B-S-J-Z (China) Singapore Macao (China) Alberta Estonia Japan Finland Quebec PISA 2018 590 551 544 534 530 529 522 522 585–596 548–554 541–546 525–542 526–534 524–534 517–527 514–529 Korea 519 514–525 Ontario 519 511–526 CANADA 518 514–522 Hong Kong (China) 517 512–522 British Columbia 517 506–527 Chinese Taipei 516 510–521 Poland 511 506–516 New Zealand 508 504–513 Nova Scotia 508 499–517 Slovenia 507 505–509 Newfoundland and Labrador 506 494–519 United Kingdom 505 500–510 Netherlands 503 498–509 Germany 503 497–509 Australia 503 499–506 United States 502 496–509 Prince Edward Island 502 484–519 Saskatchewan 501 493–508 Sweden 499 493–505 Belgium 499 494–503 Czech Republic 497 492–502 Ireland 496 492–500 Switzerland 495 489–501 France 493 489–497 Denmark 493 489–496 New Brunswick 492 481–504 Estonia, Japan Alberta, Japan Alberta, Estonia, Quebec Quebec, Korea, Ontario, Canada, Hong Kong (China), British Columbia, Chinese Taipei Japan, Finland, Korea, Ontario, Canada, Hong Kong (China), British Columbia, Chinese Taipei Finland, Quebec, Ontario, Canada, Hong Kong (China), British Columbia, Chinese Taipei, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island Finland, Quebec, Korea, Canada, Hong Kong (China), British Columbia, Chinese Taipei, Poland, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island Finland, Quebec, Korea, Ontario, Hong Kong (China), British Columbia, Chinese Taipei, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island Finland, Quebec, Korea, Ontario, Canada, British Columbia, Chinese Taipei, Poland, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island Finland, Quebec, Korea, Ontario, Canada, Hong Kong (China), Chinese Taipei, Poland, New Zealand, Nova Scotia, Slovenia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island Finland, Quebec, Korea, Ontario, Canada, Hong Kong (China), British Columbia, Poland, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island Ontario, Hong Kong (China), British Columbia, Chinese Taipei, New Zealand, Nova Scotia, Slovenia, Newfoundland and Labrador, United Kingdom, Prince Edward Island British Columbia, Poland, Nova Scotia, Slovenia, Newfoundland and Labrador, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Germany, United States, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan Ontario, Canada, Hong Kong (China), British Columbia, Chinese Taipei, Poland, New Zealand, Slovenia, Newfoundland and Labrador, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Germany, Australia, United States, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, Sweden, Belgium British Columbia, Poland, New Zealand, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Germany, Australia, United States, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan Korea, Ontario, Canada, Hong Kong (China), British Columbia, Chinese Taipei, Poland, New Zealand, Nova Scotia, Slovenia, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Germany, Australia, United States, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, Sweden, Belgium, Czech Republic, Ireland, Switzerland, France, New Brunswick Poland, New Zealand, Nova Scotia, Slovenia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Netherlands, Germany, Australia, United States, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, Sweden, Belgium New Zealand, Nova Scotia, Slovenia, Newfoundland and Labrador, United Kingdom, Germany, Australia, United States, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, Sweden, Belgium, Czech Republic, New Brunswick New Zealand, Nova Scotia, Slovenia, Newfoundland and Labrador, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Australia, United States, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, Sweden, Belgium, Czech Republic, Ireland, Switzerland, New Brunswick Nova Scotia, Slovenia, Newfoundland and Labrador, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Germany, United States, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, Sweden, Belgium, New Brunswick New Zealand, Nova Scotia, Slovenia, Newfoundland and Labrador, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Germany, Australia, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, Sweden, Belgium, Czech Republic, Ireland, Switzerland, New Brunswick Korea, Ontario, Canada, Hong Kong (China), British Columbia, Chinese Taipei, Poland, New Zealand, Nova Scotia, Slovenia, Newfoundland and Labrador, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Germany, Australia, United States, Saskatchewan, Sweden, Belgium, Czech Republic, Ireland, Switzerland, France, Denmark, New Brunswick, Portugal, Norway, Austria, Manitoba, Latvia New Zealand, Nova Scotia, Slovenia, Newfoundland and Labrador, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Germany, Australia, United States, Prince Edward Island, Sweden, Belgium, Czech Republic, Ireland, Switzerland, France, Denmark, New Brunswick, Portugal Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Germany, Australia, United States, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, Belgium, Czech Republic, Ireland, Switzerland, France, Denmark, New Brunswick, Portugal Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Germany, Australia, United States, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, Sweden, Czech Republic, Ireland, Switzerland, France, New Brunswick Newfoundland and Labrador, Netherlands, Germany, United States, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, Sweden, Belgium, Ireland, Switzerland, France, Denmark, New Brunswick, Portugal, Norway, Austria, Manitoba Newfoundland and Labrador, Germany, United States, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, Sweden, Belgium, Czech Republic, Switzerland, France, Denmark, New Brunswick, Portugal, Norway, Austria, Manitoba Newfoundland and Labrador, Germany, United States, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, Sweden, Belgium, Czech Republic, Ireland, France, Denmark, New Brunswick, Portugal, Norway, Austria, Manitoba Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, Sweden, Belgium, Czech Republic, Ireland, Switzerland, Denmark, New Brunswick, Portugal, Norway, Austria, Manitoba Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, Sweden, Czech Republic, Ireland, Switzerland, France, New Brunswick, Portugal, Norway, Austria, Manitoba Newfoundland and Labrador, Netherlands, Germany, Australia, United States, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, Sweden, Belgium, Czech Republic, Ireland, Switzerland, France, Denmark, Portugal, Norway, Austria, Manitoba, Latvia, Spain, Lithuania, Hungary Above the OECD average Country or province 95% Average confidence Countries or provinces whose mean score is not significantly different from the comparison score interval country or province 57 Portugal 492 486–497 Norway 490 486–495 Austria 490 484–495 Manitoba 489 482–497 Latvia Spain Lithuania Hungary Russian Federation Luxembourg Iceland Croatia Belarus Ukraine Turkey Italy Slovak Republic Israel Malta Greece Chile Serbia Cyprusa Malaysia United Arab Emirates Brunei Darussalam Jordan Moldova Thailand Uruguay 487 483 482 481 478 477 475 472 471 469 468 468 464 462 457 452 444 440 439 438 434 431 429 428 426 426 484–491 480–486 479–485 476–485 472–483 474–479 472–479 467–478 466–476 463–475 464–472 463–473 460–469 455–469 453–460 445–458 439–448 434–446 436–442 432–443 430–438 429–433 424–435 424–433 420–432 421–431 Romania 426 417–435 Bulgaria Mexico Qatar Albania Costa Rica Montenegro Colombia Republic of North Macedonia Peru Argentina Brazil Bosnia and Herzegovina Baku (Azerbaijan) Kazakhstan Indonesia Saudi Arabia Lebanon Georgia Morocco Kosovo Panama Philippines Dominican Republic 424 419 419 417 416 415 413 417–431 414–424 417–421 413–421 409–422 413–418 407–419 Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, Sweden, Czech Republic, Ireland, Switzerland, France, Denmark, New Brunswick, Norway, Austria, Manitoba, Latvia Prince Edward Island, Czech Republic, Ireland, Switzerland, France, Denmark, New Brunswick, Portugal, Austria, Manitoba, Latvia Prince Edward Island, Czech Republic, Ireland, Switzerland, France, Denmark, New Brunswick, Portugal, Norway, Manitoba, Latvia Prince Edward Island, Czech Republic, Ireland, Switzerland, France, Denmark, New Brunswick, Portugal, Norway, Austria, Manitoba, Latvia, Spain, Lithuania, Hungary Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Portugal, Norway, Austria, Manitoba, Spain New Brunswick, Manitoba, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Russian Federation New Brunswick, Manitoba, Spain, Hungary, Russian Federation New Brunswick, Manitoba, Spain, Lithuania, Russian Federation, Luxembourg Spain, Lithuania, Hungary, Luxembourg, Iceland, Croatia, Belarus Hungary, Russian Federation, Iceland, Croatia Russian Federation, Luxembourg, Croatia, Belarus, Ukraine Russian Federation, Luxembourg, Iceland, Belarus, Ukraine, Turkey, Italy Russian Federation, Iceland, Croatia, Ukraine, Turkey, Italy Iceland, Croatia, Belarus, Turkey, Italy, Slovak Republic, Israel Croatia, Belarus, Ukraine, Italy, Slovak Republic, Israel Croatia, Belarus, Ukraine, Turkey, Slovak Republic, Israel Ukraine, Turkey, Italy, Israel Ukraine, Turkey, Italy, Slovak Republic, Malta Israel, Greece Malta Serbia, Cyprus, Malaysia Chile, Cyprus, Malaysia, United Arab Emirates Chile, Serbia, Malaysia Chile, Serbia, Cyprus, United Arab Emirates Serbia, Malaysia, Brunei Darussalam, Jordan, Moldova, Romania United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Moldova, Thailand, Uruguay, Romania, Bulgaria United Arab Emirates, Brunei Darussalam, Moldova, Thailand, Uruguay, Romania, Bulgaria United Arab Emirates, Brunei Darussalam, Jordan, Thailand, Uruguay, Romania, Bulgaria Brunei Darussalam, Jordan, Moldova, Uruguay, Romania, Bulgaria, Mexico Brunei Darussalam, Jordan, Moldova, Thailand, Romania, Bulgaria, Mexico United Arab Emirates, Brunei Darussalam, Jordan, Moldova, Thailand, Uruguay, Bulgaria, Mexico, Qatar, Albania, Costa Rica Brunei Darussalam, Jordan, Moldova, Thailand, Uruguay, Romania, Mexico, Qatar, Albania, Costa Rica Thailand, Uruguay, Romania, Bulgaria, Qatar, Albania, Costa Rica, Montenegro, Colombia Romania, Bulgaria, Mexico, Albania, Costa Rica, Colombia Romania, Bulgaria, Mexico, Qatar, Costa Rica, Montenegro, Colombia, Republic of North Macedonia Romania, Bulgaria, Mexico, Qatar, Albania, Montenegro, Colombia, Republic of North Macedonia Mexico, Albania, Costa Rica, Colombia, Republic of North Macedonia Mexico, Qatar, Albania, Costa Rica, Montenegro, Republic of North Macedonia 413 410–416 Albania, Costa Rica, Montenegro, Colombia 404 404 404 399–409 398–410 400–408 Argentina, Brazil, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Baku (Azerbaijan) Peru, Brazil, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Baku (Azerbaijan) Peru, Argentina, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Baku (Azerbaijan) 398 393–404 Peru, Argentina, Brazil, Baku (Azerbaijan), Kazakhstan, Indonesia 398 397 396 386 384 383 377 365 365 357 336 393–402 394–400 391–401 381–392 377–391 378–387 371–382 363–367 359–370 320–330 320–330 Peru, Argentina, Brazil, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kazakhstan, Indonesia Bosnia and Herzegovina, Baku (Azerbaijan), Indonesia Bosnia and Herzegovina, Baku (Azerbaijan), Kazakhstan Lebanon, Georgia Saudi Arabia, Georgia, Morocco Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Morocco Lebanon, Georgia Panama Kosovo, Philippines Panama At the OECD average 95% Average confidence Countries or provinces whose mean score is not significantly different from the comparison score interval country or province At the OECD average Country or province Note: OECD countries appear in italics. The OECD average was 489, with a standard error of 0.4. a See OECD (2019b), p. 21, for a note regarding Cyprus. Above the Canadian average At the Canadian average Below the Canadian average 58 Above the OECD average At the OECD average Below the OECD average PISA 2018 In mathematics, students in Manitoba performed below the OECD average, while students in all other provinces performed at or above the OECD average. In science, students in all provinces had achievement scores at or above the OECD average. Within Canada, students in Quebec performed above the Canadian average in mathematics and at the Canadian average in science, as shown in Table 3.6. Students in Alberta performed above the Canadian average in science and at the Canadian average in mathematics. Students in Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, and Nova Scotia performed below the Canadian average in mathematics and at the Canadian average in science. Students in New Brunswick, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan performed below the Canadian average in both minor domains. Table 3.6 Comparison of provincial achievement scores to the Canadian average in mathematics and science Above* the Canadian average At the Canadian average Below* the Canadian average Quebec Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan Alberta Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan Mathematics Science * Denotes significant difference While average performance is useful in assessing the overall performance of students, it can mask significant variation within participating countries and provinces. The gap that exists between students with the highest and those with the lowest levels of performance is an important indicator of the equity of educational outcomes. Further information on the performance within countries and provinces can be obtained by examining the relative distribution of scores. For Canada overall, those in the highest decile (90th percentile) scored 237 points higher in mathematics and 247 points higher in science than those in the lowest decile (10th percentile) (Appendices B.3.5 and B.3.6). This gap is similar to the 235-point difference in mathematics and 244-point difference in science on average across all OECD countries. However, the average scores of Canadian students in the lowest decile in mathematics (392 points) and science (393 points) were higher than those of students in the lowest decile across the OECD countries (370 points and 365 points, respectively). In fact, the slightly higher disparities observed in Canada may be a reflection of the students in the highest decile in Canada scoring higher than students in the highest decile on average across the OECD countries (629 points compared to 605 points in mathematics, and 640 points compared to 609 points in science). Figures 3.3 and 3.4 show the difference in average scores between the lowest and highest deciles in Canada, the provinces, and the OECD. For mathematics, differences range from 211 in Saskatchewan to 242 in British Columbia; for science, differences range from 234 in Quebec to 263 in British Columbia. In most provinces, with the exception of New Brunswick, Quebec, and British Columbia, the difference in performance between high achievers and low achievers in mathematics was smaller than or equal to the OECD average. In science, the difference in performance between high achievers and low achievers was smaller than the OECD average in Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec, and Saskatchewan. It is worth noting that, although high-achieving countries tend to have a larger gap, high achievement does not necessarily come at the cost of equity. Notably, PISA 2018 59 B-S-J-Z (China) achieved the highest average mathematics and science scores across all participating countries (591 and 590, respectively) while at the same time having a relatively small difference in the score gap between the lowest and highest achievers (205 and 213, respectively) (Appendices B.3.5 and B.3.6). Figure 3.3 Difference between high and low achievers in mathematics Difference between the 90th and 10th percen�les Saskatchewan 211 Newfoundland and Labrador 217 Manitoba 226 Nova Sco�a 228 Prince Edward Island 233 Alberta 234 Ontario 234 OECD average 235 New Brunswick 236 Canada 237 Quebec 238 Bri�sh Columbia 242 300 350 400 450 500 550 Average score in mathema�cs 10th 25th 600 650 Percen�les of performance 75th 700 90th 95% confidence interval Note: Results are ordered from the smallest to the largest difference between the 90th and 10th percentiles. 60 PISA 2018 Figure 3.4 Difference between high and low achievers in science Difference between the 90th and 10th percen�les Quebec 234 Saskatchewan 235 Newfoundland and Labrador 241 OECD average 244 Ontario 245 Manitoba 246 Nova Sco�a 246 Canada 247 New Brunswick 248 Alberta 250 Prince Edward Island 256 Bri�sh Columbia 263 300 350 400 450 500 550 Average score in science 10th 25th 600 650 Percen�les of performance 75th 700 90th 95% confidence interval Note: Results are ordered from the smallest to the largest difference between the 90 and 10 percentiles. th th Achievement in mathematics and science by language of the school system In Canada, in PISA 2018, oversampling allowed separate reporting of results by language of the school system for seven provinces (see the Introduction). In mathematics, on average across these provinces, a higher proportion of students in francophone than in anglophone school systems reached Level 2 or higher (Figure 3.5, Appendices B.3.7a–b). As well, a higher proportion of students in francophone school systems were high achievers in mathematics (Levels 5 and 6) relative to their peers in anglophone school systems, in large part due to the results in Quebec. Specifically, 22 per cent of students in the francophone school system in Quebec performed at this high level of proficiency, compared to 13 per cent in the anglophone school system (Appendix B.3.7b). PISA 2018 61 Figure 3.5 Percentage of students at each proficiency level in mathematics in Canada, by language of the school system English 17 French 13 0 22 17 26 21 25 20 40 Below Level 2 Level 2 14 25 Percentage 21 60 Level 3 80 Level 4 100 Levels 5 and 6 Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding. Provincially, the proportion of students performing at or above Level 2 in mathematics in English-language school systems ranged from 75 per cent in New Brunswick and Manitoba to 87 per cent in Quebec. In Frenchlanguage school systems, this proportion ranged from 78 per cent in British Columbia to 88 per cent in Quebec (Appendix B.3.7b). None of the provinces showed a statistically significant difference between the two language systems in the proportion of students performing at or above the baseline level of mathematics proficiency. With respect to science, on average across Canada, no statistically significant difference between the two language systems was observed in the proportion of students reaching Level 2 or higher (Figure 3.6), although a higher proportion of students in English-language school systems than in French-language school systems performed at the highest levels of proficiency (Levels 5 and 6) (Appendix B.3.8b). Figure 3.6 Percentage of students at each proficiency level in science in Canada, by language of the school system English 14 22 29 French 13 22 31 0 20 Below Level 2 40 Level 2 Percentage Level 3 23 12 24 60 80 Level 4 10 100 Levels 5 and 6 . Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding Provincially, the proportion of students performing at or above Level 2 in science in English-language school systems varied from 79 per cent in Manitoba to 89 per cent in Quebec and Alberta (Appendix B.3.8b). In francophone school systems, the proportion ranged from 71 per cent in Nova Scotia to 88 per cent in Quebec. The proportion of students performing at or above the baseline level of science proficiency was similar across the two school systems in most provinces, with the exception of Nova Scotia and Ontario. In those two provinces, a higher proportion of students in English-language systems reached this level compared to students in Frenchlanguage school systems. As well, in Ontario, a higher proportion of students in English-language school systems were high achievers in science, compared to their peers in French-language school systems, with no significant differences observed in the remaining provinces. Figure 3.7 and Table 3.7 summarize and compare achievement scores in mathematics and science by the language of the school system for Canada and the provinces. The relative performance of students in the two systems varied across provinces and by domain. Students in English-language school systems in Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan had lower mathematics scores than 62 PISA 2018 students on average in the English-language school systems across Canada, while those in Ontario had higher scores. Students in French-language school systems in New Brunswick, Ontario, and British Columbia scored below the average of students in French-language school systems across Canada in mathematics, while in Quebec they scored above this average (Appendix B.3.9). In science, students in English-language school systems in Alberta outperformed students in the English-language school systems on average across Canada, while those in New Brunswick, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan underperformed the anglophone Canadian average. Students in French-language school systems in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, and Manitoba scored below the average of French-language school systems across Canada in science, while students in Quebec scored above it (Appendix B.3.10). Differences in mathematics performance between the two language systems were observed on average across Canada: students in francophone school systems outperformed those in anglophone school systems in mathematics by 23 points (Figure 3.7). At the provincial level, students in the francophone school system in Quebec outperformed their peers in the anglophone school system by 21 points; in the remaining provinces, there was no statistically significant difference in mathematics performance between the two language systems (Appendix B.3.9). In science, the difference in performance between students in anglophone school systems and those in francophone school systems was not statistically significant in Canada overall. Provincially, students in anglophone school systems in Nova Scotia, Ontario, and Alberta performed better in science than their counterparts in francophone school systems in those provinces; no significant difference in performance between the two language systems was observed in the remaining provinces (Table 3.7, Appendix B.3.10). Figure 3.7 Science Mathema�cs Canadian achievement scores in mathematics and science, by language of the school system English 507 French 530 English 519 French 516 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560 580 600 Average score PISA 2018 63 Table 3.7 Summary and comparison of achievement scores in mathematics and science for Canada and the provinces, by language of the school system Mathematics Anglophone schools performed significantly better than francophone schools Francophone schools performed significantly better than anglophone schools No significant differences between school systems Canada, Quebec Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta, British Columbia Above* the Canadian English average At the Canadian English average Below* the Canadian English average Ontario Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Alberta, British Columbia Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan Above* the Canadian French average At the Canadian French average Below* the Canadian French average Quebec Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Alberta New Brunswick, Ontario, British Columbia Anglophone schools performed significantly better than francophone schools Francophone schools performed significantly better than anglophone schools No significant differences between school systems Anglophone school systems Francophone school systems Science Nova Scotia, Ontario, Alberta Canada, New Brunswick, Quebec, Manitoba, British Columbia Anglophone school systems Above* the Canadian English average At the Canadian English average Below* the Canadian English average Alberta Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan Above* the Canadian French average At the Canadian French average Below* the Canadian French average Quebec Alberta, British Columbia Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba Francophone school systems * Denotes significant difference Note: Because Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan did not oversample students by language, results for only English-language schools are available for these provinces. Achievement in mathematics and science by gender In mathematics, on average across the OECD countries, boys outperformed girls by five points in PISA 2018. In Canada as a whole, boys also outperformed girls by five points on average, although none of the provinces showed a statistically significant difference in average achievement scores in mathematics between boys and girls (Table 3.10, Appendix B.3.13). With respect to proficiency levels, a higher proportion of boys than girls performed at the highest levels (Levels 5 and 6) in mathematics, while a similar proportion of boys and girls 64 PISA 2018 performed at the lowest level (below Level 2). Provincially, more boys than girls performed at the highest levels of proficiency in Quebec; no gender differences were observed in any of the provinces at the lowest level of proficiency (Table 3.8, Appendix B.3.11b). Table 3.8 Summary and comparison of highest and lowest levels of proficiency in mathematics for Canada and the provinces, by gender Mathematics – Levels 5 and 6 Percentage of girls is significantly higher than percentage of boys Percentage of boys is significantly higher than percentage of girls No significant differences in the percentage of boys and girls Canada, Quebec Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia Higher* percentage than Canada The same percentage as Canada Lower* percentage than Canada Quebec Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan Higher* percentage than Canada The same percentage as Canada Lower* percentage than Canada Quebec New Brunswick, Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan Percentage of girls is significantly higher than percentage of boys Percentage of boys is significantly higher than percentage of girls No significant differences in the percentage of boys and girls Girls Boys Mathematics – Below Level 2 Canada, all provinces Girls Higher* percentage than Canada The same percentage as Canada Lower* percentage than Canada Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Manitoba Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia Quebec Higher* percentage than Canada The same percentage as Canada Lower* percentage than Canada Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan Prince Edward Island, Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia Quebec Boys * Denotes significant difference Note: Results for Levels 5 and 6 in Prince Edward Island are too unreliable to be published due to small sample sizes. PISA 2018 65 There was some variation in the mathematics performance of girls and boys across the provinces (Table 3.9, Appendix B.3.13). In particular, girls in Quebec had higher achievement scores than girls on average across Canada, while those in Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan had scores lower than the Canadian average for girls. In comparison to boys on average across Canada, boys in Quebec had higher achievement scores on the mathematics assessment, while boys in Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan had lower scores. Table 3.9 Comparison of Canadian and provincial achievement scores in mathematics and science, by gender Girls Above* the Canadian average for girls At the Canadian average for girls Below* the Canadian average for girls Quebec Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan Alberta Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan Above* the Canadian average for boys At the Canadian average for boys Below* the Canadian average for boys Quebec Prince Edward Island, Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan Alberta Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan Mathematics Science Boys Mathematics Science * Denotes significant difference In science, no difference in average achievement scores between boys and girls was seen in Canada overall. There was a small gender gap across the OECD countries, with girls outperforming boys by two points on average. Provincially, a gender gap in science was observed only in Alberta, where girls outperformed boys by eight points (Tables 3.10 and 3.11; Appendix B.3.14). Table 3.10 Summary of Canadian and provincial achievement scores in mathematics and science, by gender Girls performed significantly better than boys Boys performed significantly better than girls No significant difference between girls and boys Canada All provinces Mathematics Science Alberta 66 Canada, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, British Columbia PISA 2018 In Canada overall, no gender differences were observed at the highest levels of proficiency (Levels 5 and 6) in science, while more boys than girls performed at the lowest level of proficiency (below Level 2). Provincially, more boys than girls performed below Level 2 in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, and Alberta. No gender differences were observed in any of the provinces at the highest levels of proficiency (Table 3.11, Appendix B.3.12b). Table 3.11 Summary and comparison of highest and lowest levels of proficiency in science for Canada and the provinces, by gender Science – Levels 5 and 6 Percentage of girls is significantly higher than percentage of boys Percentage of boys is significantly higher than percentage of girls No significant differences in the percentage of boys and girls Canada, all provinces Girls Higher* percentage than Canada The same percentage as Canada Lower* percentage than Canada Alberta Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan Higher percentage than Canada The same percentage as Canada Lower* percentage than Canada Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan Percentage of boys is significantly higher than percentage of girls No significant differences in the percentage of boys and girls Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Alberta Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, British Columbia Higher* percentage than Canada The same percentage as Canada Lower* percentage than Canada New Brunswick, Manitoba Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan, British Columbia Alberta Higher* percentage than Canada The same percentage as Canada Lower* percentage than Canada New Brunswick, Manitoba Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia Boys Science – Below Level 2 Percentage of girls is significantly higher than percentage of boys Girls Boys * Denotes significant difference Note: Results for Levels 5 and 6 in Prince Edward Island are too unreliable to be published due to small sample sizes. PISA 2018 67 Results in science varied across the provinces for both girls and boys (Table 3.9, Appendix B.3.14). Girls in Alberta had higher achievement scores than girls on average across Canada, while girls in New Brunswick, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan had scores that were below the Canadian average. Boys in Alberta also had higher average scores in science than boys on average across Canada, while boys in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan had lower scores. Changes in mathematics and science performance over time PISA 2018 is the sixth assessment of mathematics since 2003, when mathematics was the major domain for the first time, and the fifth assessment of science since 2006, when science was the major domain for the first time. Because a comprehensive analysis of trends in mathematics (between 2003 and 2015) and in science (between 2006 and 2015) was included in the PISA 2015 national report (O’Grady et al., 2016), this section focuses on changes in mathematics since 2012 and changes in science since 2015 — the most recent cycles when mathematics and science were the major domains. While this section looks at changes over time, performance differences should be interpreted with caution. More specifically, in order to allow for comparability over time, some common assessment items were used in each survey, and an equating procedure was used to align performance scales. However, all estimates of statistical quantities are associated with statistical uncertainty, and this is also true for the transformation parameters used to equate PISA scales over time. A linkage error that reflects this uncertainty is included in the estimate of the standard error for estimates of PISA performance trends and changes over time (OECD, 2019b). Consequently only changes that are indicated as statistically significant should be considered. On average across OECD countries, mathematics performance remained unchanged between 2012 and 2018. The OECD average of 489 points in 2018 was not significantly different from the baseline average score of 494 in 2012. However, there were changes in performance in some of the 61 countries that participated in both PISA 2012 and PISA 2018. In 13 countries, mathematics performance improved on a statistically significant basis, while in 7 countries it declined, with other countries maintaining their scores. In Canada, performance in mathematics remained stable between 2012 and 2018 (Table 3.12, Appendix B.3.15b). In science, on average across OECD countries, performance remained broadly stable over the 2015 to 2018 period, although changes in performance were observed in some of the 64 countries that participated in both cycles. Science performance increased on a statistically significant basis in 6 countries and decreased in 20, with no statistically significant changes observed in the remaining countries. In Canada overall, the decrease in science performance was statistically significant between 2015 (528) and 2018 (518) (Table 3.13, Appendix B.3.16b). Performance in mathematics and science remained stable across the provinces, with the following exceptions: achievement scores in mathematics declined in Saskatchewan and British Columbia between 2012 and 2018, and scores in science declined in Quebec and British Columbia between 2015 and 2018 (Tables 3.12 and 3.13; Appendices B.3.15b and B.3.16b). 68 PISA 2018 Table 3.12 Canadian results in mathematics over time, 2012–2018 2012 Canada Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia New Brunswick Quebec Ontario Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta British Columbia 2015 2018 Average score Standard error Average score Standard error Average score Standard error 518 490 479 497 502 536 514 492 506 517 522 (1.8) (3.7) (2.5) (4.1) (2.6) (3.4) (4.1) (2.9) (3.0) (4.6) (4.4) 516 486 499* 497 493 544 509 489 484* 511 522 (4.2) (4.8) (7.3) (5.8) (6.2) (5.9) (5.5) (5.5) (4.6) (5.9) (6.1) 512 488 487 494 491 532 513 482 485* 511 504* (4.1) (7.3) (11.6) (7.2) (6.6) (4.9) (5.6) (5.0) (6.0) (6.1) (6.2) * Significant difference compared with baseline (2012) Note: The linkage error is incorporated into the standard error for 2015 and 2018. Table 3.13 Canadian results in science over time, 2015–2018 2015 2018 Average score Standard error Average score Standard error Canada 528 (2.1) 518* (2.6) Newfoundland and Labrador 506 (3.2) 506 (6.5) Prince Edward Island 515 (5.4) 502 (9.0) Nova Scotia 517 (4.5) 508 (4.9) New Brunswick 506 (4.5) 492 (5.9) Quebec 537 (4.7) 522* (4.0) Ontario 524 (3.9) 519 (4.3) Manitoba 499 (4.7) 489 (4.0) Saskatchewan 496 (3.1) 501 (4.1) Alberta 541 (4.0) 534 (4.6) British Columbia 539 (4.3) 517* (5.6) *Significant difference compared with baseline (2015) Note: The linkage error is incorporated into the standard error for 2015 and 2018. At the Canadian level, the proportion of low-performing (below Level 2) 15-year-old students remained stable in mathematics between 2012 and 2018; however, the proportion of students achieving below Level 2 increased in New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia. The proportion of high-achieving students (Levels 5 and 6) in mathematics also remained unchanged over the 2012–2018 period at the Canadian level, although, provincially, the proportion decreased in Saskatchewan (Appendix B.3.17). PISA 2018 69 In science, the proportion of low-performing students increased in Canada overall between 2015 and 2018. At the provincial level, the proportion of students performing below Level 2 in science increased in Prince Edward Island, Quebec, and British Columbia. The proportion of students achieving at Levels 5 and 6 in science remained unchanged between 2015 and 2018 in Canada overall and across all provinces (Appendix B.3.18). Summary Because mathematics and science were minor domains in PISA 2018, a smaller number of items and less testing time were dedicated to them, compared to the reading assessment. As a result, this chapter has provided information on overall performance in each of these domains, but not their subscales. Canada continues to perform well internationally in mathematics and science. Students in Canada scored well above the OECD average and were outperformed by students in nine countries in mathematics and five in science among the 79 countries that participated in PISA 2018. Among the provinces, students in Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia performed above the OECD average in both mathematics and science. Students in Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, and Saskatchewan performed above the OECD average in science and at the OECD average in mathematics. Students in Manitoba performed below the OECD average in mathematics and at the OECD average in science, while students in Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick performed at the OECD average in both mathematics and science. However, in spite of these strong results, PISA 2018 results in mathematics and science in Canada suggest that there is cause for some concern. In particular, it is noteworthy that around one in six Canadian students did not meet the benchmark level of mathematics (Level 2), a proportion that has not changed since 2012. In science, around one in eight Canadian students did not meet the benchmark level, a proportion that has increased since 2015. At the same time, the proportion of high-achieving students in these minor domains has remained relatively unchanged over these periods. It is noteworthy as well that, in mathematics, boys continued to outperform girls in Canada overall, although no statistically significant differences in performance between girls and boys were observed for science. Students in francophone school systems outperformed their peers in anglophone school systems in Canada overall and in Quebec in mathematics, while in science, anglophone students outperformed their francophone peers in Nova Scotia, Ontario, and Alberta. There was no significant difference between the two language systems in other provinces. 70 PISA 2018 Conclusion In 2018, Canada participated for the seventh time in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), which measures trends in the learning outcomes of 15-year-old students in reading, mathematics, and science. The study has been conducted every three years since 2000, under the aegis of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). In 2018, around 600,000 students from 79 countries participated; in Canada, over 22,500 students from approximately 800 schools participated across the 10 provinces. The major focus of PISA 2018 was reading, while mathematics and science were tested as minor domains, with global competence as an innovative domain and financial literacy as an optional minor domain. PISA is valuable for its capacity to provide comparative information on the skill levels of students as they near the end of compulsory education. Not only does PISA enable comparisons between provinces and countries, it also provides an opportunity to monitor how these skill levels change over time. The 2018 cycle of PISA included some changes to the reading assessment relative to 2009, when reading was last a major domain. For example, a greater emphasis was placed on multiple-source texts, which expanded the range of higher-level reading processes and strategies. As well, in order to improve the accuracy of the scores of both high- and low-performing students, PISA 2018 introduced adaptive testing in its reading assessment, whereby the electronic test form that a student received depended on his or her answers to earlier questions. In Canada overall, 86 per cent of students performed at or above a reading proficiency of Level 2, the baseline level of reading literacy required to take advantage of further learning opportunities and to participate fully in modern society. This proportion was higher than the OECD average of 77 per cent. Across provinces, the proportion of students reaching this benchmark varied from 78 per cent in New Brunswick to 88 per cent in Quebec and Alberta. At the higher end of the PISA reading scale, 15 per cent of Canadian students performed at the highest reading proficiency levels (Levels 5 and 6), compared to 9 per cent performing at these levels on average across the OECD countries. At the provincial level, more than 10 per cent of students in Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia achieved a proficiency level of 5 or higher in reading. Although the proportion of students in Canada overall achieving at the highest levels is greater than in most other countries participating in PISA 2018, Singapore and B-S-J-Z (China) had a much higher proportion of students reading at the highest proficiency levels. In addition to reporting results by proficiency levels, this report has also presented results by average scores, which are expressed on a scale with an average of 500 points for the OECD countries and a standard deviation of 100. This average was established in 2000 and decreased to 487 in 2018. According to this measure, Canadian 15-year-old students achieved a mean score of 520 in overall reading, 33 points above the OECD average, and were surpassed by students from only three countries. At the provincial level, with the exception of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, which scored at the OECD average, all provinces performed above the OECD average. Students in Alberta achieved a higher score than the Canadian average, placing them among the top-performing participants globally. Canadian results in reading were also reported for three cognitive process subscales and two text structure subscales. The Canadian averages for the three cognitive process subscales are 517 for locating information, 520 for understanding, and 527 for evaluating and reflecting. Across the OECD countries, students scored 487, 487, and 489, respectively, on these three subscales. On the text structure subscales, Canadian students achieved an average score of 521 on items associated with the single-text subscale and 522 on those related to multiple texts, while the OECD average on these subscales was 485 and 490, respectively. PISA 2018 71 Canada continues to perform well internationally in mathematics, with 84 per cent of Canadian students performing at or above Level 2, compared to the OECD average of 76 per cent. At the provincial level, the proportion reaching this benchmark varies from 75 per cent in Manitoba to close to 90 per cent in Quebec. At the lower end of the PISA mathematics scale, 16 per cent of Canadian students performed below the baseline (Level 2), compared with 24 per cent of students across the OECD countries. At the same time, 15 per cent of Canadian students were considered high achievers in mathematics, performing at a proficiency level of 5 or above, compared to 11 per cent on average across the OECD countries. Eight countries had a higher proportion of high achievers than Canada; of these, Singapore and B-S-J-Z (China) had over 35 per cent of students performing at Level 5 or 6 in mathematics. Canadian students had an average score of 512 in mathematics, well above the OECD average of 489, and were outperformed in this domain by students in nine other countries. At the provincial level, students in Manitoba scored below the OECD average in mathematics, while students in all other provinces performed at or above the OECD average. Students in Quebec performed above the Canadian average in mathematics; students in Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia performed at the Canadian average; and students in the remaining provinces performed below the Canadian average. Canada also achieved a strong performance in science, with 87 per cent of Canadian students performing at or above Level 2 in this domain, compared to 78 per cent on average across the OECD countries. Across the provinces, the percentage of students performing at or above this baseline level of proficiency ranges from 79 per cent in Manitoba to 89 per cent in Alberta. In Canada overall, 13 per cent of students were low achievers in science (below Level 2), compared to the OECD average of 22 per cent. Eleven per cent of Canadian students performed at the highest proficiency levels (Levels 5 and 6) in science, compared to the OECD average of 7 per cent. In fact, Canada is among the countries with the highest share of high-performing students in science, surpassed only by B-S-J-Z (China), Singapore, and Macao (China). Canadian students had an average score of 518 in science, well above the OECD average of 489, and were outperformed by students in five other countries. At the provincial level, the performance of students in all provinces was at or above the OECD average. Students in Alberta performed above the Canadian average in science; those in Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia performed at the Canadian average; and those in the remaining provinces performed below the Canadian average. Performance by language of the school system In reading, students in anglophone school systems had higher achievement scores than their counterparts in francophone systems in Canada overall and in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta, and British Columbia. No significant difference was observed between the two language systems in Quebec. In terms of the reading subscales, students in English-language school systems achieved higher scores than their counterparts in French-language school systems in the understanding cognitive process subscale and the singletext structure subscale. There was no significant difference between the two language systems for the remaining three reading subscales. In mathematics, students in francophone school systems outperformed those in anglophone school systems in Canada overall and in Quebec. In science, no achievement difference between the two school systems was observed at the Canadian level. 72 PISA 2018 Performance by gender As was the case internationally, Canadian girls continued to outperform boys in reading. In all provinces and across the five reading subscales, girls attained higher achievement scores than did boys. The only exception was in Prince Edward Island, where boys performed as well as girls in the evaluating and reflecting cognitive process subscale and the multiple-text structure subscale. In mathematics, boys continued to outperform girls in Canada overall, although there was no gap in mathematics achievement scores between the two genders in any of the provinces. In science, no difference in average achievement scores between boys and girls was apparent in Canada or in most provinces. The only exception was observed in Alberta, where girls outperformed boys in science. Performance comparisons over time Overall reading performance has not changed between 2009 and 2018 (the last two times reading was the major domain) in Canada or in any of the provinces. Nevertheless, at the Canadian level and in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, and British Columbia, the proportion of low-performing students in reading (below Level 2) increased over this period. At the same time, no statistically significant change in the proportion of students reaching the highest levels in reading (Levels 5 and 6) was observed at the Canadian level, although the proportion of high-performing students increased significantly in Newfoundland and Labrador and Prince Edward Island. Between 2012 — the last time the major focus of PISA was mathematics — and 2018, mathematics performance did not change in Canada overall, although Saskatchewan and British Columbia observed significant declines in the average mathematics performance of their students. The proportions of topperforming (Level 5 or above) and low-performing (below Level 2) 15-year-olds in mathematics remained relatively stable over the period at the Canadian level. Provincially, New Brunswick and British Columbia observed an increase in the proportion of low-performing students, and Saskatchewan observed both an increase in the proportion of low-performing students and a decrease in the proportion of high-performing ones. With respect to science, at the Canadian level and in Quebec and British Columbia, the average performance of students decreased between 2015 — the last time the major focus of PISA was science — and 2018. The proportion of low-performing students in science increased significantly in Prince Edward Island, Quebec, and British Columbia over the period, while no statistically significant differences were observed in Canada overall or in any provinces in the proportion of top-performing students. Contextual factors influencing reading scores As part of the PISA 2018 assessment, students completed a background questionnaire designed to provide contextual information to aid in the interpretation of the performance results. This report has presented information on select factors that in past cycles of PISA have been found to correlate with reading achievement. In particular, this report has looked at key background characteristics of 15-year-old Canadian students and their association with reading achievement. Students’ success is connected to “learning how to learn,” and their continued success depends on learning throughout their lives. The student questionnaire provides insights into the attitudes, motivations, and skills that students bring to the process of “learning how to learn.” As future development of reading proficiency can be predicted by students’ attitudes, behaviours, and strategies, this report has examined variables related to student engagement in and attitudes toward reading, as well as their use of reading strategies. PISA 2018 73 Student demographic characteristics In the background questionnaire of the PISA 2018 assessment, students were asked to provide information on themselves and their home environment. In particular, they were asked to provide information on the occupation and educational attainment of their parents and on a number of home possessions that can be used as proxies for material wealth, including the number of books and other educational resources available in the home. Answers to these questions were used to derive a measure of socioeconomic status called the index of economic, social, and cultural status (ESCS). Students were also asked about their immigration background and languages spoken at home. Canada placed among the top of all participating countries in terms of socioeconomic status, with only three countries observing higher average scores on the ESCS index. In Canada, the strength of the relationship between reading performance and socioeconomic status is weaker than the OECD average, which means that socioeconomic disadvantage plays a relatively minor role in explaining variation in student reading performance in Canada. That said, socioeconomically advantaged students outperformed socioeconomically disadvantaged students by 68 points in reading in Canada overall, with the difference ranging from 55 points in Newfoundland and Labrador to 78 points in Prince Edward Island. In Canada, 35 per cent of students identified themselves as having an immigrant background. While nonimmigrant students outperformed their immigrant peers in reading in the majority of countries participating in PISA 2018, in Canada, immigrant students performed as well as non-immigrant students. However, across the three different immigrant categories in Canada, first-generation immigrant students were outperformed by their non-immigrant and second-generation immigrant peers. As well, second-generation immigrant students had significantly higher average reading scores relative to non-immigrant students. These comparisons are quite variable across provinces, with the most notable differences observed in Quebec, where non-immigrant students outperformed both first- and second-generation immigrant students, and in New Brunswick, where firstgeneration immigrant students outperformed non-immigrant students. In Canada overall, 65 per cent of students spoke English at home; of the remainder, about equal proportions of students spoke French or another language at home (17 and 18 per cent, respectively). Canadian students who spoke a language at home other than English or French had lower achievement in reading than those who spoke either of the two official languages. Provincially, students who spoke English at home outperformed their peers speaking a language other than English or French in Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia. Students who spoke French at home outperformed their peers speaking a language other than English or French in Quebec and Saskatchewan. Students who spoke a language other than French or English at home outperformed those who spoke French at home in Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, and Ontario; but they performed lower than those who spoke French at home in Quebec and Saskatchewan. Student engagement in reading, attitudes toward reading, and use of reading strategies PISA assesses several factors associated with how students develop reading skills. These factors become increasingly important as youth move beyond high school and take on a more active role in determining their individual learning trajectories. PISA 2018 assessed student engagement with reading through questions related to student enjoyment of reading, time spent reading for enjoyment, diversity of reading material, and preferences for reading print or digital material. PISA also assessed how students felt about their ability to read and which strategies they found useful for understanding and memorizing texts. In Canada, close to 40 per cent of 15-year-old students reported that reading is one of their favourite hobbies, while one in four students reported that reading is a waste of time. Students who enjoyed reading were more likely to have higher reading scores. 74 PISA 2018 When asked how much time they spent reading for enjoyment, 40 per cent of Canadian students reported that they do not read for enjoyment, while close to 30 per cent reported reading for enjoyment 30 minutes or less a day. Time spent reading for enjoyment is positively correlated with reading proficiency, although improvements in reading performance diminish once reading for enjoyment surpasses 30 minutes per day. Students were also asked about the kinds of materials they read because they wanted to. In Canada, students reported a higher preference for reading fiction and a lower preference for magazines and comic books. They were also asked whether they preferred to read print or digital books. More than twice as many Canadian students reported that they preferred reading books in paper format to reading in digital format. Reading fiction, non-fiction books, and newspapers is positively associated with reading proficiency, while reading magazines and comic books has little impact on reading scores. As well, reading in paper format was associated with higher reading scores than was reading in digital format. Students were asked to report on how they felt about their ability to read. In Canada, over 80 per cent of students reported that they believe they are good and/or fluent readers, with a slightly smaller proportion of students reporting that they are able to understand difficult texts. Nevertheless, close to 20 per cent of students reported having difficulty with reading, while a higher proportion reported struggling with reading comprehension. Students who had little confidence in their ability to read had lower reading scores than students who were more confident. To help them understand and memorize text, most Canadian students found summarizing the text in their own words and underlining the important parts of the text to be very useful strategies. Reading the text aloud to another person was not found to be a useful strategy by most students. Discussing content with other people, underlining the important parts of the text, and summarizing the text in their own words were all strategies found to be positively associated with reading proficiency. In contrast, concentrating on the parts of the text that are easy to understand, quickly reading through the text twice, and reading the text aloud to another person were strategies found to have no relationship with reading proficiency in Canada overall. Final statement The results of PISA 2018 reveal that, in Canada, a majority of students have attained the level of reading proficiency required to take advantage of further learning opportunities and to participate fully in modern society. Nevertheless, a persistent gender gap favouring girls continues to exist, and there are still numerous students who perform at lower levels of proficiency and for whom reading is a challenge. Results from this assessment provide an opportunity to confirm the success of our world-class education systems from a global perspective. Canada remains in the group of top-performing countries and achieves its standing with relatively equitable outcomes. Nevertheless, the performance of Canadian students has remained relatively unchanged in reading and mathematics since the last time those domains were the major focus of PISA (2009 and 2012, respectively) and has declined in science (since 2015). At the same time, several provinces have observed an increase in the proportion of students not reaching the benchmark level established by the OECD (Level 2) in mathematics and science. The comparative approach taken in this report does not lend itself to developing causal explanations for these changes over time. The report provides information for ministries and departments of education as well as for education partners, contributing to their ability to validate current education policies, learning outcomes, and teaching approaches and strategies, as well as to allocate resources to ensure that they continue meeting the needs of our society. While this report has looked at the association between selected background variables and reading performance, further analysis of the information collected through PISA will help provide a better understanding of the extent to which other important background variables are related to the differences in PISA 2018 75 performance highlighted here. Reports on such secondary analysis will be available in forthcoming issues of Assessment Matters!, a series of articles available on the CMEC website.11 Today’s PISA teenagers will eventually become adults responsible for the success of our economy, so it is important to both celebrate the successes and address the challenges highlighted in this report. It is essential that our education systems contribute significantly to preparing Canadian youth for full participation in our modern society for the generations to come. http://www.cmec.ca/131/Programs-and-Initiatives/Assessment/Overview/index.html 11 76 PISA 2018 References Aarnoutse, C., & Schellings, G. (2003) Learning reading strategies by triggering reading motivation.  Educational Studies, 29(4), 387–409. Andon, A., Thompson, C. G., & Becker, B. J. (2014). A quantitative synthesis of the immigrant achievement gap across OECD countries. Large-Scale Assessments in Education, 2(1), 7. Retrieved from http://doi. org/10.1186/s40536-014-0007-2 Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191 Banting, K., Soroka, S., and Koning, E. (2013). Multicultural diversity and redistribution. In K. Banting & J. Myles (Eds.), Inequality and the fading of redistributive politics (pp. 165–186). Vancouver: UBC Press. Britain, M., & Blackstock, C. (2015). First Nations child poverty: A literature review and analysis. Ottawa: First Nations Children’s Action Research and Education Service. Retrieved from https://fncaringsociety. com/sites/default/files/First%20Nations%20Child%20Poverty%20-%20A%20Literature%20Review%20 and%20Analysis%202015-3.pdf Brochu, P., O’Grady, K., Scerbina, T., & Tao, Y. (2018). PIRLS/ePIRLS 2016: Canada in context – Canadian results from the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study. Toronto: Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. Retrieved from https://cmec.ca/Publications/Lists/Publications/Attachments/385/PIRLS2016Report-EN.pdf Bruckauf, Z. (2016). Falling behind: Socio-demographic profiles of educationally disadvantaged youth. Evidence from PISA 2000–2012. UNICEF Office of Research, Innocenti Working Papers. Retrieved from https://www. unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/IWP_2016_11.pdf Causa, O., Dantan, S., & Johansson, Å. (2009). Intergenerational social mobility in European OECD countries. OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 709. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1787/223043801483 Chevalier, A., Harmon, C., O’Sullivan, V., & Walker, I. (2013). The impact of parental income and education on the schooling of their children. IZA Journal of Labor Economics, 2(8), 1–22. Retrieved from http://doi. org/10.1186/2193-8997-2-8 Collin, C., and Jensen, H. 2009. A statistical profile of poverty in Canada. Library of Parliament Cat. No. PRB  09-17E. Retrieved from http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/prb0917-e.pdf Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. (2008). PCAP-13 2007: Report on the assessment of 13-year-olds in reading, mathematics, and science. Toronto: Author. Retrieved from https://www.cmec.ca/Publications/Lists/ Publications/Attachments/124/PCAP2007-Report.en.pdf Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. (2015). Immigrants in Canada: Does socioeconomic background matter? Assessment Matters! 9, 1–8. Toronto: Author. Retrieved from https://cmec.ca/Publications/Lists/ Publications/Attachments/343/AMatters_No9_EN.pdf Crowe, C. C. (2013). A longitudinal investigation of parent educational involvement and student achievement: Disentangling parent socialization and child evocative effects across development. Journal of Educational Research and Policy Studies, 13(2), 1–33. PISA 2018 77 Duff, P. A., & Becker-Zayas, A. (2017). Demographics and heritage languages in Canada. In O. Kagan, M. Carreira, & C. Hitchens (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of heritage language education: From innovation to program building (pp. 57–67). New York and Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Gambrell, L., Marinak, B., Brooker, H., & McCrea-Andrews, H. (2011). The importance of independent reading. In J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What the research says about reading instruction (4th ed.), (pp. 143–157). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Goldman, S. (2012). Adolescent literacy: Learning and understanding content. The Future of Children, 22(2), 89–116. Government of Canada. (2017). Official languages annual report 2015–2016. Retrieved from http://open. canada.ca/data/dataset/3eb6e5a0-1618-4ced-8bc5-49615ed5b43d/resource/82cdc735-7896-4d6a-828c851219be02a7/download/rapport15-16finalen-finalqc-1.pdf Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & You, W. (2012). Instructional contexts for engagement and achievement in reading. In S. Christenson, A. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 601–634). New York: Springer. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7 Jang, B. G. (2016). Trends and issues in adolescent literacy theories and research: An integrative review. Korean Language Education Research, 50(5), 5–40. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.20880/kler.2016.51.5.5 Learned, J., Stockdill, D., & Moje, E. (2011). Integrating reading strategies and knowledge building in adolescent literacy instruction. In J. Samuels and A. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (4th ed.), (pp. 159–185). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. McKenna, M. C., Conradi, K., Lawrence, C., Jang, B. G., & Meyer, J. P. (2012). Reading attitudes of middle school students: Results of a U.S. survey. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(3), 283–306. Merga, M. K. (2015). Access to books in the home and adolescent engagement in recreational book reading: Considerations for secondary school educators. English in Education, 49(3), 197–214. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1111/eie.12071 Merry, J. J. (2013). Tracing the U.S. deficit in PISA reading skills to early childhood. Sociology of Education, 86(3), 234–252. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1177/0038040712472913 Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Goh, S., & Prendergast, C. (2017). PIRLS 2016 encyclopedia: Education policy and curriculum in reading. Boston: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center. Retrieved from http:// timssandpirls.bc.edu/pirls2016/encyclopedia/ OECD. (2010). Pathways to success: How knowledge and skills at age 15 shape future lives in Canada. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/canada/pathwaystosuccess-howknowledgeandskil lsatage15shapefuturelivesincanada.htm OECD. (2012). Learning beyond fifteen: Ten years after PISA. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from https:// www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/learning-beyond-15_9789264172104-en OECD. (2016a). Low-performing students: Why they fall behind and how to help them succeed. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264250246-en OECD. (2016b). PISA 2015 results (Volume 1): Excellence and equity in education. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/publications/pisa-2015-results-volume-i-9789264266490-en.htm OECD. (2017). PISA 2015 results (Volume 3): Students’ well-being. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/pisa-2015-results-volume-iii_9789264273856-en 78 PISA 2018 OECD. (2019a). PISA 2018 assessment and analytical framework. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/pisa-2018-assessment-and-analytical-framework_b25efab8-en OECD. (2019b). PISA 2018 results (Volume I): What students know and can do. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/pisa-2018-results-volume-i_5f07c754-en OECD. (2019c). PISA 2018 results (Volume II): Where all students can succeed. Paris: OECD publishing. Retrieved from https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/pisa-2018-results-volume-ii_b5fd1b8f-en O’Grady, K., Deussing, M. A., Scerbina, T., Fung, K., & Muhe, N. (2016). Measuring up: Canadian results of the OECD PISA study. The performance of Canada’s youth in science, reading and mathematics – 2015 first results for Canadians aged 15. Toronto: Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. Retrieved from https:// www.cmec.ca/Publications/Lists/Publications/Attachments/365/PISA2015-CdnReport-EN.pdf O’Grady, K., Fung, K., Brochu, P., Servage, L., & Tao, Y. (2019). PCAP 2016: Contextual report on student achievement in reading. Toronto: Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. Retrieved from https://cmec. ca/Publications/Lists/Publications/Attachments/393/PCAP2016_Contextual_Report_EN_FINAL.pdf O’Grady, K., Fung, K., Servage, L., & Khan, G. (2018). PCAP 2016: Report on the pan-Canadian assessment of reading, mathematics, and science. Toronto: Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. Retrieved from https://cmec.ca/Publications/Lists/Publications/Attachments/381/PCAP-2016-Public-Report-EN.pdf Onuzo, U., Garcia, A. F., Hernandez, A., Peng, Y., & Lecoq, T. (2013). Intergenerational equity: Understanding the linkages between parents and children – A systematic review. London: London School of Economics and Political Science. Retrieved from https://www.unicef.org/socialpolicy/files/LSE_Capstone_ Intergenerational_Equity.pdf Parkin, A. (2015). International report card on public education: Key facts on Canadian achievement and equity. Toronto: Environics Institute. Retrieved from https://www.environicsinstitute.org/projects/project-details/ international-report-card-on-public-education-key-facts-on-canadian-achievement-and-equity Schnepf, S. (2008). Inequality of learning amongst immigrant children in industrialised countries. Institute for the Study of Labour, University of Bonn. Retrieved from http://ftp.iza.org/dp3337.pdf Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. 2009. Self-efficacy theory. In K. R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation in school (pp. 35–54). New York: Routledge. Statistics Canada. (2011). Linguistic characteristics of Canadians: Language, 2011 Census of population. Retrieved from http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/98-314-x/98-314-x2011001-eng.pdf Statistics Canada. (2015). Distribution (in percentage) of recent immigrants in Canada by provinces and territories, 1981 to 2016. Retrieved from https://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/dai/btd/othervisuals/other008 Statistics Canada. (2016a). Demand growing for second-language immersion programs. Retrieved from https:// www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-402-x/2012000/chap/lang/lang01-eng.htm Statistics Canada. (2016b). Language highlight tables, 2016 Census: Mother tongue by age (total), % distribution (2016) for the population excluding institutional residents of Canada, provinces and territories, 2016 Census – 100% data. Retrieved from https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/censusrecensement/2016/dp-pd/hlt-fst/lang/Table.cfm?Lang=E&T=11&Geo=00&SP=1&view=2&age=1 Statistics Canada. (2017a). Aboriginal peoples highlight tables, 2016 Census. Retrieved from https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/hlt-fst/abo-aut/Table. cfm?Lang=Eng&S=99&O=A&RPP=25 PISA 2018 79 Statistics Canada. (2017b). Census in brief: Linguistic diversity and multilingualism in Canadian homes. Retrieved from https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/as-sa/98-200-x/2016010/98-200x2016010-eng.cfm Statistics Canada. (2017c). Census in brief: Linguistic integration of immigrants and official language populations in Canada. Retrieved from https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/as-sa/98200-x/2016017/98-200-x2016017-eng.cfm Sturtevat, E., Boyd, F., Brozo, W., Hinchman, K., Moore, D., & Alvermann, D. (2010). Principled practices for adolescent literacy: A framework for instruction and policy. London and New York: Routledge. Sullivan, A., & Brown, M. (2015). Reading for pleasure and progress in vocabulary and mathematics. British Educational Research Journal, 41(6), 971–991. Wech, D., & Weinkam, T. (2016). Determinants of the educational situation of young migrants. Munich: CESifo Group. Retrieved from https://www.ifo.de/DocDL/dice-report-2016-3-wech-weinkam-september.pdf Wigent, C. A. (2013). High school readers: A profile of above average readers and readers with learning disabilities reading expository text. Learning and Individual Differences, 25, 134–140. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.03.011 Yoo, M. (2015). The influence of genre understanding on strategy use and comprehension. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 59(1), 83–93. 80 PISA 2018 Appendix A PISA 2018 Sampling Procedures, Exclusion Rates, and Response Rates The accuracy of PISA survey results depends on the quality of the information on which the sample is based, as well as the sampling procedures. The PISA 2018 sample for Canada was based on a two-stage stratified sample. The first stage consisted of sampling individual schools in which 15-year-old students were enrolled. Schools were sampled systematically, with probabilities proportional to size (the measure of size being a function of the estimated number of eligible (15-year-old) students enrolled in the school). While a minimum of 150 schools were required to be selected in each country, in Canada a much larger sample of schools was selected in order to produce reliable estimates for each province and for both the anglophone and francophone school systems in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta, and British Columbia. The second stage of the selection process sampled students within schools. Once schools were selected, a list of all 15-year-old students in each school was prepared. From this list, up to 42 students from each school were then selected, with equal probability. All 15-year-old students were selected if fewer than 42 were enrolled in a given school. Additionally, in Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Quebec, as well as in the francophone school systems in Manitoba and Alberta, more than 42 students were selected in some schools, in order to meet sample size requirements. Additionally, if a province participated in the financial literacy (FL) international option, the FL assessment occurred in every sampled and participating school in that province. This design required that the number of students be increased to 53 so that there were 42 students in each school selected for the regular PISA test, plus 11 additional students selected for the FL assessment. Each country participating in PISA attempted to maximize the coverage of the assessment’s target population within the sampled schools. Within each sampled school, all eligible students (namely, those 15 years of age), regardless of grade, were first listed. Tables A.1a and A.1b show the total number of excluded students by province and classify them in specific categories in accordance with the international standards. Students could be excluded if they fell into any of three categories: 1) functional disability: a student has a moderate-to-severe permanent physical disability such that he or she cannot perform in the PISA testing situation 2) intellectual disability: a student has a mental or emotional disability and is cognitively delayed such that he or she cannot perform in the PISA testing situation 3) limited proficiency in the assessment language: a student is unable to read or speak any of the languages of the assessment in the country and would be unable to overcome the language barrier in the testing situation (typically a student who has received less than one year of instruction in the language of the assessment) School staff determined whether a student fit into any of these categories. The weighted student exclusion rate for Canada overall was 5.0 per cent, which is exactly at the maximum exclusion rate of 5 per cent allowed by quality standards in PISA. The weighted student exclusion rate ranged from 3.5 per cent in Quebec to 7.7 per cent in Prince Edward Island. Across all provinces, the vast majority of exclusions were a result of an intellectual disability (category 2 above). Compared with PISA 2015, the weighted student exclusion rates decreased by more than 2 per cent in Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Alberta, PISA 2018 81 and British Columbia. Further steps will be required in future PISA cycles to address the issue of high exclusion rates for schools and students in some provinces. Table A.1a PISA 2018 student exclusion rate Canada and provinces Canada Total number of eligible students sampled (participating, not participating, and excluded) Total number of students excluded Student exclusion rate Unweighted* Weighted** Unweighted* Weighted** Unweighted* Weighted** % % 28,291 352,693 1,481 17,496 5.2 5.0 1,336 4,781 77 268 5.8 5.6 388 1,511 27 116 7.0 7.7 Nova Scotia 1,899 8,891 144 674 7.6 7.6 New Brunswick 1,935 7,068 108 394 5.6 5.6 Quebec 5,697 71,816 212 2,545 3.7 3.5 Ontario 5,706 142,931 269 6,829 4.7 4.8 Manitoba 2,925 14,167 184 885 6.3 6.2 Saskatchewan 2,611 11,627 123 494 4.7 4.2 Alberta 2,866 43,306 147 2,275 5.1 5.3 British Columbia 2,898 46,596 190 3,015 6.6 6.5 Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island * Based on students selected to participate. ** Weighted based on student enrolment, such that the total weighted value represents all 15-year-olds enrolled in the province and not just those selected to participate in PISA. Table A.1b PISA 2018 student exclusion rate by type of exclusion Canada and provinces Exclusion rate: students with a physical disability Exclusion rate: students with an intellectual disability Exclusion rate: students with limited language skills Unweighted* Weighted** % % Unweighted* Weighted** % % Unweighted* Weighted** % % Canada 0.4 0.4 3.6 3.3 1.1 1.1 Newfoundland and Labrador 0.3 0.2 4.6 4.7 0.6 0.6 Prince Edward Island 0.5 0.6 4.6 4.7 1.8 2.3 Nova Scotia 0.4 0.4 5.9 5.8 1.1 1.2 New Brunswick 0.5 0.7 4.0 3.6 0.8 1.1 Quebec 0.4 0.6 2.4 2.4 0.8 0.6 Ontario 0.4 0.4 3.4 3.2 0.9 1.2 Manitoba 0.4 0.4 4.7 4.7 1.0 1.1 Saskatchewan 0.5 0.4 2.6 2.4 1.4 1.3 Alberta 0.6 0.7 2.7 2.9 1.7 1.6 British Columbia 0.4 0.4 4.4 4.3 1.6 1.6 * Based on students selected to participate. ** Weighted based on student enrolment, such that the total weighted value represents all 15-year-olds enrolled in the province and not just those selected to participate in PISA. 82 PISA 2018 In order to minimize the potential for response bias, data quality standards in PISA require minimum participation rates for schools and students. At the Canada-wide level, a minimum response rate of 85 per cent was required for schools initially selected. PISA 2018 also required a minimum student participation rate of 80 per cent within all participating schools combined (original sample and replacements) at the national level. Table A.2 shows the response rates for schools and students, before and after replacement, for Canada and the 10 provinces. At the national level, 1,073 schools were selected to participate in PISA 2018, and 782 of these initially selected schools participated. Rather than calculating school participation rates by dividing the number of participating schools by the total number of schools, school response rates were weighted based on the enrolment numbers for 15-year-olds in each school. At the provincial level, school response rates after replacement ranged from 80 per cent in Quebec to nearly 100 per cent in Newfoundland and Labrador. Across Canada, the school response rate was 89 per cent. At the student level, PISA defines a student as “assessed” when one of the following criteria is met: (a) a student has answered a minimum number of background questionnaire items and at least one cognitive item; or (b) a student has answered more than half of the items on the testing form. In PISA 2018, Canada’s response rate after replacement was 84 per cent. All provinces achieved a student response rate of 81 per cent or more (Table A.2). Compared to PISA 2015, the weighted student participation rates after replacement increased by more than 3 per cent in all participating provinces except in Ontario, where it remained similar. Table A.2 PISA 2018 school and student response rates Weighted  % student participation rate after replacement (participating and not participating) 782 85.7 804 88.6 53 47 99.8 47 99.8 1,289 4,487 1,124 3,889 86.7 18 15 89.0 16 90.5 361 1,268 327 1,156 91.2 64 65 185 204 123 114 127 120 58 52 136 136 94 88 72 84 97.7 94.7 79.5 86.7 95.7 96.8 68.0 97.0 58 52 137 143 94 88 85 84 97.7 94.7 80.3 89.6 95.7 96.8 80.8 97.0 1,511 6,945 1,543 5,500 4,528 47,770 4,442 102,741 2,332 11,052 2,190 9,746 2,190 26,781 2,253 35,446 86.3 85.9 85.9 82.7 87.3 89.6 81.0 84.2 26,252 298,737 1,755 8,051 1,792 6,404 5,272 55,582 5,313 124,234 2,662 12,653 2,447 10,877 2,688 33,060 2,673 42,122 Weighted 1,073 Weighted Weighted % Unweighted Total number of students participating Number Unweighted Total number of eligible students sampled (participating and not participating) Weighted % Canada Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia New Brunswick Quebec Ontario Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta British Columbia School response rate after replacement Number Canada and provinces School response Total number rate before of selected replacement schools (participating and not participating) 22,440 251,025 84.0 Note: School response rates were weighted based on student enrolment. The number of students that participated in PISA 2018, as recorded in Table A.2, include students who wrote the UH (Une Heure [One Hour]) version of the PISA test. The UH test is a shorter version of PISA, which was assigned to students with special education needs who could not successfully complete the full version of the PISA assessment. For PISA 2018 in Canada, a total of 850 students successfully wrote the UH test, and their results are included in the data analyses in this report. PISA 2018 83 Appendix B PISA 2018 Data Tables Table B.1.1a Percentage of students at each proficiency level: READING Country or province B-S-J-Z (China) Macao (China) Estonia Singapore Ireland Alberta Quebec Hong Kong (China) Ontario Finland Canada Poland Nova Scotia British Columbia Korea Newfoundland and Labrador Denmark Japan Saskatchewan United Kingdom Chinese Taipei Slovenia Prince Edward Island Sweden New Zealand United States Norway Australia Manitoba Portugal Germany Czech Republic France Belgium Croatia New Brunswick Russian Federation Latvia Italy Belarus Austria Switzerland Netherlands Lithuania Hungary 84 Proficiency levels Below Level 1 Standard % error Level 1 Standard % error Level 2 Standard % error Level 3 Standard % error Level 4 Standard % error Level 5 Standard % error Level 6 Standard % error 0.8 2.6 2.3 3.5 2.3 3.4 3.2 4.5 3.6 4.2 3.8 3.9 4.2 4.4 5.5 (0.2) (0.3) (0.2) (0.3) (0.3) (0.6) (0.4) (0.5) (0.4) (0.4) (0.2) (0.4) (0.6) (0.7) (0.5) 4.3 8.2 8.7 7.7 9.5 8.6 9.1 8.1 9.6 9.4 10.0 10.8 10.9 10.7 9.6 (0.5) (0.6) (0.5) (0.4) (0.6) (0.9) (0.7) (0.6) (0.8) (0.6) (0.4) (0.6) (1.2) (0.9) (0.7) 14.3 19.4 21.2 14.2 21.7 17.9 20.5 17.8 19.8 19.2 20.1 22.4 20.7 19.4 19.6 (0.8) (0.8) (0.9) (0.5) (0.8) (1.3) (1.1) (0.7) (1.1) (0.7) (0.6) (0.8) (1.5) (1.3) (0.7) 27.9 29.8 29.9 22.3 30.3 26.2 29.6 27.7 26.4 27.6 27.2 27.7 27.6 25.9 27.6 (1.0) (0.8) (0.9) (0.7) (0.9) (1.4) (1.0) (0.7) (0.9) (0.8) (0.5) (0.8) (1.7) (1.1) (0.8) 30.8 26.1 24.0 26.4 24.1 25.6 24.9 27.1 24.3 25.4 24.0 23.0 22.7 23.8 24.6 (1.0) (0.7) (0.8) (0.6) (0.8) (1.3) (1.0) (0.8) (1.0) (0.8) (0.5) (0.8) (1.7) (1.2) (0.8) 17.5 11.7 11.1 18.5 10.3 14.3 10.7 12.5 13.2 11.9 12.2 10.1 10.8 12.7 10.8 (0.9) (0.6) (0.6) (0.7) (0.6) (1.1) (0.9) (0.6) (0.9) (0.7) (0.5) (0.7) (1.4) (1.0) (0.6) 4.2 2.1 2.8 7.3 1.8 4.0 2.1 2.3 3.1 2.4 2.8 2.1 3.1 3.0 2.3 (0.6) (0.3) (0.3) (0.4) (0.3) (0.8) (0.4) (0.3) (0.5) (0.3) (0.2) (0.3) (0.6) (0.6) (0.4) 4.1 (0.9) 11.2 (1.3) 21.4 (1.6) 27.9 (1.9) 22.8 (1.8) 10.1 (1.3) 2.5‡ (0.7) 4.1 4.8 4.6 5.0 5.8 4.9 U‡ 6.8 6.3 6.5 7.4 7.1 5.6 5.9 7.1 5.8 6.9 7.2 5.7 7.1 6.6 5.8 8.5 6.6 7.4 8.5 8.4 7.4 8.2 (0.3) (0.5) (0.7) (0.5) (0.4) (0.4) (2.2) (0.6) (0.5) (0.6) (0.5) (0.3) (0.6) (0.5) (0.6) (0.6) (0.5) (0.5) (0.6) (0.8) (0.7) (0.5) (0.7) (0.6) (0.6) (0.7) (0.7) (0.4) (0.6) 11.9 12.0 12.2 12.3 12.0 12.9 12.6 11.6 12.7 12.7 11.9 12.5 14.1 14.3 13.6 15.0 14.0 14.0 15.9 14.9 15.5 16.6 14.8 16.8 16.3 15.1 15.6 17.0 17.0 (0.5) (0.7) (0.9) (0.7) (0.6) (0.5) (2.0) (0.7) (0.6) (0.8) (0.6) (0.4) (1.2) (0.7) (0.8) (0.8) (0.7) (0.6) (0.8) (1.3) (0.9) (0.6) (0.7) (0.8) (0.8) (0.7) (0.7) (0.6) (0.8) 23.9 22.5 24.7 23.0 21.8 24.5 20.5 20.6 20.8 21.1 21.5 21.1 23.9 23.3 21.1 25.0 22.8 22.4 28.3 24.4 28.1 27.4 26.3 28.7 23.5 23.4 23.7 26.1 25.2 (0.8) (0.9) (1.2) (0.7) (0.7) (0.8) (3.0) (0.8) (0.7) (0.8) (0.7) (0.5) (1.2) (0.7) (0.8) (0.9) (0.8) (0.7) (0.9) (1.6) (0.8) (0.8) (0.9) (0.8) (0.8) (0.9) (0.8) (0.8) (0.9) 30.1 28.6 29.2 27.2 27.4 29.5 28.7 25.5 24.6 24.7 26.4 25.4 28.3 28.2 25.4 26.9 26.6 26.5 29.0 25.5 28.0 28.8 28.2 28.0 26.2 26.3 24.3 27.7 26.3 (0.9) (1.0) (1.2) (0.7) (0.8) (0.9) (3.4) (0.8) (0.7) (0.8) (0.9) (0.5) (1.4) (0.8) (0.8) (0.9) (0.8) (0.7) (1.0) (1.7) (0.8) (0.8) (0.9) (1.0) (0.9) (0.8) (1.0) (0.7) (0.9) 21.6 21.9 20.4 21.0 22.0 20.3 20.5 22.3 22.5 21.4 21.6 20.9 18.8 21.0 21.5 19.1 20.5 20.4 16.4 18.8 16.4 16.6 16.9 16.0 19.3 18.5 18.8 16.9 17.5 (0.8) (0.8) (1.2) (0.8) (0.9) (0.7) (2.6) (0.8) (0.7) (0.8) (0.8) (0.5) (1.3) (0.9) (0.9) (0.8) (0.7) (0.7) (0.8) (1.7) (0.7) (0.7) (0.7) (0.7) (0.8) (0.8) (0.8) (0.6) (0.8) 7.3 8.6 7.6 9.5 9.3 6.8 10.0‡ 10.9 10.7 10.7 9.6 10.3 7.8 6.5 9.5 7.2 8.1 8.3 4.3 7.7 4.8 4.4 4.9 3.7 6.7 6.9 7.9 4.5 5.2 (0.5) (0.6) (0.9) (0.6) (0.7) (0.5) (2.1) (0.7) (0.6) (0.7) (0.6) (0.4) (0.8) (0.6) (0.6) (0.5) (0.6) (0.5) (0.4) (1.1) (0.5) (0.4) (0.4) (0.4) (0.5) (0.6) (0.6) (0.4) (0.5) 1.1 1.7 U‡ 2.0 1.6 1.0 U‡ 2.4 2.4 2.8 1.6 2.7 1.6 0.8 1.8 1.1 1.1 1.3 0.4‡ U‡ 0.6 U‡ 0.5 0.3‡ 0.7 1.2 1.2 0.4‡ 0.5 (0.2) (0.3) (0.4) (0.2) (0.3) (0.2) (1.1) (0.3) (0.3) (0.4) (0.2) (0.2) (0.4) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.1) (0.6) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.2) (0.2) (0.1) (0.1) PISA 2018 Table B.1.1a (cont’d) Percentage of students at each proficiency level: READING Proficiency levels Country or province Below Level 1 Standard % error Ukraine Turkey Iceland Luxembourg Greece Israel Slovak Republic Chile Malta Serbia Romania Jordan Uruguay Costa Rica United Arab Emirates Moldova Cyprus Montenegro Mexico Malaysia Bulgaria Colombia Brazil Qatar Brunei Darussalam Argentina Albania Saudi Arabia Bosnia and Herzegovina Peru Republic of North Macedonia Thailand Baku (Azerbaijan) Kazakhstan Panama Georgia Lebanon Indonesia Morocco Kosovo Dominican Republic Philippines 9.2 7.0 10.5 11.7 11.6 16.1 11.6 10.7 17.4 15.0 18.0 16.2 17.9 13.1 (0.8) (0.7) (0.6) (0.4) (0.9) (1.0) (0.7) (0.7) (0.7) (1.0) (1.4) (1.1) (1.0) (0.8) 16.7 19.1 15.9 17.6 19.0 15.0 19.8 21.0 18.5 22.7 22.8 25.0 24.0 28.9 (0.9) (0.7) (0.8) (0.6) (0.9) (0.9) (0.8) (0.9) (0.9) (0.8) (1.2) (0.8) (0.9) (1.1) 27.7 30.2 24.6 23.7 27.3 19.4 26.9 29.5 23.7 27.8 28.1 33.8 28.1 32.1 (0.8) (0.9) (0.9) (0.7) (0.8) (0.7) (0.9) (0.9) (0.9) (0.8) (1.1) (1.0) (1.1) (1.1) 28.5 26.9 25.1 23.5 25.2 21.6 23.5 24.4 21.7 21.8 20.9 20.5 20.1 19.4 (1.0) (1.0) (0.8) (0.7) (1.0) (0.8) (0.9) (0.9) (0.9) (0.8) (1.3) (0.9) (0.8) (1.1) 14.5 13.5 16.9 15.9 13.3 17.5 13.6 11.8 13.4 10.1 8.7 4.3 8.3 5.9 21.3 (0.7) 21.6 (0.4) 23.4 (0.5) 18.1 (0.5) 17.8 19.6 16.4 15.6 18.0 22.0 19.6 23.3 27.3 24.8 25.4 19.5 22.9 (0.8) (0.7) (0.5) (1.0) (1.0) (1.5) (1.2) (0.7) (0.4) (0.4) (1.1) (0.8) (1.3) 25.2 24.1 28.0 29.1 27.9 25.1 30.3 26.7 23.6 27.0 26.7 32.8 29.4 (0.8) (0.8) (0.7) (1.1) (0.9) (0.9) (1.0) (0.7) (0.5) (0.7) (0.9) (0.9) (0.9) 28.0 26.9 30.5 31.7 31.4 24.9 27.7 24.5 23.4 24.5 25.7 29.9 30.4 (0.9) (0.7) (0.6) (1.0) (1.0) (1.0) (1.0) (0.6) (0.4) (0.6) (0.8) (0.8) (1.1) 20.8 19.3 18.3 17.5 17.9 17.3 15.8 16.3 15.8 15.5 16.2 14.0 14.6 20.5 (1.1) 33.2 (1.1) 28.8 (1.1) 25.4 (1.1) 28.9 (0.9) 25.8 27.2 (0.8) 27.9 (1.0) 24.3 23.5 25.8 32.8 31.6 46.1 33.2 39.9 40.8 50.3 53.9 (1.4) (1.0) (0.8) (1.2) (1.1) (1.8) (1.3) (1.8) (0.9) (1.5) (1.6) 35.3 37.0 38.4 31.5 32.8 21.6 36.7 33.4 38.0 28.8 26.7 7.7 (0.1) 15.0 OECD average Level 1 Standard % error Level 2 Standard % error Level 3 Standard % error Level 4 Standard % error Level 5 Standard % error Level 6 Standard % error (0.8) (0.6) (0.7) (0.6) (0.8) (0.8) (0.7) (0.6) (0.9) (0.7) (1.0) (0.5) (0.7) (0.8) 3.2 3.1 6.2 6.4 3.3 8.4 4.1 2.4 4.5 2.4 1.3 U‡ 1.5 0.6 (0.4) (0.5) (0.6) (0.4) (0.4) (0.6) (0.4) (0.3) (0.5) (0.3) (0.3) (0.1) (0.2) (0.2) U‡ U‡ 0.9‡ 1.3 0.3‡ 2.0 0.5 U‡ 0.9 U‡ U‡ U‡ U‡ 0.0‡ (0.1) (0.1) (0.2) (0.2) (0.1) (0.3) (0.2) (0.1) (0.2) (0.1) (0.1) (0.0) (0.1) (0.0) 10.8 (0.6) 4.1 (0.3) 0.7 (0.1) (0.9) (0.6) (0.6) (0.9) (0.9) (0.9) (0.9) (0.6) (0.4) (0.5) (0.7) (0.7) (0.8) 7.2 8.4 6.0 5.3 4.3 8.4 5.7 7.4 7.3 6.9 5.3 3.5 2.6 (0.6) (0.4) (0.4) (0.6) (0.6) (0.7) (0.5) (0.5) (0.3) (0.3) (0.5) (0.4) (0.3) 1.0 1.7 0.8 0.7 U‡ 2.2 0.9 1.7 2.2 1.3 0.7 0.4 ‡ U‡ (0.3) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.3) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.1) (0.1) U‡ 0.1 U‡ U‡ U‡ U‡ U‡ U‡ 0.4 U‡ U‡ U‡ 0.0‡ (0.0) (0.1) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.1) (0.0) (0.1) (0.1) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) 14.3 (0.9) 3.0 (0.4) 0.2 ‡ (0.1) 0.0‡ (0.0) (0.7) 14.3 (0.7) 4.8 (0.5) 0.7 (0.2) U‡ (0.0) 26.6 (0.8) 14.4 (0.6) 3.5 (0.3) U‡ (0.2) U‡ (0.0) (1.1) (1.1) (0.7) (1.0) (0.8) (0.8) (1.1) (0.9) (1.0) (1.0) (0.8) 26.0 28.6 23.9 23.0 22.9 17.4 21.8 20.6 17.5 15.0 13.1 (1.0) (0.9) (0.5) (0.8) (0.8) (0.9) (1.0) (1.2) (0.7) (0.9) (0.7) 11.6 9.2 8.9 9.9 10.1 10.5 7.2 5.6 3.6 4.9 5.1 (0.9) (0.6) (0.3) (0.9) (0.6) (0.7) (0.8) (0.5) (0.3) (0.5) (0.7) 2.7 1.6 2.6 2.6 2.4 3.7 1.1 0.5 U‡ 0.9 1.1 (0.4) (0.4) (0.2) (0.4) (0.3) (0.5) (0.2) (0.1) (0.1) (0.2) (0.3) U U‡ 0.4 U‡ U‡ 0.7 U‡ U‡ U‡ U‡ U‡ (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.2) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.1) (0.0) U‡ U‡ U‡ U‡ U‡ U‡ U‡ 0.0‡ 0.0‡ U‡ U‡ (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.1) 23.7 (0.1) 26.0 (0.1) (0.1) 7.4 (0.1) 1.3 (0.0) 18.9 ‡ There are fewer than 30 observations. U Too unreliable to be published. Note: Countries and provinces have been sorted in descending order by the total percentage of students who attained Level 2 or higher. B-S-J-Z (China) represents Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, and Zhejiang. See OECD 2019b, p. 21, for a note regarding Cyprus. Reading scores for Spain are not included in the international PISA reports: due to implausible student-response behaviours on the reading assessment in a small number of schools in some regions of Spain, the OECD is unable to assure full international comparability of the results. The data for Vietnam have not yet been fully validated: due to a lack of consistency in the response pattern of some performance data, the OECD cannot yet assure full international comparability of the results. Below Level 1 consists of students who scored at Level 1b and lower. Level 1 refers to Level 1a. PISA 2018 85 Table B.1.1b Proportion of students who performed below Level 2, at Level 2 or above, and at Levels 5 and 6: READING Proficiency levels Country or province B-S-J-Z (China) Macao (China) Estonia Singapore Ireland Alberta Quebec Hong Kong (China) Ontario Finland Canada Poland Nova Scotia British Columbia Korea Newfoundland and Labrador Denmark Japan Saskatchewan United Kingdom Chinese Taipei Slovenia Prince Edward Island Sweden New Zealand United States Norway Australia Manitoba Portugal Germany Czech Republic France Belgium Croatia New Brunswick Russian Federation Latvia Italy Belarus Austria Switzerland Netherlands Lithuania Hungary Ukraine 86 Below Level 2 Standard % error 5.2 10.8 11.1 11.2 11.8 11.9 12.3 12.6 13.2 13.5 13.8 14.7 15.1 15.1 15.1 15.3 16.0 16.8 16.8 17.3 17.8 17.9 18.4 18.4 19.0 19.3 19.3 19.6 19.7 20.2 20.7 20.7 20.9 21.3 21.6 22.0 22.1 22.4 23.3 23.4 23.6 23.6 24.1 24.4 25.3 25.9 (0.6) (0.5) (0.6) (0.5) (0.7) (1.2) (0.9) (0.8) (1.0) (0.7) (0.5) (0.8) (1.3) (1.2) (0.9) (1.6) (0.7) (1.0) (1.1) (0.9) (0.8) (0.7) (2.6) (1.0) (0.8) (1.1) (0.8) (0.5) (1.3) (0.9) (1.1) (1.1) (0.7) (0.9) (1.2) (1.4) (1.2) (0.7) (1.0) (1.0) (1.0) (1.1) (1.0) (0.8) (0.9) (1.4) Level 2 or above Standard % error 94.8 89.2 88.9 88.8 88.2 88.1 87.7 87.4 86.8 86.5 86.2 85.3 84.9 84.9 84.9 84.7 84.0 83.2 83.2 82.7 82.2 82.1 81.6 81.6 81.0 80.7 80.7 80.4 80.3 79.8 79.3 79.3 79.1 78.7 78.4 78.0 77.9 77.6 76.7 76.6 76.4 76.4 75.9 75.6 74.7 74.1 (0.6) (0.5) (0.6) (0.5) (0.7) (1.2) (0.9) (0.8) (1.0) (0.7) (0.5) (0.8) (1.3) (1.2) (0.9) (1.6) (0.7) (1.0) (1.1) (0.9) (0.8) (0.7) (2.6) (1.0) (0.8) (1.1) (0.8) (0.5) (1.3) (0.9) (1.1) (1.1) (0.7) (0.9) (1.2) (1.4) (1.2) (0.7) (1.0) (1.0) (1.0) (1.1) (1.0) (0.8) (0.9) (1.4) Levels 5 and 6 Standard % error 21.7 13.8 13.9 25.8 12.1 18.3 12.8 14.8 16.4 14.2 15.0 12.2 14.0 15.8 13.1 12.6 8.4 10.3 8.8 11.5 10.9 7.8 11.9 13.3 13.1 13.5 11.3 13.0 9.3 7.3 11.3 8.2 9.2 9.5 4.7 9.3 5.4 4.8 5.3 3.9 7.4 8.1 9.1 5.0 5.7 3.4 (1.1) (0.6) (0.7) (0.7) (0.7) (1.4) (1.1) (0.7) (1.1) (0.7) (0.6) (0.8) (1.6) (1.2) (0.9) (1.3) (0.5) (0.7) (1.0) (0.8) (0.8) (0.5) (2.2) (0.7) (0.6) (0.9) (0.6) (0.5) (1.0) (0.6) (0.7) (0.5) (0.7) (0.5) (0.5) (1.3) (0.5) (0.4) (0.5) (0.4) (0.5) (0.7) (0.6) (0.4) (0.5) (0.5) PISA 2018 Table B.1.1b (cont’d) Proportion of students who performed below Level 2, at Level 2 or above, and at Levels 5 and 6: READING Proficiency levels Country or province Below Level 2 Standard % error Level 2 or above Standard % error Levels 5 and 6 Standard % error Turkey Iceland Luxembourg Greece Israel Slovak Republic Chile Malta Serbia Romania Jordan Uruguay Costa Rica United Arab Emirates Moldova Cyprus Montenegro Mexico Malaysia Bulgaria Colombia Brazil Qatar Brunei Darussalam Argentina Albania Saudi Arabia Bosnia and Herzegovina Peru Republic of North Macedonia Thailand Baku (Azerbaijan) Kazakhstan Panama Georgia Lebanon Indonesia Morocco Kosovo Dominican Republic Philippines 26.1 26.4 29.3 30.5 31.1 31.4 31.7 35.9 37.7 40.8 41.2 41.9 42.0 42.9 43.0 43.7 44.4 44.7 45.8 47.1 49.9 50.0 50.9 51.8 52.1 52.2 52.4 53.7 54.3 55.1 59.5 60.4 64.2 64.3 64.4 67.8 69.9 73.3 78.7 79.1 80.6 (1.0) (0.9) (0.6) (1.5) (1.3) (1.0) (1.2) (0.8) (1.5) (2.2) (1.4) (1.3) (1.6) (0.8) (1.1) (0.7) (0.7) (1.3) (1.4) (1.7) (1.7) (0.9) (0.4) (0.6) (1.3) (1.1) (1.5) (1.6) (1.3) (0.7) (1.7) (1.3) (0.7) (1.4) (1.1) (1.5) (1.4) (1.6) (0.6) (1.3) (1.4) 73.9 73.6 70.7 69.5 68.9 68.6 68.3 64.1 62.3 59.2 58.8 58.1 58.0 57.1 57.0 56.3 55.6 55.3 54.2 52.9 50.1 50.0 49.1 48.2 47.9 47.8 47.6 46.3 45.7 44.9 40.5 39.6 35.8 35.7 35.6 32.2 30.1 26.7 21.3 20.9 19.4 (1.0) (0.9) (0.6) (1.5) (1.3) (1.0) (1.2) (0.8) (1.5) (2.2) (1.4) (1.3) (1.6) (0.8) (1.1) (0.7) (0.7) (1.3) (1.4) (1.7) (1.7) (0.9) (0.4) (0.6) (1.3) (1.1) (1.5) (1.6) (1.3) (0.7) (1.7) (1.3) (0.7) (1.4) (1.1) (1.5) (1.4) (1.6) (0.6) (1.3) (1.4) 3.3 7.1 7.6 3.7 10.4 4.6 2.6 5.3 2.5 1.4 U‡ 1.5 0.6 4.8 1.0 1.8 0.8 0.8 U‡ 2.3 0.9 1.8 2.6 1.3 0.7 0.4‡ U‡ 0.2‡ 0.8 U‡ U U‡ 0.4 U‡ U‡ 0.7 U‡ U‡ U‡ U‡ U‡ (0.5) (0.6) (0.5) (0.5) (0.7) (0.4) (0.3) (0.5) (0.3) (0.3) (0.1) (0.3) (0.2) (0.3) (0.3) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.4) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.2) (0.2) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.2) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.1) (0.0) OECD average 22.6 (0.2) 77.4 (0.2) 8.7 (0.1) ‡ There are fewer than 30 observations. U Too unreliable to be published. Note: Countries and provinces have been sorted in descending order by the total percentage of students who attained Level 2 or higher. B-S-J-Z (China) represents Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, and Zhejiang. See OECD 2019b, p. 21, for a note regarding Cyprus. Reading scores for Spain are not included in the international PISA reports: due to implausible student-response behaviours on the reading assessment in a small number of schools in some regions of Spain, the OECD is unable to assure full international comparability of the results. The data for Vietnam have not yet been fully validated: due to a lack of consistency in the response pattern of some performance data, the OECD cannot yet assure full international comparability of the results. PISA 2018 87 Table B.1.2 Average scores and confidence intervals: READING Country or province B-S-J-Z (China) Singapore Alberta Macao (China) Hong Kong (China) Ontario Estonia Canada Finland Quebec British Columbia Ireland Nova Scotia Korea Newfoundland and Labrador Poland Sweden New Zealand United States United Kingdom Japan Australia Chinese Taipei Prince Edward Island Denmark Norway Saskatchewan Germany Slovenia Manitoba Belgium France Portugal Czech Republic New Brunswick Netherlands Austria Switzerland Croatia Latvia Russian Federation Italy Hungary Lithuania Iceland Belarus Israel Luxembourg 88 555 549 532 525 524 524 523 520 520 519 519 518 516 514 (2.7) (1.6) (4.3) (1.2) (2.7) (3.5) (1.8) (1.8) (2.3) (3.5) (4.5) (2.2) (3.9) (2.9) Confidence interval – 95% lower limit 550 546 523 523 519 517 519 517 516 513 511 514 508 508 512 (4.3) 503 520 512 506 506 505 504 504 503 503 503 501 499 499 498 495 494 493 493 492 490 489 485 484 484 479 479 479 476 476 476 474 474 470 470 (2.7) (3.0) (2.0) (3.6) (2.6) (2.7) (1.6) (2.8) (8.3) (1.8) (2.2) (3.0) (3.0) (1.2) (3.4) (2.3) (2.3) (2.4) (2.5) (3.5) (2.7) (2.7) (3.1) (2.7) (1.6) (3.1) (2.4) (2.3) (1.5) (1.7) (2.4) (3.7) (1.1) 507 500 502 498 499 499 499 497 486 498 495 493 492 493 488 488 488 487 485 482 480 479 478 474 476 472 472 472 473 471 469 463 468 517 512 510 512 509 509 506 508 519 505 504 505 504 498 501 497 497 497 495 496 490 490 490 484 482 485 481 480 479 477 479 478 472 Average Standard error Confidence interval – 95% upper limit 561 553 540 528 530 531 527 524 525 526 528 522 523 520 Ukraine Turkey Slovak Republic Greece Chile Malta Serbia United Arab Emirates Romania Uruguay Costa Rica Cyprus Moldova Montenegro Mexico Bulgaria Jordan Malaysia Brazil Colombia Brunei Darussalam Qatar Albania Bosnia and Herzegovina Argentina Peru Saudi Arabia Thailand Republic of North Macedonia Baku (Azerbaijan) Kazakhstan Georgia Panama Indonesia Morocco Lebanon Kosovo Dominican Republic Philippines 466 466 458 457 452 448 439 432 428 427 426 424 424 421 420 420 419 415 413 412 408 407 405 (3.5) (2.2) (2.2) (3.6) (2.6) (1.7) (3.3) (2.3) (5.1) (2.8) (3.4) (1.4) (2.4) (1.1) (2.7) (3.9) (2.9) (2.9) (2.1) (3.3) (0.9) (0.8) (1.9) Confidence interval – 95% lower limit 459 461 454 450 447 445 433 427 418 422 420 422 419 419 415 412 413 409 409 406 406 406 402 403 (2.9) 397 409 402 401 399 393 (3.0) (3.0) (3.0) (3.2) 396 395 393 387 407 406 405 399 393 (1.1) 391 395 389 387 380 377 371 359 353 353 342 340 (2.5) (1.5) (2.2) (3.0) (2.6) (3.1) (4.3) (1.1) (2.9) (3.3) 384 384 376 371 366 353 345 351 336 333 394 390 384 383 376 366 362 355 347 346 OECD average 487 (0.4) 486 488 Country or province Average Standard error Confidence interval – 95% upper limit 473 470 462 465 457 452 446 436 438 433 433 427 429 423 426 428 425 421 417 419 410 409 409 Note: Countries and provinces have been sorted in descending order by average score. B-S-J-Z (China) represents Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, and Zhejiang. See OECD 2019b, p. 21, for a note regarding Cyprus. Reading scores for Spain are not included in the international PISA reports: due to implausible student-response behaviours on the reading assessment in a small number of schools in some regions of Spain, the OECD is unable to assure full international comparability of the results. The data for Vietnam have not yet been fully validated: due to a lack of consistency in the response pattern of some performance data, the OECD cannot yet assure full international comparability of the results. PISA 2018 Table B.1.3 Average scores and confidence intervals: READING BY COGNITIVE PROCESS SUBSCALES Cognitive process subscale Canada, provinces, and OECD average Locate information Canada Understand Evaluate and reflect Standard error Confidence interval – 95% lower limit Confidence interval – 95% upper limit 517 (2.3) 513 522 Newfoundland and Labrador 506 (9.2) 488 524 Prince Edward Island 501 (16.8) 468 534 Nova Scotia 511 (7.3) 497 525 New Brunswick 490 ** (7.9) 474 505 Quebec 519 (4.7) 510 528 Ontario 519 (3.9) 511 527 Manitoba 495 ** (6.4) 483 508 Saskatchewan 497 ** (6.5) 484 509 Alberta 527 ** (5.3) 517 538 British Columbia 518 (5.5) 507 528 OECD average 487 ** (0.5) 486 488 Canada 520 (1.9) 516 523 Newfoundland and Labrador 511 (5.7) 500 522 Prince Edward Island 498 ** (7.9) 482 513 Nova Scotia 512 (4.3) 503 520 New Brunswick 483 ** (5.0) 474 493 Quebec 517 (3.7) 509 524 Ontario 526 ** (3.8) 519 534 Manitoba 490 ** (3.5) 483 497 Saskatchewan 498 ** (3.1) 492 504 Alberta 530 ** (4.6) 521 539 British Columbia 517 (4.9) 507 526 OECD average 487 ** (0.4) 486 487 Canada 527 (2.2) 523 532 Newfoundland and Labrador 518 (7.7) 503 533 Prince Edward Island 503 (14.3) 475 531 Nova Scotia 514 (6.5) 502 527 New Brunswick 496 ** (5.8) 485 508 Quebec 530 (4.1) 522 538 Ontario 533 (4.0) 525 541 Manitoba 493 ** (4.8) 484 503 Saskatchewan 496 ** (5.2) 486 506 Alberta 538 (6.1) 526 549 British Columbia 525 (6.3) 512 537 OECD average 489 ** (0.5) 488 490 Average ** Significant difference compared to Canada. PISA 2018 89 Table B.1.4 Average scores and confidence intervals: READING BY TEXT STRUCTURE SUBSCALES Text structure subscale Canada, provinces, and OECD average Single text Canada Multiple text Standard error Confidence interval – 95% lower limit Confidence interval – 95% upper limit 521 (1.9) 517 524 Newfoundland and Labrador 512 (5.5) 501 522 Prince Edward Island 497** (10.2) 477 517 Nova Scotia 512 (5.0) 502 522 New Brunswick 484** (4.5) 475 493 Quebec 515 (3.7) 508 522 Ontario 530** (3.8) 522 537 Manitoba 490** (4.4) 481 498 Saskatchewan 497** (3.8) 490 504 Alberta 529 (4.7) 520 538 British Columbia 517 (5.0) 507 526 OECD average 485** (0.4) 484 486 Canada 522 (2.0) 518 526 Newfoundland and Labrador 511** (5.3) 500 521 Prince Edward Island 503** (9.2) 485 521 Nova Scotia 516 (5.0) 506 526 New Brunswick 492** (5.4) 482 503 Quebec 526 (3.8) 519 533 Ontario 524 (3.6) 517 531 Manitoba 494** (3.6) 487 501 Saskatchewan 496** (3.0) 490 502 Alberta 533** (5.0) 524 543 British Columbia 521 (4.8) 512 531 OECD average 490** (0.4) 489 491 Average ** Significant difference compared to Canada. 90 PISA 2018 Table B.1.5 Variation in student performance: READING Percentiles Score 245 270 244 254 271 230 271 Standard error (2.2) (2.6) (2.6) (3.6) (2.5) (2.6) (3.4) Score 265 294 265 277 294 248 295 Standard error (2.1) (2.5) (2.6) (3.1) (2.2) (2.3) (3.2) Score 304 338 304 318 333 281 337 Standard error (1.9) (2.4) (3.0) (2.8) (1.7) (2.3) (3.2) Score 398 438 412 420 433 388 445 Standard error (1.7) (3.0) (4.0) (3.6) (1.9) (4.7) (4.4) Score 442 485 460 472 490 453 501 Standard error (2.0) (4.6) (3.6) (5.1) (2.9) (7.2) (5.1) Score 470 514 488 502 527 491 533 Standard error (3.1) (6.3) (3.9) (5.7) (4.1) (8.3) (5.8) Difference in score points between the 10th and 90th percentiles 177 190 195 195 197 205 206 278 (3.1) 303 (2.8) 346 (3.0) 458 (3.7) 509 (4.1) 537 (4.0) 206 277 295 221 286 249 256 261 273 281 406 237 321 272 329 322 328 364 344 365 256 298 321 367 335 358 302 268 338 (2.9) (3.8) (2.8) (3.9) (3.1) (4.8) (6.9) (3.5) (2.6) (5.9) (4.0) (4.6) (4.1) (5.2) (4.5) (3.6) (4.1) (4.0) (5.0) (3.5) (3.7) (5.4) (3.8) (3.9) (5.8) (6.2) (4.4) (6.9) 303 323 241 314 274 286 303 302 310 441 265 351 300 362 355 360 398 380 403 283 331 357 402 372 396 340 301 376 (2.9) (3.1) (2.5) (3.5) (2.5) (4.4) (5.7) (3.4) (2.1) (4.2) (3.7) (4.1) (3.7) (4.6) (3.4) (3.2) (3.5) (3.0) (3.2) (2.9) (3.6) (4.8) (3.5) (3.0) (4.8) (5.2) (3.3) (6.2) 349 370 281 362 319 341 366 357 360 498 315 404 350 418 412 415 456 439 464 334 389 416 460 431 457 404 358 436 (2.2) (2.9) (2.7) (2.8) (2.6) (4.0) (3.9) (3.1) (1.6) (3.5) (3.0) (3.0) (3.5) (3.7) (3.1) (2.3) (2.8) (2.7) (2.3) (3.3) (3.1) (3.7) (2.6) (2.2) (4.2) (4.8) (2.9) (4.3) 459 483 395 476 436 459 480 474 480 617 436 527 472 542 538 542 583 566 590 463 517 543 587 561 586 532 491 565 (2.8) (4.5) (4.0) (3.5) (2.8) (3.1) (2.6) (3.4) (1.6) (3.1) (4.2) (2.4) (4.1) (2.9) (3.0) (2.3) (2.6) (2.1) (2.1) (3.8) (3.4) (3.3) (2.3) (2.1) (4.3) (3.5) (3.4) (4.0) 510 534 453 530 493 507 524 524 534 666 493 581 532 594 589 595 635 618 641 523 572 597 643 614 637 582 544 621 (3.3) (5.9) (5.5) (4.2) (3.6) (3.0) (3.1) (4.2) (2.0) (3.5) (5.6) (3.1) (4.7) (3.2) (3.1) (2.7) (2.8) (2.6) (3.0) (4.9) (3.3) (3.6) (3.1) (2.8) (4.4) (3.8) (3.7) (4.7) 542 563 488 562 526 534 550 552 566 692 528 610 566 623 617 624 663 647 670 558 602 629 676 644 666 612 573 651 (4.1) (6.4) (6.1) (5.8) (3.8) (3.5) (3.6) (5.0) (2.7) (4.8) (6.7) (4.6) (4.9) (3.9) (4.0) (3.0) (3.8) (3.3) (2.8) (6.3) (3.5) (4.4) (3.7) (3.4) (4.5) (4.8) (4.9) (7.0) 207 211 212 216 219 220 221 221 224 225 229 230 231 232 234 235 236 238 238 240 241 241 242 242 242 243 243 245 233 (3.4) 268 (2.7) 328 (2.2) 460 (1.8) 513 (2.4) 543 (2.7) 245 316 327 347 337 267 306 282 328 342 (3.5) (4.7) (4.5) (5.1) (3.5) (5.5) (4.0) (5.2) (6.7) 351 362 384 374 299 345 312 362 390 (2.7) (4.0) (3.6) (4.5) (3.6) (4.6) (3.9) (4.3) (5.5) 410 425 446 438 360 413 370 422 463 (2.6) (3.4) (2.9) (3.7) (3.6) (3.2) (4.4) (3.7) (3.7) 543 562 581 572 495 545 508 560 595 (1.9) (2.9) (3.4) (3.1) (3.6) (3.0) (3.5) (2.9) (2.6) 597 613 636 627 552 598 566 616 645 (1.8) (2.7) (4.0) (3.7) (4.5) (3.4) (3.5) (2.8) (2.5) 625 640 667 657 585 628 599 647 673 (3.2) (4.4) (4.1) (4.1) (4.1) (3.5) (3.8) (3.1) (3.3) 246 250 252 253 253 253 253 254 255 Country or province Kosovo Baku (Azerbaijan) Morocco Indonesia Kazakhstan Philippines Thailand Bosnia and Herzegovina Albania Costa Rica Dominican Republic Mexico Georgia Saudi Arabia Jordan Malaysia Montenegro B-S-J-Z (China) Panama Turkey Colombia Croatia Belarus Latvia Ireland Denmark Macao (China) Peru Chile Russian Federation Estonia Slovenia Quebec Ukraine Moldova Saskatchewan Republic of North Macedonia Lithuania Portugal Poland Japan Uruguay Italy Serbia Czech Republic Hong Kong (China) PISA 2018 5th 10th 25th 75th 90th 95th 91 Table B.1.5 (cont’d) Variation in student performance: READING Percentiles Score 240 329 Standard error (4.5) (6.4) Score 274 366 Standard error (4.2) (5.1) Score 333 427 Standard error (3.4) (4.5) Score 471 562 Standard error (3.6) (4.9) Score 529 621 Standard error (3.4) (5.7) Score 561 655 Standard error (3.9) (6.1) Difference in score points between the 10th and 90th percentiles 255 255 344 (9.5) 383 (7.7) 442 (6.6) 581 (6.2) 638 (7.4) 671 (9.5) 256 311 261 345 292 258 349 265 334 352 318 258 329 343 357 325 291 319 263 316 342 308 317 (3.7) (6.5) (4.7) (4.8) (1.9) (2.8) (2.7) (4.4) (5.6) (3.9) (2.6) (5.8) (8.3) (8.9) (4.2) (4.3) (4.3) (4.2) (7.1) (8.2) (5.1) (4.0) 346 297 387 326 284 388 295 372 390 350 286 377 383 396 367 326 355 290 352 380 345 352 (4.0) (6.0) (4.2) (4.9) (1.9) (2.4) (2.9) (4.3) (5.0) (3.7) (2.6) (4.9) (6.1) (7.6) (3.8) (4.0) (3.5) (4.5) (5.9) (6.7) (4.6) (3.8) 407 361 455 390 335 452 353 435 455 413 340 449 447 464 435 388 423 344 419 448 413 421 (3.0) (6.1) (3.2) (4.9) (1.4) (2.3) (2.3) (3.2) (4.7) (4.1) (2.3) (3.8) (5.4) (5.7) (3.4) (3.1) (3.0) (4.9) (5.3) (6.1) (4.0) (3.2) 547 497 591 526 476 592 494 575 596 558 482 585 586 604 576 529 567 491 564 595 558 568 (2.9) (6.0) (2.5) (3.7) (1.7) (2.0) (2.0) (3.1) (4.0) (2.9) (3.1) (3.1) (4.4) (4.8) (3.7) (3.1) (3.3) (5.0) (5.9) (4.8) (3.8) (2.6) 602 554 643 583 542 646 554 632 650 612 548 640 645 659 630 590 622 557 621 649 615 623 (3.7) (5.9) (3.0) (3.9) (2.5) (2.3) (2.6) (3.5) (4.3) (2.9) (3.7) (3.9) (7.8) (5.2) (3.8) (3.3) (3.6) (5.2) (7.8) (4.3) (4.0) (2.6) 631 584 672 614 578 677 587 664 681 641 584 669 679 689 661 623 651 594 656 680 647 653 (4.1) (5.5) (3.3) (5.0) (2.5) (2.8) (3.0) (3.8) (5.4) (2.9) (4.1) (4.1) (7.5) (6.6) (4.5) (3.5) (4.0) (5.3) (9.4) (5.9) (4.4) (2.8) 256 256 256 257 258 259 259 260 260 262 262 262 263 263 263 263 266 267 269 269 270 271 325 (26.6) 364 (18.4) 435 (13.2) 574 (11.0) 635 (10.9) 662 (12.9) 271 310 309 293 316 322 317 321 315 352 291 233 180 258 (4.3) (5.2) (4.4) (5.0) (4.8) (5.5) (5.7) (2.7) (3.8) (3.1) (1.9) (4.9) (4.2) 356 344 332 354 362 360 361 357 398 325 264 211 295 (4.3) (4.4) (4.0) (4.5) (3.7) (5.7) (5.3) (2.8) (3.9) (2.1) (1.8) (4.6) (3.2) 430 410 402 424 432 434 430 429 478 392 326 268 369 (3.2) (3.5) (3.3) (4.4) (3.2) (4.1) (4.4) (2.2) (2.3) (2.0) (1.5) (4.6) (3.0) 576 562 549 576 584 583 584 580 628 548 483 434 529 (3.1) (3.4) (3.0) (3.5) (2.1) (3.2) (4.3) (2.0) (2.0) (1.9) (1.2) (5.2) (3.0) 632 621 609 632 640 640 643 640 684 612 552 507 593 (2.9) (3.3) (3.3) (3.5) (2.9) (3.5) (3.9) (2.2) (2.5) (2.8) (1.8) (5.0) (3.3) 661 651 640 663 671 672 676 673 714 646 592 546 628 (3.0) (3.4) (3.8) (3.6) (2.9) (3.7) (4.6) (2.6) (2.6) (3.9) (2.1) (5.7) (4.3) 276 277 277 278 278 280 282 284 285 287 289 296 298 251 (2.4) 284 (2.7) 348 (2.5) 511 (3.5) 584 (3.1) 624 (3.0) 300 256 318 (5.4) (0.7) 296 354 (5.9) (0.7) 381 419 (5.8) (0.6) 563 558 (3.8) (0.5) 628 614 (3.7) (0.5) 663 645 (3.9) (0.6) 332 260 Country or province Argentina Manitoba Newfoundland and Labrador Hungary Romania Finland Greece Brunei Darussalam Canada Cyprus United Kingdom Ontario Austria Brazil Korea Nova Scotia Alberta Chinese Taipei Slovak Republic France Bulgaria New Brunswick British Columbia Switzerland Belgium Prince Edward Island Norway Netherlands Iceland Germany New Zealand Sweden United States Australia Singapore Luxembourg Qatar Lebanon Malta United Arab Emirates Israel OECD average 5th 10th 25th 75th 90th 95th Note: Countries and provinces have been sorted in ascending order by the difference in score points between the 10th and 90th percentiles. B-S-J-Z (China) represents Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, and Zhejiang. See OECD 2019b, p. 21, for a note regarding Cyprus. Reading scores for Spain are not included in the international PISA reports: due to implausible student-response behaviours on the reading assessment in a small number of schools in some regions of Spain, the OECD is unable to assure full international comparability of the results. The data for Vietnam have not yet been fully validated: due to a lack of consistency in the response pattern of some performance data, the OECD cannot yet assure full international comparability of the results. 92 PISA 2018 Table B.1.6a Percentage of students at each proficiency level in anglophone and francophone school systems: READING Canada and provinces Below Level 1 Proficiency levels Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 % Standard error % Standard error % Standard error % Standard error % Standard error % Standard error % Standard error Canada Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia 3.7 (0.3) 9.9 (0.5) 19.8 (0.7) 26.7 (0.5) 24.1 (0.6) 12.8 (0.5) 3.1 (0.3) 4.1 (0.9) 11.2 (1.3) 21.4 (1.6) 27.9 (1.9) 22.8 (1.8) 10.1 (1.3) 2.5‡ (0.7) U‡ (2.1) 12.2 (2.1) 20.1 (3.0) 29.1 (3.5) 21.1 (2.8) 10.2‡ (2.2) U‡ (1.1) 3.7 (0.7) 10.4 (1.2) 20.6 (1.5) 27.8 (1.7) 23.2 (1.8) 11.1 (1.4) New Brunswick 6.5 (1.0) 14.2 (1.5) 23.0 (2.1) 24.7 (2.1) 20.6 (2.0) 8.9 (1.3) U‡ (0.7) Anglophone school systems Quebec 3.2 (0.6) U‡ (0.8) 9.1 (1.5) 19.8 (1.5) 29.0 (1.8) 24.8 (2.1) 11.8 (1.4) 3.3 (0.9) Ontario 3.2 (0.5) 9.2 (0.8) 19.4 (1.2) 26.5 (0.9) 24.8 (1.0) 13.6 (0.9) 3.3 (0.5) Manitoba 5.5 (0.6) 13.9 (1.2) 23.8 (1.3) 28.4 (1.4) 19.0 (1.3) 7.8 (0.8) 1.6 (0.4) Saskatchewan 4.6 (0.7) 12.1 (0.9) 24.7 (1.2) 29.3 (1.2) 20.5 (1.2) 7.6 (0.9) Alberta 3.4 (0.6) 8.5 (0.9) 17.9 (1.3) 26.2 (1.4) 25.7 (1.3) 14.4 (1.1) 4.0 (0.8) British Columbia 4.4 (0.7) 10.7 (0.9) 19.4 (1.3) 25.9 (1.1) 23.8 (1.2) 12.8 (1.0) 3.1 (0.6) 4.3 (0.4) 10.3 (0.7) 21.5 (1.1) 29.0 (0.9) 23.4 (1.0) 9.8 (0.9) 1.8 (0.4) 20.0 (3.3) 22.9 (4.2) 21.1 (4.0) 20.2 (4.1) 11.3‡ (3.4) 8.7 (1.6) 16.6 (2.4) 27.6 (3.2) 27.6 (2.8) 14.6 (2.2) Quebec 3.3 (0.4) 9.0 (0.8) 20.6 (1.2) 29.6 (1.1) 24.9 (1.1) 10.6 (1.0) Ontario 11.4 (1.3) 19.8 (1.6) 28.4 (1.8) 23.5 (1.6) 12.4 (1.4) 4.0 (0.7) U‡ (0.3) U‡ (0.4) Francophone school systems Canada Nova Scotia New Brunswick Manitoba U‡ (2.6) U‡ (0.8) 4.5‡ (1.3) U‡ (0.5) 1.9 (0.4) U‡ (4.1) 23.6 (3.5) 27.7 (4.0) 22.8 (3.4) 10.4‡ (3.0) U‡ (2.1) U‡ (0.5) Alberta 6.4‡ (2.0) 14.7 (3.1) 22.3 (4.0) 30.2 (4.6) 16.9 (3.2) U‡ (3.0) U‡ (1.5) British Columbia 9.0‡ (2.7) 14.9‡ (4.3) 21.6‡ (5.3) 30.4 (5.2) 19.0‡ (4.7) U‡ (2.5) U‡ (1.0) ‡ There are fewer than 30 observations. U Too unreliable to be published. Note: Because Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan did not oversample students by language, results for only English-language schools are available for these provinces. PISA 2018 93 Table B.1.6b Proportion of students in anglophone and francophone school systems who performed below Level 2, at Level 2 or above, and at Levels 5 and 6: READING Canada and provinces Anglophone school systems % Standard error Francophone school systems % Standard error Difference (A–F) Difference Standard error Below Level 2 Canada 13.5 (0.6) 14.5 (0.9) -1.0 (1.1) Newfoundland and Labrador 15.3 (1.6) -- -- -- -- Prince Edward Island 17.5 (2.6) -- Nova Scotia 14.1 (1.3) 43.0** (4.6) -28.9* (4.7) New Brunswick 20.7** (1.8) 25.3** (2.3) -4.6 (3.1) Quebec 11.3 (1.5) 12.4** (1.0) -1.1 (1.8) Ontario 12.4 (1.0) 31.2** (1.8) -18.8* (2.2) Manitoba 19.3** (1.3) 35.2** (5.5) -15.8* (5.8) Saskatchewan 16.7** (1.1) -- -- Alberta 11.9 (1.2) 21.1 (3.5) -9.2* (3.7) British Columbia 15.1 (1.2) 24.0** (4.7) -8.9 (4.9) Canada 86.5 (0.6) 85.5 (0.9) 1.0 (1.1) Newfoundland and Labrador 84.7 (1.6) -- -- -- -- Prince Edward Island 82.5 (2.6) -- Nova Scotia 85.9 (1.3) 57.0** (4.6) 28.9* (4.7) New Brunswick 79.3** (1.8) 74.7** (2.3) 4.6 (3.1) Quebec 88.7 (1.5) 87.6** (1.0) 1.1 (1.8) Ontario 87.6 (1.0) 68.8** (1.8) 18.8* (2.2) Manitoba 80.7** (1.3) 64.8** (5.5) 15.8* (5.8) Saskatchewan 83.3** (1.1) -- -- Alberta 88.1 (1.2) 78.9 (3.5) 9.2* (3.7) British Columbia 84.9 (1.2) 76.0** (4.7) 8.9 (4.9) Canada 15.9 (0.6) 11.6 (1.1) 4.4* (1.3) Newfoundland and Labrador 12.6** (1.3) -- -- -- -- Prince Edward Island 12.2 (2.3) -- -- -- -- Nova Scotia 14.3 (1.6) U** (2.7) -- -- New Brunswick 11.0** (1.6) 5.0** (1.4) 6.0* (1.8) Quebec 15.2 (1.7) 12.5** (1.3) 2.6 (2.3) Ontario 16.9 12.4* (1.3) -- -- -- -- -- Level 2 or above -- -- -- -- -- Levels 5 and 6 Manitoba Saskatchewan (1.1) 4.5** (0.7) 9.4** (1.0) U** (2.1) -- -- 8.8** (1.0) -- -- -- -- Alberta 18.4 (1.4) U (3.2) -- -- British Columbia 15.8 (1.2) U** (2.8) -- -- -- Not available. U Too unreliable to be published. * Significant difference within Canada or province. ** Significant difference compared to Canada. Note: Because Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan did not oversample students by language, results for only English-language schools are available for these provinces. 94 PISA 2018 Table B.1.7 Average scores by language of the school system: READING Canada and provinces Anglophone school systems Average Standard error Francophone school systems Average Standard error Difference (A–F) Difference Canada 522 (2.1) 511 (3.5) Newfoundland and Labrador 512** (4.3) -- -- -- -- Prince Edward Island 505** (8.3) -- -- -- -- Nova Scotia 518 (3.9) 435** (10.8) 83* (10.4) New Brunswick 497** (5.1) 470** (5.4) 27* (8.4) Quebec 527 (4.8) 519** (4.0) 9 (6.5) Ontario 527** (3.7) 456** (4.5) 71* (5.5) Manitoba 495** (3.5) 449** (11.3) 46* (11.8) Saskatchewan 499** (3.0) -- Alberta 532** (4.3) 492 British Columbia 520 (4.5) 478** -- 11* Standard error (4.1) -- -- (9.6) 40* (10.0) (11.5) 41* (12.0) -- Not available. * Significant difference within Canada or province. ** Significant difference compared to Canada. Note: Because Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan did not oversample students by language, results for only English-language schools are available for these provinces. PISA 2018 95 Table B.1.8 Average scores by language of the school system: READING BY COGNITIVE PROCESS SUBSCALES Anglophone school systems Cognitive process subscale Canada and provinces Locate information Canada 518 Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island Understand Evaluate and reflect Average Standard error Francophone school systems Average Standard error Difference (A–F) Difference Standard error (2.5) 513 (4.6) 5 (4.9) 506 (9.2) -- -- -- -- 502 (18.4) -- -- -- -- Nova Scotia 513 (7.5) 456** (21.4) 57* (22.6) New Brunswick 495** (9.4) 475** (13.7) 20 (16.2) Quebec 519 (8.5) 519** (5.1) 0 (9.4) Ontario 521 (4.1) 464** (8.4) 57* (9.8) Manitoba 496** (6.7) 477 (29.4) 19 (32.0) Saskatchewan 497** (6.5) -- -- -- -- Alberta 527 (5.3) 505 (16.6) 22 (15.8) British Columbia 518 (5.5) 503 (19.2) 15 (18.6) Canada 523 (2.3) 509 (3.7) 14* (4.5) Newfoundland and Labrador 511** (5.7) -- -- Prince Edward Island 500** (8.3) -- Nova Scotia 515 (4.3) 429** (13.9) 86* (13.2) New Brunswick 491** (5.9) 466** (8.0) 25* (9.3) Quebec 525 (5.8) 516** (4.1) 9 (7.2) Ontario 529** (4.0) 455** (5.0) 74* (6.1) Manitoba 491** (3.6) 447** (10.5) 44* (11.7) Saskatchewan 498** (3.1) -- -- Alberta 530 (4.7) 496 (14.9) 34* (15.9) British Columbia 517 (4.9) 473** (16.0) 44* (16.8) Canada 529 (2.6) 523 (4.0) 6 (4.7) Newfoundland and Labrador 518 (7.7) -- -- -- -- Prince Edward Island 505 (14.3) -- -- -- -- Nova Scotia 516 (6.6) 465** (21.0) 51* (22.0) New Brunswick 502** (6.9) 481** (13.6) 22 (16.0) Quebec 535 (5.3) 529** (4.6) 6 (7.2) Ontario 535** (4.2) 477** (8.2) 58* (9.2) Manitoba 494** (4.9) 457** (25.3) 37 (26.5) Saskatchewan 496** (5.1) -- -- -- -- Alberta 538 (6.1) 512 (17.0) 25 (18.5) British Columbia 525 (6.3) 498 (20.8) 27 (19.8) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Not available. * Significant difference within Canada or province. ** Significant difference compared to Canada. Note: Because Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan did not oversample students by language, results for only English-language schools are available for these provinces. 96 PISA 2018 Table B.1.9 Average scores by language of the school system: READING BY TEXT STRUCTURE SUBSCALES Anglophone school systems Text structure subscale Canada and provinces Single text Canada 524 Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia New Brunswick Multiple text Average Standard error Francophone school systems Average Standard error Difference (A–F) Difference (2.3) 507 (3.5) 512** (5.5) -- -- -- -- 500** (11.2) -- -- -- -- 515 (5.1) 435** (15.4) 80* (15.8) 493** (6.3) 461** (5.9) 33* (9.2) Quebec 527 (6.4) 514** (4.1) 13 (7.5) Ontario 533** (4.0) 457** (8.1) 76* (9.3) Manitoba 491** (4.5) 445** (12.7) 46* (13.3) Saskatchewan 497** (3.8) -- -- Alberta 529 (4.7) 484 (13.9) 45* (14.3) British Columbia 517 (5.0) 462** (14.7) 55* (15.7) Canada 523 (2.3) 519 (3.8) 4 (4.4) Newfoundland and Labrador 511** (5.3) -- -- -- -- Prince Edward Island 504 (9.7) -- Nova Scotia 519 (4.9) 453** (13.1) 66* (11.9) New Brunswick 497** (6.9) 480** (6.4) 17 (8.9) Quebec 528 (5.5) 526** (4.2) 2 (7.0) Ontario 526 (3.7) 467** (6.6) 60* (7.4) Manitoba 494** (3.8) 463** (11.3) 32* (12.8) Saskatchewan 496** (3.0) -- -- Alberta 533** (5.0) 509 (10.7) 24* (11.1) British Columbia 522 (4.8) 492 (13.8) 30* (14.7) -- 18* Standard error (4.3) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Not available. * Significant difference within Canada or province. ** Significant difference compared to Canada. Note: Because Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan did not oversample students by language, results for only English-language schools are available for these provinces. PISA 2018 97 Table B.1.10a Percentage of students at each proficiency level by gender: READING Canada and provinces Proficiency levels Below Level 1 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 % Standard error % Standard error % Standard error % Standard error % Standard error % Standard error % Standard error Canada Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia 2.2 (0.2) 7.4 (0.4) 18.6 (0.7) 28.1 (0.7) 26.0 (0.7) 14.1 (0.6) 3.6 (0.3) 1.8‡ (0.6) 8.1 (1.6) 19.9 (2.2) 32.4 (2.9) 24.9 (2.9) 10.9 (1.7) U‡ (0.9) U‡ (1.5) 10.7‡ (2.9) 20.1 (4.1) 31.1 (5.0) 21.9 (3.9) 11.5‡ (3.6) U‡ (1.7) 1.7‡ (0.5) 7.7 (1.3) 19.1 (1.9) 28.9 (2.2) 25.3 (2.2) 13.2 (1.9) 4.1‡ (0.9) New Brunswick 3.2‡ (0.8) 12.5 (1.8) 23.6 (2.3) 28.8 (2.6) 22.0 (2.5) 8.0 (1.4) U‡ (0.8) Quebec 2.0 (0.4) 6.8 (0.8) 18.5 (1.4) 29.5 (1.4) 27.7 (1.4) 12.9 (1.3) 2.7 (0.5) Ontario 2.3 (0.4) 7.0 (0.8) 18.4 (1.3) 27.7 (1.4) 25.7 (1.3) 14.8 (1.3) 4.1 (0.7) Manitoba 3.8 (0.7) 10.6 (1.4) 24.3 (1.7) 29.1 (1.9) 21.2 (2.0) 9.2 (1.3) U‡ (0.6) Saskatchewan 2.5‡ (0.7) 8.5 (1.1) 22.7 (2.0) 32.6 (2.0) 23.1 (1.7) 9.4 (1.1) U‡ (0.5) Alberta 2.1‡ (0.6) 5.7 (1.0) 15.5 (1.6) 27.0 (1.8) 27.8 (1.8) 17.2 (1.5) 4.7 (1.0) British Columbia 2.0‡ (0.6) 8.7 (1.0) 18.4 (1.6) 25.9 (1.5) 25.9 (1.7) 15.1 (1.5) 4.0 (0.9) Canada Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia 5.3 (0.4) 12.5 (0.6) 21.6 (0.8) 26.2 (0.6) 21.9 (0.6) 10.3 (0.5) 2.1 (0.2) 6.5 (1.6) 14.4 (2.1) 23.0 (2.5) 23.3 (2.7) 20.6 (2.4) 9.3 (1.9) U‡ (1.0) (3.9) 14.4‡ (3.4) 21.0 (4.1) 26.4 (4.6) 19.1‡ (3.5) (3.1) U‡ (1.5) 6.9 (1.2) 14.2 (1.7) 22.3 (2.0) 26.2 (2.2) 20.1 (2.0) 8.3 (1.5) U‡ (0.8) New Brunswick 11.1 (1.3) 17.3 (1.9) 25.2 (2.2) 22.1 (2.5) 15.6 (2.2) 7.3 (1.7) U‡ (0.8) Quebec 4.5 (0.7) 11.4 (0.9) 22.6 (1.4) 29.6 (1.3) 21.9 (1.2) 8.4 (0.9) 1.5 (0.4) Ontario 4.8 (0.7) 12.2 (1.2) 21.1 (1.5) 25.1 (1.4) 22.9 (1.3) 11.8 (1.2) 2.2 (0.5) Manitoba 7.3 (0.8) 17.5 (1.5) 23.5 (1.6) 27.6 (1.7) 16.5 (1.4) 6.3 (1.0) 1.3‡ (0.4) Saskatchewan 6.6 (1.1) 15.6 (1.5) 26.6 (1.6) 26.0 (1.9) 18.0 (1.6) 6.0 (1.2) U‡ (0.7) Alberta 4.6 (1.0) 11.3 (1.3) 20.3 (1.7) 25.4 (1.7) 23.6 (1.6) 11.5 (1.3) 3.3 (0.8) British Columbia 6.7 (1.0) 12.7 (1.2) 20.5 (1.9) 25.9 (1.8) 21.7 (1.8) 10.4 (1.3) 2.2‡ (0.6) Girls Boys U‡ U‡ ‡ There are fewer than 30 observations. U Too unreliable to be published. 98 PISA 2018 Table B.1.10b Proportion of boys and girls who performed below Level 2, at Level 2 or above, and at Levels 5 and 6: READING Girls Canada and provinces % Boys Standard error % Difference (G–B) Standard error Difference Standard error Below Level 2 Canada 9.6 (0.5) 17.8 (0.7) -8.2* (0.8) Newfoundland and Labrador 9.9 (1.7) 20.9 (2.4) -11.0* (2.9) 13.2 (3.1) 23.4 (4.0) -10.2* (4.7) 9.4 (1.3) 21.1 (1.9) -11.7* (2.1) 15.7** (1.7) 28.5** (2.0) -12.8* (2.5) 8.8 (1.0) 15.9 (1.3) -7.1* (1.3) Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia New Brunswick Quebec Ontario 9.3 (1.0) 17.0 (1.4) -7.7* (1.4) Manitoba 14.3** (1.7) 24.8** (1.6) -10.5* (2.0) Saskatchewan 11.1 (1.2) 22.2** (1.8) -11.1* (2.0) 7.9 (1.2) 15.9 (1.6) -8.0* (1.7) British Columbia 10.7 (1.2) 19.4 (1.6) -8.7* (1.6) Canada 90.4 (0.5) 82.2 (0.7) 8.2* (0.8) Newfoundland and Labrador 90.1 (1.7) 79.1 (2.4) 11.0* (2.9) Prince Edward Island 86.8 (3.1) 76.6 (4.0) 10.2* (4.7) Nova Scotia 90.6 (1.3) 78.9 (1.9) 11.7* (2.1) New Brunswick 84.3** (1.7) 71.5** (2.0) 12.8* (2.5) Quebec 91.2 (1.0) 84.1 (1.3) 7.1* (1.3) Ontario 90.7 (1.0) 83.0 (1.4) 7.7* (1.4) Manitoba 85.7** (1.7) 75.2** (1.6) 10.5* (2.0) Saskatchewan 88.9 (1.2) 77.8** (1.8) 11.1* (2.0) Alberta 92.1 (1.2) 84.1 (1.6) 8.0* (1.7) British Columbia 89.3 (1.2) 80.6 (1.6) 8.7* (1.6) Canada 17.6 (0.7) 12.4 (0.6) 5.3* (0.8) Newfoundland and Labrador 12.9** (1.9) 12.2 (2.1) 0.7 (2.9) Prince Edward Island 13.7 (3.4) 10.1 (2.9) 3.6 (4.6) Nova Scotia 17.3 (2.2) 10.4 (1.7) 6.9* (2.3) Alberta Level 2 or above Levels 5 and 6 New Brunswick (1.7) 8.7** (1.8) 1.3 (2.2) Quebec 15.5 9.9** (1.5) 9.9** (1.1) 5.6* (1.4) Ontario 18.8 (1.5) Manitoba 11.1** (1.4) Saskatchewan 10.5** (1.3) Alberta 21.9** (1.7) 14.8 British Columbia 19.1 (1.7) 12.6 14.0 (1.3) 4.8* (1.8) 7.6** (1.1) 3.4* (1.6) 7.2** (1.2) 3.3* (1.5) (1.8) 7.1* (1.9) (1.5) 6.5* (2.2) * Significant difference within Canada or province. ** Significant difference compared to Canada. PISA 2018 99 Table B.1.11 Average scores by gender: READING Canada, provinces, and OECD average Girls Average Boys Standard error Average Canada 535 (2.0) 506 Newfoundland and Labrador 525 (5.3) Prince Edward Island 518 (8.7) Nova Scotia 535 (4.2) New Brunswick 506** (4.5) Quebec 534 Ontario 537 Manitoba Saskatchewan Difference (G–B) Standard error Difference Standard error (2.1) 29* (2.1) 499 (6.0) 26* (7.3) 487 (12.1) 31* (11.9) 495** (5.0) 40* (5.4) 472** (4.9) 34* (6.3) (4.2) 505 (3.4) 29* (3.5) (3.7) 511 (4.4) 26* (4.1) 508** (4.8) 482** (3.7) 26* (5.3) 515** (3.3) 484** (3.9) 31* (4.1) Alberta 548** (4.3) 516** (5.1) 32* (4.0) British Columbia 536 (4.9) 503 (5.0) 33* (4.8) OECD average 502** (0.5) 472** (0.5) 30* (0.6) * Significant difference within Canada, province, or OECD. ** Significant difference compared to Canada. 100 PISA 2018 Table B.1.12 Average scores by gender: READING BY COGNITIVE PROCESS SUBSCALES Girls Boys Cognitive process subscale Canada and provinces Locate information Canada 531 (2.6) 503 Newfoundland and Labrador 517 (10.6) Prince Edward Island 518 (17.9) Nova Scotia 529 New Brunswick 506** Quebec Ontario Understand Evaluate and reflect Average Standard error Average Difference (G–B) Standard error Difference Standard error (2.8) 28* (2.8) 494 (9.5) 24* (8.0) 485 (18.8) 33* (13.4) (7.7) 492 (7.7) 36* (5.6) (9.0) 473** (8.4) 33* (7.2) 532 (5.5) 505 (5.1) 27* (5.0) 532 (4.1) 507 (5.1) 25* (4.8) Manitoba 510** (7.5) 481** (6.5) 28* (5.7) Saskatchewan 513** (8.0) 482** (5.9) 31* (5.4) Alberta 543** (6.1) 512 (5.8) 30* (5.2) British Columbia 533 (5.8) 502 (6.0) 31* (4.7) Canada 534 (2.2) 506 (2.4) 28* (2.6) Newfoundland and Labrador 522 (6.1) 499 (7.5) 23* (7.5) Prince Edward Island 511** (9.6) 485 (10.9) 27* (12.4) Nova Scotia 532 (4.2) 491** (5.7) 41* (5.5) New Brunswick 500** (5.7) 466** (6.3) 34* (6.6) Quebec 530 (4.5) 502 (3.8) 28* (4.0) Ontario 540** (4.1) 514** (4.7) 26* (4.6) Manitoba 504** (4.5) 477** (4.1) 27* (5.4) Saskatchewan 514** (4.0) 483** (3.6) 31* (4.4) Alberta 545** (4.6) 515 (5.8) 30* (4.8) British Columbia 533 (5.2) 501 (5.7) 32* (5.2) Canada 541 (2.5) 514 (2.8) 26* (2.9) Newfoundland and Labrador 528 (9.2) 507 (8.5) 20* (8.8) Prince Edward Island 516 (14.8) 491 (17.5) 25 (14.6) Nova Scotia 532 (6.7) 496** (7.5) 36* (6.3) New Brunswick 511** (6.6) 480** (6.8) 31* (6.6) Quebec 543 (5.0) 516 (4.5) 27* (5.0) Ontario 545 (4.4) 521** (5.1) 23* (5.1) Manitoba 504** (6.0) 483** (5.5) 22* (6.5) Saskatchewan 511** (5.9) 481** (5.8) 30* (5.5) Alberta 552 (6.9) 523 (6.3) 29* (5.0) British Columbia 540 (7.0) 510 (7.2) 30* (6.6) * Significant difference within Canada or province. ** Significant difference compared to Canada. PISA 2018 101 Table B.1.13 Average scores by gender: READING BY TEXT STRUCTURE SUBSCALES Girls Boys Text structure subscale Canada and provinces Single text Canada 536 Newfoundland and Labrador 525 Prince Edward Island 513** Nova Scotia 534 (5.3) New Brunswick 502** (5.1) Quebec 530 Ontario 545** Manitoba Saskatchewan Multiple text Average Standard error Average (2.2) 505 (6.3) (10.7) Difference (G–B) Standard error Difference Standard error (2.4) 31* (2.6) 498 (7.0) 27* (7.5) 481 (13.7) 32* (13.2) 490** (6.1) 44* (5.7) 465** (6.0) 38* (6.6) (4.6) 500 (3.9) 30* (4.4) (4.2) 515** (4.7) 30* (4.6) 506** (5.2) 475** (5.0) 31* (5.5) 514** (3.9) 481** (4.7) 33* (4.1) Alberta 545 (5.1) 513 (5.4) 32* (4.8) British Columbia 534 (5.1) 500 (6.0) 34* (5.3) Canada 535 (2.1) 509 (2.4) 25* (2.2) Newfoundland and Labrador 520** (6.0) 501 (6.8) 20* (7.1) Prince Edward Island 515 (10.4) 492 (12.1) 23 (12.4) Nova Scotia 534 (4.8) 498 (6.2) 36* (5.3) New Brunswick 506** (6.1) 478** (6.5) 29* (6.3) Quebec 538 (4.4) 513 (3.9) 25* (3.8) Ontario 535 (3.8) 512 (4.5) 23* (4.3) Manitoba 505** (4.8) 482** (4.2) 23* (5.5) Saskatchewan 510** (3.3) 483** (4.1) 27* (4.3) Alberta 548** (5.0) 519 (5.7) 28* (4.2) British Columbia 536 (5.2) 508 (5.4) 28* (4.8) * Significant difference within Canada or province. ** Significant difference compared to Canada. 102 PISA 2018 Table B.1.14a Comparisons of performance, PISA 2000, 2003, 2006, 2009, 2012, 2015, and 2018: READING Standard error 527 (5.5) 524 (5.2) 523 (6.2) 527 (7.2) 520* (4.4) 517 (2.8) 521 (6.2) 514 (5.9) 506 (6.1) 503 (7.0) 505 (7.6) 512 (5.9) 517 (2.4) 495* (5.8) 497* (5.7) 486* (5.5) 490* (6.5) 515 (9.1) 503 (9.2) Nova Scotia 521 (2.3) 513 (5.8) 505* (6.1) 516 (5.6) 508 (6.7) 517 (8.4) 516 (5.6) New Brunswick 501 (1.8) 503 (5.6) 497 (5.5) 499 (5.5) 497 (6.5) 505 (8.6) 489* (5.3) Quebec 536 (3.0) 525 (6.8) 522 (7.1) 522* (5.8) 520* (6.9) 532 (8.3) 519* (5.4) Ontario 533 (3.3) 530 (6.4) 534 (6.8) 531 528 527 (8.1) 524 (5.4) Manitoba 529 (3.5) 520 (6.3) 516 (6.1) 495* (6.1) 495* (6.8) 498* (8.4) 494* (5.3) Saskatchewan 529 (2.7) 512* (6.8) 507* (6.5) 504* (6.0) 505* (6.5) 496* (7.7) 499* (5.0) Alberta 550 (3.3) 543 (6.8) 535* (6.5) 533* (6.8) 525* (7.2) 533 (8.6) 532* (5.9) British Columbia 538 (2.9) 535 (5.9) 528 (7.5) 525 (6.5) 535 (7.4) 536 (8.8) 519* (6.0) OECD average 500 (0.6) 494 (5.4) 492 (5.0) 493 (5.0) 496 (5.9) 493 (7.2) 487* (4.4) Average (5.6) (7.4) Standard error 528 Average (1.6) (5.8) Standard error 534 Average Canada Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island Average Standard error 2018 Average 2015 Standard error 2012 Average 2009 Standard error 2006 Average 2003 Standard error 2000 Canada, provinces, and OECD average * Significant difference compared with PISA 2000. Note: The linkage error is incorporated into the standard error for 2003, 2006, 2009, 2012, 2015, and 2018. Also, for some provinces, the standard errors from 2000 to 2003, to 2006, and to 2009 differ from those in the previous PISA reports on trend results. These differences are due to the change of the method used by the OECD to compute the linkage error. The composition of the OECD countries varies from cycle to cycle. Table B.1.14b Comparisons of performance, PISA 2009, 2012, 2015, and 2018: READING Canada, provinces, and OECD average 2009 2012 2015 2018 Average Standard error Average Standard error Average Standard error Average Standard error Canada 524 (1.5) 523 (3.2) 527 (4.1) 520 (4.0) Newfoundland and Labrador 506 (3.7) 503 (4.5) 505 (4.9) 512 (5.6) Prince Edward Island 486 (2.4) 490 (3.7) 515* (7.0) 503 (9.0) Nova Scotia 516 (2.7) 508 (4.0) 517 (6.0) 516 (5.2) New Brunswick 499 (2.5) 497 (3.7) 505 (6.3) 489 (5.0) Quebec 522 (3.1) 520 (4.4) 532 (5.8) 519 (5.0) Ontario 531 (3.0) 528 (5.1) 527 (5.6) 524 (5.0) Manitoba 495 (3.6) 495 (4.2) 498 (6.0) 494 (4.9) Saskatchewan 504 (3.3) 505 (3.8) 496 (4.9) 499 (4.6) Alberta 533 (4.6) 525 (4.8) 533 (6.2) 532 (5.5) British Columbia 525 (4.2) 535 (5.2) 536 (6.5) 519 (5.7) OECD average 493 (0.5) 496 (3.3) 493 (4.2) 487 (4.0) * Significant difference compared with PISA 2009. Note: The linkage error is incorporated into the standard error for 2012, 2015, and 2018. The composition of the OECD countries varies from cycle to cycle. PISA 2018 103 Table B.1.15 Proportion of students who performed below Level 2 and at Levels 5 and 6, in PISA 2009 and 2018: READING Below Level 2 Standard error Difference Standard error Difference (0.5) 13.8 (0.5) Newfoundland and Labrador 13.7 (1.6) 15.3 (1.6) 1.6 Prince Edward Island 21.2 (1.1) 18.4 (2.6) -2.8 Nova Scotia 11.1 (1.1) 15.1 (1.3) New Brunswick 16.2 (1.0) 22.0 (1.4) Quebec 10.4 (1.0) 12.3 Ontario 8.4 (0.8) 13.2 Manitoba 17.6 (1.4) Saskatchewan 15.4 (1.5) Alberta 10.0 British Columbia 10.7 Difference 2009–2018 % Standard error 10.3 2018 Standard error % Canada 2009 % Standard error Difference 2009–2018 % Canada and provinces 2018 Standard error 2009 Levels 5 and 6 3.5* (0.9) 12.8 (0.5) 15.0 (0.6) 2.2 (1.2) (2.3) 8.5 (1.1) 12.6 (1.3) 4.1* (2.0) (2.9) 6.9 (0.6) 11.9 (2.2) 5.0* (2.5) 4.0* (1.8) 10.2 (0.9) 14.0 (1.6) 3.7 (2.1) 5.8* (1.8) 7.7 (0.8) 9.3 (1.3) 1.7 (1.9) (0.9) 1.8 (1.5) 10.7 (0.8) 12.8 (1.1) 2.1 (1.7) (1.0) 4.8* (1.4) 14.2 (1.0) 16.4 (1.1) 2.1 (1.8) 19.7 (1.3) 2.1 (2.0) 8.1 (0.8) 9.3 (1.0) 1.2 (1.6) 16.8 (1.1) 1.4 (1.9) 8.7 (1.1) 8.8 (1.0) 0.1 (1.8) (1.2) 11.9 (1.2) 1.9 (1.7) 16.2 (1.6) 18.3 (1.4) 2.1 (2.4) (1.1) 15.1 (1.2) 4.4* (1.7) 13.3 (1.2) 15.8 (1.2) 2.4 (1.9) * Significant difference within Canada or province. 104 PISA 2018 Table B.1.16 Gender differences in student performance, PISA 2009 and 2018: READING Canada and provinces 2009 Gender difference (G–B) 2018 Standard error Gender difference (G–B) Standard error Canada 34* (1.9) 29* (2.1) Newfoundland and Labrador 45* (5.3) 26* (7.3) Prince Edward Island 48* (5.5) 31* (11.9) Nova Scotia 29* (4.7) 40* (5.4) New Brunswick 32* (4.4) 34* (6.3) Quebec 31* (3.9) 29* (3.5) Ontario 36* (3.9) 26* (4.1) Manitoba 32* (7.2) 26* (5.3) Saskatchewan 37* (4.6) 31* (4.1) Alberta 32* (4.9) 32* (4.0) British Columbia 36* (4.5) 33* (4.8) * Significant difference within Canada or province. PISA 2018 105 Table B.2.1a Average index of economic, social, and cultural status (ESCS) Country or province All students Bottom quarter Second quarter Third quarter Top quarter Iceland Score 0.55 Standard error (0.01) Score -0.57 Standard error (0.02) Score 0.41 Standard error (0.01) Score 0.93 Standard error (0.00) Score 1.42 Standard error (0.01) Norway 0.54 (0.02) -0.57 (0.02) 0.39 (0.00) 0.91 (0.00) 1.45 (0.01) Denmark 0.52 (0.01) -0.54 (0.01) 0.40 (0.00) 0.88 (0.00) 1.34 (0.01) Ontario 0.48 (0.03) -0.62 (0.02) 0.29 (0.01) 0.85 (0.01) 1.40 (0.01) Alberta 0.46 (0.03) -0.63 (0.02) 0.23 (0.01) 0.81 (0.01) 1.42 (0.02) British Columbia 0.43 (0.04) -0.66 (0.02) 0.23 (0.01) 0.80 (0.01) 1.36 (0.01) Canada 0.42 (0.01) -0.69 (0.01) 0.21 (0.00) 0.78 (0.00) 1.37 (0.01) Newfoundland and Labrador 0.38 (0.04) -0.74 (0.04) 0.13 (0.01) 0.73 (0.01) 1.38 (0.03) Quebec 0.37 (0.02) -0.71 (0.02) 0.17 (0.01) 0.73 (0.00) 1.30 (0.01) Sweden 0.36 (0.03) -0.87 (0.02) 0.19 (0.01) 0.79 (0.00) 1.33 (0.01) Israel 0.35 (0.03) -0.97 (0.02) 0.13 (0.01) 0.78 (0.00) 1.44 (0.02) Nova Scotia 0.33 (0.03) -0.77 (0.02) 0.13 (0.01) 0.68 (0.01) 1.27 (0.02) Prince Edward Island 0.32 (0.08) -0.72 (0.04) 0.08 (0.03) 0.66 (0.02) 1.27 (0.04) Australia 0.32 (0.01) -0.91 (0.01) 0.07 (0.00) 0.75 (0.00) 1.36 (0.01) Cyprus 0.30 (0.01) -0.94 (0.02) 0.04 (0.02) 0.73 (0.01) 1.37 (0.01) Finland 0.30 (0.02) -0.78 (0.01) 0.06 (0.01) 0.69 (0.00) 1.21 (0.01) Saskatchewan 0.29 (0.02) -0.80 (0.02) 0.02 (0.01) 0.62 (0.01) 1.33 (0.02) Qatar 0.28 (0.01) -0.86 (0.01) 0.18 (0.00) 0.62 (0.00) 1.19 (0.01) Netherlands 0.28 (0.02) -0.91 (0.02) 0.07 (0.01) 0.69 (0.01) 1.26 (0.01) United Arab Emirates 0.28 (0.02) -0.92 (0.01) 0.12 (0.00) 0.66 (0.00) 1.25 (0.01) United Kingdom 0.27 (0.03) -0.95 (0.01) 0.00 (0.00) 0.67 (0.00) 1.37 (0.01) New Brunswick 0.24 (0.03) -0.90 (0.03) -0.03 (0.01) 0.62 (0.01) 1.26 (0.03) Manitoba 0.17 (0.03) -0.98 (0.02) -0.12 (0.01) 0.54 (0.01) 1.25 (0.02) Singapore 0.17 (0.01) -1.10 (0.01) -0.06 (0.01) 0.62 (0.00) 1.22 (0.01) New Zealand 0.16 (0.02) -1.17 (0.01) -0.10 (0.01) 0.63 (0.01) 1.29 (0.01) Russian Federation 0.13 (0.02) -0.85 (0.01) -0.08 (0.00) 0.46 (0.00) 1.00 (0.01) Ireland 0.13 (0.02) -1.01 (0.01) -0.16 (0.00) 0.50 (0.00) 1.19 (0.01) United States 0.11 (0.04) -1.28 (0.03) -0.17 (0.01) 0.57 (0.01) 1.31 (0.01) Estonia 0.08 (0.02) -0.98 (0.01) -0.20 (0.01) 0.44 (0.01) 1.07 (0.01) Slovenia 0.07 (0.01) -0.97 (0.01) -0.24 (0.01) 0.42 (0.01) 1.07 (0.01) Korea 0.07 (0.02) -0.97 (0.01) -0.13 (0.00) 0.39 (0.00) 1.00 (0.01) Belgium 0.07 (0.02) -1.17 (0.01) -0.22 (0.01) 0.50 (0.00) 1.18 (0.01) Malta 0.06 (0.01) -1.19 (0.01) -0.29 (0.01) 0.47 (0.01) 1.26 (0.01) Lithuania 0.03 (0.01) -1.13 (0.01) -0.28 (0.01) 0.46 (0.00) 1.06 (0.01) Austria 0.01 (0.02) -1.10 (0.02) -0.29 (0.01) 0.31 (0.01) 1.14 (0.01) Luxembourg 0.01 (0.01) -1.56 (0.01) -0.32 (0.01) 0.56 (0.01) 1.37 (0.01) Latvia 0.00 (0.01) -1.11 (0.01) -0.29 (0.01) 0.39 (0.01) 1.01 (0.01) Switzerland -0.01 (0.03) -1.25 (0.02) -0.29 (0.01) 0.39 (0.01) 1.10 (0.01) France -0.03 (0.02) -1.22 (0.02) -0.30 (0.01) 0.34 (0.00) 1.04 (0.01) Japan -0.09 (0.01) -1.05 (0.01) -0.31 (0.00) 0.19 (0.00) 0.81 (0.01) Germany -0.10 (0.03) -1.48 (0.02) -0.41 (0.01) 0.33 (0.01) 1.17 (0.01) Greece -0.11 (0.02) -1.30 (0.01) -0.45 (0.01) 0.27 (0.01) 1.05 (0.01) Hungary -0.12 (0.02) -1.29 (0.02) -0.47 (0.01) 0.23 (0.01) 1.06 (0.01) Spain -0.12 (0.02) -1.54 (0.01) -0.42 (0.00) 0.34 (0.00) 1.12 (0.01) Belarus -0.13 (0.02) -1.14 (0.01) -0.42 (0.01) 0.23 (0.00) 0.82 (0.01) Poland -0.14 (0.02) -1.16 (0.01) -0.57 (0.01) 0.14 (0.01) 1.02 (0.01) 106 PISA 2018 Table B.2.1a (cont’d) Average index of economic, social, and cultural status (ESCS) Country or province All students Bottom quarter Second quarter Third quarter Top quarter Montenegro Score -0.18 Standard error (0.01) Score -1.29 Standard error (0.01) Score -0.50 Standard error (0.00) Score 0.15 Standard error (0.00) Score 0.92 Standard error (0.01) Ukraine -0.20 (0.02) -1.21 (0.01) -0.48 (0.01) 0.11 (0.00) 0.76 (0.01) Czech Republic -0.21 (0.02) -1.26 (0.02) -0.57 (0.00) 0.04 (0.01) 0.95 (0.01) Slovak Republic -0.21 (0.02) -1.36 (0.03) -0.55 (0.01) 0.12 (0.01) 0.95 (0.01) Italy -0.22 (0.02) -1.37 (0.01) -0.57 (0.01) 0.07 (0.01) 0.99 (0.01) Croatia -0.23 (0.01) -1.17 (0.01) -0.57 (0.00) 0.00 (0.01) 0.81 (0.01) Serbia -0.24 (0.02) -1.28 (0.01) -0.57 (0.00) 0.07 (0.01) 0.83 (0.01) Bulgaria -0.26 (0.04) -1.57 (0.04) -0.60 (0.01) 0.18 (0.01) 0.97 (0.01) Brunei Darussalam -0.26 (0.01) -1.50 (0.01) -0.60 (0.00) 0.08 (0.00) 0.96 (0.01) Chinese Taipei -0.32 (0.02) -1.50 (0.01) -0.64 (0.01) 0.05 (0.01) 0.83 (0.01) Republic of North Macedonia -0.32 (0.01) -1.47 (0.01) -0.65 (0.01) 0.02 (0.01) 0.81 (0.01) Portugal -0.39 (0.03) -1.91 (0.01) -0.84 (0.01) 0.11 (0.01) 1.09 (0.01) Georgia -0.41 (0.02) -1.59 (0.01) -0.75 (0.01) -0.08 (0.01) 0.79 (0.01) Kazakhstan -0.44 (0.02) -1.53 (0.01) -0.77 (0.00) -0.11 (0.00) 0.65 (0.01) Kosovo -0.46 (0.02) -1.58 (0.01) -0.78 (0.01) -0.17 (0.01) 0.68 (0.01) Romania -0.47 (0.05) -1.64 (0.03) -0.85 (0.00) -0.19 (0.01) 0.83 (0.02) Hong Kong (China) -0.51 (0.03) -1.81 (0.02) -0.90 (0.01) -0.18 (0.01) 0.85 (0.02) Macao (China) -0.52 (0.01) -1.65 (0.01) -0.86 (0.01) -0.23 (0.01) 0.67 (0.01) Baku (Azerbaijan) -0.56 (0.03) -1.69 (0.01) -0.93 (0.01) -0.23 (0.01) 0.63 (0.01) Bosnia and Herzegovina -0.56 (0.02) -1.53 (0.01) -0.91 (0.00) -0.36 (0.00) 0.57 (0.01) Lebanon -0.57 (0.03) -2.11 (0.02) -0.90 (0.01) -0.09 (0.01) 0.83 (0.02) Chile -0.58 (0.03) -1.86 (0.02) -0.99 (0.00) -0.26 (0.01) 0.78 (0.01) Moldova -0.59 (0.02) -1.74 (0.01) -0.97 (0.00) -0.30 (0.01) 0.63 (0.01) Jordan -0.66 (0.03) -2.13 (0.02) -1.03 (0.01) -0.18 (0.01) 0.69 (0.02) B-S-J-Z (China) -0.67 (0.03) -1.98 (0.02) -1.14 (0.01) -0.30 (0.01) 0.77 (0.01) Saudi Arabia -0.70 (0.04) -2.29 (0.02) -1.11 (0.01) -0.17 (0.01) 0.76 (0.01) Malaysia -0.77 (0.03) -2.03 (0.02) -1.23 (0.00) -0.46 (0.01) 0.66 (0.01) Albania -0.87 (0.03) -2.07 (0.01) -1.26 (0.00) -0.57 (0.01) 0.42 (0.01) Argentina -0.95 (0.03) -2.50 (0.02) -1.38 (0.01) -0.49 (0.01) 0.56 (0.01) Costa Rica -0.96 (0.04) -2.71 (0.02) -1.44 (0.01) -0.42 (0.01) 0.72 (0.02) Uruguay -0.99 (0.04) -2.43 (0.02) -1.43 (0.01) -0.66 (0.01) 0.56 (0.03) Dominican Republic -1.06 (0.04) -2.48 (0.02) -1.45 (0.01) -0.72 (0.01) 0.39 (0.02) Panama -1.09 (0.04) -2.86 (0.03) -1.56 (0.01) -0.55 (0.01) 0.60 (0.02) Brazil -1.10 (0.03) -2.72 (0.02) -1.50 (0.01) -0.65 (0.01) 0.46 (0.02) Peru -1.12 (0.04) -2.60 (0.02) -1.52 (0.01) -0.78 (0.01) 0.41 (0.02) Turkey -1.15 (0.04) -2.59 (0.01) -1.65 (0.00) -0.82 (0.01) 0.47 (0.04) Colombia -1.19 (0.04) -2.81 (0.02) -1.61 (0.01) -0.78 (0.01) 0.45 (0.03) Mexico -1.19 (0.04) -2.76 (0.03) -1.70 (0.01) -0.77 (0.01) 0.48 (0.02) Thailand -1.30 (0.04) -2.70 (0.02) -1.77 (0.01) -1.01 (0.01) 0.29 (0.02) Philippines -1.42 (0.04) -2.86 (0.02) -1.77 (0.01) -1.08 (0.01) 0.03 (0.03) Indonesia -1.57 (0.05) -2.94 (0.02) -1.99 (0.01) -1.24 (0.01) -0.10 (0.02) Vietnam -1.62 (0.05) -2.89 (0.03) -2.05 (0.01) -1.38 (0.01) -0.16 (0.03) Morocco -1.89 (0.06) -3.62 (0.02) -2.51 (0.01) -1.43 (0.01) 0.01 (0.03) OECD average -0.03 (0.00) -1.25 (0.00) -0.33 (0.00) 0.35 0.00 1.10 (0.00) Note: Countries and provinces have been sorted in descending order by ESCS score. B-S-J-Z (China) represents Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, and Zhejiang. See OECD 2019b, p. 21, for a note regarding Cyprus. PISA 2018 107 Table B.2.1b Average scores by index of economic, social, and cultural status (ESCS): READING 108 Standard error Average Standard error Average Standard error Difference Standard error Difference Standard error % Standard error Top quarter Average Third quarter Explained variance in student performance (r² x 100) Standard error Macao (China) Kosovo Kazakhstan Baku (Azerbaijan) Morocco Indonesia Montenegro Newfoundland and Labrador Bosnia and Herzegovina Manitoba Hong Kong (China) Estonia Albania British Columbia Ontario Croatia New Brunswick Nova Scotia Jordan Dominican Republic Latvia Russian Federation Canada Georgia Thailand Cyprus Quebec Japan Iceland Serbia Norway Saskatchewan Saudi Arabia Ireland Italy Korea Turkey Alberta Prince Edward Island Denmark Finland United Kingdom Slovenia Republic of North Macedonia Mexico Second quarter Change in the average score per one (integer) unit change in the ESCS index Average Country or province Bottom quarter Difference (top quarter– bottom quarter) 511 339 368 371 340 350 396 (2.5) (2.2) (1.8) (2.2) (3.1) (3.1) (2.1) 524 347 380 385 351 362 411 (3.0) (2.1) (1.6) (2.1) (3.3) (2.9) (1.9) 524 350 392 393 357 371 428 (3.2) (2.1) (1.8) (2.7) (3.6) (3.2) (2.3) 542 378 408 412 391 402 451 (3.1) (2.6) (2.8) (5.9) (4.1) (5.9) (2.1) 31* 40* 40* 41* 51* 52* 55* (4.1) (3.5) (3.1) (5.9) (4.5) (6.9) (3.0) 13* 17* 19* 17* 14* 19* 24* (1.6) (1.3) (1.4) (2.4) (1.2) (2.2) (1.3) 1.7 4.9 4.3 4.3 7.1 7.8 5.8 (0.4) (0.7) (0.6) (1.1) (1.2) (1.7) (0.6) 491 (8.1) 514 (7.5) 528 (7.0) 546 (7.9) 55* (9.7) 26* (4.4) 5.1 (1.8) 373 (2.7) 402 (3.8) 408 (3.1) 431 (4.4) 58* (4.6) 26* (1.9) 7.3 (1.0) 468 497 497 377 483 492 455 460 480 390 319 447 443 485 350 369 389 482 465 437 407 459 465 362 482 436 477 437 492 471 462 483 471 462 (5.6) (3.7) (3.7) (2.5) (6.0) (4.7) (3.2) (6.1) (6.0) (4.3) (2.5) (2.8) (4.4) (2.3) (2.9) (2.4) (2.9) (4.4) (4.2) (3.6) (4.2) (3.5) (5.3) (4.4) (3.0) (3.5) (3.9) (3.8) (6.6) (13.1) (2.7) (3.0) (3.1) (2.6) 487 523 509 402 515 518 463 477 510 411 333 470 469 512 367 377 416 510 499 463 429 496 491 392 511 474 503 452 521 485 493 509 493 476 (5.2) (3.4) (3.1) (2.3) (5.0) (4.6) (3.3) (6.1) (6.0) (3.3) (3.1) (2.9) (3.1) (2.3) (3.4) (2.8) (2.6) (4.1) (3.2) (4.0) (4.1) (3.1) (4.4) (3.5) (3.0) (2.8) (3.6) (3.1) (6.1) (13.1) (2.8) (2.6) (2.9) (2.7) 503 529 532 406 541 542 480 500 537 427 336 490 493 539 386 388 439 538 517 495 445 520 510 409 527 487 525 461 553 510 514 533 516 506 (4.7) (3.4) (2.5) (2.7) (5.9) (4.8) (3.1) (6.2) (5.8) (3.3) (3.4) (3.1) (3.2) (2.6) (2.6) (3.5) (2.8) (4.6) (3.4) (3.4) (3.7) (2.8) (5.0) (2.8) (2.8) (3.2) (3.8) (3.0) (4.4) (10.3) (2.8) (3.2) (2.8) (2.9) 526 555 558 438 544 555 518 524 543 453 383 512 510 553 418 438 459 554 537 510 480 532 539 437 557 511 552 513 568 549 540 562 550 541 (5.7) (4.7) (2.9) (3.9) (8.1) (4.5) (3.5) (7.2) (7.6) (4.1) (5.7) (3.0) (4.2) (2.5) (3.8) (5.6) (3.0) (4.8) (3.7) (4.0) (4.6) (3.4) (4.8) (4.0) (3.0) (3.9) (4.3) (4.0) (6.4) (11.1) (2.8) (3.7) (3.9) (3.0) 58* (8.0) 59* (6.0) 61* (4.6) 61* (4.7) 61* (9.9) 63* (5.9) 63* (3.9) 63* (10.2) 63* (7.7) 64* (5.6) 65* (6.3) 65* (3.9) 67* (5.4) 68* (3.3) 68* (4.5) 69* (6.0) 69* (4.6) 71* (6.1) 72* (5.6) 72* (5.7) 73* (5.8) 73* (4.6) 74* (6.8) 74* (6.2) 75* (4.2) 75* (5.1) 75* (5.7) 76* (6.0) 76* (9.3) 78* (16.6) 78* (3.7) 79* (4.7) 80* (4.7) 80* (3.9) 24* 21* 29* 23* 31* 27* 32* 29* 31* 21* 22* 29* 34* 32* 28* 24* 28* 36* 38* 33* 33* 35* 33* 24* 34* 32* 37* 25* 38* 36* 38* 38* 33* 41* (3.2) (2.2) (2.1) (1.8) (4.3) (2.9) (1.8) (4.4) (4.2) (1.9) (2.1) (1.7) (2.6) (1.6) (1.8) (2.0) (1.7) (2.9) (2.8) (2.7) (2.5) (2.0) (3.1) (1.9) (1.7) (1.9) (2.8) (1.8) (4.0) (9.6) (1.8) (2.2) (1.8) (1.8) 4.6 5.1 6.2 7.8 5.7 4.8 7.7 5.6 6.1 7.7 8.9 7.2 7.3 6.7 9.4 12.0 6.8 9.4 8.0 6.6 7.8 7.5 8.7 11.5 10.7 8.9 8.0 11.4 9.2 7.9 9.9 9.2 9.3 12.1 (1.2) (1.1) (0.8) (1.1) (1.5) (0.9) (0.8) (1.7) (1.4) (1.2) (1.6) (0.8) (1.0) (0.6) (1.1) (2.0) (0.8) (1.4) (1.2) (1.0) (1.2) (0.9) (1.5) (1.7) (1.1) (1.0) (1.1) (1.8) (1.9) (3.1) (0.9) (1.0) (1.0) (1.0) 359 (2.8) 382 (2.8) 397 (3.0) 439 (2.7) 80* (4.0) 33* (1.6) 10.2 (0.9) 382 (2.8) 413 (3.3) 426 (4.0) 464 (4.9) 82* (5.7) 25* (1.7) 13.7 (1.7) PISA 2018 Table B.2.1b (cont’d) Average scores by index of economic, social, and cultural status (ESCS): READING Standard error Average Standard error Average Standard error Difference Standard error Difference Standard error % Standard error Top quarter Average Third quarter Explained variance in student performance (r² x 100) Standard error B-S-J-Z (China) Costa Rica Greece Malta Colombia Chile Philippines Netherlands Sweden Australia Malaysia Chinese Taipei Lithuania Ukraine Poland Qatar Austria Portugal Panama New Zealand Brazil United States Uruguay Belarus Moldova Argentina Brunei Darussalam Lebanon Singapore Switzerland United Arab Emirates Czech Republic Bulgaria Slovak Republic France Romania Belgium Peru Germany Hungary Israel Luxembourg OECD average Second quarter Change in the average score per one (integer) unit change in the ESCS index Average Country or province Bottom quarter Difference (top quarter– bottom quarter) 519 392 417 406 373 415 301 448 460 460 377 461 432 422 469 360 440 448 337 462 373 460 379 423 374 353 364 307 495 435 377 439 369 404 443 375 440 349 450 420 407 415 445 (3.7) (2.6) (4.1) (3.4) (3.5) (3.0) (2.1) (4.8) (4.3) (2.3) (3.0) (2.9) (2.6) (4.6) (3.1) (1.4) (3.7) (4.1) (3.4) (3.0) (2.3) (4.6) (3.6) (3.1) (2.9) (3.6) (1.8) (4.1) (2.7) (3.8) (1.6) (4.3) (4.8) (3.9) (2.7) (5.1) (2.8) (2.9) (4.3) (3.4) (4.2) (2.3) (0.6) 545 410 444 442 398 443 330 470 501 490 401 492 465 456 504 395 475 480 364 490 397 488 414 458 414 387 390 341 535 469 414 481 403 449 474 417 476 385 492 463 455 445 476 (2.7) (2.8) (3.9) (3.5) (4.2) (3.4) (2.4) (4.2) (3.5) (2.4) (3.0) (2.8) (2.8) (3.6) (3.1) (1.8) (3.3) (3.4) (3.1) (2.8) (2.8) (4.0) (3.2) (3.6) (3.2) (3.5) (1.9) (4.5) (2.8) (3.6) (2.2) (3.2) (4.9) (3.1) (3.4) (4.7) (3.2) (3.0) (3.5) (3.2) (4.8) (2.4) (0.5) 558 429 468 460 419 455 339 495 526 519 417 510 488 476 518 429 496 501 379 525 419 517 439 489 433 416 414 362 570 499 461 498 438 468 509 437 512 410 518 489 507 488 500 (2.9) (4.5) (4.0) (3.6) (4.0) (3.2) (3.1) (3.6) (3.6) (2.7) (3.1) (3.6) (2.8) (3.7) (3.8) (1.7) (3.5) (3.2) (3.2) (3.2) (2.6) (3.6) (3.9) (2.5) (3.0) (3.4) (2.3) (5.9) (2.5) (3.2) (2.3) (3.0) (4.5) (3.0) (3.3) (4.8) (3.1) (3.2) (4.0) (3.2) (4.1) (2.7) (0.5) 600 476 502 491 459 502 389 536 549 549 466 550 522 511 560 453 533 543 432 558 470 558 478 525 476 455 466 410 599 539 482 544 475 511 550 484 550 458 564 534 529 537 534 (4.0) (4.6) (4.2) (3.6) (5.2) (3.4) (6.3) (4.0) (4.1) (2.3) (4.8) (4.3) (2.3) (3.7) (4.6) (1.8) (3.4) (3.2) (5.5) (3.3) (3.8) (4.7) (4.1) (3.5) (4.7) (4.1) (2.1) (7.5) (3.4) (5.4) (4.0) (3.2) (5.0) (3.9) (3.9) (5.7) (2.2) (4.3) (4.0) (4.0) (4.1) (3.0) (0.6) 82* 83* 84* 85* 86* 87* 88* 88* 89* 89* 89* 89* 89* 90* 90* 93* 93* 95* 95* 96* 97* 99* 99* 102* 102* 102* 103* 103* 104* 104* 105* 105* 106* 106* 107* 108* 109* 110* 113* 113* 121* 122* 89* (5.4) (4.9) (5.2) (4.7) (6.5) (4.3) (6.4) (5.9) (5.9) (2.8) (5.6) (4.8) (3.5) (5.7) (5.7) (2.3) (5.0) (4.7) (6.5) (4.4) (4.4) (6.3) (5.7) (4.7) (5.3) (5.4) (2.7) (7.7) (3.8) (6.6) (4.1) (5.4) (6.2) (5.7) (5.0) (7.0) (3.1) (4.9) (5.4) (5.4) (5.4) (4.1) (0.8) 29* 24* 35* 32* 26* 32* 30* 39* 39* 38* 33* 37* 40* 45* 39* 38* 40* 31* 27* 39* 30* 36* 33* 51* 42* 34* 40* 34* 43* 43* 43* 45* 39* 46* 47* 43* 46* 36* 42* 46* 47* 40* 37* (1.8) (1.5) (2.1) (1.9) (1.8) (1.5) (2.2) (2.5) (2.2) (1.2) (2.0) (2.0) (1.6) (2.5) (2.6) (1.1) (1.9) (1.4) (1.7) (1.6) (1.3) (2.1) (1.7) (2.2) (2.1) (1.6) (1.0) (2.4) (1.5) (2.3) (1.7) (2.1) (2.6) (2.0) (2.0) (2.6) (1.3) (1.4) (1.7) (2.2) (1.9) (1.2) (0.3) 12.6 15.6 10.9 7.6 13.7 12.7 18.0 10.5 10.7 10.1 16.3 11.4 13.2 14.0 11.6 8.6 13.0 13.5 17.0 12.9 14.0 12.0 16.0 19.8 17.3 17.1 16.0 12.2 13.2 15.6 11.1 16.5 15.0 17.5 17.5 18.1 17.2 21.5 17.2 19.1 14.0 17.8 12.0 (1.3) (1.6) (1.2) (0.9) (1.8) (1.1) (2.1) (1.3) (1.2) (0.6) (1.8) (1.1) (1.0) (1.4) (1.4) (0.5) (1.2) (1.2) (1.9) (1.0) (1.1) (1.4) (1.6) (1.5) (1.5) (1.5) (0.8) (1.7) (0.9) (1.6) (0.8) (1.4) (1.6) (1.5) (1.3) (2.1) (0.8) (1.6) (1.4) (1.7) (1.0) (1.0) (0.2) Note: Countries and provinces have been sorted in ascending order by the difference in score points between the bottom and top quarters. B-S-J-Z (China) represents Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, and Zhejiang. See OECD 2019b, p. 21, for a note regarding Cyprus. Reading scores for Spain are not included in the international PISA reports: due to implausible student-response behaviours on the reading assessment in a small number of schools in some regions of Spain, the OECD is unable to assure full international comparability of the results. The data for Vietnam have not yet been fully validated: due to a lack of consistency in the response pattern of some performance data, the OECD cannot yet assure full international comparability of the results. PISA 2018 109 Canada Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia New Brunswick Quebec Ontario Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta British Columbia Canada Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia New Brunswick Quebec Ontario Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta British Columbia Canada Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia New Brunswick Quebec Ontario Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta British Columbia Canada and provinces * Significant difference within Canada or province. Evaluate and reflect Understand Locate information Cognitive process subscale Average 484 484 467 474 461 485 489 469 463 489 482 486 493 470 478 455 478 496 463 465 492 482 488 491 467 474 462 490 499 461 453 490 483 Standard error (2.9) (12.7) (18.5) (7.3) (8.7) (7.2) (5.1) (7.6) (7.8) (7.2) (7.6) (2.5) (9.4) (12.2) (6.6) (7.0) (5.1) (5.6) (5.8) (5.7) (7.2) (6.7) (3.3) (11.9) (14.6) (9.2) (8.9) (5.8) (5.9) (7.1) (7.9) (8.6) (8.7) Average 510 507 479 506 477 509 514 488 490 519 514 511 510 481 506 470 507 522 484 490 518 512 518 515 483 507 482 520 528 486 487 525 519 Standard error (2.9) (11.5) (20.0) (9.3) (9.4) (5.8) (4.6) (7.4) (8.4) (7.8) (5.8) (2.4) (8.9) (14.2) (5.9) (7.8) (4.5) (4.6) (5.4) (4.6) (6.1) (5.5) (2.7) (9.8) (20.8) (7.3) (8.4) (5.3) (5.0) (6.5) (6.3) (7.9) (5.8) Average 535 519 512 533 500 538 535 504 505 547 538 539 527 505 534 495 536 544 498 509 552 539 548 535 515 537 508 550 551 504 507 563 548 Average 548 536 552 539 524 549 548 527 536 562 542 553 545 541 538 517 551 557 522 536 566 540 565 559 553 547 536 566 568 530 543 581 554 (2.9) (13.6) (22.3) (9.8) (11.0) (6.5) (5.7) (8.5) (7.8) (7.0) (8.6) (2.6) (8.8) (12.3) (8.8) (8.8) (4.9) (4.9) (5.1) (5.5) (6.8) (8.6) (3.2) (11.7) (16.0) (9.9) (8.2) (5.3) (5.8) (6.0) (6.2) (8.4) (10.0) Standard error (3.0) (15.0) (17.2) (9.3) (9.5) (6.0) (5.1) (7.6) (8.1) (6.0) (6.8) (2.7) (8.9) (11.7) (6.8) (7.0) (4.7) (5.2) (5.0) (6.0) (5.2) (6.8) (2.9) (10.2) (18.3) (8.8) (7.9) (5.0) (5.3) (5.9) (6.8) (5.9) (7.8) Top quarter Third quarter Difference 64* 53* 85* 65* 64* 64* 59* 58* 73* 73* 60* 67* 53* 71* 60* 62* 73* 61* 59* 71* 73* 58* 77* 68* 86* 73* 74* 77* 69* 69* 89* 91* 71* (3.6) (11.4) (17.8) (8.5) (10.0) (9.2) (6.6) (8.1) (7.8) (8.9) (10.3) (3.5) (10.7) (16.7) (9.4) (11.1) (6.9) (6.9) (7.5) (8.6) (9.9) (10.4) (4.8) (11.7) (15.7) (11.3) (10.9) (7.8) (7.7) (8.6) (8.5) (11.6) (12.0) Standard error Second quarter Change in the average score per one (integer) unit change in the ESCS index 30* 25* 41* 32* 29* 34* 26* 24* 33* 36* 31* 31* 25* 34* 29* 28* 37* 26* 24* 32* 37* 30* 36* 33* 42* 35* 34* 39* 30* 29* 40* 46* 36* Difference Difference (top quarter– bottom quarter) (1.7) (5.5) (9.8) (4.4) (4.3) (4.1) (3.2) (3.4) (3.7) (4.1) (4.6) (1.7) (4.9) (9.6) (4.6) (4.7) (3.3) (3.3) (3.1) (4.0) (4.3) (4.6) (2.4) (5.4) (8.6) (5.7) (4.8) (3.5) (3.8) (3.7) (3.8) (5.2) (5.3) Standard error Bottom quarter Standard error Average scores by index of economic, social, and cultural status (ESCS): READING BY COGNITIVE PROCESS SUBSCALES Explained variance in student performance (r² x 100) 6.1 5.4 9.9 7.2 5.9 7.3 4.6 4.6 8.4 8.4 5.7 6.1 4.6 6.7 5.4 5.2 9.3 4.2 4.3 7.6 8.4 5.0 7.4 7.2 9.2 7.3 6.7 9.4 5.2 5.7 10.7 10.9 6.7 % Table B.2.2 (0.7) (2.2) (3.5) (1.8) (1.6) (1.7) (1.1) (1.2) (1.7) (1.9) (1.6) (0.6) (1.8) (3.1) (1.4) (1.7) (1.5) (1.0) (1.1) (1.7) (1.9) (1.5) (0.9) (2.3) (3.1) (2.0) (1.8) (1.5) (1.2) (1.4) (1.9) (2.4) (1.8) Standard error 110 PISA 2018 Canada Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia New Brunswick Quebec Ontario Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta British Columbia Canada Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia New Brunswick Quebec Ontario Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta British Columbia Canada and provinces * Significant difference within Canada or province. Multiple text Single text Text structure subscale Average 484 488 463 475 454 476 496 460 460 487 480 487 490 471 481 464 488 492 469 463 495 484 Standard error (2.6) (8.6) (12.8) (6.9) (7.3) (5.0) (5.3) (6.6) (6.1) (7.2) (6.7) (2.5) (9.1) (13.0) (6.6) (7.0) (5.3) (5.0) (5.7) (5.7) (7.0) (6.5) Standard error Average 511 (2.6) 512 (8.7) 479 (15.9) 506 (7.6) 470 (6.7) 506 (4.6) 524 (5.0) 483 (5.7) 489 (5.1) 519 (6.3) 511 (5.2) 513 (2.4) 511 (9.0) 487 (14.2) 511 (7.0) 479 (7.9) 517 (4.7) 519 (4.4) 487 (5.5) 488 (4.6) 523 (6.4) 517 (5.4) Top quarter Third quarter Standard error Average 540 (2.5) 527 (8.7) 506 (13.6) 535 (6.4) 495 (7.1) 535 (4.7) 548 (5.0) 500 (5.9) 508 (5.5) 553 (5.2) 539 (6.6) 541 (2.8) 527 (7.8) 512 (13.1) 538 (6.3) 503 (7.2) 545 (5.1) 542 (5.1) 502 (5.2) 506 (5.4) 555 (5.6) 544 (6.4) Average 556 (2.8) 548 (9.8) 545 (13.5) 541 (7.9) 520 (7.9) 551 (5.3) 563 (5.1) 525 (5.8) 539 (6.0) 567 (6.8) 543 (8.5) 555 (2.6) 545 (8.7) 548 (11.8) 544 (8.6) 527 (8.7) 561 (4.8) 555 (4.8) 524 (4.9) 536 (4.8) 569 (6.9) 547 (8.4) Difference 72* 60* 82* 66* 66* 75* 67* 65* 79* 80* 63* 68* 55* 77* 63* 63* 73* 62* 55* 73* 74* 62* (3.6) (12.1) (16.8) (8.0) (10.3) (6.5) (6.6) (7.9) (8.1) (9.4) (10.0) (3.4) (10.2) (15.7) (8.8) (10.3) (7.0) (6.4) (7.3) (7.5) (9.1) (10.1) Standard error Second quarter Change in the average score per one (integer) unit change in the ESCS index 34* 28* 40* 32* 30* 38* 28* 27* 36* 40* 32* 32* 27* 37* 30* 28* 38* 27* 23* 33* 37* 32* Difference Difference (top quarter– bottom quarter) (1.8) (5.2) (9.6) (4.6) (4.6) (3.0) (3.2) (3.2) (3.6) (4.2) (4.4) (1.6) (4.6) (8.8) (4.6) (4.4) (3.4) (3.1) (3.0) (3.3) (4.0) (4.5) Standard error Bottom quarter Standard error Average scores by index of economic, social, and cultural status (ESCS): READING BY TEXT STRUCTURE SUBSCALES Explained variance in student performance (r² x 100) 7.1 5.8 8.8 6.5 6.0 10.0 4.9 5.3 9.4 9.8 5.9 6.5 5.3 8.4 6.0 5.4 9.3 4.6 4.0 8.2 8.6 5.9 % Table B.2.3 (0.7) (2.1) (3.4) (1.5) (1.8) (1.5) (1.0) (1.3) (1.7) (2.0) (1.5) (0.7) (1.8) (3.1) (1.5) (1.6) (1.7) (1.0) (1.0) (1.5) (1.9) (1.6) Standard error PISA 2018 111 Table B.2.4a Percentage of students by immigrant status Canada, provinces, and OECD average Non-immigrant students Immigrant students Canada Standard error (1.4) Newfoundland and Labrador 96.7 (0.7) (0.7) U‡ (0.3) 2.5‡ (0.6) Prince Edward Island 86.9 (1.9) 13.1 (1.9) U‡ (0.8) 11.0‡ (1.8) Nova Scotia 92.4 (0.8) 7.6 (0.8) 2.0‡ (0.4) 5.6 (0.7) New Brunswick 93.8 (0.9) 6.2 (0.9) 0.7‡ (0.2) 5.5 (0.9) Quebec 75.8 (2.7) 24.2 (2.7) 11.1 (1.3) 13.1 (1.5) Ontario 55.5 (3.2) 44.5 (3.2) 26.7 (2.0) 17.8 (1.6) Manitoba 69.4 (1.5) 30.6 (1.5) 9.2 (0.7) 21.4 (1.3) Saskatchewan 78.8 (1.7) 21.2 (1.7) 4.2 (0.6) 17.0 (1.3) Alberta 64.8 (2.1) 35.2 (2.1) 13.5 (1.3) 21.7 (1.3) British Columbia 59.4 (2.6) 40.6 (2.6) 19.7 (1.9) 20.9 (2.0) OECD average 87.0 (0.1) 13.0 (0.1) 7.7 (0.1) 5.4 (0.1) 3.3‡ % 17.9 Standard error (0.9) First-generation immigrant students % 65.0 % 35.0 Standard error (1.4) Second-generation immigrant students % 17.1 Standard error (0.8) ‡ There are fewer than 30 observations. U Too unreliable to be published. 112 PISA 2018 519 507** (8.6) 518 489** (3.7) 529 528 497** (3.9) 506** (3.2) 536** (4.5) 525 494** (0.4) Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia New Brunswick Quebec Ontario Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta British Columbia OECD average ‡ There are fewer than 30 observations. * Significant difference within Canada, province, or OECD. ** Significant difference compared to Canada. (4.3) (3.7) (2.7) (3.7) (4.5) 525 Average Canada Average (14.3) (13.3) (18.4) (7.1) 451** (2.1) 518 533** (5.4) 494** (5.0) 500** (4.7) 529** (5.0) 500** (9.1) 519 521 488 524‡ (27.1) 522 Average (9.8) (8.3) (5.9) (7.7) 459** (2.7) 532 551** (7.6) 531 524 540 507** (10.3) 510‡ (42.2) 521‡ (23.3) 531‡ (48.9) 569‡ (58.6) 535 (3.9) Average (6.4) (9.5) (14.9) (15.5) (9.4) 440** (2.7) 505 521** (5.9) 485** (5.8) 490** (5.0) 512 495 520 520 479‡ (20.4) 510‡ (31.0) 508 (3.6) Standard error (3.0) Standard error (1.6) Secondgeneration immigrant students Standard error Immigrant students Difference (12.9) (20.4) (27.0) (2.9) Standard error -43* -7 -3 -12* 4 1 -29* (2.1) (6.9) (5.0) (5.3) (5.3) (5.3) (8.8) 30* (15.0) 3 -19 5 -3 -36* 7 16* 25* 27* 12* -22* 21 4 24 50 11* Difference Canada, provinces, and OECD average Firstgeneration immigrant students Standard error Nonimmigrant students (2.7) (7.4) (7.3) (9.9) (8.4) (6.0) (9.9) (43.2) (22.6) (53.1) (59.2) (3.7) Standard error Difference (secondgeneration students–nonimmigrant students) Difference (firstgeneration students–nonimmigrant students) (15.4) (20.8) (30.5) (3.6) -54* -20* -14* -21* -7 -15* -34* (2.7) (9.4) (5.7) (6.1) (5.7) (7.0) (9.2) 31* (15.3) 3 -28 -9 -17* Difference Difference (immigrant students–nonimmigrant students) Standard error Average scores by immigrant status: READING Difference (firstgeneration students– secondgeneration students) (9.0) (7.4) (7.8) (43.7) (26.8) (55.3) (66.9) (4.5) (8.1) -19* (3.8) -28* (10.1) -30* -46* (11.7) -34* -28* -12 9 -1 -52 -59 -28* Difference Table B.2.4b Standard error PISA 2018 113 Canada and provinces ‡ There are fewer than 30 observations. * Significant difference within Canada or province. ** Significant difference compared to Canada. Canada Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia New Brunswick Quebec Ontario Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta British Columbia Understand Canada Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia New Brunswick Quebec Ontario Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta British Columbia Evaluate and reflect Canada Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia New Brunswick Quebec Ontario Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta British Columbia Locate information Cognitive process subscale Standard error (2.6) (11.4) (17.0) (7.2) (7.9) (4.6) (4.4) (6.3) (6.8) (5.3) (5.6) (1.7) (6.4) (8.1) (4.3) (5.3) (3.2) (3.8) (4.1) (3.5) (5.3) (4.8) (2.0) (8.8) (15.3) (6.5) (6.3) (3.9) (3.9) (5.0) (5.4) (6.2) (6.0) 511 505 513 490** 528 523 497** 504** 532 525 522 518 500** 514 483** 526 528** 490** 504** 532 521 531 524 505 517** 496** 540** 537 495** 503** 541 528 Average 522 Average (27.3) (16.7) (18.0) (9.8) (5.3) (9.7) (8.9) (8.3) (8.0) (3.5) (19.3) (13.3) (16.1) (9.5) (5.6) (5.0) (5.0) (5.8) (8.0) (4.1) 502 519 528 509** 540** 501** 489** 540 527 (23.9) (16.0) (16.4) (10.4) (6.4) (9.5) (7.5) (8.4) (9.6) 550‡ (29.1) 496 518 514 499** 535** 499** 494** 535 518 531 532‡ (26.6) 489 511 512 502 523 501 490** 528 515 525 515‡ (29.1) 518 Average (52.8) (31.7) (47.3) (11.0) (5.9) (13.8) (13.4) (9.6) (9.6) (4.1) (54.9) (22.9) (42.1) (11.0) (6.2) (8.4) (10.0) (7.9) (7.9) (5.1) 541‡ 519‡ 524‡ 516** 550 521 531 560 537 (57.5) (25.9) (48.7) (13.3) (7.3) (11.6) (13.1) (10.3) (10.9) 573‡ (50.4) 544‡ 517‡ 498‡ 507** 545** 519** 533 553 531 544 570‡ (54.2) 544‡ 508‡ 499‡ 509 533 525 525 549 527 538 554‡ (56.4) 530 Average (28.3) (16.3) (18.7) (11.3) (7.2) (8.9) (9.3) (9.3) (9.6) (4.4) (21.3) (15.4) (16.8) (10.2) (7.3) (5.8) (6.1) (6.5) (10.6) (4.8) 495‡ 519 529 503 525 492** 479** 528 518 (26.3) (17.6) (17.4) (11.7) (7.9) (10.0) (8.1) (9.1) (11.6) 543‡ (36.1) 487‡ 519 516 493 519 490** 485** 524** 505 517 519‡ (31.7) 478‡ 513 513 496 509 490 481** 515 503 511 502‡ (32.5) 505 (4.5) Immigrant students Standard error (3.9) Secondgeneration immigrant students Standard error (3.3) Firstgeneration immigrant students Standard error Nonimmigrant students Difference (27.1) (3.5) Standard error (26.2) -3 3 33 -31* 3 6 -14 -1 -1 26 (23.5) (14.4) (17.7) (11.1) (6.7) (10.3) (7.6) (7.7) (8.7) (28.3) -4 (20.4) 4 (13.4) 31 (16.4) -26* (9.4) 7 (5.7) 8 (6.0) -10 (6.0) 3 (5.9) -4 (8.0) -1 (4.0) 14 -16 (22.5) -2 (15.4) 22 (16.2) -26* (9.3) 0 (5.8) 3 (8.4) -14* (6.3) -4 (7.1) -10 (7.8) 2 (3.4) 4 -4 Difference 35 3 28 -24 13 26* 28* 19 9 49 44 3 15 -19 17* 29* 28* 21* 10 12* 52 39 -6 9 -19 10 28* 21* 17* 2 16* 43 8 (58.3) (23.8) (49.4) (13.8) (7.2) (12.3) (12.0) (10.2) (10.0) (52.1) (57.6) (22.6) (43.1) (11.1) (6.2) (8.9) (10.0) (7.6) (7.9) (4.9) (54.8) (52.9) (29.4) (47.3) (10.6) (6.5) (12.1) (10.2) (8.7) (9.1) (4.0) (55.6) (4.2) Standard error Difference (secondgeneration students–nonimmigrant students) Difference (firstgeneration students–nonimmigrant students) -11 3 33 -38* -12 -3 -24* -14 -10 19 -14 5 33* -33* -9 -1 -20* -8 -17 -14* 1 -27 -1 24 -33* -14 -7 -23* -17* -21* -12* -9 -17* Difference Difference (immigrant students–nonimmigrant students) (25.5) (16.8) (18.5) (12.4) (8.4) (10.7) (8.6) (8.3) (11.1) (34.5) (21.2) (15.7) (16.8) (10.0) (7.6) (6.7) (7.2) (6.9) (10.6) (4.8) (31.0) (22.7) (16.0) (16.7) (10.8) (7.5) (8.1) (7.5) (8.2) (9.8) (4.4) (30.5) (4.4) Standard error Average scores by immigrant status: READING BY COGNITIVE PROCESS SUBSCALES Difference (firstgeneration students– secondgeneration students) -46 0 5 -14 -25* -29* -53* -32* -19 -30 -57 1 18 -14 -26* -30* -48* -29* -27* -26* -51 -67 5 15 -14 -24* -35* -44* -34* -24* -27* -52 -25* Difference Table B.2.5 (64.4) (27.8) (51.3) (13.8) (8.3) (10.1) (13.9) (9.6) (11.9) (63.4) (62.1) (26.4) (43.7) (9.7) (7.6) (9.8) (12.7) (8.5) (10.3) (5.7) (64.3) (54.3) (30.4) (48.8) (10.8) (7.7) (9.8) (12.7) (9.3) (10.7) (5.1) (62.3) (5.2) Standard error 114 PISA 2018 Canada Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia New Brunswick Quebec Ontario Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta British Columbia Canada Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia New Brunswick Quebec Ontario Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta British Columbia Single text ‡ There are fewer than 30 observations. * Significant difference within Canada or province. ** Significant difference compared to Canada. Multiple text Canada and provinces Text structure subscale Standard error (1.9) (6.1) (10.5) (4.8) (4.7) (3.0) (4.0) (4.9) (4.0) (5.0) (4.8) (1.8) (6.1) (9.8) (4.9) (5.5) (3.1) (3.7) (4.1) (3.4) (5.2) (4.7) 518 500** 514 484** 523 532** 491** 504** 532 523 526 517 506 518 492** 536** 526 496** 503** 536** 526 Average 523 Average (20.3) (14.2) (15.0) (9.6) (5.4) (6.4) (5.3) (6.5) (8.0) (3.4) 498 522 522 505** 531 500** 492** 537 522 (19.3) (13.2) (16.0) (9.6) (5.3) (5.4) (5.1) (6.5) (7.4) 532‡ (28.1) 491 524 515 500** 537** 499** 493** 533 516 525 529‡ (25.3) 526 Average (54.7) (25.1) (40.3) (11.5) (6.4) (9.8) (10.1) (7.9) (8.9) (4.0) 544‡ 525‡ 510‡ 514** 543 521 535 559** 534 (45.8) (23.5) (45.5) (10.8) (5.9) (9.0) (9.3) (8.2) (8.2) 579‡ (53.9) 531‡ 521‡ 509‡ 508** 547** 520 530 550 529 539 571‡ (52.9) 539 Average (21.6) (15.3) (16.0) (10.0) (6.9) (7.0) (6.6) (7.6) (10.3) (4.1) 489‡ 521 523 497 513 490** 482** 524** 510 (21.7) (14.7) (17.0) (10.3) (6.9) (5.6) (6.2) (7.2) (9.5) 517‡ (33.9) 483‡ 525 516 493** 524** 489** 484** 523 503 510 516‡ (30.5) 512 (4.0) Immigrant students Standard error (4.5) Secondgeneration immigrant students Standard error (3.4) Firstgeneration immigrant students Standard error Nonimmigrant students Difference (25.7) (3.4) Standard error (28.0) -8 (21.2) 4 (12.8) 29 (16.1) -31* (9.4) 5 (5.8) 4 (6.3) -11 (5.8) 1 (5.9) -4 (7.2) 15 -9 (20.7) 10 (13.0) 32* (15.1) -23* (9.2) 5 (5.8) 8 (7.0) -11 (5.6) 1 (6.3) -7 (8.0) -1 (3.4) 11 2 Difference 38 7 18 -22* 16* 26* 32* 22* 8 62 31 7 26 -16 15* 30* 26* 18* 6 13* 53 15* (48.6) (22.7) (46.4) (10.4) (6.1) (9.4) (9.5) (7.6) (7.8) (55.5) (57.5) (23.4) (41.4) (11.0) (6.4) (10.0) (10.2) (7.9) (8.8) (3.9) (54.0) (4.3) Standard error Difference (secondgeneration students–nonimmigrant students) Difference (firstgeneration students–nonimmigrant students) -17 3 31 -39* -13 -5 -21* -13 -16 0 -17 11 33* -30* -8 -1 -20* -9 -19 -16* -2 -11* Difference Difference (immigrant students–nonimmigrant students) (22.5) (14.7) (16.9) (10.4) (7.5) (6.5) (6.9) (6.6) (9.6) (33.0) (20.6) (14.9) (15.9) (9.8) (7.5) (7.6) (6.9) (7.3) (10.4) (4.2) (30.3) (4.3) Standard error Average scores by immigrant status: READING BY TEXT STRUCTURE SUBSCALES Difference (firstgeneration students– secondgeneration students) -56 -4 13 -17 -30* -31* -53* -35* -24* -62 -49 3 7 -14 -23* -31* -46* -27* -25* -29* -55 -26* Difference Table B.2.6 (53.2) (25.8) (48.5) (9.0) (7.1) (9.1) (11.6) (8.1) (10.1) (65.3) (59.3) (26.5) (43.3) (9.5) (7.7) (10.4) (13.2) (8.6) (11.0) (4.6) (63.4) (5.3) Standard error PISA 2018 115 Table B.2.7a Percentage of students by language spoken at home English Canada and provinces French Other Average Standard error Average Standard error Average Standard error Canada 65.1 (0.8) 16.6 (0.5) 18.3 (0.8) Newfoundland and Labrador 97.3 (0.6) U‡ (0.1) 2.5‡ (0.6) Prince Edward Island 88.3 (2.5) U‡ (2.2) 8.7‡ (1.7) Nova Scotia 94.3 (0.7) 1.4 (0.3) 4.3 (0.6) New Brunswick 71.3 (1.2) 24.3 (1.1) 4.4 (0.7) Quebec 13.3 (0.6) 73.7 (1.8) 13.0 (1.6) Ontario 76.8 (1.8) 2.0 (0.2) 21.2 (1.8) Manitoba 79.7 (1.2) 1.3 (0.3) 19.0 (1.3) Saskatchewan 85.4 (1.2) 0.4‡ (0.1) 14.1 (1.2) Alberta 79.6 (1.3) 1.1 (0.2) 19.3 (1.3) British Columbia 76.1 (2.0) 0.3 (0.1) 23.6 (2.0) ‡ There are fewer than 30 observations. U Too unreliable to be published. Table B.2.7b Average scores by language spoken at home: READING 520 (3.0) 506 (3.4) 7* 518 (4.6) 456‡ (36.9) 552‡ (30.6) 62 (36.7) 509** (8.8) 428‡** (31.2) 481‡ (22.0) 81* (26.0) Nova Scotia 519** (3.8) 462** (16.1) 492 (13.2) 57* (16.0) New Brunswick 496** (5.0) 469** (5.9) 510 (17.7) 27* (8.5) Quebec 522 (5.6) 525** (3.3) 494 (9.7) -3 (6.0) 28* (9.7) 31* (8.9) Ontario 531** (3.6) 469** (10.5) 515** (5.9) 62* (10.9) 16* (5.8) -46* (11.9) Manitoba 501** (3.7) 472** (14.8) 476** (6.6) 29 (15.4) 25* (7.0) -4 (16.6) Saskatchewan 506** (3.2) 528‡ (24.0) 471** (6.2) -22 (24.3) 35* (6.1) 58* (25.3) Alberta 537** (4.4) 507 (17.9) 519** (6.2) 30 (18.5) 18* (6.2) -12 (19.5) British Columbia 528 (4.5) 470 (31.4) 497 (7.3) 58 (31.9) 32* (7.0) -26 (31.8) 21* Standard error (2.0) Average Average 527 (3.5) Standard error Standard error Canada Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island Average Average Difference (French–Other) Standard error Difference (English–Other) Average Difference (English–French) Standard error Other Average Canada and provinces French Standard error English (3.5) 14* (4.7) -35 (31.1) -97* (48.3) 28 (23.7) -54 (37.5) 27* (12.6) -30 (20.7) -14 (18.6) -41* (19.0) ‡ There are fewer than 30 observations. * Significant difference within Canada or province. ** Significant difference compared to Canada. 116 PISA 2018 Table B.2.8 Average scores by language spoken at home: READING BY COGNITIVE PROCESS SUBSCALES English Evaluate and reflect Average Standard error Difference Standard error Difference Standard error Difference Standard error Difference (French– Other) Standard error Difference (English– Other) Average Understand Difference (English– French) Standard error Locate information Canada and provinces Other Average Cognitive process subscale French Canada Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia 523 (2.6) 520 (4.4) 504 (4.0) 3 (4.5) 18* (4.2) 16* (5.7) 510 (11.4) 478‡ (46.0) 538‡ (32.6) 32 (44.7) -28 (31.0) -60 (46.9) 506 (18.1) 467‡ (54.1) 481‡ (31.8) 39 (59.2) 25 (27.6) -14 (71.4) 514 (7.4) 477 (24.0) 484 (14.9) 38 (24.0) 31* (13.5) -7 (27.3) New Brunswick 495** (9.4) 474** (13.9) 500 (20.2) 21 (16.1) -5 (21.1) -26 (22.6) Quebec 517 (7.6) 525** (4.9) 499 (10.6) -8 (7.7) Ontario 526 (4.0) 475** (13.1) 512 (6.6) Manitoba 502** (6.7) 481** (18.7) 477** Saskatchewan 503** (7.1) 541‡ (33.2) 469** Alberta 533 (5.6) 517 (18.4) British Columbia 526 (5.8) 472 (37.7) Canada Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island 526 (2.3) 517 517 (6.4) 453‡ 503** Nova Scotia 18 (10.4) 51* (13.7) 14* (6.3) (9.8) 21 (20.0) 24* (8.8) (8.4) -38 (32.0) 34* (7.8) 513 (8.8) 16 (20.1) 20* (7.9) 4 (22.3) 496 (8.8) 55 (37.4) 31* (9.0) -24 (37.6) (3.3) 510 (3.8) (4.0) 16* (3.9) 6 (5.1) (39.4) 559‡ (29.9) 63 (40.5) -42 (30.0) (8.8) 433‡** (34.5) 490‡ (23.7) 69* (33.1) 12 (25.8) -57 (40.7) 515** (4.3) 457** (18.0) 493 (14.1) 58* (17.3) 22 (13.5) -36 (22.9) New Brunswick 490** (6.0) 463** (8.4) 505 (20.1) 27* (9.5) -15 (20.7) -42 (21.7) Quebec 520 (6.5) 522** (3.6) 493 (9.4) -1 (7.0) 27* (9.5) 28* Ontario 533** (3.9) 468** (10.1) 523** (6.1) 65* (10.8) 10 (5.9) -54* (12.0) Manitoba 496** (3.8) 477** (16.8) 475** (7.3) 19 (17.6) 21* (7.8) Saskatchewan 505** (3.3) 531‡ (25.9) 472** (6.7) -26 (26.2) 33* (7.2) Alberta 534 (5.0) 515 (17.4) 521 (7.3) 19 (17.7) 13 (7.6) -7 (19.8) British Columbia 525 (4.8) 471 (31.8) 497 (8.6) 54 (32.0) 28* (8.1) -27 (31.6) Canada Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia 533 (2.5) 531 (4.1) 515 (4.4) 2 (4.7) 19* (4.1) 17* 523 (8.8) 470‡ (37.4) 578‡ (33.7) 53 (36.8) -55 (33.6) 508 (15.1) 442‡** (44.3) 498‡ (27.8) 66 (39.2) 10 (28.2) -56 (51.2) 517** (6.8) 473** (22.9) 493 (14.2) 45 (24.5) 25 (13.9) -20 (27.1) New Brunswick 501** (7.1) 479** (13.2) 519 (19.6) 22 (15.0) -18 (20.6) -40 (24.8) Quebec 531 (6.6) 536** (4.5) 504 (11.7) -5 (8.2) Ontario 541** (4.0) 488** (10.8) 525** (7.2) Manitoba 500** (4.6) 474** (20.2) 476** (9.3) Saskatchewan 503** (5.2) 525‡ (31.5) 463** Alberta 543 (6.2) 523 (18.8) 524 British Columbia 532 (6.2) 493 (37.6) 508 9* 26* (9.4) -37* (14.2) 3 (22.7) 73* (33.3) -105* (48.6) 2 (8.6) (19.6) 59* (27.9) (6.5) -108* (48.1) 28* (11.1) 32* (12.3) 53* (11.4) 16* (6.7) -37* (13.1) 25 (20.8) 24* (8.5) -1 (23.2) (9.4) -22 (31.8) 40* (8.3) 62 (32.7) (9.0) 20 (20.2) 19* (8.4) 0 (20.4) (9.4) 39 (37.1) 24* (7.9) -15 (37.6) ‡ There are fewer than 30 observations. * Significant difference within Canada or province. ** Significant difference compared to Canada. PISA 2018 117 Table B.2.9 Difference (French– Other) Standard error 5 (5.0) (37.0) 556‡ (28.5) 59 (37.7) -39 (29.3) -98* (48.3) 502** (11.4) 423‡** (37.7) 486‡ (23.1) 79* (39.1) 16 (24.2) -63 (48.0) 515** (4.9) 464** (18.2) 496 (15.2) 51* (18.0) 19 (13.8) -32 (22.4) 492** (5.8) 460** (6.4) 504 (20.1) 32* (8.7) -12 (20.0) -44* (20.7) Quebec 520 520** (3.6) 493 (10.3) Ontario 537** (4.0) 470** (12.5) 525** (6.3) Manitoba 496** (4.5) 473** (16.3) Saskatchewan 504** (3.8) 529‡ (29.0) Alberta 534 (4.9) 512 (17.3) 518 British Columbia 525 (4.9) 472 (27.0) 495 Canada Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island 527 (2.3) 527 (3.4) 510 (3.9) 516 (6.1) 456‡ (41.1) 507 (10.0) Nova Scotia 519 (4.9) New Brunswick 528 (2.3) 515 (3.2) 517 (6.2) 458‡ New Brunswick (6.7) 0 (7.1) Standard error 18* (4.1) Canada Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia Standard error 13* (3.8) Standard error (3.9) Average Difference Difference (English– Other) Standard error Difference (English– French) Average Multiple text Other 510 Standard error Single text Canada and provinces Average Text structure subscale French Difference English Difference Average scores by language spoken at home: READING BY TEXT STRUCTURE SUBSCALES 27* (10.5) 12 473** (8.9) 23 (16.5) 23* (9.0) 0 (17.5) 470** (7.4) -26 (29.0) 34* (6.7) 60* (29.3) (7.6) 22 (18.0) 16* (7.4) -6 (18.6) (8.4) 53 (27.4) 30* (8.0) -23 (27.8) (3.8) 17* (4.1) 17* (5.1) 568‡ (32.4) 60 (40.7) -52 (32.5) -112* (52.5) 457‡** (31.1) 492‡ (23.2) 50 (27.7) 16 (24.4) -35 (39.0) 470** (17.3) 496 (15.2) 49* (17.0) 23 (14.5) -26 (20.6) 497** (6.7) 478** (6.8) 510 (18.2) 19* (8.9) -13 (18.7) -32 (18.9) Quebec 525 (6.1) 532** (3.7) 501 (10.3) Ontario 531 (3.7) 476** (10.3) 517 (6.3) Manitoba 500** (3.9) 477** (17.3) Saskatchewan 503** (3.4) 525‡ (28.9) Alberta 538** (5.1) 512 (16.2) 523 British Columbia 529 467 (32.5) 502 (4.9) 0 -7 (6.4) 27* (9.3) 67* (13.3) -55* (13.8) (6.3) 25* (10.7) 32* (9.8) 55* (11.0) 13* (6.4) -42* (12.3) 478** (6.9) 22 (17.7) 22* (7.5) -1 (18.6) 469** (6.2) -22 (29.5) 34* (6.5) 57 (30.4) (7.4) 26 (16.3) 15* (7.0) -11 (17.6) (7.6) 63 (32.5) 27* (7.2) -36 (32.7) ‡ There are fewer than 30 observations. * Significant difference within Canada or province. ** Significant difference compared to Canada. 118 PISA 2018 Table B.2.10a Percentage and average scores of students by attitude toward reading: READING I read only if I have to Standard error % Standard error Average Standard error % Average Standard error Standard error Average Canada Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia 20.5 (0.4) 567* (2.8) 31.5 (0.5) 542* (2.1) 30.3 (0.5) 501 (2.1) 17.6 (0.4) 479* (2.4) 20.5 (1.4) 563* (9.5) 25.1 (1.4) 553* (7.6) 31.5 (1.7) 494 (7.1) 22.8 (1.5) 478 (7.0) 16.7 (2.8) 551* (19.4) 29.0 (2.5) 523 (11.8) 33.3 (2.2) 493 (11.8) 21.0 (3.6) 465 (15.0) 17.4 (0.9) 572* (7.7) 30.9 (1.1) 541* (5.3) 31.7 (1.2) 498 (5.2) 20.0 (1.1) 467* (6.5) New Brunswick 21.6 (1.4) 539* (8.0) 28.6 (1.4) 516* (5.8) 28.5 (1.4) 471 (6.4) 21.2 (1.2) 437* (5.6) Quebec 24.7 (0.8) 558* (5.4) 30.3 (1.0) 537* (4.0) 27.0 (0.9) 502 (4.2) 18.0 (0.7) 481* (3.9) Ontario 19.4 (0.7) 572* (5.4) 31.3 (0.9) 549* (4.2) 31.1 (0.9) 505 (4.0) 18.1 (0.8) 486* (4.4) Manitoba 18.0 (1.1) 537* (6.7) 31.0 (1.1) 516* (4.8) 32.0 (1.3) 479 (5.1) 19.0 (1.1) 463* (5.4) Saskatchewan 17.4 (0.8) 544* (6.1) 30.9 (1.2) 525* (4.8) 33.3 (1.2) 479 (3.9) 18.3 (0.8) 464* (5.0) Alberta 19.8 (0.8) 581* (6.1) 32.1 (1.3) 558* (4.8) 31.8 (1.3) 507 (5.7) 16.4 (1.1) 482* (6.1) British Columbia 20.4 (1.2) 573* (6.6) 34.7 (0.8) 535* (5.3) 30.3 (0.9) 499 (5.8) 14.6 (1.0) 472* (6.6) OECD average 21.3 (0.1) 528* (0.7) 29.7 (0.1) 506* (0.5) 30.1 (0.1) 468 (0.5) 19.0 (0.1) 460* (0.6) % Standard error Strongly agree % Agree Standard error Disagree Average Canada, provinces, and OECD average Standard error Strongly disagree * Significant difference compared to the average score in the “Agree” category. Table B.2.10b Percentage and average scores of students by attitude toward reading: READING Reading is one of my favourite hobbies Average Standard error % Average Standard error % Average Standard error Standard error Standard error Standard error % Strongly agree Standard error Agree Average Disagree Canada Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia 26.9 (0.5) 485* (2.2) 36.5 (0.4) 520 (2.2) 24.0 (0.4) 547* (2.1) 12.6 (0.4) 577* (3.3) 32.9 (1.9) 482* (6.8) 36.0 (1.7) 523 (6.6) 21.0 (1.5) 540 (9.0) 10.1 (1.2) 586* (11.5) 29.8 (2.6) 474* (18.9) 40.1 (3.0) 511 (9.8) 21.4 (2.1) 514 (13.2) 8.7 (1.6) 562‡ (28.2) 31.4 (1.3) 471* (4.9) 37.1 (1.3) 522 (4.9) 20.5 (1.0) 545* (6.7) 11.0 (0.8) 589* (9.7) New Brunswick 32.9 (1.6) 445* (4.4) 32.3 (1.5) 493 (5.0) 20.3 (1.3) 528* (8.3) 14.5 (1.0) 541* (9.2) Quebec 31.4 (1.0) 488* (3.8) 34.1 (0.9) 523 (3.9) 22.6 (0.8) 547* (5.0) 11.9 (0.6) 570* (6.0) Ontario 25.9 (1.0) 491* (4.7) 37.7 (0.9) 523 (4.1) 23.3 (0.9) 549* (4.2) 13.0 (0.7) 582* (6.0) Manitoba 26.4 (1.2) 461* (4.8) 36.6 (1.2) 500 (4.2) 25.0 (1.2) 510 (5.5) 12.1 (0.7) 550* (6.8) Saskatchewan 26.1 (1.0) 468* (4.7) 37.5 (1.1) 498 (3.6) 25.3 (1.3) 525* (5.8) 11.0 (0.7) 546* (7.1) Alberta 23.8 (1.2) 486* (4.9) 37.0 (0.9) 525 (5.5) 26.2 (1.1) 564* (6.3) 13.0 (0.8) 587* (7.4) British Columbia 24.1 (1.2) 484* (5.9) 36.5 (0.9) 514 (5.2) 26.8 (1.0) 544* (6.3) 12.5 (0.7) 577* (8.5) OECD average 31.9 (0.1) 462* (0.5) 34.3 (0.1) 491 (0.5) 22.6 (0.1) 511* (0.7) 11.2 (0.1) 536* (0.9) % Standard error Strongly disagree Canada, provinces, and OECD average ‡ There are fewer than 30 observations. * Significant difference compared to the average score in the “Disagree” category. PISA 2018 119 Table B.2.10c Percentage and average scores of students by attitude toward reading: READING I like talking about books with other people Average Standard error Standard error 487* (2.1) 33.0 (0.5) 520 (2.1) 29.4 (0.5) 546 * (2.5) 9.8 (0.3) 576* (3.8) 30.3 (1.6) 480* (7.0) 36.1 (1.6) 523 (6.4) 24.8 (1.4) 540 (7.5) 8.8 (1.0) 581* (11.6) 28.5 (2.8) 472* (15.6) 36.9 (2.6) 509 (12.0) 27.2 (2.6) 533 (12.8) 7.4 (1.7) 525‡ (29.3) 31.7 (1.3) 471* (4.7) 33.3 (1.4) 516 (4.5) 26.6 (1.2) 557 * (5.9) 8.4 (0.8) 587* (10.7) New Brunswick 32.5 (1.6) 445* (4.6) 30.2 (1.3) 492 (4.9) 25.1 (1.2) 526 * (7.0) 12.2 (0.9) 551* (11.1) Quebec 34.7 (1.2) 490* (3.4) 28.2 (0.8) 526 (3.8) 27.8 (0.9) 547 * (5.1) 9.3 (0.4) 569* (7.6) Ontario 26.2 (1.1) 493* (4.5) 33.7 (0.9) 523 (4.2) 30.8 (0.8) 548 * (4.2) 9.4 (0.6) 579* (7.5) Manitoba 27.0 (1.1) 466* (4.6) 35.6 (1.2) 493 (4.5) 28.0 (1.1) 520 * (5.3) 9.4 (0.8) 550* (8.6) Saskatchewan 27.5 (1.2) 472* (4.8) 34.5 (0.9) 493 (3.8) 28.4 (1.0) 525 * (4.8) 9.6 (0.8) 550* (7.7) Alberta 24.2 (1.3) 490* (4.6) 35.1 (1.3) 528 (5.4) 28.8 (1.4) 556 * (6.1) 11.9 (0.6) 588* (8.0) British Columbia 23.8 (1.1) 485* (5.4) 35.1 (1.0) 515 (4.9) 30.8 (1.1) 543 * (6.1) 10.2 (0.7) 578* (9.4) OECD average 30.8 (0.1) 460* (0.5) 32.6 (0.1) 488 (0.5) 26.6 (0.1) 514 * (0.6) 10.0 (0.1) 537* (1.0) % Standard error % 27.8 (0.5) Average Standard error Standard error Average Canada Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia % Standard error Strongly agree % Agree Standard error Disagree Average Canada, provinces, and OECD average Standard error Strongly disagree ‡ There are fewer than 30 observations. * Significant difference compared to the average score in the “Disagree” category. Table B.2.10d Percentage and average scores of students by attitude toward reading: READING For me, reading is a waste of time Standard error % Standard error Average Standard error % Average Standard error Standard error Average Canada Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia 32.9 (0.5) 565* (2.2) 40.7 (0.4) 521* (2.1) 16.5 (0.4) 489 (2.6) 10.0 (0.3) 457* (3.0) 28.0 (1.4) 566* (7.4) 37.9 (1.6) 529* (6.3) 19.5 (1.3) 486 (7.7) 14.5 (1.3) 453* (8.8) 28.5 (2.5) 551* (9.9) 41.5 (2.5) 514 (7.8) 16.0 (2.6) 472 (24.9) 13.9 (2.2) 426* (18.2) 28.9 (1.1) 572* (6.4) 40.0 (1.2) 523* (5.0) 18.0 (1.1) 478 (6.6) 13.1 (1.0) 438* (7.3) New Brunswick 30.5 (1.3) 542* (6.1) 36.9 (1.4) 497* (5.2) 17.6 (1.2) 461 (8.1) 15.0 (1.1) 413* (5.8) Quebec 33.4 (0.9) 562* (5.1) 39.1 (0.9) 520* (3.5) 17.0 (0.7) 495 (3.8) 10.5 (0.6) 457* (5.0) Ontario 32.5 (0.9) 570* (3.8) 41.2 (0.9) 523* (4.0) 16.6 (0.8) 494 (5.1) 9.7 (0.6) 469* (6.2) Manitoba 32.4 (1.3) 530* (4.3) 40.8 (1.1) 503* (4.6) 15.3 (0.7) 464 (6.3) 11.5 (0.8) 437* (6.8) Saskatchewan 28.0 (1.0) 543* (4.7) 41.8 (1.3) 504* (4.1) 18.4 (1.0) 471 (4.7) 11.8 (0.8) 446* (6.9) Alberta 34.0 (1.3) 578* (5.5) 40.2 (1.3) 531* (5.1) 17.5 (1.0) 496 (5.8) 8.4 (0.8) 452* (8.1) British Columbia 35.1 (1.2) 563* (6.4) 42.5 (1.3) 519* (5.3) 13.7 (0.8) 473 (5.4) 8.8 (0.7) 455* (7.5) OECD average 33.6 (0.1) 530* (0.5) 38.0 (0.1) 489* (0.5) 17.3 (0.1) 453 (0.6) 11.2 (0.1) 433* (0.8) % Standard error Strongly agree % Agree Standard error Disagree Average Canada, provinces, and OECD average Standard error Strongly disagree * Significant difference compared to the average score in the “Agree” category. 120 PISA 2018 Table B.2.10e Percentage and average scores of students by attitude toward reading: READING I read only to get information that I need Standard error % Standard error Average Standard error % Average Standard error Standard error Average Canada Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia 19.0 (0.4) 562* (2.9) 34.0 (0.5) 547* (1.8) 31.4 (0.5) 496 (2.0) 15.6 (0.4) 483* (2.6) 18.6 (1.3) 560* (9.8) 29.1 (1.5) 549* (6.6) 35.4 (1.6) 491 (6.4) 17.0 (1.3) 484 (7.7) 17.0 (3.0) 550* (18.2) 39.2 (4.1) 520 (11.6) 29.4 (2.5) 486 (13.0) 14.5 (1.9) 455 (20.5) 17.3 (1.0) 556* (8.6) 35.0 (1.3) 549* (4.8) 30.5 (1.5) 486 (4.7) 17.3 (1.3) 476 (6.8) New Brunswick 21.0 (1.1) 535* (7.3) 33.1 (1.5) 518* (5.9) 30.2 (1.3) 458 (4.8) 15.7 (1.2) 445 (7.5) Quebec 23.7 (0.8) 555* (4.7) 32.1 (0.9) 541* (4.3) 29.7 (0.8) 501 (3.7) 14.5 (0.7) 478* (4.2) Ontario 17.6 (0.7) 566* (5.9) 33.8 (1.1) 554* (3.5) 31.8 (1.0) 499 (3.7) 16.9 (0.8) 491 (5.3) Manitoba 17.4 (0.8) 524* (6.9) 34.5 (1.3) 525* (4.6) 32.1 (1.3) 475 (5.1) 16.0 (1.0) 461* (5.1) Saskatchewan 16.4 (0.7) 544* (5.2) 33.8 (1.1) 527* (4.4) 34.0 (1.2) 475 (4.8) 15.8 (0.8) 464 (5.5) Alberta 18.7 (0.9) 583* (6.8) 34.0 (1.3) 559* (4.3) 31.7 (1.0) 500 (5.3) 15.5 (0.9) 491 (6.3) British Columbia 17.8 (1.0) 564* (7.3) 37.5 (1.3) 544* (6.0) 31.8 (0.9) 493 (5.2) 12.9 (0.8) 475* (6.2) OECD average 18.8 (0.1) 524* (0.7) 31.5 (0.1) 514* (0.5) 34.3 (0.1) 466 (0.5) 15.4 (0.1) 458* (0.7) % Standard error Strongly agree % Agree Standard error Disagree Average Canada, provinces, and OECD average Standard error Strongly disagree * Significant difference compared to the average score in the “Agree” category. PISA 2018 121 47.3 45.8 44.4 39.0 40.6 43.3 37.2 37.3 42.0 (0.1) Nova Scotia New Brunswick Quebec Ontario Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta British Columbia OECD average 460 486 491 469 468 492 491 451 475 Standard error (0.5) (4.4) (4.5) (4.2) (4.5) (3.8) (3.0) (4.4) (4.2) (16.2) (5.0) (1.8) Standard error % (1.0) (1.0) (1.2) (1.2) (0.9) (0.8) (1.2) (1.2) (2.8) (1.6) 24.3 (0.1) 27.7 26.5 28.6 28.7 26.2 29.2 25.7 25.9 26.3 21.0 27.2 (0.4) (5.4) (0.6) 504* (6.4) (4.5) (5.5) (4.8) (4.8) (5.9) (6.3) (10.7) (7.9) (2.5) Standard error 537* 547* 518* 513* 538* 541* 516* 552* 511 546* 538* Average ‡ There are fewer than 30 observations. * Significant difference compared to the average score in the “I do not read for enjoyment” category. (1.3) (1.2) (1.3) (1.3) (1.3) (0.8) (1.7) (1.5) (2.3) 46.5 481 483 (2.1) 49.2 % 488 Standard error 40.4 (0.7) Average Canada Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island Canada, provinces, and OECD average Standard error % (0.8) (0.8) (0.8) (1.0) (0.8) (0.6) (1.2) (1.0) (2.0) (1.4) 16.8 (0.1) 19.3 18.6 13.6 15.1 17.4 13.7 15.1 13.6 15.1 14.9 16.6 (0.4) Average 520 * (0.7) 541 * (8.1) 564 * (6.5) 543 * (5.2) 518 * (6.3) 563 * (4.5) 552 * (5.2) 544 * (10.3) 560 * (7.4) 543 * (14.6) 545 * (10.7) 555 * (2.9) Standard error More than 30 minutes to less than 60 minutes a day 1 to 2 hours a day % (0.8) (0.8) (0.7) (1.0) (0.7) (0.5) (0.7) (0.9) (1.8) (1.0) 11.0 (0.1) 10.0 10.9 9.1 9.1 10.8 8.5 7.4 8.4 7.3 10.2 10.0 (0.4) Standard error 30 minutes or less a day (3.3) Standard error (8.6) 524* 556* 576* 535* 533* 558* 567* (0.9) (9.0) (7.7) (7.6) (8.4) (6.3) (5.7) 532* (11.5) 564* 548*‡ (20.2) 575* (12.1) 560* Average I do not read for enjoyment % 5.9 5.7 6.9 5.4 6.4 6.5 4.2 6.1 4.8 4.8 4.7 5.9 More than 2 hours a day (0.1) (0.5) (0.6) (0.5) (0.7) (0.5) (0.3) (0.7) (0.5) (1.4) (0.8) (0.2) Standard error Percentage and average scores of students by time spent reading for enjoyment: READING 516* 577* 567* 529* 522* 560* 539* 512* 549* 521‡ 571* 556* Average Table B.2.11 (1.2) (10.3) (9.0) (11.3) (9.5) (8.3) (11.6) (12.0) (11.7) (37.9) (15.5) (4.4) Standard error 122 PISA 2018 Table B.2.12a Percentage and average scores of students by reading self-efficacy: READING I am a good reader Average Standard error % Average Standard error (0.2) 446* (4.4) 12.6 (0.4) 477* 5.0 (0.8) 422* (13.0) 11.2 (1.1) U (1.5) 389*‡ (33.3) 9.8 3.8 (0.5) 425* (13.5) New Brunswick 6.9 (0.7) Quebec 9.1 (0.7) Ontario 3.3 Manitoba 4.0 Saskatchewan Alberta Standard error Standard error 4.7 Strongly agree % Canada Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia Agree Standard error Average Average % Standard error Standard error % Canada, provinces, and OECD average Disagree Standard error Strongly disagree (2.9) 52.8 (0.5) 518 (2.0) 29.9 (0.4) 573* (2.1) 459* (12.0) 48.3 (1.9) 510 (5.4) 35.6 (1.9) 571* (5.7) (2.1) 452*‡ (19.2) 52.3 (5.4) 500 (8.6) 33.6 (3.4) 544* (10.4) 10.3 (0.8) 449* (7.6) 53.7 (1.5) 509 (4.2) 32.1 (1.2) 571* (7.5) 394* (10.4) 14.3 (0.9) 447* (7.3) 49.9 (1.5) 487 (4.5) 28.9 (1.2) 554* (6.1) 452* (5.3) 16.8 (0.7) 494* (4.0) 48.6 (0.8) 526 (3.7) 25.5 (0.8) 569* (4.2) (0.4) 458* (11.8) 11.0 (0.7) 473* (6.5) 53.5 (1.1) 519 (3.9) 32.2 (0.8) 576* (3.9) (0.6) 401* (10.6) 10.3 (0.7) 454* (7.8) 54.1 (1.3) 491 (3.8) 31.6 (1.4) 543* (5.1) 3.5 (0.4) 420* (11.9) 11.4 (0.7) 442* (6.1) 55.3 (1.2) 497 (3.3) 29.9 (1.4) 554* (5.3) 2.9 (0.4) 465* (14.8) 11.0 (0.6) 484* (9.5) 57.1 (1.0) 526 (4.2) 29.0 (1.1) 587* (5.0) British Columbia 4.2 (0.4) 425* (10.5) 13.7 (0.8) 475* (6.7) 53.2 (1.1) 515 (4.6) 28.9 (0.9) 576* (5.2) OECD average 8.7 (0.1) 423* 20.6 (0.1) 461* (0.6) 49.3 (0.1) 496 (0.5) 21.4 (0.1) 534* (0.7) (0.9) ‡ There are fewer than 30 observations. U Too unreliable to be published. * Significant difference compared to the average score in the “Agree” category. Table B.2.12b Percentage and average scores of students by reading self-efficacy: READING I am able to understand difficult texts Standard error % Standard error Average Standard error % Average Standard error 445* 4.4 (0.7) U Standard error Average Average (0.2) Strongly agree % Standard error 4.0 Agree Standard error % Canada Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia Disagree Standard error Strongly disagree Canada, provinces, and OECD average (4.5) 18.2 (0.4) 485* (2.4) 56.7 (0.5) 528 (1.9) 21.1 (0.4) 572* (2.3) 448* (15.1) 18.2 (1.4) 474* (9.3) 54.0 (1.7) 520 (5.4) 23.4 (1.7) 577* (7.3) (1.8) 438‡ (61.5) 17.0 (2.1) 465* (17.7) 55.7 (4.6) 510 (8.3) 23.7 (2.7) 534 (15.0) 3.0 (0.4) 417* (12.5) 19.0 (1.2) 467* (6.5) 55.0 (1.4) 523 (4.3) 23.0 (1.1) 569* (9.6) New Brunswick 6.5 (0.8) 390* (13.0) 21.8 (1.3) 453* (5.0) 53.1 (1.5) 502 (5.0) 18.6 (1.0) 556* (7.7) Quebec 6.8 (0.6) 447* (6.6) 21.0 (0.7) 491* (3.7) 53.4 (0.9) 532 (3.7) 18.8 (0.7) 569* (4.9) Ontario 2.7 (0.3) 446* (12.2) 16.5 (0.7) 485* (5.2) 57.8 (0.9) 530 (3.6) 23.0 (0.8) 575* (3.9) Manitoba 3.7 (0.5) 432* (12.9) 15.4 (1.0) 463* (7.5) 58.0 (1.2) 500 (3.5) 22.9 (1.1) 539* (5.1) Saskatchewan 3.0 (0.4) 438* (13.4) 16.9 (0.9) 455* (4.9) 58.6 (1.0) 508 (3.5) 21.5 (1.2) 546* (6.1) Alberta 3.9 (0.4) 469* (12.8) 17.4 (1.0) 501* (6.4) 60.3 (0.9) 537 (4.5) 18.5 (0.8) 585* (6.7) British Columbia 3.7 (0.4) 439* (13.4) 20.2 (1.1) 483* (6.4) 55.5 (1.4) 525 (4.9) 20.6 (1.0) 573* (5.0) OECD average 6.2 (0.1) 422* 26.6 (0.1) 461* (0.5) 52.6 (0.1) 504 (0.5) 14.5 (0.1) 529* (0.8) (1.1) ‡ There are fewer than 30 observations. U Too unreliable to be published. * Significant difference compared to the average score in the “Agree” category. PISA 2018 123 Table B.2.12c Percentage and average scores of students by reading self-efficacy: READING I read fluently Average Standard error % Average Standard error (0.2) 439* (4.6) 14.3 (0.4) 473* 6.2 (1.0) 449* (14.1) 17.3 (1.4) U (1.1) 374*‡ (32.3) 15.0 4.1 (0.5) 433* (11.8) New Brunswick 6.1 (0.7) 391* Quebec 4.8 (0.5) 438* Ontario 3.0 Manitoba 3.4 Saskatchewan Alberta Standard error Standard error 3.5 Strongly agree % Canada Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia Agree Standard error Average Average % Standard error Standard error % Canada, provinces, and OECD average Disagree Standard error Strongly disagree (2.7) 51.9 (0.4) 517 (1.8) 30.2 (0.4) 576* (2.2) 467* (11.3) 46.5 (2.0) 516 (5.4) 30.0 (2.0) 579* (6.6) (1.9) 457* (17.8) 50.3 (3.2) 507 (10.9) 31.6 (3.0) 537* (10.5) 17.0 (1.0) 461* (7.2) 50.1 (1.2) 514 (3.7) 28.8 (1.0) 577* (7.0) (9.7) 15.6 (1.1) 443* (6.3) 49.9 (1.5) 488 (4.6) 28.3 (1.3) 556* (6.1) (6.7) 17.2 (0.7) 488* (4.2) 49.0 (0.9) 520 (3.6) 29.0 (0.8) 570* (4.4) (0.4) 456* (10.3) 12.6 (0.6) 471* (6.0) 52.7 (0.9) 520 (3.7) 31.8 (0.8) 579* (4.1) (0.5) 413* (11.3) 15.5 (0.9) 449* (5.6) 51.7 (1.1) 497 (3.9) 29.3 (1.1) 546* (5.2) 3.2 (0.4) 426* (11.9) 15.5 (1.0) 445* (5.2) 54.3 (1.1) 501 (3.4) 27.0 (1.3) 559* (5.0) 3.0 (0.5) 441* (13.8) 13.2 (0.9) 481* (8.3) 53.6 (1.1) 525 (4.4) 30.3 (1.2) 591* (5.4) British Columbia 3.1 (0.4) 415* (11.1) 14.7 (1.0) 467* (7.2) 53.1 (1.1) 514 (4.5) 29.1 (1.1) 581* (4.7) OECD average 4.5 (0.1) 412* 18.2 (0.1) 451* (0.6) 52.6 (0.1) 492 (0.4) 24.7 (0.1) 534* (0.6) (1.2) ‡ There are fewer than 30 observations. U Too unreliable to be published. * Significant difference compared to the average score in the “Agree” category. Table B.2.12d Percentage and average scores of students by reading self-efficacy: READING I have always had difficulty with reading Standard error Standard error Average Average 562* (1.8) 42.8 (0.5) 520 (2.0) 14.1 (0.4) 468* (2.9) 42.8 (2.0) 561* (5.8) 40.0 (1.9) 511 (6.2) 12.9 (1.4) 39.5 (3.2) 539* (11.4) 39.5 (2.8) 505 (11.0) 13.8 40.9 (1.3) 560* (5.1) 42.6 (1.4) 510 (4.2) New Brunswick 37.7 (1.5) 537* (5.7) 37.6 (1.5) 492 (5.2) Quebec 43.3 (0.8) 551* (4.1) 36.2 (0.8) 520 Ontario 37.9 (1.0) 570* (3.5) 44.8 (1.1) 523 Manitoba 37.1 (1.3) 538* (4.1) 43.2 (1.2) Saskatchewan 34.5 (1.3) 547* (4.5) 43.9 (1.4) Alberta 36.3 (1.1) 577* (5.0) 45.3 British Columbia 36.0 (1.2) 565* (5.1) 45.6 OECD average 40.1 (0.1) 523* (0.5) Standard error % 38.5 (0.5) 4.6 (0.2) 456* (3.6) 457* (10.8) 4.2 (0.7) 434* (15.7) (1.8) 439* (18.5) 7.2 (1.7) 449*‡ (25.0) 11.6 (0.9) 457* (7.5) 4.8 (0.6) 429* (11.1) 17.4 (1.3) 439* (7.3) 7.2 (0.7) 420* (9.6) (3.8) 14.3 (0.8) 485* (4.7) 6.2 (0.5) 462* (6.5) (4.0) 13.6 (0.6) 466* (5.8) 3.8 (0.4) 458* (9.6) 497 (4.4) 14.9 (0.8) 443* (5.4) 4.7 (0.5) 428* (9.4) 505 (3.4) 16.4 (1.0) 445* (5.6) 5.1 (0.5) 428* (11.9) (1.1) 528 (4.5) 14.2 (0.9) 486* (7.0) 4.3 (0.5) 467* (11.4) (0.9) 517 (4.6) 14.4 (1.0) 457* (6.7) 3.9 (0.5) 463* (12.2) 40.8 (0.1) 486 (0.5) 14.1 (0.1) 440* (0.7) 4.9 (0.1) % Standard error Standard error Average Canada Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia % Standard error Strongly agree % Agree Standard error Disagree Average Strongly disagree Standard error Canada, provinces, and OECD average 431* (1.1) ‡ There are fewer than 30 observations. * Significant difference compared to the average score in the “Disagree” category. 124 PISA 2018 Table B.2.12e Percentage and average scores of students by reading self-efficacy: READING I have to read a text several times before completely understanding it Average Standard error % Average Standard error Standard error Standard error 17.6 (0.4) 550* (2.7) 41.3 (0.4) 542 (2.0) 32.9 (0.5) 504* (2.2) 19.3 (1.6) 550 (8.9) 40.7 (1.7) 540 (6.3) 30.0 (1.6) 500* (7.2) 10.0 (1.2) 465* (12.7) 19.0 (2.5) 528 (17.2) 46.2 (3.1) 523 (7.5) 26.5 (2.9) 472* (13.6) 8.3 (2.1) 456*‡ (21.1) 18.5 (1.0) 546 (7.3) 44.8 (1.3) 533 (5.2) 29.8 (1.5) 499* (5.3) 6.8 (0.8) 454* (12.3) New Brunswick 19.5 (1.0) 532* (8.4) 40.2 (1.4) 511 (5.7) 31.6 (1.4) 464* (5.6) 8.7 (0.7) 443* (11.4) Quebec 21.1 (0.7) 545 (4.6) 40.7 (0.9) 543 (3.8) 29.2 (0.9) 503* (4.1) 9.0 (0.6) 473* (5.8) Ontario 16.6 (0.8) 556 (5.1) 41.4 (1.0) 546 (4.2) 34.0 (1.1) 510* (4.3) 8.0 (0.7) 488* (6.3) Manitoba 19.3 (1.1) 526 (5.6) 39.6 (1.3) 515 (5.0) 32.3 (1.1) 479* (4.5) 8.7 (0.8) 461* (8.1) Saskatchewan 16.8 (0.9) 537* (5.9) 44.8 (1.5) 518 (3.9) 31.3 (1.1) 478* (4.5) 7.0 (0.6) 476* (7.4) Alberta 15.1 (1.0) 571* (7.7) 39.3 (1.2) 550 (5.0) 36.8 (1.3) 519* (5.3) 8.8 (0.6) 498* (5.8) 8.2 (0.3) Average % Standard error Standard error Canada Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia % Average Strongly agree Standard error Agree % Canada, provinces, and OECD average Disagree Standard error Strongly disagree 482* (3.1) British Columbia 16.4 (0.8) 543 (6.5) 42.8 (1.0) 543 (5.0) 33.5 (1.1) 498* (5.4) 7.2 (0.6) 485* (9.1) OECD average 16.0 (0.1) 508 (0.8) 40.4 (0.1) 509 (0.5) 35.5 (0.1) 474* (0.5) 8.1 (0.1) 446* (0.9) ‡ There are fewer than 30 observations. * Significant difference compared to the average score in the “Disagree” category. Table B.2.12f Percentage and average scores of students by reading self-efficacy: READING I find it difficult to answer questions about a text Standard error % Average Standard error Average Standard error Standard error Average 20.3 (0.4) 552* (2.7) 50.6 (0.5) 536 (1.8) 22.7 (0.5) 495* (2.6) 6.4 (0.2) 475* (3.5) 22.6 (1.7) 551 (8.6) 48.0 (1.8) 532 (5.8) 22.1 (1.4) 489* (9.2) 7.3 (0.9) 466* (13.0) 24.1 (2.4) 524 (19.5) 40.4 (4.2) 527 (7.2) 27.6 (2.8) 476* (11.9) 7.9 (2.0) 438*‡ (21.6) 20.3 (1.2) 549* (7.3) 50.5 (1.4) 530 (4.7) 21.9 (1.1) 494* (5.7) 7.2 (0.8) 451* (11.6) New Brunswick 21.2 (1.2) 525 (7.6) 41.9 (1.6) 510 (5.4) 27.7 (1.5) 466* (6.0) 9.2 (0.8) 433* (10.9) Quebec 20.5 (0.7) 542 (4.8) 44.2 (1.1) 540 (4.2) 26.9 (0.9) 503* (3.4) 8.4 (0.6) 478* (5.8) Ontario 21.0 (0.8) 559* (4.9) 54.0 (0.9) 538 (3.6) 20.0 (0.8) 493* (5.5) 5.1 (0.4) 481* (8.9) Manitoba 20.8 (1.1) 524 (6.1) 48.1 (1.3) 513 (3.8) 24.2 (1.1) 468* (6.0) 6.8 (0.8) 454* (9.8) Saskatchewan 20.1 (1.1) 540* (5.5) 48.5 (1.3) 513 (3.4) 24.8 (1.0) 473* (4.7) 6.6 (0.6) 460* (9.7) Alberta 17.9 (1.0) 571* (8.1) 50.3 (1.2) 543 (4.6) 24.3 (1.0) 518* (6.6) 7.5 (0.6) 480* (8.1) British Columbia 19.5 (0.8) 547* (5.6) 53.5 (1.3) 536 (4.5) 21.6 (1.3) 485* (6.1) 5.3 (0.5) 474* (12.1) OECD average 22.1 (0.1) 512* (0.7) 51.4 (0.1) 502 (0.4) 21.2 (0.1) 458* (0.6) 5.3 (0.1) % Standard error Standard error % Strongly agree Standard error Agree Average Disagree Canada Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia % Standard error Strongly disagree Canada, provinces, and OECD average 432* (1.1) ‡ There are fewer than 30 observations. * Significant difference compared to the average score in the “Disagree” category. PISA 2018 125 54.1 46.7 48.3 47.8 38.7 48.9 50.3 50.2 47.1 45.8 35.5 Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia New Brunswick Quebec Ontario Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta British Columbia OECD average Standard error (0.1) (1.5) (1.5) (1.2) (1.6) (1.1) (1.0) (1.6) (1.5) (2.5) (2.1) (0.6) Average 477 525 536 504 498 531 514 491 518 501 516 524 Standard error (0.5) (4.8) (5.1) (4.0) (4.0) (3.9) (3.5) (4.8) (4.8) (11.2) (5.9) (2.0) % (1.0) (1.2) (0.9) (1.2) (1.0) (0.8) (1.4) (1.2) (2.4) (1.7) 27.7 (0.1) 30.2 28.7 27.2 27.5 28.3 30.1 27.4 32.2 30.1 27.4 29.0 (0.5) Standard error ‡ There are fewer than 30 observations. U Too unreliable to be published. * Significant difference compared to the average score in the “Never or almost never” category. Note: Students were asked how often they read this type of material because they want to. 46.3 Newfoundland and Labrador % Canada Canada, provinces, and OECD average Average 500* 526 542 509 513* 532 534* 498 523 511 527 530* Standard error (0.6) (4.1) (4.9) (4.8) (5.8) (4.6) (3.9) (6.6) (5.0) (10.6) (8.4) (1.9) Standard error % (0.7) (0.9) (0.7) (0.9) (0.7) (0.6) (1.2) (1.0) (1.9) (1.2) 18.3 (0.1) 15.5 15.0 13.6 13.7 14.3 19.0 14.9 12.2 11.7 12.0 15.3 (0.3) Average 501* 527 538 501 494 533 531* 496 522 535 523 529 (3.2) Standard error (0.6) (7.6) (6.6) (6.6) (7.9) (6.2) (5.5) (9.0) (8.5) (18.6) (11.4) 13.5 6.5 7.1 6.6 6.4 6.3 9.5 8.0 5.7 8.1 5.3 7.1 % Several times a month (0.1) (0.6) (0.7) (0.6) (0.8) (0.4) (0.5) (0.9) (0.7) (1.5) (0.8) (0.2) Standard error About once a month (4.2) (18.0) (14.3) (9.8) (8.5) (6.5) (7.4) (13.1) (12.7) 500* (0.8) 491* (13.8) 539 511 481 523 532* 504 526 478‡ (23.8) 539 521 Average A few times a year Standard error Never or almost never Several times a week 5.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.0 2.2 2.7 1.9 1.6 U U 2.3 % Magazines (0.1) (0.3) (0.3) (0.4) (0.3) (0.4) (0.3) (0.4) (0.4) (1.4) (0.4) (0.2) Standard error Percentage and average scores of students by type of reading material: READING (7.3) (17.9) (12.0) (12.7) (23.9) 475 517 506 (1.3) (22.3) (22.7) 465* (17.0) 471 520 503 473 477‡ (29.0) 459‡ (34.7) 523‡ (38.4) 508* Average Table B.2.13a Standard error 126 PISA 2018 64.3 60.2 62.2 56.5 41.7 53.0 50.8 53.1 48.9 47.7 51.5 Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia New Brunswick Quebec Ontario Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta British Columbia OECD average Standard error (0.1) (1.6) (1.2) (1.1) (1.3) (1.5) (1.1) (1.2) (1.4) (2.6) (1.7) (0.7) Average 489 523 535 507 499 533 520 494 516 506 517 525 Standard error (0.5) (4.8) (5.2) (3.8) (3.7) (4.3) (3.8) (4.0) (4.1) (9.6) (5.1) (2.1) % (1.2) (1.3) (1.0) (1.1) (0.8) (0.7) (1.2) (1.0) (2.3) (1.2) 22.9 (0.1) 26.9 26.0 24.2 24.2 24.2 33.6 22.6 21.6 24.0 18.7 26.6 (0.5) Standard error ‡ There are fewer than 30 observations. U Too unreliable to be published. * Significant difference compared to the average score in the “Never or almost never” category. Note: Students were asked how often they read this type of material because they want to. 49.8 Newfoundland and Labrador % Canada Canada, provinces, and OECD average Average 495* 529 541 507 511* 530 536* 499 528 502 526 531 Standard error (0.6) (5.9) (5.5) (5.6) (5.4) (4.4) (4.2) (7.7) (7.9) (11.1) (9.7) (2.3) Standard error % (0.8) (0.7) (0.8) (0.8) (0.7) (0.6) (0.9) (0.8) (1.4) (0.8) 10.6 (0.1) 10.5 9.8 11.3 11.2 10.5 12.6 10.2 8.0 5.9 8.0 10.8 (0.4) Average (15.4) (3.4) Standard error 487* 521 537 492 488 523 517 492 528 (0.9) (8.8) (7.0) (7.3) (9.1) (6.8) (6.6) (10.8) (10.3) 528‡ (32.5) 523 520 9.0 10.0 9.9 7.7 8.5 7.2 7.8 7.5 5.6 7.0 6.7 8.1 % Several times a month (0.1) (0.9) (0.8) (0.7) (0.6) (0.6) (0.5) (0.8) (0.6) (1.3) (0.9) (0.3) Standard error About once a month (3.7) (19.0) 494* 517 540 504 496 525 518 494 517 (1.0) (10.4) (8.8) (9.1) (7.7) (7.3) (7.3) (12.6) (12.3) 507‡ (25.7) 543 522 Average A few times a year Standard error Never or almost never Several times a week 6.1 4.9 5.4 3.7 5.3 5.0 4.2 3.2 2.6 U 2.4 4.7 % Comic books (0.1) (0.5) (0.5) (0.5) (0.6) (0.5) (0.5) (0.5) (0.5) (1.2) (0.5) (0.2) Standard error Percentage and average scores of students by type of reading material: READING 487 510 527 508 496 543 515 489 520 441‡ 508‡ 526 Average Table B.2.13b (1.3) (14.0) (14.7) (15.3) (12.7) (11.9) (11.6) (15.9) (23.0) (38.1) (23.1) (6.1) Standard error PISA 2018 127 25.5 17.8 20.3 21.0 22.3 18.7 18.9 19.8 17.7 15.7 26.2 Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia New Brunswick Quebec Ontario Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta British Columbia OECD average Standard error (0.1) (0.9) (1.1) (1.0) (1.1) (1.1) (0.7) (1.2) (1.1) (2.0) (1.8) (0.5) Average 450 468 477 460 453 488 487 436 465 436 471 479 Standard error (0.6) (6.4) (6.8) (5.7) (4.9) (4.9) (4.1) (7.0) (6.0) (27.4) (6.6) (2.4) % (1.2) (1.2) (1.0) (1.0) (1.0) (1.1) (1.3) (1.1) (2.5) (1.9) 26.1 (0.1) 28.1 25.1 23.8 26.1 27.0 28.5 25.2 29.2 24.5 33.1 27.2 (0.6) Standard error * Significant difference compared to the average score in the “Never or almost never” category. Note: Students were asked how often they read this type of material because they want to. 19.1 Newfoundland and Labrador % Canada Canada, provinces, and OECD average Average (6.2) (2.2) Standard error 494* 519* 528* 503* 499* 523* 523* 487* 509* (0.5) (4.5) (6.7) (4.9) (5.3) (4.4) (4.0) (6.0) (5.7) 499* (15.4) 526* 520* Standard error % (1.1) (0.9) (1.2) (0.8) (0.7) (0.7) (1.1) (1.0) (2.4) (1.4) 18.6 (0.1) 20.9 20.7 23.1 20.8 19.0 22.1 20.4 19.8 23.7 19.8 20.4 (0.4) Average (8.3) (2.8) Standard error 499* 520* 546* 504* 499* 528* 529* 498* 531* (0.7) (6.9) (6.8) (4.8) (5.8) (5.6) (4.8) (6.0) (8.2) 518* (10.3) 533* 526* 17.0 19.3 20.5 18.9 17.9 19.4 15.6 18.1 17.3 18.7 12.0 18.5 % Several times a month (0.1) (1.1) (1.1) (1.1) (1.1) (0.7) (0.6) (1.3) (1.2) (1.9) (1.1) (0.4) Standard error About once a month (2.9) 517* 538* 558* 526* 522* 547* 545* 520* 542* (0.7) (8.1) (5.9) (5.4) (5.9) (5.0) (5.4) (9.8) (7.2) 521* (13.3) 547* (10.8) 544* Average A few times a year Standard error Never or almost never Several times a week 12.1 15.9 16.0 14.5 16.3 15.8 11.6 15.3 13.4 15.4 9.6 14.8 % Fiction (e.g., novels, narratives, stories) (0.1) (0.9) (0.9) (0.8) (1.2) (0.8) (0.6) (1.0) (1.1) (2.2) (1.2) (0.4) Standard error Percentage and average scores of students by type of reading material: READING (2.9) 534* 571* 581* 544* 534* 578* 569* 555* 582* (0.9) (6.9) (6.3) (6.7) (6.6) (6.0) (5.2) (8.7) (9.1) 555* (16.0) 590* (12.5) 572* Average Table B.2.13c Standard error 128 PISA 2018 34.2 25.9 29.5 33.7 39.2 29.0 31.4 29.8 27.9 25.7 35.5 Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia New Brunswick Quebec Ontario Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta British Columbia OECD average Standard error (0.1) (1.2) (1.2) (1.1) (1.2) (1.1) (0.9) (1.5) (1.3) (2.3) (1.8) (0.5) Average 469 500 514 485 482 513 510 467 495 480 498 507 Standard error (0.5) (6.2) (5.2) (4.2) (5.1) (4.4) (3.7) (5.2) (6.1) (15.0) (6.6) (2.1) (1.3) (1.1) (1.1) (1.0) (0.8) (0.8) (1.5) (1.3) (3.3) (1.9) 26.4 (0.1) 30.7 29.7 31.5 28.0 30.0 28.5 30.2 33.5 34.2 34.3 29.9 (0.4) Standard error ‡ There are fewer than 30 observations. * Significant difference compared to the average score in the “Never or almost never” category. Note: Students were asked how often they read this type of material because they want to. 30.7 Newfoundland and Labrador % Canada Canada, provinces, and OECD average Average 503* 533* 543* 516* 510* 539* 534* 502* 525* 499 531* 534* Standard error (0.6) (5.2) (6.6) (4.5) (5.3) (4.6) (4.3) (5.7) (4.8) (14.8) (6.9) (2.3) Standard error % (0.9) (1.0) (0.9) (0.9) (0.7) (0.6) (1.2) (1.1) (2.2) (1.6) 17.4 (0.1) 21.1 21.1 19.9 19.4 20.0 16.3 18.7 19.8 21.1 17.3 19.4 (0.4) Average (9.8) (3.1) Standard error 505* 527* 546* 510* 511* 531* 536* 505* 535* (0.7) (6.1) (6.7) (5.9) (6.0) (5.9) (5.2) (9.1) (7.0) 527* (11.9) 521* 531* 14.1 16.2 15.3 13.3 14.5 15.5 11.6 12.1 12.5 15.2 10.8 14.5 % Several times a month (0.1) (0.8) (1.0) (0.6) (0.9) (0.9) (0.6) (0.9) (0.9) (2.5) (1.2) (0.4) Standard error About once a month (2.9) (8.9) (20.8) 507* 531* 550* 513* 506* 547* 531* (0.8) (7.4) (8.1) (6.9) (7.4) (4.8) (6.0) 523* (10.1) 537* 515 546* (11.3) 539* Average A few times a year Standard error Never or almost never % Non-fiction books (e.g., informational, documentary) % 6.5 6.3 6.0 5.5 6.8 5.5 4.3 5.3 4.7 3.7 3.3 5.4 Several times a week (0.1) (0.7) (0.5) (0.6) (0.7) (0.4) (0.4) (0.8) (0.5) (1.0) (0.7) (0.2) Standard error Percentage and average scores of students by type of reading material: READING (4.5) (27.3) 502* 542* 551* 516* 494 538* 538* 527* 526 (1.2) (13.4) (11.5) (10.9) (11.3) (7.0) (9.5) (13.5) (19.3) 567*‡ (34.0) 576* 537* Average Table B.2.13d Standard error PISA 2018 129 57.6 39.2 50.4 52.9 42.9 47.8 49.1 51.3 47.1 46.0 37.8 Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia New Brunswick Quebec Ontario Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta British Columbia OECD average Standard error (0.1) (1.1) (1.3) (1.3) (1.2) (1.2) (1.0) (1.7) (1.7) (3.7) (2.1) (0.5) Average 480 516 529 497 493 524 514 484 513 498 510 518 Standard error (0.5) (4.6) (5.1) (3.6) (4.2) (3.5) (3.5) (4.2) (4.1) (18.0) (5.7) (1.7) % (1.0) (1.1) (1.2) (1.0) (0.7) (0.7) (1.3) (1.3) (2.4) (1.9) 21.3 (0.1) 24.6 22.7 22.2 23.7 23.2 23.2 23.2 26.1 24.6 22.8 23.4 (0.4) Standard error ‡ There are fewer than 30 observations. * Significant difference compared to the average score in the “Never or almost never” category. Note: Students were asked how often they read this type of material because they want to. 46.9 Newfoundland and Labrador % Canada Canada, provinces, and OECD average Average 497* 533* 540 519* 508* 534* 531* 507* 524 521 536* 532* Standard error (0.6) (5.1) (5.5) (5.2) (5.7) (4.5) (4.1) (6.9) (6.1) (14.6) (7.5) (2.5) Standard error % (0.8) (1.2) (0.8) (0.8) (0.7) (0.6) (1.1) (0.8) (2.1) (1.0) 15.5 (0.1) 14.3 14.8 13.8 12.8 14.3 15.3 12.0 11.2 16.7 10.1 14.3 (0.4) Standard error Average (10.4) (11.2) (14.4) (7.6) (6.0) (7.9) (7.3) 499 * (0.7) 527 542 509 498 538 * (6.3) 528 * (5.4) 507 * (11.5) 529 520 536 532 * (2.8) 14.7 9.9 10.0 9.1 9.3 10.2 11.3 8.1 7.7 14.5 6.7 10.2 % Several times a month (0.1) (0.7) (0.9) (0.7) (0.7) (0.7) (0.5) (1.0) (0.8) (3.1) (0.9) (0.3) Standard error About once a month 501* 526 551* 517* 520* 542* 541* 501 528 489 536 537* Average A few times a year (0.7) (10.0) (9.4) (6.8) (8.5) (6.2) (6.4) (13.6) (10.0) (18.0) (19.1) (3.6) Standard error Never or almost never Several times a week 10.7 5.1 5.4 3.6 5.2 4.5 7.3 3.8 4.5 4.8 2.9 5.2 % Newspapers (0.1) (0.5) (0.6) (0.5) (0.6) (0.4) (0.6) (0.6) (0.7) (1.5) (0.6) (0.2) Standard error Percentage and average scores of students by type of reading material: READING 492* 525 557* 483 495 540 537* 515 533 495‡ 552‡ 536* Average Table B.2.13e (1.0) (13.5) (12.4) (14.2) (13.7) (10.7) (9.1) (15.8) (18.2) (38.9) (24.3) (4.9) Standard error 130 PISA 2018 Table B.2.14 Percentage and average scores of students by reading format: READING Average Standard error % Average 481* (1.9) 36.8 (0.6) 558 (1.9) 16.6 (0.4) 516* 37.5 (1.8) 480* (6.3) 31.7 (1.5) 558 (7.2) 14.9 (1.3) 30.8 (3.4) 461* (15.9) 45.6 (3.2) 542 (10.9) 12.4 33.9 (1.2) 468* (5.1) 39.5 (1.5) 558 (5.1) New Brunswick 36.3 (1.4) 443* (5.2) 39.0 (1.4) 534 (6.0) Quebec 32.2 (0.9) 484* (3.7) 41.2 (1.2) 555 Ontario 29.2 (1.1) 489* (4.1) 33.9 (1.1) 561 Manitoba 31.0 (1.2) 458* (4.5) 34.0 (1.4) Saskatchewan 33.3 (1.3) 461* (3.9) 34.7 (1.3) Alberta 27.4 (1.2) 486* (5.3) 39.3 British Columbia 28.2 (1.1) 473* (5.0) 37.1 OECD average 35.3 (0.1) 456* (0.5) Standard error Standard error (0.6) (3.1) 16.6 (0.3) 544* (2.8) 511* (12.0) 15.8 (1.6) 556 (1.8) 471* (18.6) 11.1 (2.2) 511 (18.2) 12.2 (0.8) 505* (7.1) 14.4 (1.3) 544 (8.4) 11.1 (0.8) 484* (9.6) 13.7 (1.0) 528 (8.7) (3.8) 14.2 (0.8) 509* (5.1) 12.5 (0.6) 543* (5.8) (3.7) 19.2 (1.0) 525* (5.7) 17.7 (0.7) 549* (5.7) 536 (4.9) 15.4 (1.0) 484* (5.2) 19.5 (1.0) 513* (6.3) 536 (4.1) 15.4 (1.0) 505* (6.3) 16.6 (0.9) 527 (5.6) (1.4) 567 (5.2) 14.8 (0.9) 530* (7.1) 18.5 (0.9) 556 (6.5) (1.2) 561 (4.6) 16.5 (0.8) 501* (7.1) 18.2 (1.0) 540* (7.8) 36.5 (0.1) 526 (0.5) 14.9 (0.1) 474* (0.7) 13.4 (0.1) 506* (0.8) Average % 30.0 Standard error Standard error % Average Canada Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia I read books equally often in paper format and on digital devices Standard error Standard error I read books more often on digital devices % Canada, provinces, and OECD average I read books more often in paper format Standard error I rarely or never read books (8.6) * Significant difference compared to the average score in the “I read books more often in paper format” category. Note: Students were asked which statement best describes their preferred reading format. PISA 2018 131 % 18.5 (0.6) 11.6 (0.6) 10.5 (0.7) 10.7 (0.8) Quebec Ontario Manitoba Saskatchewan 13.1 (0.1) OECD average Standard error 483 (0.9) 515 (8.4) 544 (8.1) 487 (8.3) 489 (7.6) 524 (7.1) 530 (5.3) 484 (10.7) 525 (11.7) 473 (28.8) 508 (12.8) 523 (3.3) Standard error % 17.2 (0.1) 14.4 (0.8) 14.3 (1.0) 11.5 (0.8) 12.5 (0.7) 12.7 (0.6) 16.6 (0.7) 14.4 (1.0) 14.7 (1.1) 12.3 (2.2) 15.2 (1.4) 14.0 (0.3) 2 Standard error (8.6) (9.1) (8.1) (6.3) 504* (0.7) 539* (7.7) 563* (7.2) 511* (7.1) 517* (7.7) 538 545* (5.4) 502 529 508 (20.5) 538 540* (3.1) Standard error % 25.2 (0.1) 25.0 (1.0) 24.8 (1.1) 25.0 (1.0) 22.4 (1.1) 22.7 (0.6) 22.7 (0.8) 22.8 (1.3) 24.2 (1.1) 23.3 (2.3) 23.8 (1.3) 23.4 (0.3) 3 Average (9.2) (2.7) Standard error (6.0) (5.0) (4.2) (6.6) (6.6) (6.4) (6.0) 496* (0.6) 523 538 510* (5.0) 499 530 525 490 515 522 (12.2) 517 526 Standard error % 20.7 (0.1) 24.8 (1.0) 27.7 (1.2) 26.5 (0.9) 27.2 (1.2) 27.3 (0.8) 20.5 (0.8) 24.1 (1.4) 25.3 (1.1) 24.8 (2.3) 24.9 (1.5) 25.4 (0.4) 4 (6.7) (2.3) Standard error (5.0) (4.5) (5.1) (6.1) (5.4) 11.9 (0.1) 495* (0.6) 13.6 (0.8) 14.9 (0.8) (5.9) 15.1 (0.8) 14.0 (0.8) 14.5 (0.7) 10.9 (0.5) 14.5 (1.2) 14.0 (1.0) 17.1 (2.2) 12.8 (1.2) 13.7 (0.4) % (5.4) 524 528 504* (5.0) 504 532 522 501 516 500 (12.7) 517 525 Standard error I concentrate on the parts of the text that are easy to understand Average * Significant difference compared to the average score in category 1 (Not useful). Note: Students were asked how they would rate, on a six-point scale, the usefulness of this strategy for helping them understand and memorize the text. 11.4 (0.7) British Columbia 9.0 (0.9) 14.1 (1.3) Alberta 11.8 (0.8) New Brunswick 9.3 (1.8) Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia 9.5 (1.0) 12.6 (0.3) Standard error Newfoundland and Labrador Canada Canada, provinces, and OECD average Average Not useful 1 Average Percentage and average scores of students by reading strategy: READING 5 Average (3.1) Standard error (7.7) (6.1) (5.9) (5.6) (5.9) (8.8) 494* (0.7) 527 538 513* (5.5) 499 538 524 511* (8.1) 531 528 (13.7) 533 (10.8) 531 Very useful 6 % 11.9 (0.1) 9.5 (0.6) 10.7 (0.7) 11.3 (0.7) 13.5 (0.7) 11.2 (0.7) 10.8 (0.5) 10.0 (1.0) 9.9 (0.9) 13.1 (2.2) 13.8 (1.3) 10.9 (0.3) Standard error Table B.2.15a (3.1) Standard error (8.7) (9.8) (8.2) (6.9) (6.9) (6.4) (5.2) 471* (0.8) 513 526 504 499 527 501* 485 (10.1) 510 486 (20.5) 523 (11.4) 516 Average 132 PISA 2018 15.0 (2.2) 15.8 (1.1) 18.6 (1.2) 22.6 (0.9) 12.7 (0.8) 14.2 (0.9) 13.6 (0.8) 14.2 (0.8) 13.6 (0.8) 18.5 (0.1) Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia New Brunswick Quebec Ontario Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta British Columbia OECD average Standard error 492 (0.7) 523 (7.3) 547 (6.0) 506 (6.5) 507 (5.9) 531 (7.2) 523 (4.4) 490 (9.6) 516 (7.8) 500 (20.9) 513 (10.2) 526 (3.0) Standard error % 23.7 (0.1) 19.9 (1.2) 20.1 (1.0) 17.5 (0.8) 17.1 (1.1) 17.1 (0.7) 21.5 (0.8) 17.1 (1.2) 21.1 (1.4) 18.0 (2.2) 21.5 (1.4) 18.9 (0.4) 2 Standard error Average (6.5) (7.4) (5.5) (4.5) (7.3) (7.1) (6.9) 499* (0.6) 531 561* (5.8) 514 499 535 530 492 532 510 (17.1) 525 (10.0) 533* (2.6) Standard error % 22.9 (0.1) 23.4 (1.1) 23.8 (1.1) 23.0 (1.1) 21.3 (1.0) 22.6 (0.9) 21.0 (0.7) 22.0 (1.5) 23.1 (1.0) 23.3 (3.0) 21.4 (1.6) 22.5 (0.4) 3 Average (8.4) (2.8) Standard error (4.7) (6.4) (5.3) (4.6) (6.5) (6.3) 492 522 (0.6) (5.9) 527* (6.5) 500 504 530 532 487 514 519 (15.2) 515 525 Standard error % 16.9 (0.1) 21.6 (1.0) 20.9 (0.8) 21.6 (1.1) 21.1 (1.1) 21.9 (0.9) 16.1 (0.6) 19.7 (1.4) 18.5 (1.0) 21.0 (1.8) 18.8 (1.6) 20.3 (0.4) 4 (8.6) (2.3) (5.6) (6.4) (4.7) (4.8) (7.3) (7.7) (5.4) (0.6) 525 493 524* (6.4) 498 498 522 527 507 518 490 (12.0) 526 521 Average * Significant difference compared to the average score in category 1 (Not useful). Note: Students were asked how they would rate, on a six-point scale, the usefulness of this strategy for helping them understand and memorize the text. 15.8 (1.4) Newfoundland and Labrador % 15.3 (0.4) Standard error Canada Canada, provinces, and OECD average Average Not useful 1 Standard error I quickly read through the text twice Standard error 10.0 (0.1) 12.6 (0.7) 13.0 (0.7) 14.3 (0.9) 14.1 (0.9) 14.7 (0.6) 10.6 (0.6) 13.2 (1.2) 11.8 (0.8) 11.8 (2.2) 11.9 (1.2) 13.2 (0.3) % Percentage and average scores of students by reading strategy: READING 5 Average (3.0) Standard error (9.4) (6.8) (6.5) (7.2) (5.9) (6.1) (7.6) (7.4) 495* (0.8) 524 540 517 510 541 526 510 521 512 (12.9) 541* (10.8) 533 Very useful 6 % 7.9 (0.1) 8.9 (0.6) 8.0 (0.8) 9.9 (0.7) 12.2 (1.1) 11.0 (0.6) 8.2 (0.4) 9.5 (1.0) 9.7 (0.9) 10.9 (1.9) 10.6 (1.1) 9.7 (0.3) Standard error Table B.2.15b (3.6) Standard error (8.5) (8.4) (9.0) (7.9) (7.5) (6.0) (7.4) 475* (1.0) 520 538 502 498 537 514 498 (11.3) 524 507 (25.2) 524 (12.1) 526 Average PISA 2018 133 10.8 (1.6) 14.9 (1.1) 18.5 (1.2) 14.3 (0.8) 10.7 (0.8) 13.1 (0.8) 12.8 (0.8) 10.9 (0.7) 11.4 (0.9) 13.7 (0.1) Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia New Brunswick Quebec Ontario Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta British Columbia OECD average Standard error 455 (0.7) 501 (8.8) 526 (6.9) 484 (6.4) 479 (6.2) 520 (7.4) 499 (4.7) 468 (8.7) 497 (7.7) 466 (25.9) 496 (10.8) 507 (3.3) Standard error % 15.6 (0.1) 15.1 (1.0) 13.2 (0.8) 16.2 (1.0) 15.2 (1.0) 13.8 (0.5) 12.3 (0.6) 16.4 (1.2) 17.2 (1.1) 14.6 (1.7) 16.2 (1.4) 13.9 (0.3) 2 (3.0) Standard error (6.9) (6.5) (5.8) (7.1) (8.1) 474* (0.7) 500 521 503* (6.4) 499* (6.6) 525 516* (5.1) 486 510 499 (19.6) 510 (10.1) 515 Standard error % 19.3 (0.1) 18.5 (0.9) 19.1 (0.9) 20.7 (1.0) 19.0 (1.0) 19.3 (0.8) 15.6 (0.6) 16.4 (1.2) 18.2 (1.0) 17.9 (1.8) 18.9 (1.5) 18.4 (0.3) 3 Average (9.8) (2.7) Standard error (7.6) (7.2) (6.0) (6.8) (5.8) (6.3) (5.3) 479* (0.6) 513 525 485 487 513 511* (4.6) 469 503 499 (11.1) 510 511 Standard error % 19.2 (0.1) 21.0 (0.8) 21.3 (0.9) 20.1 (0.9) 19.9 (1.0) 22.2 (0.8) 19.8 (0.6) 19.7 (1.3) 18.3 (1.2) 27.4 (2.6) 18.2 (1.3) 21.1 (0.4) 4 Standard error (4.3) 16.2 (0.1) 503* (0.6) 17.6 (1.1) 18.0 (0.8) (6.4) 16.0 (1.0) 15.1 (0.9) 18.0 (0.8) 18.2 (0.7) 15.7 (1.2) 18.0 (1.2) 13.8 (2.4) 16.9 (1.2) 17.7 (0.4) Standard error 528* (6.2) 530 506* (5.6) 502* (4.7) 532 531* (4.6) 497* (6.7) 520* (7.2) 506 (14.4) 523* (9.3) 528* (2.3) % After reading the text, I discuss its content with other people Average * Significant difference compared to the average score in category 1 (Not useful). Note: Students were asked how they would rate, on a six-point scale, the usefulness of this strategy for helping them understand and memorize the text. 13.2 (1.3) Newfoundland and Labrador % 12.0 (0.4) Standard error Canada Canada, provinces, and OECD average Average Not useful 1 Average Percentage and average scores of students by reading strategy: READING 5 Standard error Average 521* (0.7) 542* (8.0) 559* (7.5) 521* (5.6) 519* (6.9) 541* (5.1) 541* (5.5) 524* (7.0) 554* (7.8) 556* (16.2) 546* (8.5) 542* (2.9) Very useful 6 % 16.0 (0.1) 16.0 (1.0) 17.8 (1.0) 14.1 (1.0) 17.6 (1.0) 16.0 (0.7) 19.9 (0.8) 13.4 (1.0) 13.3 (0.9) 15.6 (2.1) 16.5 (1.4) 16.9 (0.4) Standard error Table B.2.15c Standard error (9.2) (6.9) (5.7) (5.7) (5.6) (5.1) (5.7) (9.8) (7.7) 521* (0.7) 555* 561* 538* 527* 558* 546* 544* 542* 507 (15.1) 544* 552* (2.6) Average 134 PISA 2018 12.1 (0.7) Saskatchewan 8.8 (0.1) OECD average Standard error 451 (0.9) 512 (8.7) 542 (9.7) 490 (6.3) 489 (7.4) 536 (8.6) 510 (7.4) 483 (12.2) 510 (7.8) 476 (24.0) 507 (15.6) 522 (4.2) Standard error % 9.8 (0.1) 10.8 (0.8) 11.2 (0.8) 13.4 (0.7) 10.8 (0.7) 11.3 (0.6) 6.9 (0.4) 11.6 (0.9) 11.1 (1.0) 11.4 (1.7) 7.8 (0.9) 10.3 (0.3) 2 Average (3.5) Standard error (6.7) (6.8) (8.2) (9.1) (7.1) (7.3) (9.4) 465* (0.9) 518 527 503 503 536 510 481 491 (10.5) 487 (21.7) 514 (15.5) 523 Standard error % 14.0 (0.1) 15.7 (0.9) 16.2 (1.0) 17.5 (1.0) 16.2 (1.1) 17.9 (0.7) 11.9 (0.6) 17.7 (1.4) 15.2 (0.9) 11.6 (1.7) 15.4 (1.3) 16.0 (0.3) 3 Average (2.6) Standard error (7.2) (7.3) (6.3) (8.4) (4.8) (6.0) (8.6) (8.2) 471* (0.7) 505 532 489 499 526 512 482 518 495 (24.1) 505 (10.4) 518 Standard error % 18.3 (0.1) 21.5 (0.8) 20.3 (1.1) 20.1 (0.9) 21.3 (1.0) 22.8 (0.6) 18.7 (0.7) 17.7 (1.2) 19.3 (1.4) 25.2 (2.4) 20.6 (1.5) 21.1 (0.3) 4 (8.3) (2.9) (8.4) (7.7) (5.0) (5.0) 20.5 (0.1) 493* (0.7) 20.6 (1.0) 21.4 (0.9) (8.1) 19.6 (1.0) 19.3 (1.0) 19.9 (0.8) 23.2 (0.8) 20.2 (1.3) 21.5 (1.5) 21.1 (2.2) 20.0 (1.5) 20.9 (0.4) Standard error (6.9) 531 524 510* (5.8) 495 525 529* (5.2) 495 514 532* (10.8) 512 524 Average * Significant difference compared to the average score in category 1 (Not useful). Note: Students were asked how they would rate, on a six-point scale, the usefulness of this strategy for helping them understand and memorize the text. 10.8 (1.0) British Columbia 8.5 (0.8) 10.0 (0.8) Manitoba Alberta 9.3 (0.8) 13.6 (1.0) New Brunswick 7.7 (0.5) 11.7 (0.7) Nova Scotia Ontario 12.5 (1.8) Prince Edward Island Quebec 7.2 (1.0) Newfoundland and Labrador % 9.3 (0.4) Standard error Canada Canada, provinces, and OECD average Average Not useful 1 Standard error I underline important parts of the text % Percentage and average scores of students by reading strategy: READING 5 Standard error Average (8.6) (6.4) (4.8) (5.9) 516* (0.6) 535* (7.0) 552 517* (5.6) 509* (6.2) 538 543* (4.2) 509 545* (6.5) 508 (17.1) 532 538* (2.5) Very useful 6 % 28.6 (0.1) 19.8 (0.8) 23.2 (1.3) 17.3 (1.1) 22.4 (1.0) 18.8 (0.8) 31.6 (0.9) 19.2 (1.4) 21.2 (1.3) 18.3 (2.9) 29.0 (1.7) 22.3 (0.5) Standard error Table B.2.15d 511* 534* 547 517* 514* 533 527* 518* 530* 514 538 531* Average PISA 2018 135 (0.5) (6.2) (5.3) (5.5) (5.5) (4.6) (3.9) (7.8) (7.2) (11.6) (6.9) (2.5) Standard error 9.9 (0.9) Nova Scotia 7.5 (0.6) 8.6 (0.7) 8.1 (0.6) 6.9 (0.8) 8.4 (0.6) 7.7 (0.1) Ontario Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta British Columbia OECD average Standard error 442 (1.0) 500 (10.7) 526 (10.0) 478 (8.0) 480 (8.7) 521 (8.4) 492 (6.6) 471 (11.6) 489 (10.1) 450 (28.5) 488 (14.2) 506 (4.6) Standard error % 9.7 (0.1) 9.6 (0.6) 9.7 (0.9) 9.4 (0.8) 8.1 (0.7) 11.0 (0.7) 8.0 (0.5) 12.0 (1.2) 10.8 (1.0) 13.0 (1.9) 9.5 (1.1) 9.9 (0.3) 2 Average (3.6) Standard error (8.9) (8.7) (8.0) (6.7) (8.1) (6.7) 460* (0.8) 504 513 493 489 530 518* (6.7) 477 505 (11.1) 495 (14.5) 488 (10.4) 517 Standard error % 15.1 (0.1) 16.2 (0.8) 17.4 (1.0) 18.2 (0.9) 15.5 (1.0) 18.5 (0.8) 13.8 (0.7) 19.4 (1.3) 17.1 (1.0) 16.6 (1.8) 14.9 (1.1) 16.9 (0.4) 3 Standard error Average (7.9) (7.2) (6.9) (6.7) (5.6) (6.6) (5.1) 471* (0.7) 514 527 478 487 522 514* (5.5) 488 499 508*(16.8) 508 (10.6) 516* (2.9) Standard error % 18.8 (0.1) 21.0 (0.7) 21.4 (1.1) 22.5 (1.0) 21.7 (1.0) 22.8 (0.7) 19.4 (0.6) 19.6 (1.0) 20.7 (1.3) 22.9 (2.3) 23.0 (1.7) 21.5 (0.4) 4 (7.6) (4.8) 22.0 (0.1) 494* (0.6) 20.7 (1.2) 22.9 (1.0) (7.9) 21.6 (1.1) 23.1 (1.1) 20.1 (0.7) 22.5 (0.7) 19.7 (1.2) 20.2 (1.2) 17.3 (1.9) 21.7 (1.5) 21.2 (0.4) Standard error (7.4) 520 533 514* (5.4) 504* (5.4) 527 525* (4.2) 491 518* (6.9) 510* (12.4) 526* (8.7) 524* (2.5) Average * Significant difference compared to the average score in category 1 (Not useful). Note: Students were asked how they would rate, on a six-point scale, the usefulness of this strategy for helping them understand and memorize the text. 8.2 (0.6) Quebec 12.9 (1.0) 9.2 (1.7) Prince Edward Island New Brunswick 8.1 (1.1) Newfoundland and Labrador % 8.0 (0.3) Standard error Canada Canada, provinces, and OECD average Average Not useful 1 Standard error I summarize the text in my own words % Percentage and average scores of students by reading strategy: READING 5 Standard error Average (4.7) (5.2) 511* (0.6) 534* (6.8) 542 520* (5.7) 507* (5.4) 537 537* (4.5) 505* (6.5) 534* (6.6) 516* (15.5) 540* (7.6) 534* (2.1) Very useful 6 % 26.8 (0.1) 21.8 (1.2) 23.9 (1.2) 20.2 (1.1) 22.9 (1.0) 20.1 (1.0) 28.0 (0.9) 16.5 (1.2) 21.4 (1.2) 21.0 (2.8) 22.8 (1.7) 22.5 (0.5) Standard error Table B.2.15e Standard error (8.5) (6.3) (5.5) (5.4) (5.3) (4.9) (5.1) (8.4) (7.3) 518* (0.6) 547* 560* 522* 522* 547* 538* 534* 551* 528* (15.2) 538* 544* (2.7) Average 136 PISA 2018 24.3 (3.3) 27.0 (1.2) 31.1 (1.3) 33.0 (1.0) 24.0 (1.1) 23.2 (1.0) 24.5 (1.0) 23.8 (1.2) 22.3 (1.1) 22.6 (0.1) Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia New Brunswick Quebec Ontario Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta British Columbia OECD average Standard error 478 (0.6) 511 (6.2) 531 (5.7) 501 (4.8) 496 (5.7) 539 (5.2) 516 (3.7) 488 (6.0) 512 (5.8) 501 (15.7) 508 (7.7) 523 (2.5) Standard error % 19.2 (0.1) 19.3 (0.8) 19.1 (0.8) 19.3 (1.1) 17.9 (0.9) 20.3 (0.8) 18.3 (0.6) 18.8 (1.1) 21.6 (1.3) 21.7 (2.8) 19.9 (1.7) 19.5 (0.3) 2 Standard error Average (8.3) (8.0) (8.1) (6.5) (5.2) (6.8) (4.6) 495* (0.6) 529* (6.0) 540 513 510 534 538* (4.6) 496 520 498 (13.3) 526 532* (2.6) Standard error % 19.3 (0.1) 20.4 (1.0) 19.9 (0.9) 20.6 (1.0) 18.7 (1.0) 18.9 (0.8) 16.1 (0.7) 19.1 (1.3) 18.4 (1.1) 19.1 (2.3) 17.3 (1.6) 18.7 (0.4) 3 Average (9.9) (2.7) Standard error (8.0) (7.3) (5.9) (5.5) (5.1) (7.9) (5.7) 497* (0.6) 525 538 500 505 530 538* (4.7) 496 513 514 (19.2) 528 528 Standard error % 15.8 (0.1) 16.0 (0.8) 15.8 (0.8) 15.7 (0.7) 17.4 (1.0) 15.9 (0.8) 13.8 (0.6) 13.6 (1.1) 14.6 (0.9) 13.1 (3.3) 15.2 (1.4) 15.4 (0.4) 4 (9.4) (3.2) (8.8) (9.1) 9.2 (0.5) 11.6 (0.1) 504* (0.7) 12.1 (0.8) 10.2 (0.8) 11.6 (0.8) 10.8 (0.5) 12.5 (0.7) (8.9) (6.1) (5.7) (6.1) 9.2 (1.0) 10.4 (0.8) 9.9 (1.8) 8.8 (1.0) 10.8 (0.3) Standard error (7.5) 524 540 505 502 527 530* (5.5) 502 524 512 (23.3) 524 526 Average * Significant difference compared to the average score in category 1 (Not useful). Note: Students were asked how they would rate, on a six-point scale, the usefulness of this strategy for helping them understand and memorize the text. 28.8 (1.8) Newfoundland and Labrador % 25.8 (0.5) Standard error Canada Canada, provinces, and OECD average Average Not useful 1 Standard error I read the text aloud to another person % Percentage and average scores of students by reading strategy: READING 5 Average (3.4) Standard error (6.9) (7.8) (7.9) (7.3) 506* (0.8) 535* (9.2) 543 513 506 524* (5.9) 525 509* (9.5) 544* (9.4) 535 (22.3) 539* (13.8) 528 Very useful 6 % 11.5 (0.1) 9.5 (0.8) 9.3 (0.7) 9.7 (0.7) 11.2 (0.8) 10.1 (0.6) 9.6 (0.6) 8.2 (0.8) 8.0 (0.8) 11.8 (1.8) 10.0 (1.1) 9.8 (0.3) Standard error Table B.2.15f (4.1) Standard error (9.9) (8.2) (9.1) (7.7) (7.1) (7.5) 483* (0.9) 533* 545 506 496 532 514 506 (12.9) 536 (12.5) 497 (16.3) 540* (11.4) 527 Average PISA 2018 137 Table B.3.1a Percentage of students at each proficiency level: MATHEMATICS Country or province B-S-J-Z (China) Macao (China) Singapore Hong Kong (China) Estonia Japan Quebec Chinese Taipei Denmark Poland Finland Korea Ireland Netherlands Ontario Alberta Canada Slovenia Switzerland Latvia British Columbia Sweden Norway United Kingdom Belgium Nova Scotia Czech Republic Iceland Austria Germany Newfoundland and Labrador France Saskatchewan Russian Federation New Zealand New Brunswick Australia Portugal Prince Edward Island Italy Spain Manitoba Slovak Republic Lithuania Hungary United States Luxembourg 138 Proficiency levels Below Level 1 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Standard error Level 6 Standard % error % Standard error % Standard error % Standard error % Standard error % Standard error 0.5 1.0 1.8 2.8 2.1 2.9 3.6 5.0 3.7 4.2 3.8 5.4 3.8 4.5 4.6 5.3 5.0 4.8 4.8 4.4 6.0 6.0 6.5 6.4 6.9 6.4 6.6 7.4 7.3 7.6 (0.1) (0.2) (0.2) (0.4) (0.3) (0.4) (0.6) (0.4) (0.4) (0.5) (0.4) (0.5) (0.5) (0.6) (0.7) (1.0) (0.4) (0.6) (0.4) (0.5) (0.9) (0.6) (0.5) (0.5) (0.7) (1.3) (0.7) (0.5) (0.7) (0.7) 1.9 4.0 5.3 6.4 8.1 8.6 8.1 9.0 10.9 10.5 11.1 9.6 11.9 11.2 11.2 10.9 11.3 11.7 12.0 12.9 12.8 12.8 12.4 12.8 12.8 13.9 13.8 13.3 13.8 13.5 (0.3) (0.4) (0.4) (0.6) (0.6) (0.6) (0.8) (0.5) (0.6) (0.6) (0.6) (0.6) (0.7) (0.7) (0.9) (1.4) (0.5) (0.7) (0.8) (0.8) (1.3) (0.8) (0.6) (0.6) (0.6) (1.4) (0.7) (0.7) (0.8) (0.8) 6.9 12.3 11.1 13.5 20.8 18.7 16.6 16.1 22.0 20.7 22.3 17.3 24.7 19.0 21.3 20.7 20.8 21.6 19.5 25.8 21.7 21.9 21.8 22.0 18.6 24.5 22.1 22.0 20.8 20.7 (0.5) (0.8) (0.5) (0.7) (0.8) (0.8) (0.9) (0.7) (0.9) (0.8) (0.9) (0.8) (0.8) (1.0) (1.2) (1.8) (0.6) (0.9) (0.9) (0.9) (1.3) (0.9) (0.8) (0.8) (0.7) (1.4) (0.8) (1.0) (1.0) (0.9) 17.5 24.8 19.1 22.1 29.0 26.4 25.5 23.2 28.8 26.5 28.9 23.4 30.5 23.2 25.8 26.8 25.9 26.4 24.4 29.4 25.3 25.7 26.5 25.5 23.8 26.2 25.2 26.7 24.9 24.0 (0.8) (0.9) (0.7) (0.7) (0.8) (0.9) (1.3) (0.8) (0.8) (0.8) (1.0) (0.7) (0.8) (1.1) (1.4) (1.8) (0.6) (0.9) (1.0) (1.0) (1.5) (0.8) (0.8) (0.7) (0.8) (1.4) (0.9) (1.0) (0.9) (0.8) 28.9 30.3 25.8 26.3 24.6 25.1 25.2 23.5 23.0 22.3 22.7 22.9 20.8 23.6 21.7 21.6 21.7 22.0 22.3 19.0 20.6 21.0 20.6 20.4 22.2 18.7 19.6 20.2 20.6 20.8 (1.0) (1.2) (0.8) (0.9) (0.8) (1.0) (1.2) (0.8) (0.8) (0.7) (0.8) (0.8) (0.8) (0.9) (1.6) (1.4) (0.7) (0.8) (0.9) (0.8) (1.4) (0.8) (0.9) (0.7) (0.7) (1.5) (0.7) (0.9) (0.8) (0.8) 27.8 20.0 23.2 19.5 11.8 14.0 14.7 15.6 9.5 11.7 9.3 14.4 7.2 14.2 11.5 11.5 11.3 10.5 12.1 7.1 9.9 10.0 9.8 9.8 12.5 7.9 9.5 8.5 10.0 10.5 (1.0) (0.8) (0.7) (0.8) (0.7) (0.8) (0.9) (0.8) (0.6) (0.7) (0.5) (0.7) (0.6) (0.8) (1.0) (1.2) (0.5) (0.8) (0.7) (0.5) (1.2) (0.7) (0.6) (0.6) (0.6) (1.2) (0.5) (0.6) (0.7) (0.7) 6.0 (1.5) 15.1 (1.6) 26.7 (2.4) 26.7 (2.1) 16.9 (2.1) 6.9 (1.9) U‡ (0.7) 8.0 6.4 6.8 7.6 7.5 7.6 9.3 (0.5) (0.8) (0.7) (0.5) (1.0) (0.5) (0.6) 13.2 15.2 14.9 14.2 14.7 14.8 14.0 (0.6) (1.6) (0.8) (0.6) (1.4) (0.5) (0.8) 21.1 26.3 25.0 22.8 23.8 23.4 20.9 (0.8) (1.7) (0.9) (0.8) (1.7) (0.5) (0.8) 25.6 27.7 27.5 25.0 25.1 25.6 24.5 (0.8) (1.7) (0.9) (0.7) (1.6) (0.5) (1.1) 21.0 17.8 17.8 18.9 18.5 18.2 19.7 (0.8) (1.6) (0.8) (0.7) (1.8) (0.5) (0.8) 9.2 5.6 6.6 8.8 8.0 8.0 9.1 (0.6) (0.8) (0.6) (0.4) (1.4) (0.4) (0.6) 1.8 U‡ 1.5 2.7 2.3 2.5 2.5 (0.3) (0.4) (0.2) (0.3) (0.7) (0.3) (0.3) 8.3 (2.7) 15.5 (2.9) 23.0 (2.7) 25.9 (3.3) 18.2 (3.8) (2.6) U‡ (0.9) 9.1 8.7 8.0 10.7 9.3 9.6 10.2 10.9 (0.8) (0.4) (0.9) (0.9) (0.6) (0.7) (0.8) (0.6) 14.8 16.0 16.8 14.4 16.4 16.1 16.9 16.4 (0.9) (0.5) (1.3) (0.6) (0.7) (0.8) (0.9) (0.6) 22.9 24.4 24.9 21.4 24.2 23.6 24.2 21.7 (1.0) (0.4) (1.9) (0.9) (0.7) (0.9) (1.0) (0.8) 25.6 26.0 26.2 24.2 25.2 25.2 24.1 22.6 (0.9) (0.6) (1.4) (0.9) (0.9) (1.0) (1.0) (0.7) 18.1 17.5 16.5 18.6 16.5 17.5 16.3 17.7 (0.8) (0.5) (1.1) (0.9) (0.8) (0.8) (0.9) (0.7) % U‡ 7.5 6.2 6.3 8.4 6.8 6.5 6.8 8.6 (0.6) (0.3) (0.9) (0.6) (0.5) (0.5) (0.7) (0.5) 16.5 7.7 13.8 9.5 3.7 4.3 6.3 7.6 2.1 4.1 1.8 6.9 1.0 4.3 3.9 3.4 4.0 3.1 4.9 1.4 3.7 2.6 2.4 3.1 3.2 2.4 3.1 1.9 2.5 2.8 2.0 1.1 U 2.3 1.7 1.4 1.5 2.3 (1.1) (0.6) (0.8) (0.8) (0.4) (0.5) (0.6) (0.8) (0.3) (0.5) (0.3) (0.8) (0.2) (0.5) (0.6) (0.7) (0.3) (0.4) (0.5) (0.2) (0.8) (0.3) (0.4) (0.4) (0.4) (0.8) (0.3) (0.3) (0.3) (0.3) (0.3) (0.1) (0.4) (0.3) (0.2) (0.3) (0.3) (0.3) PISA 2018 Table B.3.1a (cont’d) Percentage of students at each proficiency level: MATHEMATICS Country or province Belarus Malta Croatia Israel Greece Ukraine Turkey Cyprus Serbia Malaysia Albania Bulgaria United Arab Emirates Montenegro Romania Brunei Darussalam Kazakhstan Moldova Uruguay Baku (Azerbaijan) Chile Thailand Qatar Mexico Bosnia and Herzegovina Jordan Lebanon Costa Rica Peru Republic of North Macedonia Georgia Colombia Brazil Argentina Indonesia Saudi Arabia Morocco Kosovo Philippines Panama Dominican Republic OECD average Proficiency levels Below Level 1 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 % Standard error % Standard error % Standard error % Standard error % Standard error 11.4 14.3 11.0 17.7 15.3 15.6 13.8 17.2 18.1 16.1 16.9 21.9 (0.7) (0.7) (0.8) (1.1) (1.1) (1.2) (0.9) (0.6) (1.1) (0.9) (0.9) (1.4) 18.0 15.9 20.2 16.4 20.5 20.3 22.9 19.7 21.6 25.4 25.5 22.5 (0.7) (0.8) (0.8) (0.8) (0.9) (1.0) (0.8) (0.7) (0.8) (1.0) (0.9) (0.8) 24.7 21.5 27.4 20.7 26.8 26.2 27.3 24.7 24.1 28.3 28.6 23.7 (0.9) (1.0) (0.9) (0.7) (0.9) (1.0) (0.8) (0.9) (0.8) (0.9) (1.0) (1.0) 23.4 23.2 23.3 21.0 22.5 21.5 20.4 22.0 19.2 19.3 19.3 18.2 (0.7) (1.1) (0.8) (0.8) (1.0) (1.0) (0.8) (0.8) (0.8) (0.9) (0.8) (1.0) 15.2 16.6 13.0 15.4 11.1 11.5 10.9 12.1 11.7 8.5 7.5 9.4 (0.7) (0.7) (0.8) (0.8) (0.6) (0.8) (0.5) (0.5) (0.7) (0.7) (0.7) (0.7) 6.1 6.7 4.3 7.0 3.2 4.0 3.9 3.7 4.2 2.2 2.0 3.3 (0.5) (0.6) (0.5) (0.6) (0.4) (0.5) (0.4) (0.4) (0.4) (0.4) (0.2) (0.5) 1.2 1.8 0.8 1.8 0.5 1.0 0.9 0.7 1.0 U‡ U‡ 0.9 (0.2) (0.3) (0.2) (0.3) (0.2) (0.3) (0.3) (0.1) (0.2) (0.1) (0.1) (0.2) 24.2 (0.9) 21.3 (0.6) 21.5 (0.5) 17.2 (0.6) 10.4 (0.5) 4.2 (0.3) 1.2 (0.1) 19.9 22.6 22.1 22.3 26.1 24.6 24.7 24.7 25.0 29.7 26.0 (0.7) (1.6) (0.8) (0.8) (0.9) (1.1) (1.0) (1.1) (1.3) (0.7) (1.2) 26.3 23.9 25.7 26.8 24.2 26.1 26.1 27.2 27.7 24.0 30.3 (0.7) (1.2) (0.8) (0.6) (0.9) (1.3) (0.8) (0.9) (1.0) (0.5) (0.9) 27.3 24.5 24.0 26.6 23.5 26.5 25.2 25.5 24.6 21.9 26.4 (0.7) (1.1) (0.6) (0.6) (0.9) (1.0) (0.9) (0.9) (1.0) (0.5) (0.9) 17.9 17.3 16.2 16.0 16.5 15.8 15.7 15.6 14.3 14.6 13.1 (0.5) (1.1) (0.5) (0.6) (0.7) (1.0) (0.7) (0.8) (0.8) (0.4) (0.8) 6.9 8.5 8.9 6.3 7.3 6.0 6.4 5.7 6.1 6.9 3.7 (0.4) (1.0) (0.5) (0.4) (0.6) (0.6) (0.6) (0.5) (0.7) (0.3) (0.5) 1.6 2.7 2.7 1.6 2.0 1.0 1.7 1.1 1.9 2.4 0.5 (0.2) (0.5) (0.3) (0.2) (0.3) (0.2) (0.3) (0.2) (0.3) (0.2) (0.1) U‡ U‡ 0.4‡ 0.3 U‡ U‡ U‡ U‡ 0.3 0.6 U‡ (0.1) (0.2) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.0) (0.1) (0.0) (0.1) (0.1) (0.0) 28.7 (1.3) 28.9 (1.0) 24.2 (0.9) 13.1 (0.8) 4.3 (0.5) 0.7 (0.2) U‡ (0.0) 30.7 38.0 27.8 32.0 (1.4) (1.7) (1.3) (1.2) 28.6 21.8 32.2 28.3 (0.8) (1.0) (1.2) (0.8) 24.0 19.1 25.6 23.1 (0.9) (1.1) (1.2) (0.9) 12.4 13.1 11.2 11.6 (0.8) (0.9) (1.0) (0.7) 3.6 6.0 2.8 4.1 (0.5) (0.5) (0.5) (0.5) 0.6 1.7 U‡ 0.8 (0.2) (0.3) (0.1) (0.2) U‡ U‡ U‡ U‡ (0.1) (0.1) (0.0) (0.0) 35.2 (0.8) 25.8 (0.8) 21.3 (0.7) 12.1 (0.7) 4.5 (0.4) 1.0 (0.2) U‡ (0.1) 33.7 35.5 41.0 40.5 40.6 42.8 47.1 47.0 54.4 53.7 69.3 9.1 (1.2) (1.7) (1.0) (1.6) (1.6) (1.6) (1.9) (1.0) (1.7) (1.4) (1.4) (0.1) 27.3 29.9 27.1 28.5 31.3 29.9 28.5 29.6 26.3 27.5 21.3 14.8 (1.1) (1.2) (0.7) (1.0) (1.2) (1.0) (1.0) (1.1) (0.9) (1.0) (1.0) (0.1) 21.6 21.1 18.2 19.6 18.6 18.8 16.9 16.5 13.6 13.5 7.3 22.2 (0.8) (0.9) (0.7) (0.9) (1.0) (1.1) (1.0) (0.8) (1.0) (0.8) (0.6) (0.1) 11.9 10.0 9.3 8.8 6.8 6.8 6.2 5.4 4.7 4.3 1.8 24.4 (0.8) (0.7) (0.5) (0.7) (0.7) (0.6) (0.6) (0.4) (0.7) (0.6) (0.4) (0.1) 4.4 3.1 3.4 2.3 2.3 1.5 1.2 1.4 0.9 0.9 U 18.5 (0.5) (0.4) (0.3) (0.3) (0.5) (0.3) (0.2) (0.2) (0.3) (0.2) (0.1) (0.1) 0.9 0.5 0.8 0.3 U U‡ U‡ U‡ U‡ U‡ U‡ 8.5 (0.3) (0.1) (0.2) (0.1) (0.2) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.0) (0.1) U‡ U‡ U‡ U‡ U‡ U‡ U‡ U‡ U‡ U‡ 0.0‡ 2.4 (0.1) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.1) % Standard error Level 6 Standard % error ‡ There are fewer than 30 observations. U Too unreliable to be published. Note: Countries and provinces have been sorted in descending order by the total percentage of students who attained Level 2 or higher. B-S-J-Z (China) represents Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, and Zhejiang. See OECD 2019b, p. 21, for a note regarding Cyprus. The data for Vietnam have not yet been fully validated: due to a lack of consistency in the response pattern of some performance data, the OECD cannot yet assure full international comparability of the results. PISA 2018 139 Table B.3.1b Proportion of students who performed below Level 2, at Level 2 or above, and at Levels 5 and 6: MATHEMATICS Proficiency levels Country or province B-S-J-Z (China) Macao (China) Singapore Hong Kong (China) Estonia Japan Quebec Chinese Taipei Denmark Poland Finland Korea Ireland Netherlands Ontario Alberta Canada Slovenia Switzerland Latvia British Columbia Sweden Norway United Kingdom Belgium Nova Scotia Czech Republic Iceland Austria Germany Newfoundland and Labrador France Saskatchewan Russian Federation New Zealand New Brunswick Australia Portugal Prince Edward Island Italy Spain Manitoba Slovak Republic Lithuania Hungary United States Luxembourg 140 Below Level 2 Standard % error 2.4 5.0 7.1 9.2 10.2 11.5 11.7 14.0 14.6 14.7 15.0 15.0 15.7 15.8 15.8 16.2 16.3 16.4 16.8 17.3 18.8 18.8 18.9 19.2 19.7 20.3 20.4 20.7 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.3 21.6 21.6 21.8 22.3 22.4 23.3 23.7 23.8 24.7 24.8 25.1 25.6 25.6 27.1 27.2 (0.4) (0.5) (0.4) (0.8) (0.6) (0.8) (1.1) (0.8) (0.6) (0.8) (0.7) (0.9) (0.8) (1.1) (1.2) (2.0) (0.7) (0.6) (0.9) (1.0) (1.8) (1.0) (0.8) (0.9) (0.9) (2.2) (1.1) (1.0) (1.2) (1.1) (2.3) (0.8) (2.1) (1.3) (0.8) (2.0) (0.7) (1.0) (3.9) (1.1) (0.6) (1.6) (1.1) (0.9) (1.0) (1.4) (0.7) Level 2 or above Standard % error 97.6 95.0 92.9 90.8 89.8 88.5 88.3 86.0 85.4 85.3 85.0 85.0 84.3 84.2 84.2 83.8 83.7 83.6 83.2 82.7 81.2 81.2 81.1 80.8 80.3 79.7 79.6 79.3 78.9 78.9 78.9 78.7 78.4 78.4 78.2 77.7 77.6 76.7 76.3 76.2 75.3 75.2 74.9 74.4 74.4 72.9 72.8 (0.4) (0.5) (0.4) (0.8) (0.6) (0.8) (1.1) (0.8) (0.6) (0.8) (0.7) (0.9) (0.8) (1.1) (1.2) (2.0) (0.7) (0.6) (0.9) (1.0) (1.8) (1.0) (0.8) (0.9) (0.9) (2.2) (1.1) (1.0) (1.2) (1.1) (2.3) (0.8) (2.1) (1.3) (0.8) (2.0) (0.7) (1.0) (3.9) (1.1) (0.6) (1.6) (1.1) (0.9) (1.0) (1.4) (0.7) Levels 5 and 6 Standard % error 44.3 27.6 36.9 29.0 15.5 18.3 21.1 23.2 11.6 15.8 11.1 21.4 8.2 18.4 15.4 14.8 15.3 13.6 17.0 8.5 13.6 12.6 12.2 12.9 15.7 10.3 12.7 10.4 12.6 13.3 8.6 11.0 6.6 8.1 11.6 10.3 10.5 11.6 9.1‡ 9.5 7.3 7.6 10.7 8.4 8.0 8.3 10.8 (1.3) (0.8) (0.8) (1.1) (0.8) (1.1) (1.3) (1.1) (0.7) (1.0) (0.6) (1.1) (0.7) (1.0) (1.5) (1.6) (0.7) (0.7) (1.0) (0.6) (1.7) (0.8) (0.7) (0.8) (0.9) (1.6) (0.7) (0.6) (0.8) (0.8) (2.1) (0.8) (0.9) (0.7) (0.5) (1.7) (0.5) (0.7) (2.9) (0.8) (0.4) (1.0) (0.7) (0.5) (0.7) (0.8) (0.6) PISA 2018 Table B.3.1b (cont’d) Proportion of students who performed below Level 2, at Level 2 or above, and at Levels 5 and 6: MATHEMATICS Proficiency levels Country or province Below Level 2 Standard % error Level 2 or above Standard % error Belarus Malta Croatia Israel Greece Ukraine Turkey Cyprus Serbia Malaysia Albania Bulgaria United Arab Emirates Montenegro Romania Brunei Darussalam Kazakhstan Moldova Uruguay Baku (Azerbaijan) Chile Thailand Qatar Mexico Bosnia and Herzegovina Jordan Lebanon Costa Rica Peru Republic of North Macedonia Georgia Colombia Brazil Argentina Indonesia Saudi Arabia Morocco Kosovo Philippines Panama Dominican Republic 29.4 30.2 31.2 34.1 35.8 35.9 36.7 36.9 39.7 41.5 42.4 44.4 45.5 46.2 46.6 47.9 49.1 50.3 50.7 50.7 51.9 52.7 53.7 56.2 57.6 59.3 59.8 60.0 60.3 61.0 61.1 65.4 68.1 69.0 71.9 72.7 75.6 76.6 80.7 81.2 90.6 (1.1) (1.0) (1.3) (1.4) (1.5) (1.6) (1.1) (0.7) (1.4) (1.4) (1.4) (1.7) (0.9) (0.8) (2.3) (0.7) (0.9) (1.1) (1.5) (1.3) (1.3) (1.7) (0.6) (1.4) (1.6) (1.6) (1.7) (1.9) (1.3) (0.9) (1.3) (1.6) (1.0) (1.3) (1.5) (1.5) (1.6) (0.9) (1.6) (1.3) (1.0) 70.6 69.8 68.8 65.9 64.2 64.1 63.3 63.1 60.3 58.5 57.6 55.6 54.5 53.8 53.4 52.1 50.9 49.7 49.3 49.3 48.1 47.3 46.3 43.8 42.4 40.7 40.2 40.0 39.7 39.0 38.9 34.6 31.9 31.0 28.1 27.3 24.4 23.4 19.3 18.8 9.4 (1.1) (1.0) (1.3) (1.4) (1.5) (1.6) (1.1) (0.7) (1.4) (1.4) (1.4) (1.7) (0.9) (0.8) (2.3) (0.7) (0.9) (1.1) (1.5) (1.3) (1.3) (1.7) (0.6) (1.4) (1.6) (1.6) (1.7) (1.9) (1.3) (0.9) (1.3) (1.6) (1.0) (1.3) (1.5) (1.5) (1.6) (0.9) (1.6) (1.3) (1.0) OECD average 24.0 (0.2) 76.0 (0.2) Levels 5 and 6 Standard % error 7.3 8.5 5.1 8.8 3.7 5.0 4.8 4.4 5.2 2.5 2.3 4.2 5.4 1.8 3.2 3.0 1.9 2.4 1.0 2.0 1.2 2.3 2.9 0.5 0.8 0.7 2.0 U‡ 0.9 1.1 1.0 0.5 0.9 0.3 0.5 U‡ U‡ U‡ U‡ U‡ U‡ 10.9 (0.6) (0.7) (0.5) (0.6) (0.5) (0.6) (0.6) (0.4) (0.4) (0.4) (0.3) (0.6) (0.3) (0.2) (0.6) (0.3) (0.2) (0.4) (0.3) (0.3) (0.2) (0.4) (0.2) (0.1) (0.2) (0.2) (0.3) (0.1) (0.2) (0.2) (0.3) (0.1) (0.2) (0.1) (0.2) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.0) (0.1) ‡ There are fewer than 30 observations. U Too unreliable to be published. Note: Countries and provinces have been sorted in descending order by the total percentage of students who attained Level 2 or higher. B-S-J-Z (China) represents Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, and Zhejiang. See OECD 2019b, p. 21, for a note regarding Cyprus. The data for Vietnam have not yet been fully validated: due to a lack of consistency in the response pattern of some performance data, the OECD cannot yet assure full international comparability of the results. PISA 2018 141 Table B.3.2a Percentage of students at each proficiency level: SCIENCE Country or province B-S-J-Z (China) Macao (China) Estonia Singapore Japan Alberta Hong Kong (China) Quebec Finland Ontario Canada Poland Korea Slovenia Chinese Taipei Nova Scotia Newfoundland and Labrador British Columbia Saskatchewan Ireland United Kingdom New Zealand Latvia United States Denmark Prince Edward Island Czech Republic Australia Sweden New Brunswick Portugal Germany Belgium Netherlands Switzerland France Manitoba Norway Russian Federation Spain Austria Lithuania Hungary Belarus Iceland Turkey Croatia 142 Proficiency levels Below Level 1 Standard % error Level 1 Standard % error Level 2 Standard % error Level 3 Standard % error Level 4 Standard % error Level 5 Standard % error Level 6 Standard % error U 0.9 1.2 1.9 2.0 2.3 2.6 2.3 3.2 2.8 3.0 2.7 3.5 2.7 3.9 3.7 (0.1) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.3) (0.5) (0.3) (0.4) (0.3) (0.4) (0.2) (0.3) (0.4) (0.3) (0.4) (0.7) 1.8 5.1 7.5 7.1 8.9 8.7 8.9 9.4 9.7 10.1 10.5 11.1 10.6 11.9 11.2 11.7 (0.3) (0.5) (0.5) (0.4) (0.6) (1.1) (0.6) (0.8) (0.6) (0.9) (0.4) (0.7) (0.7) (0.6) (0.6) (1.4) 8.4 17.2 21.5 15.1 19.9 18.8 21.7 21.1 21.1 23.0 22.4 24.9 21.0 24.6 21.1 23.9 (0.6) (0.7) (0.7) (0.7) (0.8) (1.2) (0.8) (1.3) (0.7) (1.1) (0.6) (0.8) (0.8) (0.8) (0.9) (1.4) 23.4 32.3 32.1 25.4 29.7 28.5 33.8 31.3 28.9 29.3 29.3 30.0 28.6 31.8 28.5 30.5 (0.9) (1.0) (0.9) (0.7) (1.1) (1.6) (0.9) (1.3) (0.8) (1.1) (0.6) (1.0) (0.9) (1.0) (0.9) (1.8) 34.6 30.8 25.4 29.7 26.5 26.8 25.0 25.5 24.9 23.2 23.5 22.0 24.5 21.8 23.5 20.9 (1.0) (0.9) (0.8) (0.7) (0.9) (1.6) (0.9) (1.3) (0.8) (1.2) (0.7) (0.8) (0.9) (0.9) (0.8) (1.5) 24.3 11.9 10.2 17.0 11.4 12.2 7.1 9.1 10.5 9.6 9.5 8.1 10.0 6.7 10.0 7.9 (1.1) (0.6) (0.5) (0.5) (0.7) (1.4) (0.6) (0.8) (0.6) (0.9) (0.5) (0.7) (0.6) (0.5) (0.8) (1.0) 7.2 1.7 2.0 3.8 1.6 2.7 0.7 1.3 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.2 1.8 0.6‡ 1.6 U‡ (0.7) (0.3) (0.2) (0.3) (0.3) (0.7) (0.2) (0.3) (0.3) (0.3) (0.2) (0.2) (0.3) (0.2) (0.3) (0.6) 3.3 (0.9) 12.2 (1.7) 25.7 (2.2) 30.0 (2.2) 19.6 (1.8) 7.6 (1.2) U‡ (0.8) 3.9 3.8 3.6 4.5 4.9 3.7 4.9 4.8 (0.8) (0.6) (0.4) (0.5) (0.5) (0.4) (0.6) (0.4) 11.6 12.1 13.4 12.9 13.1 14.8 13.7 13.9 (1.1) (1.1) (0.7) (0.6) (0.6) (0.7) (0.8) (0.6) 22.0 26.0 26.9 24.0 22.0 29.5 23.6 26.6 (1.4) (1.3) (0.9) (0.8) (0.6) (0.8) (0.9) (0.7) 27.1 31.0 31.3 28.1 26.8 31.5 27.5 30.1 (1.4) (1.2) (0.9) (0.8) (0.7) (1.1) (0.9) (0.9) 22.5 20.1 19.0 20.8 21.8 16.8 21.1 19.1 (1.5) (1.2) (0.7) (0.7) (0.7) (0.8) (0.9) (0.8) 10.5 6.2 5.4 8.2 9.5 3.5 7.9 5.0 (1.1) (0.8) (0.5) (0.6) (0.6) (0.4) (0.7) (0.5) 2.4 U‡ U‡ 1.5 1.8 U‡ 1.3 0.5‡ (0.5) (0.3) (0.2) (0.2) (0.3) (0.1) (0.2) (0.2) U (1.9) 13.4 (2.0) 22.0 (2.7) 29.6 (3.7) 21.4 (3.5) 7.3‡ (2.4) U‡ (0.8) 4.3 5.1 5.2 4.8 4.8 5.8 5.9 5.7 5.0 5.6 4.8 6.7 4.5 5.1 5.4 5.2 6.3 5.6 6.4 5.0 6.2 (0.5) (0.3) (0.6) (1.0) (0.6) (0.6) (0.5) (0.6) (0.5) (0.5) (0.7) (0.5) (0.6) (0.3) (0.5) (0.5) (0.6) (0.5) (0.5) (0.5) (0.6) 14.5 13.7 13.8 14.7 14.7 13.8 14.2 14.4 15.2 14.9 15.9 14.1 16.7 16.2 16.5 17.0 17.8 18.7 18.6 20.1 19.1 (0.8) (0.5) (0.7) (1.6) (0.9) (0.7) (0.6) (0.8) (0.8) (0.8) (1.1) (0.8) (0.9) (0.5) (0.9) (0.8) (0.9) (0.9) (0.8) (0.8) (0.9) 25.9 23.0 24.0 27.1 26.2 22.0 22.2 22.4 24.9 24.6 27.1 25.0 31.7 28.4 25.0 28.4 26.1 31.3 28.3 32.8 30.0 (1.0) (0.6) (0.7) (1.7) (0.9) (0.9) (0.7) (0.8) (0.9) (0.9) (1.5) (0.9) (0.9) (0.5) (0.8) (0.8) (1.0) (0.9) (0.9) (1.0) (0.8) 28.7 27.5 28.0 28.4 29.4 26.9 28.4 24.9 27.8 28.3 28.3 28.6 30.0 29.4 27.6 28.7 28.1 28.8 27.7 27.3 26.9 (1.0) (0.6) (0.8) (1.7) (1.0) (0.9) (0.8) (1.1) (0.9) (0.7) (1.4) (0.7) (0.9) (0.5) (0.8) (0.8) (0.9) (0.8) (1.0) (1.0) (0.9) 19.1 21.2 20.7 18.0 19.2 21.5 21.3 22.1 19.3 20.0 17.5 18.7 14.0 16.8 19.2 16.3 17.0 13.1 15.2 12.3 14.2 (0.8) (0.6) (0.9) (1.5) (0.9) (1.0) (0.7) (1.0) (1.0) (0.9) (1.8) (0.7) (0.8) (0.4) (0.8) (0.6) (0.7) (0.8) (0.8) (0.7) (0.7) 6.6 7.9 7.3 6.1 5.1 8.5 7.3 9.1 6.9 5.9 5.6 6.1 2.9 3.9 5.8 4.0 4.3 2.5 3.6 2.3 3.3 (0.5) (0.4) (0.5) (1.2) (0.5) (0.6) (0.4) (0.7) (0.7) (0.5) (0.7) (0.5) (0.4) (0.2) (0.6) (0.3) (0.5) (0.4) (0.4) (0.4) (0.4) 1.0 1.6 1.0 U‡ 0.5‡ 1.5 0.7 1.5 0.9 0.6 U‡ 0.7 U‡ 0.3 0.5 0.5‡ 0.4‡ U‡ U‡ U‡ U‡ (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.5) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.3) (0.2) (0.1) (0.3) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) PISA 2018 Table B.3.2a (cont’d) Percentage of students at each proficiency level: SCIENCE Proficiency levels Country or province Below Level 1 Standard % error Italy Ukraine Luxembourg Slovak Republic Greece Israel Malta Chile Malaysia Serbia Cyprus Jordan Moldova United Arab Emirates Uruguay Romania Thailand Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Mexico Albania Costa Rica Montenegro Qatar Republic of North Macedonia Colombia Argentina Peru Brazil Bosnia and Herzegovina Baku (Azerbaijan) Indonesia Kazakhstan Saudi Arabia Lebanon Georgia Morocco Panama Kosovo Philippines Dominican Republic OECD average 7.6 7.3 7.6 9.4 9.3 13.9 14.1 9.8 9.0 13.1 13.9 14.1 15.2 (0.6) (0.7) (0.4) (0.7) (0.9) (1.0) (0.7) (0.7) (0.7) (1.0) (0.7) (1.0) (0.8) 18.2 19.2 19.2 19.9 22.4 19.2 19.4 25.5 27.6 25.3 25.0 26.2 27.4 (0.9) (0.9) (0.6) (0.7) (1.0) (0.9) (0.7) (1.0) (1.0) (1.0) (0.8) (0.9) (0.9) 30.2 30.0 25.7 28.5 31.6 23.1 24.9 33.1 35.9 29.9 28.9 32.4 29.7 (1.0) (1.1) (0.8) (0.9) (0.9) (0.9) (0.9) (1.0) (1.0) (0.9) (1.0) (1.0) (0.9) 27.8 26.7 25.6 25.3 26.0 22.9 23.7 22.6 21.5 21.1 21.4 20.7 20.2 (1.1) (1.1) (0.8) (0.8) (1.0) (0.8) (0.9) (1.0) (0.9) (0.9) (0.7) (0.9) (0.8) 13.4 13.4 16.6 13.2 9.3 15.1 13.5 7.9 5.4 9.1 9.1 6.0 6.6 18.1 (0.6) 24.7 (0.6) 25.6 (0.5) 19.2 (0.5) 15.3 16.0 12.9 16.1 18.2 12.6 13.3 13.4 16.8 21.9 (0.9) (1.3) (0.9) (0.7) (1.3) (1.1) (0.7) (1.0) (0.7) (0.5) 28.6 28.0 31.6 29.7 28.3 34.2 33.7 34.5 31.4 26.5 (1.0) (1.4) (1.1) (0.8) (0.9) (1.3) (1.0) (1.2) (0.8) (0.6) 30.6 29.8 31.7 25.5 26.7 33.9 34.8 34.4 31.5 24.9 (1.0) (1.0) (0.9) (0.5) (1.1) (0.9) (1.1) (1.2) (0.7) (0.5) 18.7 18.9 17.8 17.4 17.9 15.5 15.1 14.9 15.9 17.0 20.0 (0.7) 29.4 (0.8) 28.2 (0.9) 17.4 23.1 19.9 23.9 (1.3) (1.2) (1.1) (0.9) 33.0 30.4 34.5 31.4 (1.1) (1.1) (1.1) (0.8) 29.6 27.0 29.0 25.3 21.1 (1.2) 35.6 (1.0) 19.9 18.7 20.0 26.7 32.6 28.7 28.8 37.8 33.4 42.8 53.2 5.9 (1.0) (1.0) (0.8) (1.4) (1.6) (1.1) (1.6) (1.4) (0.9) (1.6) (1.6) (0.1) 38.0 41.4 40.3 35.6 29.7 35.7 40.7 33.5 43.1 35.2 31.6 16.0 (1.0) (1.1) (0.8) (1.0) (1.0) (0.9) (1.1) (1.3) (1.0) (1.2) (1.3) (0.1) Level 1 Standard % error Level 2 Standard % error Level 3 Standard % error Level 4 Standard % error Level 5 Standard % error Level 6 Standard % error (0.7) (0.8) (0.6) (0.6) (0.6) (0.8) (0.7) (0.6) (0.8) (0.7) (0.4) (0.5) (0.5) 2.6 3.2 4.9 3.4 1.3 5.2 3.9 1.0 0.6 1.5 1.5 0.6 0.8 (0.4) (0.5) (0.5) (0.3) (0.2) (0.4) (0.4) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) U‡ U‡ 0.5‡ U‡ U‡ 0.7 0.5‡ U‡ U‡ U‡ 0.1 U‡ U‡ (0.1) (0.1) (0.2) (0.1) (0.0) (0.1) (0.1) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.1) (0.0) (0.0) 9.5 (0.5) 2.6 (0.2) 0.3 (0.1) (0.9) (1.3) (1.0) (0.5) (0.9) (0.9) (0.7) (1.2) (0.6) (0.4) 6.1 6.4 5.3 9.0 7.4 3.5 2.9 2.8 4.0 7.5 (0.5) (0.8) (0.7) (0.4) (0.6) (0.5) (0.3) (0.6) (0.3) (0.3) 0.7 0.9 0.7 2.1 1.4 U‡ U‡ U‡ 0.3‡ 2.0 (0.2) (0.2) (0.2) (0.3) (0.3) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.2) U‡ U‡ U‡ U‡ U‡ 0.0‡ U‡ 0.0‡ U‡ 0.2 (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.1) (0.1) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.1) 16.4 (0.7) 5.2 (0.4) 0.8 (0.2) U‡ (0.0) (1.2) (0.9) (0.8) (0.7) 15.4 15.0 13.2 13.9 (0.8) (0.8) (0.8) (0.7) 4.2 4.1 3.1 4.6 (0.4) (0.4) (0.5) (0.4) 0.4 0.5 U‡ 0.8 (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) U‡ U‡ U‡ U‡ (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) 29.4 (1.2) 11.7 (0.9) 1.9 (0.3) U‡ (0.1) 0.0‡ (0.0) 29.9 29.2 26.9 26.6 21.8 24.3 24.0 19.7 19.2 15.4 12.3 25.8 (0.9) (1.2) (0.8) (1.0) (1.0) (0.9) (1.4) (0.8) (0.7) (0.8) (0.9) (0.1) 10.3 9.2 9.9 9.6 11.8 9.5 6.1 7.4 3.9 5.6 2.6 27.4 (0.7) (0.8) (0.5) (0.7) (0.8) (0.6) (0.6) (0.7) (0.4) (0.7) (0.4) (0.1) 1.8 1.6 2.5 1.5 3.6 1.7 0.4 1.5 0.4 1.0 U 18.1 (0.4) (0.3) (0.3) (0.3) (0.4) (0.3) (0.1) (0.3) (0.1) (0.3) (0.1) (0.1) U‡ U‡ 0.4 U‡ U‡ U‡ U‡ U‡ U‡ U‡ U‡ 5.9 (0.1) (0.0) (0.1) (0.0) (0.2) (0.1) (0.0) (0.1) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.1) 0.0‡ U‡ U‡ 0.0‡ U‡ 0.0‡ 0.0‡ 0.0‡ 0.0‡ 0.0‡ 0.0‡ 0.8 (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) ‡ There are fewer than 30 observations. U Too unreliable to be published. Note: Countries and provinces have been sorted in descending order by the total percentage of students who attained Level 2 or higher. B-S-J-Z (China) represents Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, and Zhejiang. See OECD 2019b, p. 21, for a note regarding Cyprus. The data for Vietnam have not yet been fully validated: due to a lack of consistency in the response pattern of some performance data, the OECD cannot yet assure full international comparability of the results. Below Level 1 consists of students who scored at Level 1b and lower. Level 1 refers to Level 1a. PISA 2018 143 Table B.3.2b Proportion of students who performed below Level 2, at Level 2 or above, and at Levels 5 and 6: SCIENCE Proficiency levels Country or province B-S-J-Z (China) Macao (China) Estonia Singapore Japan Alberta Hong Kong (China) Quebec Finland Ontario Canada Poland Korea Slovenia Chinese Taipei Nova Scotia Newfoundland and Labrador British Columbia Saskatchewan Ireland United Kingdom New Zealand Latvia United States Denmark Prince Edward Island Czech Republic Australia Sweden New Brunswick Portugal Germany Belgium Netherlands Switzerland France Manitoba Norway Russian Federation Spain Austria Lithuania Hungary Belarus Iceland Turkey Croatia 144 Below Level 2 Standard % error 2.1 6.0 8.8 9.0 10.8 11.0 11.6 11.7 12.9 12.9 13.4 13.8 14.2 14.6 15.1 15.4 15.4 15.5 16.0 17.0 17.4 18.0 18.5 18.6 18.7 18.8 18.8 18.9 19.0 19.4 19.6 19.6 20.0 20.0 20.2 20.5 20.7 20.8 21.2 21.3 21.9 22.2 24.1 24.2 25.0 25.2 25.4 (0.3) (0.5) (0.6) (0.4) (0.8) (1.2) (0.8) (1.1) (0.7) (1.1) (0.5) (0.8) (0.8) (0.7) (0.8) (1.6) (2.2) (1.6) (1.4) (0.8) (0.9) (0.8) (0.8) (1.2) (0.7) (2.5) (1.1) (0.6) (1.1) (1.8) (1.0) (1.0) (0.9) (1.1) (1.0) (0.8) (1.5) (1.0) (1.2) (0.6) (1.0) (0.9) (0.9) (1.2) (0.9) (1.1) (1.2) Level 2 or above Standard % error 97.9 94.0 91.2 91.0 89.2 89.0 88.4 88.3 87.1 87.1 86.6 86.2 85.8 85.4 84.9 84.6 84.6 84.5 84.0 83.0 82.6 82.0 81.5 81.4 81.3 81.2 81.2 81.1 81.0 80.6 80.4 80.4 80.0 80.0 79.8 79.5 79.3 79.2 78.8 78.7 78.1 77.8 75.9 75.8 75.0 74.8 74.6 (0.3) (0.5) (0.6) (0.4) (0.8) (1.2) (0.8) (1.1) (0.7) (1.1) (0.5) (0.8) (0.8) (0.7) (0.8) (1.6) (2.2) (1.6) (1.4) (0.8) (0.9) (0.8) (0.8) (1.2) (0.7) (2.5) (1.1) (0.6) (1.1) (1.8) (1.0) (1.0) (0.9) (1.1) (1.0) (0.8) (1.5) (1.0) (1.2) (0.6) (1.0) (0.9) (0.9) (1.2) (0.9) (1.1) (1.2) Levels 5 and 6 Standard % error 31.5 13.6 12.2 20.7 13.1 14.9 7.8 10.4 12.3 11.5 11.3 9.3 11.8 7.3 11.7 9.3 9.2 12.9 6.9 5.8 9.7 11.3 3.7 9.1 5.5 8.3‡ 7.5 9.5 8.3 7.0 5.6 10.0 8.0 10.6 7.8 6.6 6.4 6.8 3.1 4.2 6.3 4.4 4.7 2.6 3.8 2.5 3.6 (1.3) (0.6) (0.6) (0.6) (0.9) (1.6) (0.7) (0.9) (0.7) (1.0) (0.6) (0.8) (0.8) (0.6) (0.9) (1.1) (1.4) (1.4) (0.9) (0.6) (0.6) (0.6) (0.4) (0.7) (0.5) (2.5) (0.5) (0.5) (0.6) (1.3) (0.6) (0.6) (0.5) (0.8) (0.7) (0.5) (0.6) (0.5) (0.4) (0.3) (0.6) (0.3) (0.5) (0.4) (0.4) (0.5) (0.4) PISA 2018 Table B.3.2b (cont’d) Proportion of students who performed below Level 2, at Level 2 or above, and at Levels 5 and 6: SCIENCE Proficiency levels Country or province Below Level 2 Standard % error Level 2 or above Standard % error Levels 5 and 6 Standard % error Italy Ukraine Luxembourg Slovak Republic Greece 25.9 26.4 26.8 29.3 31.7 (1.0) (1.4) (0.6) (1.0) (1.5) 74.1 73.6 73.2 70.7 68.3 (1.0) (1.4) (0.6) (1.0) (1.5) 2.7 3.5 5.4 3.7 1.3 (0.4) (0.5) (0.5) (0.4) (0.2) Israel 33.1 (1.4) 66.9 (1.4) 5.8 (0.5) Malta 33.5 (0.9) 66.5 (0.9) 4.4 (0.4) Chile 35.3 (1.2) 64.7 (1.2) 1.0 (0.2) Malaysia 36.6 (1.3) 63.4 (1.3) 0.6 (0.2) Serbia 38.3 (1.5) 61.7 (1.5) 1.6 (0.2) Cyprus 39.0 (1.0) 61.0 (1.0) 1.6 (0.2) Jordan 40.3 (1.4) 59.7 (1.4) 0.7 (0.2) Moldova 42.6 (1.2) 57.4 (1.2) 0.9 (0.2) United Arab Emirates 42.8 (0.9) 57.2 (0.9) 2.9 (0.2) Uruguay 43.9 (1.3) 56.1 (1.3) 0.7 (0.2) Romania 43.9 (2.1) 56.1 (2.1) 1.0 (0.3) Thailand 44.5 (1.5) 55.5 (1.5) 0.7 (0.2) Brunei Darussalam 45.7 (0.6) 54.3 (0.6) 2.3 (0.3) Bulgaria 46.5 (1.6) 53.5 (1.6) 1.5 (0.3) Mexico 46.8 (1.4) 53.2 (1.4) U‡ (0.1) Albania 47.0 (1.3) 53.0 (1.3) U‡ (0.1) Costa Rica 47.8 (1.8) 52.2 (1.8) U‡ (0.1) Montenegro 48.2 (0.7) 51.8 (0.7) 0.3‡ (0.1) Qatar 48.4 (0.5) 51.6 (0.5) 2.2 (0.2) Republic of North Macedonia 49.5 (0.8) 50.5 (0.8) 0.8 (0.2) Colombia 50.4 (1.7) 49.6 (1.7) 0.4 (0.1) Argentina 53.5 (1.4) 46.5 (1.4) 0.5 (0.1) Peru 54.5 (1.4) 45.5 (1.4) Brazil 55.4 (1.0) 44.6 (1.0) Bosnia and Herzegovina 56.8 (1.6) 43.2 (1.6) U‡ (0.1) Baku (Azerbaijan) 57.8 (1.2) 42.2 (1.2) U‡ (0.1) Indonesia 60.0 (1.5) 40.0 (1.5) U‡ (0.0) Kazakhstan 60.3 (1.0) 39.7 (1.0) Saudi Arabia 62.3 (1.5) 37.7 (1.5) U‡ (0.0) Lebanon 62.3 (1.6) 37.7 (1.6) U‡ (0.2) Georgia 64.4 (1.2) 35.6 (1.2) U‡ (0.1) Morocco 69.4 (1.8) 30.6 (1.8) U‡ (0.0) Panama 71.3 (1.4) 28.7 (1.4) U‡ (0.1) Kosovo 76.5 (0.7) 23.5 (0.7) U‡ (0.0) Philippines 78.0 (1.5) 22.0 (1.5) U‡ (0.0) Dominican Republic 84.8 (1.1) 15.2 (1.1) OECD average 22.0 (0.2) 78.0 (0.2) U‡ 0.8 0.4 U‡ 6.8 (0.1) (0.2) (0.1) (0.0) (0.1) ‡ There are fewer than 30 observations. U Too unreliable to be published. Note: Countries and provinces have been sorted in descending order by the total percentage of students who attained Level 2 or higher. B-S-J-Z (China) represents Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, and Zhejiang. See OECD 2019b, p. 21, for a note regarding Cyprus. The data for Vietnam have not yet been fully validated: due to a lack of consistency in the response pattern of some performance data, the OECD cannot yet assure full international comparability of the results. PISA 2018 145 Table B.3.3 Average scores and confidence intervals: MATHEMATICS Country or province B-S-J-Z (China) Singapore Macao (China) Hong Kong (China) Quebec Chinese Taipei Japan Korea Estonia Netherlands Poland Switzerland Ontario Canada Alberta Denmark Slovenia Belgium Finland British Columbia Sweden United Kingdom Norway Germany Ireland Czech Republic Austria Latvia France Iceland New Zealand Nova Scotia Portugal Australia New Brunswick Newfoundland and Labrador Russian Federation Italy Prince Edward Island Slovak Republic Saskatchewan Luxembourg Manitoba Spain Lithuania Hungary United States 146 Average Standard error Confidence interval – 95% lower limit Confidence interval – 95% upper limit 591 569 558 551 532 531 527 526 523 519 516 515 513 512 511 509 509 508 507 504 502 502 501 500 500 499 499 496 495 495 494 494 492 491 491 (2.5) (1.6) (1.5) (3.0) (3.6) (2.9) (2.5) (3.1) (1.7) (2.6) (2.6) (2.9) (4.4) (2.4) (5.1) (1.7) (1.4) (2.3) (2.0) (5.2) (2.7) (2.6) (2.2) (2.6) (2.2) (2.5) (3.0) (2.0) (2.3) (2.0) (1.7) (6.3) (2.7) (1.9) (5.7) 586 566 555 545 525 525 522 520 520 514 511 510 504 507 501 506 506 504 503 494 497 497 497 495 495 495 493 492 491 491 491 482 487 488 480 596 572 561 557 539 537 532 532 527 524 521 521 521 517 521 513 512 513 511 515 508 507 505 505 504 504 505 500 500 499 498 507 498 495 502 488 (6.5) 476 501 488 487 487 486 485 483 482 481 481 481 478 (3.0) (2.8) (11.1) (2.6) (5.0) (1.1) (3.7) (1.5) (2.0) (2.3) (3.2) 482 481 465 481 475 481 474 479 477 477 472 494 492 508 491 495 486 489 484 485 486 485 Country or province Belarus Malta Croatia Israel Turkey Ukraine Greece Cyprus Serbia Malaysia Albania Bulgaria United Arab Emirates Brunei Darussalam Romania Montenegro Kazakhstan Moldova Baku (Azerbaijan) Thailand Uruguay Chile Qatar Mexico Bosnia and Herzegovina Costa Rica Peru Jordan Georgia Republic of North Macedonia Lebanon Colombia Brazil Argentina Indonesia Saudi Arabia Morocco Kosovo Panama Philippines Dominican Republic OECD average Average Standard error Confidence interval – 95% lower limit Confidence interval – 95% upper limit 472 472 464 463 454 453 451 451 448 440 437 436 435 430 430 430 423 421 420 419 418 417 414 409 (2.7) (1.9) (2.5) (3.5) (2.3) (3.6) (3.1) (1.4) (3.2) (2.9) (2.4) (3.8) (2.1) (1.2) (4.9) (1.2) (1.9) (2.4) (2.8) (3.4) (2.6) (2.4) (1.2) (2.5) 467 468 459 456 449 446 445 448 442 435 432 429 431 428 420 427 419 416 414 412 413 413 412 404 477 475 469 470 458 460 457 453 454 446 442 444 439 432 440 432 427 425 425 425 423 422 417 414 406 (3.1) 400 412 402 400 400 398 (3.3) (2.6) (3.3) (2.6) 396 395 393 392 409 405 406 403 394 (1.6) 391 398 393 391 384 379 379 373 368 366 353 353 325 489 (4.0) (3.0) (2.0) (2.8) (3.1) (3.0) (3.3) (1.5) (2.7) (3.5) (2.6) (0.4) 386 385 380 374 373 367 361 363 348 346 320 489 401 397 388 385 385 379 374 369 358 359 330 490 Note: Countries and provinces have been sorted in descending order by average score. B-S-J-Z (China) represents Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, and Zhejiang. See OECD 2019b, p. 21, for a note regarding Cyprus. The data for Vietnam have not yet been fully validated: due to a lack of consistency in the response pattern of some performance data, the OECD cannot yet assure full international comparability of the results. PISA 2018 Table B.3.4 Average scores and confidence intervals: SCIENCE Country or province B-S-J-Z (China) Singapore Macao (China) Alberta Estonia Japan Finland Quebec Korea Ontario Canada Hong Kong (China) British Columbia Chinese Taipei Poland New Zealand Nova Scotia Slovenia Newfoundland and Labrador United Kingdom Netherlands Germany Australia United States Prince Edward Island Saskatchewan Sweden Belgium Czech Republic Ireland Switzerland France Denmark New Brunswick Portugal Norway Austria Manitoba Latvia Spain Lithuania Hungary Russian Federation Luxembourg Iceland Croatia Belarus PISA 2018 Average Standard error Confidence interval – 95% lower limit Confidence interval – 95% upper limit 590 551 544 534 530 529 522 522 519 519 518 517 517 516 511 508 508 507 (2.7) (1.5) (1.5) (4.4) (1.9) (2.6) (2.5) (3.7) (2.8) (4.0) (2.2) (2.5) (5.4) (2.9) (2.6) (2.1) (4.7) (1.3) 585 548 541 525 526 524 517 514 514 511 514 512 506 510 506 504 499 505 596 554 546 542 534 534 527 529 525 526 522 522 527 521 516 513 517 509 506 (6.4) 494 519 505 503 503 503 502 502 501 499 499 497 496 495 493 493 492 492 490 490 489 487 483 482 481 478 477 475 472 471 (2.6) (2.8) (2.9) (1.8) (3.3) (8.9) (3.9) (3.1) (2.2) (2.5) (2.2) (3.0) (2.2) (1.9) (5.7) (2.8) (2.3) (2.8) (3.7) (1.8) (1.6) (1.6) (2.3) (2.9) (1.2) (1.8) (2.8) (2.4) 500 498 497 499 496 484 493 493 494 492 492 489 489 489 481 486 486 484 482 484 480 479 476 472 474 472 467 466 510 509 509 506 509 519 508 505 503 502 500 501 497 496 504 497 495 495 497 491 486 485 485 483 479 479 478 476 Country or province Ukraine Turkey Italy Slovak Republic Israel Malta Greece Chile Serbia Cyprus Malaysia United Arab Emirates Brunei Darussalam Jordan Moldova Thailand Uruguay Romania Bulgaria Mexico Qatar Albania Costa Rica Montenegro Colombia Republic of North Macedonia Peru Argentina Brazil Bosnia and Herzegovina Baku (Azerbaijan) Kazakhstan Indonesia Saudi Arabia Lebanon Georgia Morocco Kosovo Panama Philippines Dominican Republic OECD average Average Standard error Confidence interval – 95% lower limit Confidence interval – 95% upper limit 469 468 468 464 462 457 452 444 440 439 438 434 431 429 428 426 426 426 424 419 419 417 416 415 413 (3.3) (2.0) (2.4) (2.3) (3.6) (1.9) (3.1) (2.4) (3.0) (1.4) (2.7) (2.0) (1.2) (2.9) (2.3) (3.2) (2.5) (4.6) (3.6) (2.6) (0.9) (2.0) (3.3) (1.3) (3.1) 463 464 463 460 455 453 445 439 434 436 432 430 429 424 424 420 421 417 417 414 417 413 409 413 407 475 472 473 469 469 460 458 448 446 442 443 438 433 435 433 432 431 435 431 424 421 421 422 418 419 413 (1.4) 410 416 404 404 404 (2.7) (2.9) (2.1) 399 398 400 409 410 408 398 (2.7) 393 404 398 397 396 386 384 383 377 365 365 357 336 489 (2.4) (1.7) (2.4) (2.8) (3.5) (2.3) (3.0) (1.2) (2.9) (3.2) (2.5) (0.4) 393 394 391 381 377 378 371 363 359 351 331 488 402 400 401 392 391 387 382 367 370 363 341 489 Note: Countries and provinces have been sorted in descending order by average score. B-S-J-Z (China) represents Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, and Zhejiang. See OECD 2019b, p. 21, for a note regarding Cyprus. The data for Vietnam have not yet been fully validated: due to a lack of consistency in the response pattern of some performance data, the OECD cannot yet assure full international comparability of the results. 147 Table B.3.5 Variation in student performance: MATHEMATICS Percentiles Score Standard error Score Standard error Score Standard error Score Standard error Score Standard error Score Standard error Difference in score points between the 10th and 90th percentiles 214 (3.2) 236 (2.7) 276 (2.7) 370 (3.2) 417 (4.8) 449 (6.6) 181 282 249 243 255 284 228 229 367 246 452 420 363 390 262 348 (4.2) (3.5) (3.7) (4.3) (3.8) (5.0) (4.2) (3.6) (4.6) (5.2) (4.1) (4.1) (3.1) (5.4) (6.5) 308 273 269 281 311 255 255 397 273 486 452 393 419 290 378 (3.4) (3.2) (2.7) (3.9) (3.6) (3.9) (3.7) (3.3) (4.3) (4.2) (3.6) (3.2) (2.9) (3.9) (5.4) 352 314 313 325 356 300 299 447 319 540 505 441 468 335 430 (2.7) (3.3) (2.1) (3.2) (2.7) (2.9) (3.2) (2.6) (3.4) (3.0) (2.3) (2.4) (2.4) (3.5) (5.8) 452 418 416 427 461 403 403 554 426 647 613 551 579 445 543 (4.2) (4.4) (2.3) (3.7) (3.1) (3.6) (4.5) (2.3) (3.6) (3.0) (2.2) (2.5) (2.2) (3.8) (5.4) 499 469 465 480 510 454 456 599 475 691 659 599 628 499 589 (5.5) (4.4) (3.3) (5.9) (3.6) (5.5) (6.0) (3.0) (3.6) (3.2) (2.6) (3.1) (2.7) (4.5) (5.7) 528 499 497 517 539 485 488 625 505 716 685 628 657 531 618 (7.0) (5.0) (4.0) (8.7) (4.5) (6.3) (7.4) (3.5) (4.1) (3.6) (3.4) (3.4) (3.6) (4.4) (6.9) 191 196 197 198 199 199 201 202 202 205 207 207 209 209 211 276 (4.1) 303 (3.2) 349 (3.2) 462 (3.7) 514 (4.4) 545 (4.3) 211 303 370 368 307 295 259 243 (3.6) (3.6) (3.6) (3.6) (2.8) (4.6) (4.6) 332 401 399 335 324 291 272 (3.1) (2.6) (3.4) (3.0) (2.2) (4.2) (4.1) 381 454 451 383 371 343 322 (2.9) (2.3) (2.5) (3.1) (1.9) (3.4) (3.6) 493 567 565 496 487 458 436 (2.8) (2.3) (2.4) (3.9) (1.6) (3.9) (3.5) 544 613 612 550 538 508 489 (3.5) (2.8) (2.5) (4.8) (2.1) (4.3) (3.8) 575 640 639 580 569 539 520 (3.8) (3.5) (3.3) (5.9) (3.1) (5.2) (4.0) 211 213 213 214 214 217 217 351 (10.4) 382 (8.7) 431 (5.9) 546 (8.4) 599 (10.6) 629 (11.4) 217 266 282 344 282 276 323 380 251 337 282 314 349 257 331 276 360 302 366 (3.4) (3.9) (5.5) (3.2) (4.4) (4.6) (4.3) (3.1) (7.1) (4.8) (4.3) (8.3) (3.9) (2.8) (3.8) (5.3) (4.9) (4.7) 293 311 376 314 307 354 413 277 368 310 343 380 286 365 306 392 334 398 (3.1) (3.5) (4.3) (2.4) (3.5) (3.9) (3.9) (2.5) (5.3) (3.6) (3.8) (8.3) (3.6) (2.4) (3.4) (3.0) (4.7) (3.8) 341 359 430 365 359 405 468 322 421 358 392 433 336 421 359 448 391 455 (2.9) (2.9) (4.0) (2.2) (3.1) (3.0) (3.1) (2.3) (4.5) (3.3) (3.2) (6.7) (2.9) (1.8) (2.9) (2.3) (4.1) (2.9) 456 475 547 480 477 523 589 440 542 475 512 555 457 544 480 571 513 578 (3.5) (3.2) (3.3) (2.2) (3.7) (3.1) (2.8) (2.8) (4.2) (4.3) (2.7) (6.7) (3.7) (1.8) (3.8) (2.3) (3.2) (3.1) 511 528 597 535 529 577 637 501 594 535 571 608 515 593 535 622 565 631 (4.1) (3.5) (3.9) (3.0) (3.9) (3.9) (3.8) (3.9) (5.9) (5.8) (4.0) (8.9) (4.4) (2.2) (5.0) (2.8) (3.8) (4.2) 544 559 627 568 558 608 664 538 624 572 605 640 548 621 570 652 595 661 (5.1) (4.1) (4.2) (3.1) (4.4) (4.2) (4.5) (4.9) (6.1) (6.1) (5.3) (11.2) (6.0) (2.4) (5.4) (3.4) (4.7) (4.7) 217 218 221 221 221 223 224 224 226 226 228 228 228 229 229 230 231 233 332 (23.0) 369 (16.4) 423 (11.6) 551 (14.2) 601 (15.2) 630 (18.1) 233 356 361 (9.1) (5.9) 392 394 (8.3) (5.2) 450 450 (7.0) (4.7) 575 577 (5.7) (5.5) 626 629 (5.9) (5.2) 655 660 (7.4) (6.7) 234 234 Country or province Dominican Republic Costa Rica Morocco Kosovo Indonesia Mexico Panama Philippines Ireland Saudi Arabia B-S-J-Z (China) Macao (China) Latvia Estonia Colombia Saskatchewan Bosnia and Herzegovina Albania Denmark Finland Malaysia Montenegro Jordan Argentina Newfoundland and Labrador Peru Chile Russian Federation Kazakhstan Uruguay Croatia Japan Brazil Manitoba Thailand Turkey Nova Scotia Georgia Spain Baku (Azerbaijan) Slovenia Greece Poland Prince Edward Island Alberta Ontario 148 5th 10th 25th 75th 90th 95th PISA 2018 Table B.3.5 (cont’d) Variation in student performance: MATHEMATICS Percentiles Score 340 348 345 338 330 328 358 374 339 287 346 Standard error (3.8) (5.7) (4.1) (8.3) (4.1) (3.9) (3.2) (6.8) (3.8) (3.4) (4.1) Score 374 383 381 373 362 360 392 411 371 316 381 Standard error (4.2) (4.6) (3.9) (7.2) (3.6) (4.0) (3.0) (6.2) (3.0) (2.4) (4.0) Score 434 441 441 428 418 418 449 472 428 365 439 Standard error (3.4) (3.7) (2.9) (6.4) (2.8) (3.3) (2.8) (4.8) (2.2) (2.0) (2.9) Score 559 567 565 555 545 546 576 596 555 492 567 Standard error (2.7) (2.9) (2.4) (7.2) (2.2) (3.0) (2.7) (4.1) (2.0) (2.0) (3.0) Score 609 618 617 609 598 597 629 648 609 555 620 Standard error (3.0) (3.3) (3.1) (9.2) (2.8) (3.7) (2.7) (4.2) (2.7) (2.2) (3.3) Score 638 647 645 638 630 626 661 679 641 588 651 Standard error (4.1) (3.8) (4.4) (10.8) (3.2) (4.7) (3.2) (5.2) (3.6) (3.4) (4.2) Difference in score points between the 10th and 90th percentiles 235 236 236 236 236 237 237 238 238 239 239 243 (3.9) 275 (2.9) 330 (2.1) 458 (2.2) 516 (3.5) 550 (4.4) 241 326 333 387 318 345 327 350 339 297 362 268 401 277 341 360 292 337 293 280 344 327 259 315 321 354 358 297 (5.0) (4.3) (6.2) (5.0) (5.2) (5.5) (7.9) (3.7) (5.2) (5.0) (3.8) (3.4) (5.7) (4.4) (4.4) (3.5) (4.6) (5.3) (6.1) (4.3) (5.2) (2.8) (6.0) (3.4) (5.0) (4.6) (4.4) 357 370 426 351 378 363 382 372 331 394 300 441 310 374 391 325 373 324 311 377 362 290 353 353 393 397 334 (4.6) (3.4) (5.4) (3.4) (4.6) (4.7) (6.8) (3.0) (4.4) (4.8) (3.1) (2.9) (5.4) (4.4) (3.5) (2.8) (4.2) (4.3) (4.6) (4.1) (3.8) (2.2) (5.4) (2.9) (4.4) (3.9) (3.4) 414 433 490 407 435 423 441 430 390 453 354 508 365 433 448 385 433 380 368 440 426 345 420 413 460 466 401 (4.0) (3.2) (4.2) (3.1) (3.6) (3.1) (6.0) (2.5) (4.2) (4.0) (2.6) (2.4) (4.7) (4.0) (3.8) (2.5) (3.6) (3.9) (4.6) (3.2) (3.6) (1.6) (4.1) (2.1) (3.8) (3.8) (3.6) 543 562 617 537 564 552 569 560 517 588 486 636 495 566 582 517 570 516 503 579 562 481 556 555 596 601 545 (3.9) (3.2) (2.8) (3.2) (2.8) (3.3) (5.7) (2.2) (4.1) (2.7) (3.2) (2.1) (6.1) (3.5) (3.4) (2.1) (3.3) (3.8) (4.1) (2.6) (3.0) (1.6) (2.7) (2.0) (3.6) (3.5) (2.7) 598 611 667 592 619 605 624 614 573 638 543 684 554 618 636 571 621 576 563 628 614 544 610 611 651 656 599 (4.3) (3.3) (3.5) (3.5) (3.1) (3.9) (6.9) (2.2) (5.0) (3.6) (4.4) (2.7) (6.9) (3.3) (4.3) (2.4) (3.2) (3.9) (5.7) (3.4) (3.6) (2.1) (3.1) (2.4) (4.6) (4.4) (3.5) 629 638 696 623 650 635 657 645 607 664 578 713 588 646 668 601 650 609 599 656 643 582 640 641 684 686 630 (4.6) (3.6) (4.5) (4.1) (3.9) (4.9) (7.8) (3.7) (5.7) (3.7) (5.7) (3.0) (7.2) (3.6) (4.8) (3.4) (3.4) (3.9) (6.8) (3.7) (4.5) (2.5) (3.7) (2.9) (5.9) (5.3) (4.8) 241 241 241 241 241 241 242 242 242 243 244 244 244 244 245 246 248 251 251 252 252 253 257 257 258 259 265 265 (3.9) 299 (3.2) 360 (2.8) 509 (2.6) 574 (2.4) 611 (3.2) 275 224 276 337 (5.2) (6.2) (0.7) 256 315 370 (4.8) (5.5) (0.6) 317 388 427 (5.1) (5.0) (0.5) 469 542 553 (5.0) (3.6) (0.5) 533 600 605 (4.7) (3.9) (0.6) 569 632 634 (4.7) (3.9) (0.7) 276 285 235 Country or province Iceland Sweden Norway New Brunswick Lithuania Hungary Canada Quebec Australia Brunei Darussalam United Kingdom Republic of North Macedonia United States France Hong Kong (China) Belarus Czech Republic Italy British Columbia New Zealand Ukraine Netherlands Moldova Singapore Romania Austria Switzerland Cyprus Germany Serbia Bulgaria Belgium Portugal Qatar Slovak Republic Luxembourg Korea Chinese Taipei Malta United Arab Emirates Lebanon Israel OECD average 5th 10th 25th 75th 90th 95th Note: Countries and provinces have been sorted in ascending order by the difference in score points between the 10th and 90th percentiles. B-S-J-Z (China) represents Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, and Zhejiang. See OECD 2019b, p. 21, for a note regarding Cyprus. The data for Vietnam have not yet been fully validated: due to a lack of consistency in the response pattern of some performance data, the OECD cannot yet assure full international comparability of the results. PISA 2018 149 Table B.3.6 Variation in student performance: SCIENCE Percentiles Score 265 275 289 Standard error (2.6) (2.9) (3.2) Score 285 293 312 Standard error (2.5) (2.7) (3.0) Score 320 328 348 Standard error (1.5) (2.8) (2.6) Score 406 422 440 Standard error (1.7) (4.0) (3.1) Score 450 468 488 Standard error (2.6) (3.9) (4.6) Score 478 493 517 Standard error (3.8) (3.8) (5.7) Difference in score points between the 10th and 90th percentiles 165 175 176 231 (2.7) 250 (2.8) 286 (2.4) 379 (3.5) 431 (4.8) 463 (5.7) 181 300 281 298 284 303 250 (3.9) (3.0) (3.2) (2.6) (4.3) (3.3) 324 305 323 307 326 269 (3.2) (2.5) (3.1) (2.1) (3.9) (3.1) 364 347 366 346 367 304 (3.0) (2.3) (2.4) (1.9) (2.7) (2.6) 466 446 466 442 469 401 (4.3) (3.0) (2.6) (2.4) (3.0) (4.5) 512 494 514 498 518 461 (5.6) (4.6) (3.2) (3.4) (4.3) (6.6) 540 524 541 533 548 500 (6.6) (6.2) (3.6) (4.8) (4.5) (8.3) 188 189 190 191 192 192 278 (3.6) 302 (3.1) 344 (2.7) 451 (3.6) 499 (3.8) 528 (4.1) 197 313 261 280 255 299 285 287 448 402 339 309 335 347 230 331 364 309 282 287 384 348 359 261 285 282 334 268 365 327 346 334 316 337 319 (3.6) (4.4) (3.9) (3.6) (3.7) (2.7) (3.8) (5.0) (4.3) (4.7) (3.6) (3.4) (3.8) (4.8) (3.7) (4.6) (5.2) (5.5) (3.2) (3.9) (4.1) (3.3) (4.7) (3.8) (5.5) (2.3) (3.0) (7.2) (4.2) (7.7) (3.6) (4.7) (3.8) (5.0) 339 287 304 281 324 311 311 482 434 369 336 361 377 259 361 401 338 316 314 417 380 390 291 314 312 365 292 401 356 382 364 348 372 351 (2.9) (3.2) (3.0) (2.7) (3.2) (2.2) (3.7) (4.0) (3.0) (4.1) (3.1) (3.1) (3.3) (3.8) (3.5) (4.3) (4.6) (4.4) (3.1) (3.5) (3.5) (3.4) (4.0) (2.9) (4.7) (2.4) (2.3) (6.0) (4.0) (6.4) (2.9) (3.9) (3.4) (4.4) 384 331 347 326 367 358 355 536 489 420 385 409 429 305 412 461 392 370 364 469 435 447 340 365 362 421 338 461 409 440 418 407 431 406 (2.7) (3.3) (2.6) (2.7) (3.0) (1.6) (3.6) (3.4) (2.6) (3.6) (3.0) (2.8) (2.8) (3.2) (3.4) (3.2) (4.1) (3.7) (2.9) (2.9) (2.6) (2.1) (3.4) (2.5) (4.6) (1.9) (2.1) (4.5) (3.5) (5.3) (2.8) (3.1) (2.6) (3.8) 490 440 458 437 481 470 469 649 601 536 502 526 546 420 531 577 513 490 486 591 558 569 466 492 488 547 464 585 536 564 546 532 558 532 (3.4) (3.4) (3.6) (3.0) (4.4) (2.0) (4.0) (3.1) (1.9) (3.2) (3.3) (2.4) (2.3) (4.1) (2.7) (2.5) (3.3) (3.1) (3.6) (2.4) (2.6) (1.9) (3.7) (3.2) (5.5) (1.8) (3.1) (4.3) (3.1) (4.2) (1.8) (3.0) (2.6) (3.7) 538 489 511 491 535 523 524 695 648 586 553 579 595 478 581 623 561 541 540 644 610 621 523 546 545 598 527 635 590 617 599 583 609 588 (4.3) (3.6) (4.4) (3.9) (5.2) (2.2) (4.1) (3.7) (2.2) (3.7) (3.3) (3.9) (2.7) (5.7) (2.7) (3.3) (3.4) (3.4) (3.9) (2.7) (3.2) (2.8) (4.0) (3.7) (5.8) (2.2) (3.6) (4.0) (3.5) (6.0) (2.3) (3.7) (3.1) (4.5) 565 519 543 522 567 554 555 721 674 616 584 608 623 514 610 650 591 570 573 674 639 648 555 575 577 627 563 663 622 647 629 612 637 619 (5.2) (4.3) (5.3) (4.9) (5.8) (3.0) (4.2) (3.9) (3.5) (4.0) (3.8) (4.8) (3.3) (6.1) (3.7) (4.0) (4.2) (3.9) (4.0) (3.0) (4.2) (3.7) (3.7) (4.1) (6.1) (2.2) (4.8) (5.4) (3.9) (6.9) (3.0) (4.7) (3.6) (5.5) 199 203 207 209 211 212 213 213 214 217 218 218 219 219 221 223 223 225 226 227 230 231 232 232 233 233 234 234 235 235 235 235 237 237 265 (3.2) 296 (2.5) 349 (2.0) 476 (2.4) 533 (3.1) 566 (3.9) 238 359 (4.2) 392 (3.4) 448 (2.8) 576 (3.4) 630 (4.0) 660 (4.4) 238 Country or province Kosovo Morocco Indonesia Dominican Republic Costa Rica Baku (Azerbaijan) Albania Kazakhstan Mexico Philippines Bosnia and Herzegovina Malaysia Saudi Arabia Peru Georgia Thailand Montenegro Colombia B-S-J-Z (China) Macao (China) Russian Federation Chile Turkey Latvia Panama Belarus Hong Kong (China) Greece Jordan Uruguay Estonia Ireland Slovenia Argentina Moldova Romania Spain Brazil Quebec Croatia Saskatchewan Lithuania Italy Denmark Ukraine Republic of North Macedonia Poland 150 5th 10th 25th 75th 90th 95th PISA 2018 Table B.3.6 (cont’d) Variation in student performance: SCIENCE Percentiles Score 293 325 336 Standard error (3.8) (3.6) (5.6) Score 322 354 368 Standard error (3.9) (3.1) (4.3) Score 375 410 427 Standard error (3.8) (3.0) (3.6) Score 504 540 558 Standard error (3.6) (2.7) (3.1) Score 562 594 609 Standard error (4.0) (3.1) (3.5) Score 593 623 638 Standard error (3.7) (3.7) (4.1) Difference in score points between the 10th and 90th percentiles 240 240 240 354 (11.2) 387 (9.4) 442 (7.2) 569 (6.5) 628 (9.6) 663 (10.5) 241 371 291 361 325 337 349 279 341 357 336 237 369 356 330 307 290 332 352 376 335 333 (4.5) (3.3) (5.8) (4.4) (7.2) (7.9) (5.1) (4.8) (2.6) (9.8) (4.0) (7.6) (4.4) (4.2) (3.9) (2.6) (3.8) (4.9) (3.5) (3.9) (6.0) 405 319 395 356 366 383 305 373 393 369 265 404 393 364 338 315 361 388 416 367 368 (4.4) (2.6) (4.9) (3.9) (5.6) (7.2) (4.3) (4.0) (2.3) (8.5) (3.6) (6.3) (4.1) (3.5) (3.5) (2.0) (3.1) (4.1) (3.2) (3.5) (5.1) 466 372 453 412 423 444 355 430 453 427 315 468 458 425 397 359 420 453 487 426 431 (3.7) (2.7) (5.2) (3.1) (5.1) (6.3) (4.0) (3.7) (2.5) (7.0) (3.7) (5.8) (3.2) (3.1) (3.2) (1.9) (3.6) (3.7) (2.7) (3.8) (4.0) 595 505 587 549 556 574 490 564 586 559 449 602 590 563 531 497 560 589 621 565 570 (3.0) (2.2) (4.9) (3.3) (4.8) (5.1) (4.8) (3.1) (2.6) (6.4) (4.8) (5.0) (2.8) (2.9) (2.9) (1.7) (3.1) (3.1) (1.6) (4.0) (3.1) 646 562 641 602 612 629 552 620 640 617 513 654 643 615 589 566 614 642 670 622 624 (3.5) (2.2) (5.0) (3.6) (4.0) (6.6) (5.3) (2.9) (2.5) (7.6) (4.9) (6.3) (2.9) (3.2) (3.5) (2.8) (3.3) (3.8) (1.8) (4.6) (3.3) 673 592 672 631 645 662 587 651 671 650 549 684 673 644 622 603 642 672 698 651 655 (3.9) (2.9) (5.5) (4.1) (6.4) (8.3) (6.1) (3.6) (3.6) (10.3) (4.9) (7.6) (3.8) (3.8) (3.7) (2.8) (3.7) (4.4) (2.7) (4.0) (3.8) 241 244 245 246 246 246 247 247 247 248 248 250 250 251 251 252 252 254 254 255 256 335 (16.5) 369 (16.6) 436 (12.2) 571 (10.5) 625 (16.5) 654 (15.7) 256 340 317 336 321 346 328 334 346 259 336 328 (4.7) (3.6) (6.1) (4.5) (4.3) (4.2) (2.7) (9.1) (2.6) (4.5) (5.2) 374 347 371 357 382 363 369 383 290 371 363 (3.8) (2.6) (4.9) (3.9) (3.9) (4.0) (2.6) (7.5) (1.5) (3.7) (4.0) 437 404 433 424 449 428 432 446 345 437 430 (3.2) (2.1) (4.4) (3.3) (3.7) (3.4) (2.2) (5.7) (1.4) (2.8) (3.9) 575 549 574 560 587 571 575 589 490 582 577 (3.2) (2.2) (3.8) (2.8) (3.7) (2.5) (2.2) (6.6) (1.5) (2.7) (3.5) 632 606 629 616 641 624 631 647 557 640 633 (3.2) (2.9) (3.9) (2.9) (4.0) (2.3) (2.7) (6.9) (2.1) (2.9) (3.3) 664 637 660 645 670 652 664 679 596 670 665 (3.7) (3.8) (3.8) (3.4) (4.1) (2.8) (3.8) (7.4) (2.7) (3.3) (3.3) 258 258 259 259 259 261 262 263 268 269 270 272 (2.4) 302 (2.1) 358 (2.2) 506 (2.8) 572 (3.0) 609 (2.8) 270 329 278 279 333 (5.5) (4.8) (5.6) (0.7) 364 314 314 365 (5.2) (3.5) (5.0) (0.6) 428 380 381 423 (4.5) (2.9) (5.1) (0.5) 581 534 544 555 (3.1) (2.9) (3.7) (0.5) 636 594 607 609 (3.5) (3.3) (3.8) (0.5) 666 628 640 639 (3.8) (4.2) (4.0) (0.6) 272 280 293 244 Country or province Serbia Iceland Portugal Newfoundland and Labrador Japan Cyprus Ontario Hungary Manitoba Nova Scotia Bulgaria Czech Republic Canada New Brunswick Lebanon Alberta Finland France Slovak Republic Brunei Darussalam Austria Korea Singapore Switzerland Sweden Prince Edward Island United Kingdom Luxembourg United States Norway Chinese Taipei Belgium Australia British Columbia Qatar New Zealand Germany United Arab Emirates Netherlands Malta Israel OECD average 5th 10th 25th 75th 90th 95th Note: Countries and provinces have been sorted in ascending order by the difference in score points between the 10th and 90th percentiles. B-S-J-Z (China) represents Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, and Zhejiang. See OECD 2019b, p. 21, for a note regarding Cyprus. The data for Vietnam have not yet been fully validated: due to a lack of consistency in the response pattern of some performance data, the OECD cannot yet assure full international comparability of the results. PISA 2018 151 Table B.3.7a Percentage of students at each proficiency level in anglophone and francophone school systems: MATHEMATICS Proficiency levels Standard error % Standard error 12.0 (0.6) 21.9 (0.7) 26.0 (0.7) 21.0 (0.9) 10.5 (0.6) 3.4 (0.4) 6.0 (1.5) 15.1 (1.6) 26.7 (2.4) 26.7 (2.1) 16.9 (2.1) 6.9 (1.9) U‡ (0.7) 8.0‡ (2.7) 15.6 (2.8) 23.3 (2.8) 25.9 (3.5) 18.2 (3.9) (2.8) U‡ (1.0) 6.3 (1.3) 14.0 (1.4) 24.6 (1.4) 26.2 (1.5) 18.7 (1.6) 7.8 (1.2) U‡ (0.8) New Brunswick 8.3 (1.3) 16.4 (1.9) 24.7 (1.9) 24.4 (1.9) 17.3 (2.4) 7.3 (1.8) U‡ (0.8) Quebec 3.5 (1.0) 9.5 (1.5) 21.3 (2.8) 29.2 (2.5) 23.8 (2.5) 10.0 (1.4) U (0.9) Ontario 4.5 (0.7) 11.1 (0.9) 21.2 (1.3) 25.7 (1.4) 21.9 (1.6) 11.6 (1.1) 4.0 (0.7) Manitoba 8.0 (1.0) 16.9 (1.3) 24.9 (1.9) 26.1 (1.5) 16.5 (1.2) 6.3 (0.9) U‡ (0.4) Saskatchewan 6.4 (0.9) 15.2 (1.6) 26.3 (1.7) 27.7 (1.7) 17.8 (1.6) 5.6 (0.8) U‡ (0.4) Alberta 5.3 (1.0) 10.9 (1.4) 20.7 (1.8) 26.8 (1.8) 21.5 (1.4) 11.5 (1.3) 3.4 (0.7) British Columbia 6.0 (0.9) 12.8 (1.3) 21.7 (1.3) 25.3 (1.5) 20.6 (1.4) 9.9 (1.2) 3.7 (0.8) 4.0 (0.6) 8.5 (0.8) 16.8 (0.9) 25.3 (1.2) 24.6 (1.0) 14.5 (0.8) 6.4 (0.6) % (0.5) % Standard error Level 6 5.2 % Standard error Level 5 Canada Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia % Standard error Level 4 Standard error Level 3 % Level 2 Standard error Level 1 % Canada and provinces Below Level 1 Anglophone school systems U‡ Francophone school systems Canada Nova Scotia (4.2) 12.1‡ (3.9) 23.5 (4.1) 24.4 (5.8) 18.0‡ (3.7) (4.0) U‡ (2.8) New Brunswick 5.7 U‡ (1.5) 10.7 (2.3) 21.7 (2.9) 26.6 (2.4) 21.6 (2.5) 9.7 U‡ (2.3) U‡ (1.7) Quebec 3.6 (0.6) 8.0 (0.8) 16.0 (1.0) 25.1 (1.3) 25.3 (1.2) 15.3 (1.0) 6.8 (0.7) Ontario 7.8 (1.8) 12.9 (1.6) 22.1 (1.8) 26.8 (2.2) 18.7 (2.2) 8.1 (1.3) U (1.4) Manitoba U‡ (4.2) U‡ (5.0) 25.0 (6.1) 28.7 (4.6) 17.9 (4.7) U‡ (3.8) U‡ (2.3) Alberta U‡ (2.6) 11.0‡ (3.2) 18.6 (5.1) 26.1 (4.9) 23.6 (3.8) U‡ (4.2) U‡ (2.7) British Columbia U‡ (4.0) 13.5‡ (3.9) 21.4‡ (6.0) 25.7 (5.2) 19.2‡ (4.3) U‡ (3.4) U‡ (2.2) ‡ There are fewer than 30 observations. U Too unreliable to be published. Note: Because Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan did not oversample students by language, results for only English-language schools are available for these provinces. 152 PISA 2018 Table B.3.7b Proportion of students in anglophone and francophone school systems who performed below Level 2, at Level 2 or above, and at Levels 5 and 6: MATHEMATICS Canada and provinces Anglophone school systems % Standard error Francophone school systems % Standard error Difference (A–F) Difference Standard error Below Level 2 Canada 17.3 (0.8) 12.5 (1.2) Newfoundland and Labrador 21.1 (2.3) -- -- 4.7* (1.4) Prince Edward Island 23.7 (3.9) -- -- -- -- Nova Scotia 20.3 (2.2) 20.3 (6.7) 0.0 (6.2) New Brunswick 24.6** (2.7) 16.5 (2.8) 8.1 (4.2) Quebec 13.0** (1.9) 11.5** (1.2) 1.5 (2.2) Ontario 15.6** (1.3) 20.6** (2.7) -5.1 (3.1) Manitoba 24.9** (1.7) U (8.1) -- -- Saskatchewan 21.6** (2.1) -- -- -- -- Alberta 16.1 (2.0) 17.5 (4.5) -1.3 (5.3) British Columbia 18.7 (1.8) 22.2 (5.1) -3.5 (5.3) Canada 82.7 (0.8) 87.5 (1.2) -4.7* (1.4) Newfoundland and Labrador 78.9 (2.3) -- -- Prince Edward Island 76.3 (3.9) -- -- -- -- Nova Scotia 79.7 (2.2) 79.7 (6.7) 0.0 (6.2) New Brunswick 75.4** (2.7) 83.5 (2.8) -8.1 (4.2) Quebec 87.0** (1.9) 88.5** (1.2) -1.5 (2.2) Ontario 84.4** (1.3) 79.4** (2.7) 5.1 (3.1) Manitoba 75.1** (1.7) 80.3 (8.1) -5.2 (9.1) Saskatchewan 78.4** (2.1) -- -- -- -- Alberta 83.9 (2.0) 82.5 (4.5) 1.3 (5.3) British Columbia 81.3 (1.8) 77.8 (5.1) 3.5 (5.3) Canada 13.9 -7.0* (1.4) -- -- Level 2 or above -- -- Levels 5 and 6 Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia New Brunswick (0.8) 20.8 (1.2) 8.6** (2.1) -- -- -- -- 8.9 (2.9) -- -- -- -- 10.1** (1.6) U (4.7) -- -- 8.9** (2.1) 13.6** (3.3) -4.7 (4.0) Quebec 12.7 (2.0) 22.1** (1.4) -9.3* (2.5) Ontario 15.6** (1.5) 11.7** (2.3) 3.9 (2.6) 7.6** (1.1) U (5.6) -- -- 6.6** Manitoba Saskatchewan (0.9) -- -- -- -- Alberta 14.8 (1.6) U (5.7) -- -- British Columbia 13.6 (1.7) U (4.3) -- -- -- Not available. U Too unreliable to be published. * Significant difference within Canada or province. ** Significant difference compared to Canada. Note: Because Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan did not oversample students by language, results for only English-language schools are available for these provinces. PISA 2018 153 Table B.3.8a Percentage of students at each proficiency level in anglophone and francophone school systems: SCIENCE Proficiency levels % Standard error % Standard error % Standard error % Standard error Level 6 Standard error Level 5 % Level 4 Standard error Level 3 % Level 2 Standard error Level 1 % Canada and provinces Below Level 1 Canada Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia 3.0 (0.3) 10.5 (0.5) 22.5 (0.6) 28.9 (0.7) 23.3 (0.7) 9.8 (0.6) 2.0 (0.2) 3.3 (0.9) 12.2 (1.7) 25.7 (2.2) 30.0 (2.2) 19.6 (1.8) 7.6 (1.2) U‡ (0.8) (1.9) 13.2 (2.1) 21.7 (2.8) 29.9 (3.7) 21.6 (3.8) (2.5) U‡ (0.8) 3.6 (0.7) 11.4 (1.4) 23.6 (1.4) 30.8 (1.9) 21.2 (1.5) 8.1 (1.0) U‡ (0.6) New Brunswick 4.7 (1.1) 15.0 (2.0) 26.5 (2.0) 27.5 (2.2) 18.5 (1.8) 6.6 (1.5) U‡ (0.6) U‡ (0.8) Anglophone school systems Quebec U‡ U‡ U‡ (0.7) 9.4 (1.7) 22.5 (1.7) 30.9 (2.4) 23.8 (2.0) 9.4 (1.2) Ontario 2.6 (0.4) 9.8 (0.9) 22.7 (1.2) 29.4 (1.2) 23.6 (1.3) 9.9 (0.9) Manitoba 4.8 (0.7) 15.8 (1.1) 27.0 (1.6) 28.3 (1.4) 17.6 (1.8) 5.7 (0.7) U‡ (0.3) Saskatchewan 3.8 (0.6) 12.1 (1.1) 26.0 (1.3) 31.0 (1.2) 20.1 (1.2) 6.2 (0.8) U‡ (0.3) Alberta 2.3 (0.5) 8.6 (1.1) 18.7 (1.2) 28.4 (1.6) 26.9 (1.7) 12.3 (1.4) 2.7 (0.7) British Columbia 3.9 (0.8) 11.6 (1.1) 22.0 (1.4) 27.1 (1.4) 22.6 (1.5) 10.5 (1.1) 2.4 (0.5) 2.8 (0.4) 10.3 (0.8) 22.0 (1.2) 30.9 (1.2) 24.3 (1.3) 8.4 (0.8) 1.2 (0.3) 2.0 (0.4) Francophone school systems Canada Nova Scotia U‡ (2.9) 21.5 (5.1) 31.1 (5.2) 22.3 (5.2) 14.4‡ (3.6) U‡ (2.7) U‡ (0.6) New Brunswick U‡ (1.9) 14.0 (2.2) 28.6 (3.2) 30.6 (3.2) 16.6 (2.9) 4.6‡ (1.5) U‡ (0.6) Quebec 2.4 (0.4) 9.4 (0.9) 21.0 (1.3) 31.3 (1.4) 25.7 (1.5) 9.0 (0.9) Ontario 6.4 (1.0) 17.9 (2.1) 29.9 (2.0) 27.9 (1.9) 14.2 (1.9) 3.2 (0.7) 1.3 U‡ (0.4) (0.2) Manitoba U‡ (2.4) 19.4 (4.0) 31.4 (4.7) 28.4 (5.0) 13.0‡ (4.2) U‡ (1.8) U‡ (0.4) Alberta U‡ (3.0) 12.6‡ (3.0) 23.8 (4.6) 30.4 (4.9) 19.6 (4.9) U‡ (3.2) U‡ (1.4) British Columbia U‡ (2.3) 14.0‡ (4.3) 27.8 (5.5) 31.6 (5.1) 16.9‡ (5.2) U‡ (3.6) U‡ (0.9) ‡ There are fewer than 30 observations. U Too unreliable to be published. Note: Because Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan did not oversample students by language, results for only English-language schools are available for these provinces. 154 PISA 2018 Table B.3.8b Proportion of students in anglophone and francophone school systems who performed below Level 2, at Level 2 or above, and at Levels 5 and 6: SCIENCE Canada and provinces Anglophone school systems % Standard error Francophone school systems % Difference (A–F) Standard error Difference Standard error Below Level 2 Canada 13.5 (0.6) 13.2 (1.1) 0.3 (1.3) Newfoundland and Labrador 15.4 (2.2) -- -- -- -- Prince Edward Island 18.3 (2.8) -- Nova Scotia 14.9 (1.6) 28.6** (6.0) New Brunswick 19.7** (2.2) 18.8 Quebec 11.3 (1.9) 11.8** Ontario 12.4 (1.1) Manitoba 20.6** (1.5) Saskatchewan 16.0 (1.4) -- -- -- -- Alberta 11.0** (1.3) 17.4 (4.6) -6.4 (4.8) British Columbia 15.5 (1.6) 19.2 (5.2) -3.7 (5.2) Canada 86.5 (0.6) 86.8 (1.1) -0.3 (1.3) Newfoundland and Labrador 84.6 (2.2) -- -- -- -- Prince Edward Island 81.7 (2.8) -- Nova Scotia 85.1 (1.6) 71.4** (6.0) 13.6* (6.2) New Brunswick 80.3** (2.2) 81.2 (3.2) -0.9 (3.7) Quebec 88.7 (1.9) 88.2** (1.2) 0.5 (2.2) Ontario 87.6 (1.1) 75.6** (2.6) 11.9* (2.6) Manitoba 79.4** (1.5) 75.4** (5.3) 4.1 (5.1) Saskatchewan 84.0 (1.4) -- -- -- -- Alberta 89.0** (1.3) 82.6 (4.6) 6.4 (4.8) British Columbia 84.5 (1.6) 80.8 (5.2) 3.7 (5.2) Canada 2.3* (1.1) -- -- -- -13.6* (6.2) (3.2) 0.9 (3.7) (1.2) -0.5 (2.2) 24.4** (2.6) -11.9* (2.6) 24.6** (5.3) -4.1 (5.1) Level 2 or above -- -- -- Levels 5 and 6 11.8 (0.7) 9.5 (0.9) Newfoundland and Labrador 9.2 (1.4) -- -- Prince Edward Island 8.5 (2.6) -- -- Nova Scotia 9.5 (1.1) U (3.0) 5.9* (2.7) 7.7** New Brunswick --- --- (1.6) 5.4** (1.7) 2.3 (2.1) Quebec 11.4 (1.5) 10.3** (1.0) 1.1 (1.8) Ontario 11.8 (1.4) Manitoba Saskatchewan (1.1) 3.7** (0.8) 8.1* 6.5** (0.6) U (1.9) -- -- 6.9** (0.9) -- -- -- -- Alberta 15.0** (1.6) U (3.9) -- -- British Columbia 12.9 (1.4) U (4.2) -- -- -- Not available. U Too unreliable to be published. * Significant difference within Canada or province. ** Significant difference compared to Canada. Note: Because Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan did not oversample students by language, results for only English-language schools are available for these provinces. PISA 2018 155 Table B.3.9 Average scores by language of the school system: MATHEMATICS Canada and provinces Anglophone school systems Average Canada 507 Newfoundland and Labrador 488** Prince Edward Island 486 Nova Scotia New Brunswick Francophone school systems Standard error Average Standard error (2.8) 530 (3.4) Difference (A–F) Difference -23* Standard error (4.3) (6.5) -- -- -- -- (11.3) -- -- -- -- 494** (6.3) 498 (17.8) -4 (16.2) 484** (6.9) 508** (10.1) -24 (12.5) Quebec 514 (6.8) 535** (3.9) -21* (8.0) Ontario 513** (4.7) 497** (9.0) 17 (10.8) Manitoba 481** (3.9) 492 (25.1) -11 (26.8) Saskatchewan 485** (5.1) -- -- -- -- Alberta 511 (5.1) 510 (14.9) 1 (15.7) British Columbia 504 (5.3) 493** (14.2) 12 (15.2) -- Not available. * Significant difference within Canada or province. ** Significant difference compared to Canada. Note: Because Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan did not oversample students by language, results for only English-language schools are available for these provinces. Table B.3.10 Average scores by language of the school system: SCIENCE Canada and provinces Anglophone school systems Average Standard error Francophone school systems Average Standard error Difference (A–F) Difference Standard error Canada 519 (2.5) 516 (3.7) 3 (4.3) Newfoundland and Labrador 506 (6.4) -- -- -- -- Prince Edward Island 503 (9.5) -- -- -- -- Nova Scotia 510 (4.6) 466** (14.9) 44* (13.9) New Brunswick 494** (6.5) 488** (10.3) 6 (11.7) Quebec 523 (5.9) 521** (4.0) 1 (6.9) Ontario 521 (4.2) 474** (6.0) 47* (7.3) Manitoba 490** (3.7) 470** (16.0) 20 (16.2) Saskatchewan 501** (3.9) -- -- -- -- Alberta 534** (4.4) 502 (15.3) 32* (15.2) British Columbia 517 (5.4) 487 (15.9) 30 (15.7) -- Not available. * Significant difference within Canada or province. ** Significant difference compared to Canada. Note: Because Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan did not oversample students by language, results for only English-language schools are available for these provinces. 156 PISA 2018 Table B.3.11a Percentage of students at each proficiency level by gender: MATHEMATICS Below Level 1 Canada and provinces Proficiency levels Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 % Standard error % Standard error % Standard error % Standard error % Standard error % Standard error % Standard error Canada Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia 4.9 (0.5) 11.2 (0.7) 21.4 (1.0) 26.9 (0.9) 21.7 (1.0) 10.6 (0.6) 3.3 (0.4) U (1.8) 14.6 (2.7) 29.0 (3.4) 29.4 (3.1) 15.2 (2.6) U (2.0) U‡ (0.7) U‡ (3.1) 18.8 (3.5) 25.6 (4.5) 26.2 (4.8) 15.9‡ (4.8) U‡ (2.9) U‡ (0.6) 5.6 (1.7) 13.2 (1.9) 25.0 (2.1) 28.3 (2.2) 18.3 (2.0) 7.5 (1.5) U‡ (0.8) New Brunswick 7.0 (1.2) 15.0 (2.4) 24.3 (2.1) 26.6 (2.3) 18.5 (2.8) 6.9 (1.9) U‡ (0.7) Quebec 3.4 (0.8) 8.3 (1.1) 17.0 (1.3) 26.5 (1.4) 25.8 (1.5) 13.8 (1.1) 5.2 (0.9) Ontario 4.9 (0.8) 11.2 (1.2) 22.0 (1.8) 26.6 (1.9) 21.5 (1.9) 10.6 (1.4) 3.2 (0.7) Manitoba 7.7 (1.2) 17.4 (2.3) 25.7 (2.4) 26.1 (2.2) 16.6 (1.6) 5.6 (1.1) U‡ (0.5) Saskatchewan 5.5 (1.0) 14.7 (2.2) 27.4 (2.3) 29.3 (2.7) 17.4 (2.2) 5.0 (1.1) U‡ (0.4) Alberta 4.6 (1.0) 10.2 (1.4) 21.4 (2.6) 28.0 (2.5) 21.8 (1.9) 11.3 (1.7) 2.8 (0.7) British Columbia 6.0 (1.2) 13.0 (1.6) 22.2 (2.1) 26.2 (1.7) 19.9 (1.6) 9.4 (1.6) 3.2 (0.8) Canada Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia 5.1 (0.5) 11.3 (0.6) 20.2 (0.7) 24.9 (0.6) 21.8 (0.9) 12.0 (0.6) 4.7 (0.4) 7.2 (1.8) 15.7 (2.5) 24.3 (3.2) 24.0 (2.7) 18.6 (2.9) 8.1 (2.4) U‡ (1.2) (4.1) 20.5 (3.9) 25.5 (4.2) 20.5 (4.7) (3.3) U‡ (1.7) 7.2 (1.6) 14.8 (1.8) 24.1 (1.8) 24.0 (2.2) 19.1 (2.2) 8.2 (1.6) U‡ (1.0) New Brunswick 8.0 (1.7) 14.5 (1.7) 23.3 (2.6) 23.5 (2.6) 18.6 (2.1) 9.2 (1.9) U‡ (1.3) Quebec 3.7 (0.7) 8.0 (1.0) 16.2 (1.1) 24.4 (1.9) 24.5 (1.6) 15.7 (1.1) 7.5 (1.0) Ontario 4.4 (0.8) 11.1 (1.1) 20.6 (1.5) 25.0 (1.5) 22.0 (2.0) 12.4 (1.3) 4.6 (0.8) Manitoba 8.2 (1.3) 16.3 (1.6) 24.2 (2.3) 26.2 (1.8) 16.4 (1.7) 7.0 (1.3) Saskatchewan 7.3 (1.1) 15.7 (1.6) 25.2 (1.9) 26.2 (1.8) 18.1 (1.8) 6.1 (1.0) Alberta 5.9 (1.3) 11.6 (2.0) 20.0 (2.1) 25.5 (2.2) 21.4 (1.8) 11.6 (1.5) 3.9 (0.9) British Columbia 6.0 (1.0) 12.5 (1.8) 21.3 (1.9) 24.5 (2.1) 21.2 (2.0) 10.3 (1.3) 4.2 (0.9) Girls Boys U‡ (3.7) U‡ U‡ U‡ (0.5) U‡ (0.5) ‡ There are fewer than 30 observations. U Too unreliable to be published. PISA 2018 157 Table B.3.11b Proportion of boys and girls who performed below Level 2, at Level 2 or above, and at Levels 5 and 6: MATHEMATICS Girls Canada and provinces % Boys Standard error % Difference (G–B) Standard error Difference Standard error Below Level 2 Canada 16.1 (0.9) 16.4 (0.8) -0.3 (0.8) Newfoundland and Labrador 19.5 (3.0) 22.9** (3.3) -3.4 (4.5) Prince Edward Island 25.5** (4.7) 22.0 (4.5) 3.5 (4.9) Nova Scotia 18.7 (2.5) 22.0** (2.6) -3.2 (2.8) New Brunswick 22.0** (2.8) 22.5** (2.0) -0.5 (2.8) Quebec 11.7** (1.4) 11.7** (1.3) 0.0 (1.5) Ontario 16.1 (1.5) 15.5 (1.4) 0.6 (1.5) Manitoba 25.1** (2.7) 24.5** (1.9) 0.6 (3.5) Saskatchewan 20.2 (2.8) 23.0** (1.9) -2.8 (2.3) Alberta 14.8 (1.9) 17.5 (2.5) -2.7 (2.1) British Columbia 19.0 (2.1) 18.5 (2.3) 0.5 (2.4) Canada 83.9 (0.9) 83.6 (0.8) 0.3 (0.8) Newfoundland and Labrador 80.5 (3.0) 77.1** (3.3) 3.4 (4.5) Prince Edward Island 74.5** (4.7) 78.0 (4.5) -3.5 (4.9) Nova Scotia 81.3 (2.5) 78.0** (2.6) 3.2 (2.8) New Brunswick 78.0** (2.8) 77.5** (2.0) 0.5 (2.8) Quebec 88.3** (1.4) 88.3** (1.3) 0.0 (1.5) Ontario 83.9 (1.5) 84.5 (1.4) -0.6 (1.5) Manitoba 74.9** (2.7) 75.5** (1.9) -0.6 (3.5) Saskatchewan 79.8 (2.8) 77.0** (1.9) 2.8 (2.3) Alberta 85.2 (1.9) 82.5 (2.5) 2.7 (2.1) British Columbia 81.0 (2.1) 81.5 (2.3) -0.5 (2.4) Canada 13.9 Level 2 or above Levels 5 and 6 Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia New Brunswick (0.8) 16.7 (0.9) -2.8* (0.9) 6.9** (2.2) 10.3** (2.6) -3.4 (2.3) U (3.1) U (3.8) -- -- 9.7** (1.8) 10.9** (2.0) -1.2 (2.0) 8.6** (2.1) 12.1 (2.3) -3.5 (2.7) Quebec 19.0** (1.6) 23.2** (1.6) -4.2* (1.8) Ontario 13.8 (1.7) 17.0 Manitoba Saskatchewan 6.4** (1.2) 5.7** (1.2) (1.7) -3.1 (1.9) 8.7** (1.4) -2.2 (1.6) 7.5** (1.1) -1.8 (1.4) Alberta 14.1 (1.9) 15.6 (1.9) -1.5 (1.9) British Columbia 12.7 (2.2) 14.5 (1.8) -1.8 (2.0) -- Not available. U Too unreliable to be published. * Significant difference within Canada or province. ** Significant difference compared to Canada. 158 PISA 2018 Table B.3.12a Percentage of students at each proficiency level by gender: SCIENCE Proficiency levels % Standard error % Standard error % Standard error % Standard error Level 6 Standard error Level 5 % Level 4 Standard error Level 3 % Level 2 Standard error Level 1 % Canada and provinces Below Level 1 2.6 (0.3) 9.5 (0.6) 22.5 (0.8) 30.8 (0.8) 23.9 (0.9) 9.0 (0.6) 1.7 (0.3) U‡ (1.1) 10.1 (2.1) 26.6 (2.8) 34.6 (2.8) 19.1 (2.8) 6.2 (1.7) U‡ (0.6) U‡ (1.7) 14.0‡ (3.5) 23.8 (5.3) 30.7 (4.8) 20.3‡ (4.6) U‡ (3.3) U‡ (1.1) 10.2 (2.0) 24.0 (2.2) 31.7 (2.7) 21.6 (2.1) 8.7 (1.5) 13.7 (2.0) 27.8 (2.4) 30.7 (2.2) 18.3 (2.1) 5.5 (1.4) 8.6 (1.0) 21.2 (1.7) 31.9 (1.6) 26.3 (1.7) 8.7 (1.1) 1.3 (0.3) (0.5) 9.2 (1.2) 23.1 (1.5) 30.8 (1.6) 23.3 (1.7) 8.8 (1.0) 1.9 (0.5) (1.0) 15.8 (1.6) 27.5 (2.1) 29.2 (2.0) 17.0 (2.1) 5.4 (0.9) (0.6) 10.7 (1.4) 26.3 (1.7) 32.9 (2.0) 20.4 (1.7) 6.2 (1.0) U‡ (0.4) 1.8‡ (0.5) 6.8 (1.0) 18.3 (1.5) 31.1 (2.4) 27.4 (2.2) 12.1 (1.5) 2.5‡ (0.8) (0.9) 10.9 (1.4) 22.3 (2.0) 28.0 (2.0) 23.4 (1.8) 10.3 (1.6) 2.1‡ (0.7) (0.3) 11.4 (0.6) 22.3 (0.8) 27.9 (0.9) 23.1 (0.8) 10.0 (0.7) 1.9 4.1‡ (1.2) 14.2 (2.5) 24.8 (2.8) 25.3 (3.1) 20.1 (2.4) 9.0 (1.9) U‡ (1.5) 12.9‡ (3.2) 20.3 (3.7) 28.5 (5.5) 22.4 (5.3) U‡ (3.1) U‡ (1.4) (1.0) 13.4 (1.8) 23.7 (2.1) 29.2 (2.3) 20.2 (2.0) 7.2 (1.3) U‡ (0.7) (1.4) 15.7 (2.2) 26.5 (2.6) 26.1 (2.5) 17.6 (2.1) 6.7 (1.6) U‡ (0.6) 2.6 (0.6) 10.2 (1.3) 21.0 (1.3) 30.6 (1.4) 24.6 (1.5) 9.4 (1.2) U (0.5) 2.8 (0.5) 11.0 (1.1) 22.9 (1.6) 27.8 (1.6) 23.1 (1.5) 10.3 (1.3) 1.9 (0.5) Manitoba 5.0 (0.9) 15.9 (1.5) 26.7 (1.8) 27.5 (1.7) 18.0 (2.2) 5.8 (1.1) Saskatchewan 4.6 (0.9) 13.5 (1.5) 25.8 (2.0) 29.2 (1.8) 19.8 (1.6) 6.2 (1.2) Alberta 2.9 (0.7) 10.5 (1.6) 19.2 (1.6) 25.8 (1.7) 26.3 (2.1) 12.4 (2.0) 2.8 British Columbia 4.7 (1.1) 12.3 (1.5) 21.8 (1.7) 26.1 (1.8) 21.7 (2.2) 10.7 (1.6) 2.7‡ (0.8) Girls Canada Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia 2.6‡ (0.6) New Brunswick 3.2‡ (1.0) Quebec 2.0 (0.4) Ontario 2.8 Manitoba 4.6 Saskatchewan 3.0 Alberta British Columbia 3.0 Canada Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island 3.3 Nova Scotia 4.8 New Brunswick 6.4 Quebec Ontario U‡ (0.9) U‡ (0.6) U‡ (0.4) Boys U‡ (3.0) (0.3) U‡ (0.4) U‡ (0.4) (0.9) ‡ There are fewer than 30 observations. U Too unreliable to be published. PISA 2018 159 Table B.3.12b Proportion of boys and girls who performed below Level 2, at Level 2 or above, and at Levels 5 and 6: SCIENCE Girls Canada and provinces % Boys Standard error % Difference (G–B) Standard error Difference Standard error Below Level 2 Canada 12.1 (0.7) 14.8 (0.7) -2.7* (0.9) Newfoundland and Labrador 12.7 (2.4) 18.3 (3.0) -5.6 (3.3) Prince Edward Island 16.8 (3.5) 20.7 (4.4) -3.8 (6.2) Nova Scotia 12.8 (2.0) 18.2 (2.2) -5.4* (2.7) New Brunswick 16.8** (2.2) 22.1** (2.3) -5.3* (2.4) Quebec 10.6 (1.1) 12.9 (1.5) -2.2 (1.7) Ontario 12.0 (1.4) 13.8 (1.2) -1.8 (1.5) Manitoba 20.4** (2.0) 20.9** (1.7) -0.5 (2.3) Saskatchewan 13.7 (1.6) 18.1 (2.0) -4.5* (2.2) (1.1) 13.4 (1.7) -4.9* (1.6) -3.0 (2.1) Alberta 8.5** British Columbia 14.0 (1.8) 17.0 (2.1) Canada 87.9 (0.7) 85.2 (0.7) 2.7* (0.9) Newfoundland and Labrador 87.3 (2.4) 81.7 (3.0) 5.6 (3.3) Prince Edward Island 83.2 (3.5) 79.3 (4.4) 3.8 (6.2) Nova Scotia 87.2 (2.0) 81.8 (2.2) 5.4* (2.7) New Brunswick 83.2** (2.2) 77.9** (2.3) 5.3* (2.4) Quebec 89.4 (1.1) 87.1 (1.5) 2.2 (1.7) Ontario 88.0 (1.4) 86.2 (1.2) 1.8 (1.5) Manitoba 79.6** (2.0) 79.1** (1.7) 0.5 (2.3) Saskatchewan 86.3 (1.6) 81.9 (2.0) 4.5* (2.2) Alberta 91.5** (1.1) 86.6 (1.7) 4.9* (1.6) British Columbia 86.0 (1.8) 83.0 (2.1) 3.0 (2.1) Canada 10.8 Level 2 or above Levels 5 and 6 Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia New Brunswick (0.6) 11.9 (0.9) -1.1 (1.0) 7.0** (1.7) 11.4 (2.2) -4.4 (2.9) U (3.5) U (2.9) -- -- 10.0 (1.7) 8.6 (1.3) 1.3 (2.0) 7.8** (1.7) -1.5 (1.8) Quebec 10.0 (1.1) 10.9 (1.4) -0.9 (1.7) Ontario 10.7 (1.1) 12.3 Manitoba Saskatchewan 6.3** (1.5) 5.9** (0.9) (1.5) -1.5 (1.6) 6.9** (1.0) -0.9 (1.5) 7.1** 6.8** (1.1) (1.3) -0.3 (1.6) Alberta 14.6** (1.9) 15.3 (2.0) -0.7 (2.2) British Columbia 12.4 (1.7) 13.4 (1.8) -1.1 (2.2) -- Not available. U Too unreliable to be published. * Significant difference within Canada or province. ** Significant difference compared to Canada. 160 PISA 2018 Table B.3.13 Average scores by gender: MATHEMATICS Canada, provinces, and OECD average Girls Average Boys Standard error Average Difference (G–B) Standard error Difference Standard error Canada 510 (2.7) 514 (2.5) -5* (2.3) Newfoundland and Labrador 486** (7.6) 491** (7.1) -5 (7.2) Prince Edward Island 479** (10.4) (13.9) -15 (11.3) Nova Scotia 495** (6.5) 493** (7.2) 2 (5.2) New Brunswick 489** (6.2) 493** (6.6) -4 (6.0) Quebec 529** (4.6) 536** (4.0) -7 (4.6) Ontario 509 (4.8) 516 (5.0) -7 (4.1) Manitoba 479** (5.1) 484** (4.1) -4 (5.7) Saskatchewan 486** (6.0) 485** (4.9) 1 (4.2) Alberta 511 (5.1) 510 (5.7) 1 (3.7) British Columbia 502 (6.2) 507 (5.8) -5 (5.7) OECD average 487** (0.5) 492** (0.5) -5* (0.6) 494 * Significant difference within Canada, province, or OECD. ** Significant difference compared to Canada. Table B.3.14 Average scores by gender: SCIENCE Canada, provinces, and OECD average Girls Average Canada 520 Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island Boys Standard error Average (2.5) 516 506 (7.0) 504 (10.0) Nova Scotia 514 (6.0) New Brunswick 496** (6.2) Quebec 523 Ontario 519 Manitoba Saskatchewan Difference (G–B) Standard error Difference Standard error (2.7) 3 (2.9) 506 (8.1) 0 (8.1) 499 (11.6) 5 (12.4) 502** (5.4) 13 (6.5) 488** (6.9) 8 (6.6) (4.3) 520 (4.4) 3 (4.5) (4.6) 518 (4.7) 0 (4.8) 489** (5.1) 490** (3.9) -2 (5.3) 505** (4.4) 497** (4.6) 7 (4.6) Alberta 538** (4.2) 530** (5.3) 8* (4.0) British Columbia 519 (5.7) 514 (6.4) 4 (5.7) OECD average 490** (0.5) 488** (0.5) 2* (0.5) * Significant difference within Canada, province, or OECD. ** Significant difference compared to Canada. PISA 2018 161 Table B.3.15a Comparisons of performance, PISA 2003, 2006, 2009, 2012, 2015, and 2018: MATHEMATICS 2003 Standard error Average Standard error Average Standard error Average Standard error 2018 Average 2015 Standard error 2012 Average 2009 Standard error 2006 Average Canada, provinces, and OECD average Canada Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island 532 (1.8) 527 (2.4) 527 (2.6) 518* (2.7) 516* (6.1) 512* (3.7) 517 (2.5) 507* (2.8) 503* (3.5) 490* (4.2) 486* (6.4) 488* (7.0) 500 (2.0) 501 (2.7) 487* (3.0) 479* (3.2) 499 (8.5) 487 (11.4) Nova Scotia 515 (2.2) 506* (2.6) 512 (3.0) 497* (4.5) 497* (7.2) 494* (6.9) New Brunswick 511 (1.4) 506 (2.5) 504* (3.0) 502* (3.2) 493* (7.5) 491* (6.3) Quebec 536 (4.5) 540 (4.4) 543 (4.0) 536 (3.9) 544 (7.4) 532 (4.5) Ontario 530 (3.6) 526 (3.9) 526 (3.8) 514* (4.5) 509* (7.0) 513* (5.3) Manitoba 528 (3.1) 521 (3.5) 501* (4.1) 492* (3.5) 489* (7.0) 482* (4.6) Saskatchewan 516 (3.9) 507 (3.6) 506 (3.8) 506 (3.6) 484* (6.3) 485* (5.8) Alberta 549 (4.3) 530* (4.0) 529* (4.8) 517* (5.0) 511* (7.3) 511* (5.8) British Columbia 538 (2.4) 523* (4.6) 523* (5.0) 522* (4.8) 522* (7.5) 504* (5.9) OECD average 500 (0.6) 498 (1.5) 496* (2.0) 494* (2.0) 490 (5.6) 489* (3.7) * Statistically significant differences compared with PISA 2003. Note: The linkage error is incorporated into the standard error for 2006, 2009, 2012, 2015, and 2018. Also, for some provinces, the standard errors from 2003 to 2006 and to 2009 differ from those in the previous PISA reports on trend results. These differences are due to the change of the method used by the OECD to compute the linkage error. The composition of the OECD countries varies from cycle to cycle. Table B.3.15b Comparisons of performance, PISA 2012, 2015, and 2018: MATHEMATICS Canada, provinces, and OECD average 2012 2015 2018 Average Standard error Average Standard error Average Standard error Canada 518 (1.8) 516 (4.2) 512 (4.1) Newfoundland and Labrador 490 (3.7) 486 (4.8) 488 (7.3) Prince Edward Island 479 (2.5) 499* (7.3) 487 (11.6) Nova Scotia 497 (4.1) 497 (5.8) 494 (7.2) New Brunswick 502 (2.6) 493 (6.2) 491 (6.6) Quebec 536 (3.4) 544 (5.9) 532 (4.9) Ontario 514 (4.1) 509 (5.5) 513 (5.6) Manitoba 492 (2.9) 489 (5.5) 482 (5.0) Saskatchewan 506 (3.0) 484* (4.6) 485* (6.0) Alberta 517 (4.6) 511 (5.9) 511 (6.1) British Columbia 522 (4.4) 522 (6.1) 504* (6.2) OECD average 494 (0.5) 490 (4.3) 489 (4.1) * Statistically significant differences compared with PISA 2012. Note: The linkage error is incorporated into the standard error for 2015 and 2018. The composition of the OECD countries varies from cycle to cycle. 162 PISA 2018 Table B.3.16a Comparisons of performance, PISA 2006, 2009, 2012, 2015, and 2018: SCIENCE 2006 Average Standard error Average Standard error Average Standard error 2018 Standard error 2015 Average 2012 Standard error 2009 Average Canada, provinces, and OECD average Canada 534 (2.0) 529 (3.0) 525* (4.0) 528 (4.9) 518* (4.1) Newfoundland and Labrador 526 (2.5) 518 (4.0) 514* (5.0) 506* (5.5) 506* (7.3) Prince Edward Island 509 (2.7) 495* (3.5) 490* (4.4) 515 (7.0) 502 (9.5) Nova Scotia 520 (2.5) 523 (3.7) 516 (4.6) 517 (6.3) 508 (5.8) New Brunswick 506 (2.3) 501 (3.5) 507 (4.4) 506 (6.3) 492 (6.7) Quebec 531 (4.2) 524 (4.1) 516* (4.8) 537 (6.5) 522 (5.1) Ontario 537 (4.2) 531 (4.2) 527 (5.6) 524 (6.0) 519* (5.3) Manitoba 523 (3.2) 506* (4.7) 503* (4.8) 499* (6.5) 489* (5.0) Saskatchewan 517 (3.6) 513 (4.5) 516 (4.6) 496* (5.5) 501* (5.2) Alberta 550 (3.8) 545 (5.0) 539 (5.8) 541 (6.0) 534* (5.6) British Columbia 539 (4.7) 535 (4.8) 544 (5.3) 539 (6.2) 517* (6.4) OECD average 500 (0.5) 501 (2.6) 496 (3.5) 493 (4.5) 489* (3.5) * Statistically significant differences compared with PISA 2006. Note: The linkage error is incorporated into the standard error for 2009, 2012, 2015, and 2018. Also, for some provinces, the standard errors from 2006 to 2009 and to 2012 differ from those in the previous PISA reports on trend results. These differences are due to the change of the method used by the OECD to compute the linkage error. The composition of the OECD countries varies from cycle to cycle. . Table B.3.16b Comparisons of performance, PISA 2015 and 2018: SCIENCE Canada, provinces, and OECD average 2015 2018 Average Standard error Canada 528 (2.1) 518* (2.6) Newfoundland and Labrador 506 (3.2) 506 (6.5) Prince Edward Island 515 (5.4) 502 (9.0) Nova Scotia 517 (4.5) 508 (4.9) New Brunswick 506 (4.5) 492 (5.9) Quebec 537 (4.7) 522* (4.0) Ontario 524 (3.9) 519 (4.3) Manitoba 499 (4.7) 489 (4.0) Saskatchewan 496 (3.1) 501 (4.1) Alberta 541 (4.0) 534 (4.6) British Columbia 539 (4.3) 517* (5.6) OECD average 493 (0.4) 489 (2.7) Average Standard error * Statistically significant differences compared with PISA 2015. Note: The linkage error is incorporated into the standard error for 2018. The composition of the OECD countries varies from cycle to cycle. PISA 2018 163 Table B.3.17 Proportion of students who performed below Level 2 and at Levels 5 and 6, in PISA 2012 and 2018: MATHEMATICS Below Level 2 2012 Difference 2012–2018 Difference Standard error % Standard error % Standard error Difference Standard error Difference 2012–2018 Standard error 2018 % 2012 Standard error 2018 % Canada and provinces Levels 5 and 6 Canada 13.8 (0.5) 16.3 (0.7) 2.4 (1.3) 16.4 (0.6) 15.3 (0.7) -1.1 (1.4) Newfoundland and Labrador 21.3 (2.0) 21.1 (2.3) -0.2 (3.2) 9.4 (1.0) 8.6 (2.1) -0.8 (2.6) Prince Edward Island 24.7 (1.3) 23.7 (3.9) -0.9 (4.2) 6.5 (0.9) 9.1 (2.9) 2.6 (3.2) Nova Scotia 17.7 (1.5) 20.3 (2.2) 2.6 (2.8) 9.0 (1.3) 10.3 (1.6) 1.3 (2.3) New Brunswick 16.3 (1.2) 22.3 (2.0) 6.0* (2.5) 10.1 (1.2) 10.3 (1.7) 0.2 (2.4) Quebec 11.2 (1.0) 11.7 (1.1) 0.5 (1.8) 22.4 (1.3) 21.1 (1.3) -1.3 (2.1) Ontario 13.8 (1.1) 15.8 (1.2) 2.0 (1.9) 15.1 (1.4) 15.4 (1.5) 0.4 (2.3) Manitoba 21.2 (1.5) 24.8 (1.6) 3.6 (2.3) 10.3 (1.0) 7.6 (1.0) -2.7 (1.8) Saskatchewan 15.3 (1.1) 21.6 (2.1) 6.3* (2.5) 12.2 (1.2) 6.6 (0.9) -5.6* (1.8) Alberta 15.1 (1.5) 16.2 (2.0) 1.0 (2.7) 16.9 (1.5) 14.8 (1.6) -2.1 (2.4) British Columbia 12.3 (1.3) 18.8 (1.8) 6.5* (2.4) 16.5 (1.6) 13.6 (1.7) -2.9 (2.5) * Significant difference within Canada or province. Table B.3.18 Proportion of students who performed below Level 2 and at Levels 5 and 6, in PISA 2015 and 2018: SCIENCE Below Level 2 Difference Standard error % Standard error % Standard error Standard error Canada 11.1 (0.5) 13.4 (0.5) 2.3* (0.8) 12.4 (0.6) 11.3 Newfoundland and Labrador 15.5 (1.3) 15.4 (2.2) 0.0 (2.6) 7.8 (1.0) 9.2 Prince Edward Island 11.3 (2.1) 18.8 (2.5) 7.5* (3.3) 8.7 (2.0) 8.3 Nova Scotia 12.8 (1.5) 15.4 (1.6) 2.6 (2.2) 9.8 (1.2) New Brunswick 15.6 (1.9) 19.4 (1.8) 3.8 (2.7) 8.1 (1.1) Quebec 8.5 (1.1) 11.7 (1.1) 3.3* (1.5) 12.8 Ontario 12.3 (1.0) 12.9 (1.1) 0.7 (1.5) 12.1 Manitoba 17.4 (1.7) 20.7 (1.5) 3.2 (2.3) Saskatchewan 16.7 (1.4) 16.0 (1.4) -0.7 (2.0) Alberta 8.6 (1.0) 11.0 (1.2) 2.4 British Columbia 8.7 (1.2) 15.5 (1.6) 6.8* Difference 2015–2018 Difference % 2018 Standard error 2015 % Canada and provinces 2018 Standard error 2015 Levels 5 and 6 Difference 2015–2018 (0.6) -1.0 (0.9) (1.4) 1.4 (1.7) (2.5) -0.4 (3.2) 9.3 (1.1) -0.5 (1.6) 7.0 (1.3) -1.0 (1.8) (1.5) 10.4 (0.9) -2.4 (1.8) (1.1) 11.5 (1.0) -0.6 (1.5) 7.1 (1.1) 6.4 (0.6) -0.7 (1.3) 6.2 (0.7) 6.9 (0.9) 0.8 (1.2) (1.6) 15.9 (1.4) 14.9 (1.6) -0.9 (2.1) (2.0) 14.7 (1.5) 12.9 (1.4) -1.8 (2.0) * Significant difference within Canada or province. 164 PISA 2018