Mind the Gap: Unveiling Educational Divides in PISA 2018 - A Tale of Top and Bottom Performers

 

This article analyzes data from the PISA 2018 assessment, focusing on student performance in reading, math, and science across 10 countries. The study compares four bottom-performing countries with six top-performing countries to explore performance gaps and the influence of various factors.

Data Overview

• Countries: Bottom performers: Kazakhstan (QAZ), Dominican Republic (DOM), Morocco (MAR), Panama (PAN) Top performers: Hong Kong (HKG), Korea (KOR), Chinese Taipei (TAP), Macao (MAC), United Kingdom (GBR), United States (USA)
• Sample Size: 67,946 students [42,640 from non-OECD countries & 25,306 from OECD countries; 33,591 female students & 34,355 male students]

Key Findings

1. Overall Performance Gap

Students from bottom-performing countries consistently scored lower in all subjects (reading, math, and science) compared to those from top-performing countries. The gap in scores between these groups is significant, as illustrated in Figure 1.

Bar chart comparing average reading, math, and science scores between bottom-performing countries (Kazakhstan, Dominican Republic, Morocco, Panama) and top-performing countries (Hong Kong, Korea, Chinese Taipei, Macao, UK, USA). A significant performance gap is evident across all subjects.

Figure 1: Average PISA 2018 Scores: Bottom vs Top Performing Countries

2. Gender Analysis

As shown in Figure 2:

• The performance gap between bottom and top-performing countries persists for both male and female students.
• Within each group (bottom and top performers): Male and female students performed comparably in Math and Science. Female students slightly outperformed male students in reading.

Bar chart illustrating reading, math, and science scores by gender for both bottom and top-performing countries. The graph shows consistent performance gaps between country groups for both genders, with females slightly outperforming males in reading across both settings.

Figure 2: Gender Comparison of PISA 2018 Scores in Bottom and Top Performing Countries

3. Impact of Wealth

Figure 3 demonstrates the interaction between family wealth and test scores:

• The gap between bottom and top-performing countries remains consistent across wealth quartiles.
• In bottom-performing countries: A steady increase in reading, math, and science scores is observed as wealth increases from quartile 1 to quartile 4. This trend is consistent for both male and female students.
• In top-performing countries: The impact of wealth on test scores is minimal or flattened.
• Conclusion: The effect of socioeconomic status on test scores is much more pronounced in bottom-performing countries.

Bar chart depicting the relationship between family wealth quartiles and student performance in reading, math, and science. The graph shows a steady increase in scores with increasing wealth in bottom-performing countries, while the trend is flatter in top-performing countries.

Figure 3: Impact of Family Wealth on PISA 2018 Scores

4. Parental Education Impact

Figure 4 illustrates the relationship between parental education (measured in years of schooling) and student performance:

• The performance gap between top and bottom-performing countries remains consistent.
• In top-performing countries: A small, linear positive impact on reading, math, and science scores is observed for both male and female students as parental education increases.
• In bottom-performing countries: The results are more nuanced, suggesting a complex relationship between parental education and student performance: Mathematics: Higher math scores were associated with higher parental education, but a slight decline was observed after the third quartile for both male and female students. Reading: Similar to top-performing countries, higher parental education was associated with small but positive increases in reading scores. Science: The trend mirrored that of mathematics, with scores increasing as parental education rose from the 1st to 3rd quartile, then plateauing for the 4th quartile.

This complex relationship in bottom-performing countries suggests that while parental education generally has a positive impact on student performance, there may be a threshold effect or other factors at play that limit its influence at higher levels of education.

Bar chart showing the relationship between parental education quartiles and student performance. The graph illustrates a small linear positive impact in top-performing countries, and a more complex relationship in bottom-performing countries, with score increases plateauing or slightly declining in the highest quartile for math and science.

Figure 4: Influence of Parental Education on PISA 2018 Scores

Conclusion

This analysis highlights significant performance gaps between top and bottom-performing countries in the PISA 2018 assessment. While factors such as wealth and parental education show some influence on student performance, their impact varies between top and bottom-performing countries. The nuanced relationship between parental education and student performance in bottom-performing countries, particularly in mathematics and science, suggests that educational interventions may need to be tailored differently based on the overall performance level of the country's educational system.

These findings underscore the complexity of educational outcomes and the need for targeted interventions to address performance gaps. Further research could explore the reasons behind the plateau effect observed in bottom-performing countries and investigate other factors that might contribute to this phenomenon.