FIRST RESULTS The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) was implemented for the seventh time in 2018. The purpose of the assessment programme is to find answers to how successfully 15-year-olds, who have recently completed or will soon complete their lower secondary education, find, assess and apply information to solve tasks and problems that arise from everyday life or from future needs. The PISA survey is carried out every three years, assessing student performance in reading, mathematics and science. Each survey focuses on one of these areas while the other two become minor areas of assessment. In PISA 2018, reading is the major domain for the third time allowing an examination of changes in reading over nearly two decades. In PISA 2018, reading literacy is defined as follows: Reading literacy is understanding, using, evaluating, reflecting on and engaging with texts in order to achieve one’s goals, to develop one’s knowledge and potential and to participate in society. According to the PISA framework, the phrase “texts” is meant to include all language as used in its graphic form: handwritten, printed or screen-based. Texts include pictures, diagrams, tables, maps and similar presentations that include some written language. The following four revisions can be considered the most significant differences between the 2009 assessment – the last time reading literacy was the main domain – and the current assessment: the inclusion of online texts, the use of multiple sources, adaptive testing and the assessment of reading fluency. • Altogether 79 countries and economies participated in PISA 2018. Of these, 37 were OECD countries and 42 were partner countries, economies or cities. In Finland, the PISA target group consists of students aged between 15 years and 3 months and 16 years and 2 months on the test day and who are at least in the seventh grade of their compulsory education. In Finland, the date of birth of these students fell between 1 February 2002 and 31 January 2003, and the cohort included roughly 57,500 students. In all, assessment results in reading literacy, mathematics and science were obtained from 5,649 students in the basic sample group. The student participation rate was approximately 93% of the original sample. The school participation rate was 100%. Special needs schools were also included in the sample. In PISA 2018, Finnish young people aged 15 were one of the best in reading literacy (mean score 520) in the OECD countries together with Estonia (523), Canada (520), Ireland (518) and Korea (514). Among all the participating countries and economies, Finland was preceded by China’s BSJZ area (Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu and Zhejiang 555) and Singapore (549). The scores of Macao-China (525) and Hong Kong-China (524) were also among those whose scores did not differ statistically significantly from those of Finland. Reading proficiency in the rest of the Nordic countries was clearly weaker than in Finland. Nevertheless, the Swedish, Danish and Norwegian scores were significantly above the OECD average, while Iceland ranked significantly below it. The lowest points in reading literacy in the whole assessment were recorded in the Philippines and the Dominican Republic. Among the participating countries, the difference between the highest and the lowest scores was 111 points, which corresponds to nearly three years of school education. Finland’s mean score fell by 6 points compared with PISA 2015, but the change was not statistically significant. A longer-term review shows that the trend in reading literacy is declining not only in Finland, but also in OECD countries in average. Finland’s mean score has dropped by 16 points relative to 2009 and by 26 points relative to 2000. In Finland, performance and satisfaction with life are at a high level. FINNISH STUDENTS FAIRLY SATISFIED WITH LIFE PISA 2018 examines well-being as a whole, including material dimensions and those related to attitudes in stu- dents’ personal lives, their school en- vironment and outside school. From the perspective of material and objec- tively measurable factors, Finland is among the world’s wealthiest nations, only preceded by the other Nordic countries, Canada and Australia. The student’s own assessment of satisfaction with life (on a scale of 1 to 10) is a good indicator of general well-being, used in various studies both nationally and internationally. With a mean score of 7.61, life satisfaction among Finnish students is fairly high. When examining the relationship between life satisfaction and perfor- mance, Finland stood out from other countries and economies. Finland was the only country where both rreading proficiency and satisfaction with life were at a high level. For example, life satisfaction was low in all Asian countries with a high level of performance, and in countries with a high level of life satisfaction, performance was mostly poor. READING PROFICIENCY AVERAGES 2009 2018 491 536 487 520 O ECD F I N LAN D O ECD PERCENTAGE OF HIGH AND LOW PERFORMERS 19,4% 8,1% 22,6% 13,5% READING PROFICIENCY AVERAGES FOR GIRLS AND BOYS 2009 2018 563 508 546 495 G I RLS BOYS G I RLS BOYS IMPACT OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC BACKGROUND ON READING PROFICIENCY 2009 2018 36 29 37 38 O ECD O ECD O ECD 7,2% 14,5% 8,7% 14,2% 20182009 O ECD LA YO UT : A HO Y • IS BN : 9 78 -9 52 -2 63 -6 83 -6 , P DF : 9 78 -9 52 -2 63 -6 84 -3 PH I L I PP I N ES I CELAN D KOSOVO BELARUSM EX I CO N O RTH ERN MACED O N IA U KRA I N E FINLAND ESTO N IA CROATIA L ITH UAN IA N ETH ERLAN DS SWITZERLAN D RUSS IA PSJZ (CH I NA) KO REATA IWAN H O N G KO N G (CH I NA) MACAO (CH I NA) JAPAN MALTA LEBAN O N M O RO CCO PANAMA I N D O N ES IA BAKU (AZERB.) G EO RG IA SAU D I ARAB IA THA I LAN D QATAR JORDAN P ERU ARG ENTI NA BRAZ I L MALAYS IA UNITED ARAB EM IRATES CH I LE GREECE COSTA R I CA BOSN IA AN D H ERZEG. CO LO M BIA SERB IA RO MAN IA U RU G UAY M O LD OVA M O NTEN EG RO ITALY PO LAN D FRAN CESLOVAK IA CZECH REP. LUXEM BOURG H U N GARY LATV IA GERM ANY SWED EN AUSTRIA PO RTU GAL D O M I N I CAN REPU BL I C BU LGAR IA UNITED STATES IRELAND LI FE S AT IS FA CT IO N O N A SC AL E O F 1 TO 1 0 U N ITED K I N G D O M READ ING PROFIC I ENCY AVERAGE 500 550450400300 PERFO RMAN CE ABOVE O ECD AVERAG E L I FE SATISFACTI O N ABOVE O ECD AVERAG E O ECD AVERAG E PERFO RMAN CE BELOW O ECD AVERAG E L I FE SATISFACTI O N BELOW O ECD AVERAG E OE CD A VE RA GE 7,0 8 ,0 7,5 6,5 6,0 KA ZA KH ST AN 8, 8/ 38 6, 9 • AL BA NI A 8, 6/ 40 5, 4 • TU RK EY 5 ,6 /4 65 ,6 L EVELS 5 AN D 6 BELOW LEVEL 2 www.minedu.fi/pisa F I N LAN D F I N LAN D F I N LAN D F I N LAN D F I N LAN D FINLAND AMONG TOP PERFORMERS FIRST RESULTS The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) was implemented for the seventh time in 2018. The purpose of the assessment programme is to find answers to how successfully 15-year-olds, who have recently completed or will soon complete their lower secondary education, find, assess and apply information to solve tasks and problems that arise from everyday life or from future needs. The PISA survey is carried out every three years, assessing student performance in reading, mathematics and science. Each survey focuses on one of these areas while the other two become minor areas of assessment. In PISA 2018, reading is the major domain for the third time allowing an examination of changes in reading over nearly two decades. In PISA 2018, reading literacy is defined as follows: Reading literacy is understanding, using, evaluating, reflecting on and engaging with texts in order to achieve one’s goals, to develop one’s knowledge and potential and to participate in society. According to the PISA framework, the phrase “texts” is meant to include all language as used in its graphic form: handwritten, printed or screen-based. Texts include pictures, diagrams, tables, maps and similar presentations that include some written language. The following four revisions can be considered the most significant differences between the 2009 assessment – the last time reading literacy was the main domain – and the current assessment: the inclusion of online texts, the use of multiple sources, adaptive testing and the assessment of reading fluency. • Altogether 79 countries and economies participated in PISA 2018. Of these, 37 were OECD countries and 42 were partner countries, economies or cities. In Finland, the PISA target group consists of students aged between 15 years and 3 months and 16 years and 2 months on the test day and who are at least in the seventh grade of their compulsory education. In Finland, the date of birth of these students fell between 1 February 2002 and 31 January 2003, and the cohort included roughly 57,500 students. In all, assessment results in reading literacy, mathematics and science were obtained from 5,649 students in the basic sample group. The student participation rate was approximately 93% of the original sample. The school participation rate was 100%. Special needs schools were also included in the sample. In PISA 2018, Finnish young people aged 15 were one of the best in reading literacy (mean score 520) in the OECD countries together with Estonia (523), Canada (520), Ireland (518) and Korea (514). Among all the participating countries and economies, Finland was preceded by China’s BSJZ area (Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu and Zhejiang 555) and Singapore (549). The scores of Macao-China (525) and Hong Kong-China (524) were also among those whose scores did not differ statistically significantly from those of Finland. Reading proficiency in the rest of the Nordic countries was clearly weaker than in Finland. Nevertheless, the Swedish, Danish and Norwegian scores were significantly above the OECD average, while Iceland ranked significantly below it. The lowest points in reading literacy in the whole assessment were recorded in the Philippines and the Dominican Republic. Among the participating countries, the difference between the highest and the lowest scores was 111 points, which corresponds to nearly three years of school education. Finland’s mean score fell by 6 points compared with PISA 2015, but the change was not statistically significant. A longer-term review shows that the trend in reading literacy is declining not only in Finland, but also in OECD countries in average. Finland’s mean score has dropped by 16 points relative to 2009 and by 26 points relative to 2000. In Finland, performance and satisfaction with life are at a high level. FINNISH STUDENTS FAIRLY SATISFIED WITH LIFE PISA 2018 examines well-being as a whole, including material dimensions and those related to attitudes in stu- dents’ personal lives, their school en- vironment and outside school. From the perspective of material and objec- tively measurable factors, Finland is among the world’s wealthiest nations, only preceded by the other Nordic countries, Canada and Australia. The student’s own assessment of satisfaction with life (on a scale of 1 to 10) is a good indicator of general well-being, used in various studies both nationally and internationally. With a mean score of 7.61, life satisfaction among Finnish students is fairly high. When examining the relationship between life satisfaction and perfor- mance, Finland stood out from other countries and economies. Finland was the only country where both rreading proficiency and satisfaction with life were at a high level. For example, life satisfaction was low in all Asian countries with a high level of performance, and in countries with a high level of life satisfaction, performance was mostly poor. READING PROFICIENCY AVERAGES 2009 2018 491 536 487 520 O ECD F I N LAN D O ECD PERCENTAGE OF HIGH AND LOW PERFORMERS 19,4% 8,1% 22,6% 13,5% READING PROFICIENCY AVERAGES FOR GIRLS AND BOYS 2009 2018 563 508 546 495 G I RLS BOYS G I RLS BOYS IMPACT OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC BACKGROUND ON READING PROFICIENCY 2009 2018 36 29 37 38 O ECD O ECD O ECD 7,2% 14,5% 8,7% 14,2% 20182009 O ECD LA YO UT : A HO Y • IS BN : 9 78 -9 52 -2 63 -6 83 -6 , P DF : 9 78 -9 52 -2 63 -6 84 -3 PH I L I PP I N ES I CELAN D KOSOVO BELARUSM EX I CO N O RTH ERN MACED O N IA U KRA I N E FINLAND ESTO N IA CROATIA L ITH UAN IA N ETH ERLAN DS SWITZERLAN D RUSS IA PSJZ (CH I NA) KO REATA IWAN H O N G KO N G (CH I NA) MACAO (CH I NA) JAPAN MALTA LEBAN O N M O RO CCO PANAMA I N D O N ES IA BAKU (AZERB.) G EO RG IA SAU D I ARAB IA THA I LAN D QATAR JORDAN P ERU ARG ENTI NA BRAZ I L MALAYS IA UNITED ARAB EM IRATES CH I LE GREECE COSTA R I CA BOSN IA AN D H ERZEG. CO LO M BIA SERB IA RO MAN IA U RU G UAY M O LD OVA M O NTEN EG RO ITALY PO LAN D FRAN CESLOVAK IA CZECH REP. LUXEM BOURG H U N GARY LATV IA GERM ANY SWED EN AUSTRIA PO RTU GAL D O M I N I CAN REPU BL I C BU LGAR IA UNITED STATES IRELAND LI FE S AT IS FA CT IO N O N A SC AL E O F 1 TO 1 0 U N ITED K I N G D O M READ ING PROFIC I ENCY AVERAGE 500 550450400300 PERFO RMAN CE ABOVE O ECD AVERAG E L I FE SATISFACTI O N ABOVE O ECD AVERAG E O ECD AVERAG E PERFO RMAN CE BELOW O ECD AVERAG E L I FE SATISFACTI O N BELOW O ECD AVERAG E OE CD A VE RA GE 7,0 8 ,0 7,5 6,5 6,0 KA ZA KH ST AN 8, 8/ 38 6, 9 • AL BA NI A 8, 6/ 40 5, 4 • TU RK EY 5 ,6 /4 65 ,6 L EVELS 5 AN D 6 BELOW LEVEL 2 www.minedu.fi/pisa F I N LAN D F I N LAN D F I N LAN D F I N LAN D F I N LAN D FINLAND AMONG TOP PERFORMERS AVERAGES AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF READING PROFICIENCY SCORE POINTS M OE CD M SD 5 55 549 525 524 523 520 520 518 514 512 506 506 505 504 504 503 503 501 499 498 495 493 493 492 490 487 485 484 484 479 479 479 476 476 476 474 474 470 470 466 466 458 457 452 448 439 432 428 427 426 424 424 421 420 420 419 415 413 412 408 407 405 403 402 401 399 393 393 389 387 380 377 371 359 353 353 342 340 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 87 109 92 99 93 100 100 91 102 97 108 106 108 100 97 109 102 92 106 106 94 103 101 96 97 99 105 99 103 89 90 93 97 98 94 105 89 124 108 93 88 100 97 92 113 96 113 98 96 81 98 93 86 84 101 87 85 100 89 97 110 80 79 98 92 84 79 94 74 77 84 88 75 75 113 68 82 80 0 100 200 300 400 COMPARED WITH FINN ISH AVERAGE H IGHER EQU IVALENT LOWER 500 M = M EAN | SD = STAN DARD D EV IATI O N | BSJZ = BE IJ I N G, SHAN G HA I , J IAN GSU AN D ZH EJ IAN G SO U RCE: O ECD, P ISA 2018 DATABASE close to the average and Iceland was well below it. Finland’s scores have fallen steadily, dropping by a total of 41 points since 2006 and by a statistically significant 9 points from 2015. NUMBER OF TOP-PERFORMING READERS REMAINS HIGH BUT CLEAR RISE IN NUMBER OF LOW-PERFORMING READERS Over 14% of Finnish students have excellent reading proficiency at Levels 5 and 6, which is roughly the same as in 2009 (15%). The corresponding figure in OECD countries was just below 9%. In Finland, the number of top-performing readers (Level 6) rose marginally from 2009, but the change was not statistically significant. The number of low-performing readers (below Level 2) increased by more than 5 percentage points in Finland compared with PISA 2009 and by 2.5 percentage points compared with PISA 2015. Both are statisti- cally significant changes. It is a serious concern that there are now more young people in Finland whose reading proficiency is too weak for studying and participating in society. WIDER DISPARITIES BETWEEN STUDENTS Disparities between Finnish schools have always been small by international standards. The variation between Finnish schools was 7% of the total variation in reading proficien- cy. This is the least variation among the par- ticipating countries, and it has not increased from the previous PISA survey. Variation was also low in the rest of the Nordic countries, with Sweden showing the highest variation (18%) between schools. Disparities between Finnish schools have not increased, but differences in reading proficiency among students within individual schools were bigger in 2018 than ever in the history of Finland’s participation in the PISA surveys. GIRLS ARE BETTER READERS THAN BOYS In Finland, the gender gap in reading literacy performance has consistently been one of the highest in the participating countries. It was one of the highest in the OECD countries this time too. In Finland, the difference in favour of girls was 52 points, compared with an average of 30 points in OECD countries. Altogether 20% of Finnish girls but only 9% of boys ranked at the highest performance levels (Levels 5 and 6). Similarly, 20% of boys and 7% of girls were among the poorest performing readers. Among boys, the number of low-performing readers has increased by up to 7 percentage points since 2009, and among girls by 4 percentage points. REGIONAL VARIATION REMAINS SMALL While the average outcomes of students in metropolitan Helsinki are still higher in all content categories than in the rest of the country, the gaps have narrowed considerably since the previous PISA assessment. The variation in performance was also greater in metropolitan Helsinki than elsewhere in Finland. This can be seen as reflecting the regional divide between schools, observed in several studies in the largest cities in Finland. Earlier PISA assessments show that both the highest-performing and the weakest- performing schools are located in metropolitan Helsinki. STUDENTS IN SWEDISH-SPEAKING SVHOOLS ARE WEAKER READERS In reading literacy, the difference between Finnish-speaking and Swedish-speaking schools is still significantly in favour of Finnish speakers, although the gap not as wide as in previous years. The reading literacy outcomes of boys in Swedish-speaking schools are still alarmingly low, with their average performance ranking below the OECD average. However, there was no significant difference in science literacy outcomes between students in Finnish- speaking and Swedish-speaking schools. In PISA 2018, students in Swedish-speaking schools in Finland achieved the highest mean score in mathematical literacy in the Nordic countries and therefore also ranked higher than those studying in Finnish-speaking schools. However, since the study sample was small, this gap between the students in Swedish-speaking schools and those in Finnish-speaking schools or students in Danish and Swedish schools was not statistically significant. STUDENTS’ SOCIO-ECONOMIC BACKGROUND MAKES A DIFFERENCE The educational background and occupation of parents and family wealth (socio-economic background) were linked to the reading proficiency of students in all participating countries. In Finland, the average difference in reading proficiency between the top and the bottom socio-economic quarter was 79 score points, which corresponds to approx- imately two academic years of studies. In OECD countries, the corresponding difference was 88 score points. In Finland, the link between students’ socio-economic back- ground and performance has become more marked since 2009 when it was 62 points. This trend can be explained by poorer out- comes in the bottom quarter. In 2009, the average reading proficiency in the top quarter was 565 score points, remaining virtually unchanged in 2018 at 562 points. By contrast, the performance of the bottom quarter in 2018 (483 points) was 21 points lower than in 2009 (504 points). MATHEMATICAL LITERACY PROFICIENCY REMAINED UNCHANGED Mathematical literacy (mean score 507) among Finnish 15-year-olds is still well above the OECD average. Finland’s ranking was in places between 7 and 13 among OECD coun- tries and in places between 12 and 18 among all partcipating countries and economies. The Finnish average does not differ statistically significantly from that of Canada (512), Denmark (509), Slovenia (509), Belgium (508), Sweden (502) and the United Kingdom (502). Seven Asian countries and economies were among the top-performing countries in mathematical literacy. Of these, the BSJZ area (591) ranked first and Singapore (569) second, followed by Macao-China (558), Hong Kong-China (551), Taiwan (531), Japan (527) and Korea (526). The European countries that outperformed Finland in a statistically significant way were Estonia (523), the Netherlands (519), Poland (516) and Switzerland (515). Although Finland’s mean score dropped by 4 points from PISA 2015, the change is not statistically significant, so mathematical literacy effectively remains at its previous level. SCIENCE LITERACY PROFICIENCY DECLINED The performance of Finnish students in science literacy (mean score 522) ranked among the best in the OECD countries immediately after Estonia (530) and Japan (529). Students in the BSJZ area (590), Singapore (551) and Macao (554) outper- formed Finnish students. The Finnish score did not differ statistically significantly from Korea (519), Canada (518), Hong Kong-China (517) and Taiwan (516). Seven out of the ten best-performing countries and economies in science literacy were Asian ones. In the Nor- dic countries, Sweden and Denmark exceeded the OECD average, whereas Norway ranked STUDENTS WITH IMMIGRANT BACKGROUND FALLING BEHIND The mean score of first-generation immigrant students in reading literacy was 107 points and the mean score of second-immigrant students was 71 points below the mean score of students in the majority population. Differences be- tween the majority population and students with an immigrant background have remained stable. The proportion of immigrant students, corrected by sample weighting coefficients, was 5.8%, compared with 2.6% in the 2009 data. However, the link between an immigrant back- ground and literacy proficiency outcomes is not very strong: In Finland’s PISA 2018 data, the student’s immigrant background explained 5% of the variations in reading proficiency. Over 300 students with an immigrant background participated in the survey. READING ENGAGEMENT STRONGLY LINKED WITH READING PROFICIENCY In 2009, engagement in reading was included in the definition of reading literacy in PISA, because it was considered to be an important dimension of reading proficiency and how it evolves. In Finland, engagement with reading explains the variation in outcomes more so than in OECD countries on average. In Finland, more students than before reported a negative attitude to reading: the number of students who considered reading as their favourite hobby had decreased by nine percentage points since 2009. Correspondingly, the number of students who read only if they had to or only if they needed information had increased by 16 per- centage points. In Finland, 15% of boys agreed or strongly agreed that reading was one of their favourite hobbies, whereas the corresponding figure for girls was 36% (24% for boys and 44% for girls in the OECD). What is particularly worrying is that as many as 63% of Finnish boys agreed or strongly agreed the statement: “I read only if I have to.” PERCENTAGES OF FINNISH STUDENTS WHO AGREE OR STRONGLY AGREE WITH ATTITUDE STATEMENTS IN 2009 AND 2018 34.7 50.7 34.0 25.3 34.1 30.7 27.3 37.7 36.3 51.9 I READ O N LY I F I HAVE TO READ I N G IS O N E O F MY FAVO U R ITE H O BB I ES I L I KE TALK I N G ABO UT BO O KS WITH OTH ER PEO PLE FO R M E, READ I N G IS A WASTE O F TI M E I READ O N LY TO G ET I N FO RMATI O N THAT I N EED 0 10 20 5030 40 2009 2018 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TIME SPENT ON READING AND READING LITERACY PROFICIENCY IN FINLAND IN 2000, 2009 AND 2018 2000 2009 2018498 492 482 580 560 540 520 500 480 584 568 562 I D O N’T READ FO R ENJ OYM ENT M O RE THAN 2 H O U RS 30 M I N O R LESS 1 TO 2 H O U RS M O RE THAN 30 M I N, LESS THAN 60 M I N 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 READING PROFICIENCY SCORE POINTS AND CHANGE IN OECD COUNTRIES ESTO N IA I RELAN D KO REA CANADA UN IT ED S TA TE S SW ED EN PO LA ND U N ITED K I N G D O M SLOVEN IA CZECH REPU BL I C D EN MARK PO RTU GAL NO RW AY J APAN N EW ZEALAN D AUSTRAL IA BELG I U M FRAN CE SWITZERLAN D N ETH ERLAN DS I CELAN D H U N GARY LATV IA ITALY L ITH UAN IA TU RKEY CH I LE LUXEM BO U RGISRAEL SLOVAK IAG REECE OE CD A VE RA GE R EA D IN G PR O FI CI EN CY SC O R E PO IN TS I N 20 18 O ECD AVERAG E FINLAND CHANGE IN READ ING PROFIC I ENCY SCORE PO INTS 2 009-2 018 CO LO M BIA M EX I CO 0–20 –10 10 20 520 500 480 460 440 420 400 READ I N G (MA I N D O MA I N 2000, 2009 AN D 2018) SC I EN CE (MA I N D O MA I N 2006 AN D 2015) MATH EMATI CS (MA I N D O MA I N 2003 AN D 2012) PISA AVERAGES IN FINLAND 2000–2018 570 560 550 540 530 520 510 BSJZ (CH I NA) S I N GAPO RE MACAO (CH I NA) H O N G KO N G (CH I NA) ESTO N IA CANADA F INLAND I RELAN D KO REA PO LAN D SWED EN N EW ZEALAN D U N ITED STATES U N ITED K I N G D O M JAPAN AUSTRAL IA TA IWAN D EN MARK N O RWAY G ERMANY SLOVEN IA BELG I U M FRAN CE PO RTU GAL CZECH REPU BL I C O ECD CO U NTR I ES N ETH ERLAN DS AUSTR IA SWITZERLAN D CROATIA LATV IA RUSS IA ITALY H U N GARY L ITH UAN IA I CELAN D BELARUS ISRAEL LUXEM BO U RG U KRA I N E TU RKEY SLOVAK IA G REECE CH I LE MALTA SERB IA U N ITED ARAB EM I RATES RO MAN IA U RU G UAY COSTA R I CA CYPRUS M O LD OVA M O NTEN EG RO M EX I CO BU LGAR IA J O RDAN MALAYS IA BRAZ I L CO LO M BIA BRU N E I QATAR ALBAN IA BOSN IA AN D H ERZEG. ARG ENTI NA PERU SAU D I ARAB IA THA I LAN D N O RTH ERN MACED O N IA BAKU (AZERBA IJAN) KAZAKHSTAN G EO RG IA PANAMA I N D O N ES IA M O RO CCO LEBAN O N KOSOVO D O M I N I CAN REPU BL I C PH I L I PP I N ES GE RM AN Y FIRST RESULTS The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) was implemented for the seventh time in 2018. The purpose of the assessment programme is to find answers to how successfully 15-year-olds, who have recently completed or will soon complete their lower secondary education, find, assess and apply information to solve tasks and problems that arise from everyday life or from future needs. The PISA survey is carried out every three years, assessing student performance in reading, mathematics and science. Each survey focuses on one of these areas while the other two become minor areas of assessment. In PISA 2018, reading is the major domain for the third time allowing an examination of changes in reading over nearly two decades. In PISA 2018, reading literacy is defined as follows: Reading literacy is understanding, using, evaluating, reflecting on and engaging with texts in order to achieve one’s goals, to develop one’s knowledge and potential and to participate in society. According to the PISA framework, the phrase “texts” is meant to include all language as used in its graphic form: handwritten, printed or screen-based. Texts include pictures, diagrams, tables, maps and similar presentations that include some written language. The following four revisions can be considered the most significant differences between the 2009 assessment – the last time reading literacy was the main domain – and the current assessment: the inclusion of online texts, the use of multiple sources, adaptive testing and the assessment of reading fluency. • Altogether 79 countries and economies participated in PISA 2018. Of these, 37 were OECD countries and 42 were partner countries, economies or cities. In Finland, the PISA target group consists of students aged between 15 years and 3 months and 16 years and 2 months on the test day and who are at least in the seventh grade of their compulsory education. In Finland, the date of birth of these students fell between 1 February 2002 and 31 January 2003, and the cohort included roughly 57,500 students. In all, assessment results in reading literacy, mathematics and science were obtained from 5,649 students in the basic sample group. The student participation rate was approximately 93% of the original sample. The school participation rate was 100%. Special needs schools were also included in the sample. In PISA 2018, Finnish young people aged 15 were one of the best in reading literacy (mean score 520) in the OECD countries together with Estonia (523), Canada (520), Ireland (518) and Korea (514). Among all the participating countries and economies, Finland was preceded by China’s BSJZ area (Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu and Zhejiang 555) and Singapore (549). The scores of Macao-China (525) and Hong Kong-China (524) were also among those whose scores did not differ statistically significantly from those of Finland. Reading proficiency in the rest of the Nordic countries was clearly weaker than in Finland. Nevertheless, the Swedish, Danish and Norwegian scores were significantly above the OECD average, while Iceland ranked significantly below it. The lowest points in reading literacy in the whole assessment were recorded in the Philippines and the Dominican Republic. Among the participating countries, the difference between the highest and the lowest scores was 111 points, which corresponds to nearly three years of school education. Finland’s mean score fell by 6 points compared with PISA 2015, but the change was not statistically significant. A longer-term review shows that the trend in reading literacy is declining not only in Finland, but also in OECD countries in average. Finland’s mean score has dropped by 16 points relative to 2009 and by 26 points relative to 2000. In Finland, performance and satisfaction with life are at a high level. FINNISH STUDENTS FAIRLY SATISFIED WITH LIFE PISA 2018 examines well-being as a whole, including material dimensions and those related to attitudes in stu- dents’ personal lives, their school en- vironment and outside school. From the perspective of material and objec- tively measurable factors, Finland is among the world’s wealthiest nations, only preceded by the other Nordic countries, Canada and Australia. The student’s own assessment of satisfaction with life (on a scale of 1 to 10) is a good indicator of general well-being, used in various studies both nationally and internationally. With a mean score of 7.61, life satisfaction among Finnish students is fairly high. When examining the relationship between life satisfaction and perfor- mance, Finland stood out from other countries and economies. Finland was the only country where both rreading proficiency and satisfaction with life were at a high level. For example, life satisfaction was low in all Asian countries with a high level of performance, and in countries with a high level of life satisfaction, performance was mostly poor. READING PROFICIENCY AVERAGES 2009 2018 491 536 487 520 O ECD F I N LAN D O ECD PERCENTAGE OF HIGH AND LOW PERFORMERS 19,4% 8,1% 22,6% 13,5% READING PROFICIENCY AVERAGES FOR GIRLS AND BOYS 2009 2018 563 508 546 495 G I RLS BOYS G I RLS BOYS IMPACT OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC BACKGROUND ON READING PROFICIENCY 2009 2018 36 29 37 38 O ECD O ECD O ECD 7,2% 14,5% 8,7% 14,2% 20182009 O ECD LA YO UT : A HO Y • IS BN : 9 78 -9 52 -2 63 -6 83 -6 , P DF : 9 78 -9 52 -2 63 -6 84 -3 PH I L I PP I N ES I CELAN D KOSOVO BELARUSM EX I CO N O RTH ERN MACED O N IA U KRA I N E FINLAND ESTO N IA CROATIA L ITH UAN IA N ETH ERLAN DS SWITZERLAN D RUSS IA PSJZ (CH I NA) KO REATA IWAN H O N G KO N G (CH I NA) MACAO (CH I NA) JAPAN MALTA LEBAN O N M O RO CCO PANAMA I N D O N ES IA BAKU (AZERB.) G EO RG IA SAU D I ARAB IA THA I LAN D QATAR JORDAN P ERU ARG ENTI NA BRAZ I L MALAYS IA UNITED ARAB EM IRATES CH I LE GREECE COSTA R I CA BOSN IA AN D H ERZEG. CO LO M BIA SERB IA RO MAN IA U RU G UAY M O LD OVA M O NTEN EG RO ITALY PO LAN D FRAN CESLOVAK IA CZECH REP. LUXEM BOURG H U N GARY LATV IA GERM ANY SWED EN AUSTRIA PO RTU GAL D O M I N I CAN REPU BL I C BU LGAR IA UNITED STATES IRELAND LI FE S AT IS FA CT IO N O N A SC AL E O F 1 TO 1 0 U N ITED K I N G D O M READ ING PROFIC I ENCY AVERAGE 500 550450400300 PERFO RMAN CE ABOVE O ECD AVERAG E L I FE SATISFACTI O N ABOVE O ECD AVERAG E O ECD AVERAG E PERFO RMAN CE BELOW O ECD AVERAG E L I FE SATISFACTI O N BELOW O ECD AVERAG E OE CD A VE RA GE 7,0 8 ,0 7,5 6,5 6,0 KA ZA KH ST AN 8, 8/ 38 6, 9 • AL BA NI A 8, 6/ 40 5, 4 • TU RK EY 5 ,6 /4 65 ,6 L EVELS 5 AN D 6 BELOW LEVEL 2 www.minedu.fi/pisa F I N LAN D F I N LAN D F I N LAN D F I N LAN D F I N LAN D FINLAND AMONG TOP PERFORMERS