National Institute for Educational Policy Research, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
December 3, 2019

Key Features of OECD Programme for International Student Assessment 2018
(PISA 2018)
PISA 2018 Results in Brief<Regarding PISA 2018>

Since year 2000, the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) has been implementing assessment in three domains,reading literacy, mathematics literacy, and science literacy (reading was the major domain in PISA 2018), to 15-year-old students who are at
the end of compulsory education every three years. The mean score is designed to be able to be compared over the years. From the previous
PISA 2015, the mode of assessment has changed to computer-based assessment (CBA).
In Japan, students in the grade equivalent to the first year of upper secondary school participated to the assessment, and PISA 2018 was
implemented during the period between June and August 2018.

<Results in Japan>
Three domains

 Students in Japan continued to be on the world top level in mathematics and science. The OECD analyzed thatthey have solidly maintained its high level in terms of a long-term trend since the start of the assessment.
 In reading literacy, Japan was located in a group of countries that scored better than the OECD average, but themean score and ranking of Japan statistically significantly declined compared to the previous assessment. In termsof a long-term trend, the OECD analyzed that Japan was one of the countries among the "Flat" type that showedno statistically significant change.

Reading Reading items which low percentage of Japanese students gave correct answer were, for example, items locating
information from a text and items assessing the quality and credibility of a text.
 Students in Japan continue to have problem in explaining their own ideas using evidence so that other people canunderstand, in open ended-response items in reading.
 According to the student questionnaire, students in Japan tend to have a positive view towards reading. For
example, the percentage of students in Japan who answered "Reading is one of my favourite hobbies" was higher
than the OECD average. In addition, such students tend to have higher score in reading.

Questionnaire In Japan, just as in other OECD member countries, there was a tendency that the percentage of students with lowlevel of proficiency is higher among students with a lower level of social, economic and cultural status.
 Regarding the students' use of ICT, the hours of its use in school lessons is shorter than other countries in Japan.
In addition, although students use ICT for various purposes outside of school, their use tends to be biased toward
chatting and playing video games.

(Mean score)

Changes in mean scores and ranking

Explanatory note

Mean score
Rank among
OECD countries[Range of rank]

Shift to computer-based assessment(Year of PISA)*Score points were converted by setting the OECD average in the assessment, in which each domain became the major domain (domain on which the assessment is focused) for the first time (2000 for
reading, 2003 for mathematics, and 2006 for science), as the standard value (500 score points). For mathematics and science, results from the assessment, for which results can be compared are describedon the graph. The symbols for each results are shown in a larger format for the year in which the relevant domain was the major domain.
*Wave lines are drawn between 2012 and 2015 because the ways of scaling and scoring were changed in PISA 2015 with the shift to computer-based assessment.
*The range of rank indicates Japan’s range of upper and lower ranks among OECD countries in the mean score that are statistically plausible.

11. PISA 2018 Results
Countries surrounded by dotted lines arethose that have no statistically significant
difference from Japan's mean score.

● Comparison among OECD member countries (37 countries)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Reading

Mean
score

Mathematics

Mean
score

Estonia
CanadaFinland
Ireland
Korea
PolandSwedenNew ZealandUnited States
United Kingdom
Japan
Australia
Denmark
NorwayGermany
Slovenia
Belgium
FrancePortugal
Czech RepublicOECD average

523
520
520
518
514
512
506
506
505
504
504
503
501
499
498
495
493
493
492
490
487

Japan
Korea
Estonia
Netherlands
PolandSwitzerland
CanadaDenmark
Slovenia
Belgium
FinlandSwedenUnited Kingdom
NorwayGermany
IrelandCzech Republic
Austria
LatviaFranceOECD average

527
526
523
519
516
515
512
509
509
508
507
502
502
501
500
500
499
499
496
495
489

Science

EstoniaJapan
Finland
Korea
CanadaPolandNew Zealand
Slovenia
United Kingdom
Netherlands
Germany
Austria
United States
SwedenBelgium
Czech Republic
Ireland
Switzerland
FranceDenmark
OECD average

Mean
score

530
529
522
519
518
511
508
507
505
503
503
503
502
499
499
497
496
495
493
493
489

Reliable interval* (Japan)：499-509 Reliable interval (Japan)：522-532 Reliable interval (Japan)：524-534● Comparison among all participating countries and economies(79 countries/economies)
Reading

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Beijing/Shanghai/Jiang
su/Zhejiang
Singapore
Macau
Hong Kong
Estonia
CanadaFinland
Ireland
Korea
PolandSwedenNew ZealandUnited States
United Kingdom
Japan
Australia
TaiwanDenmark
NorwayGermany

Mean
score

555
549
525
524
523
520
520
518
514
512
506
506
505
504
504
503
503
501
499
498

Mathematics
Beijing/Shanghai/Jiang
su/Zhejiang
Singapore
Macau
Hong Kong
TaiwanJapan
Korea
Estonia
Netherlands
PolandSwitzerland
CanadaDenmark
Slovenia
Belgium
FinlandSwedenUnited Kingdom
NorwayGermanyCountries surrounded by dotted lines arethose that have no statistically significant
difference from Japan's mean score.

Mean
score

591
569
558
551
531
527
526
523
519
516
515
512
509
509
508
507
502
502
501
500

Science
Beijing/Shanghai/Jiang
su/Zhejiang
Singapore
Macau
EstoniaJapan
Finland
Korea
CanadaHong Kong
TaiwanPolandNew Zealand
Slovenia
United Kingdom
Netherlands
Germany
Australia
United States
SwedenBelgium

Mean
score

590
551
544
530
529
522
519
518
517
516
511
508
507
505
503
503
503
502
499
499

Reliable interval* (Japan)：499-509 Reliable interval (Japan)：522-532 Reliable interval (Japan)：524-534*Gray-colored countries/economies are non-OECD member countries/economies.
*The reliable interval indicates the range of score points in which the mean value of all the students (population) subject to the assessment is considered to exist. As PISA is a sample survey, the mean value
must be considered within a certain range.
*Even countries with the same score points differ in the rank because their score points differ in decimal places.

22. Reading Literacy
Japan's results in reading literacy Japan's mean score in reading (504 score points) is among a group of countries that scored higher than the OECDaverage, but it has statistically significantly declined from the previous PISA 2015 (516 score points). Ranked 11th
among OECD member countries (range of rank: 7th to 15th)
 The share of low-scoring students who attained Level 1 proficiency or lower have statistically significantly increased,
and the OECD average also shows the same tendency.
* The higher the level of proficiency shows that, the student have attained a higher score points, and have sufficiently high proficiency in therelevant domain.
Students who attained Level 6 proficiency or higher have been assessed since 2009, and such students were included in Level 5 before 2006.
* Black dot in the graphs indicate OECD average.

(%)

Level 1 or lower(Less than 408
score points)
2000 (522 score points)

Level 2
(From 408 to less than 481
score points)

2003 (498 score points)

Level 3
(From 481 to less than 553
score points)

2006 (498 score points)

Level 4
(From 553 to less than 626
score points)

2009 (520 score points)

Level 5
(From 626 to less than 698
score points)

2012 (538 score points)

Level 6 or higher(From 698
score points)

2015 (516 score points)

2018 (504 score points)*Figures in parentheses are Japan's mean scores inreading.

Long-term trend of the mean score of each country/economy
 According to the OECD analysis of the long-term trend of the mean scores between 2000 and 2018, Japan's reading
performance is classified as countries/economies with no statistically significant change in average trend and falls
under the "Flat" type among them.
Positive, but flattening
Reading score

Reading score

Reading score

Countries/economies with apositive average trend

Steadily positive

Increasingly positive

Macau

Estonia

Germany
PolandShallow U-shaped

Flat

Hump-shaped/gentle parabola
Reading score

Reading score

Reading score

Countries/economies with nosignificant average trends

Ireland

TaiwanOECD average

Steadily negative

Increasingly negative

Negative, but flattening
Reading score

Reading score

Reading score

Countries/economies with anegative average trend

Korea
Netherlands

Hong
Kong

Japan France
Canada United States
Italy United Kingdom

Australia
New ZealandFinlandSweden*Countries/economies in brackets are non-OECD member countries/economies.

3

Definition of reading literacy* The underlined words indicate changes introduced to PISA
2018 definition.
○ The phrase "written texts" was changed to "texts" because
the assessment mode shifted to computer-based testing anddesign of items reflected the use of more digital texts.
(Digital texts: Online texts in various forms (websites, web
postings, emails, etc.))○ The term “evaluating" was added to assess the student’s
capacity to consider the credibility of discussions andauthors' points of view.

(i) Locate information
Capacities to be measured[Definition of reading literacy]
Understanding, using, evaluating, reflecting on andengaging with texts in order to achieve one's goals, todevelop one's knowledge and potential and toparticipate in society-

Access and retrieve information within a text
Search and select relevant text(ii) Understand-Represent literal meaning
Integrate and generate inferences(iii) Evaluate and reflect-

Assess quality and credibility
Reflect on content and form
Detect and handle conflict(The underlined parts indicate elements which were newly
added to the definition in PISA 2018.)

Analysis of assessment results in reading○ According to the analysis of factors that affect a decline in the mean score in reading, various factors, such as mattersconcerning students (interest/willingness, status of responding to open ended-response items, previous knowledge/
experience relating to the content of the subject texts, experience of reading lengthy texts on the computer screen, etc.)
and items (composition, themes, kinds of texts, influence of translation, etc.), are considered to be potentially affecting in
a composite manner.
○ In light of the results of PISA 2000, 2009, and 2018 (assessments in which the major domain was reading) for which themean scores can be compared, the following can be said regarding three subscales for measuring reading performance.
•

The mean score for the subscale "(ii) Understanding“ is steadily high.

•

The mean score for the subscale to "(i) Locating information" declined compared to the results of PISA 2009. In
particular, the share of high-scoring students who attained Level 5 proficiency or higher decreased to the same level as
the OECD average.

•

The mean score for the subscale "(iii) Evaluating and reflecting" declined compared to the results of PISA 2009. In
particular, "Assess quality and credibility" and "Detect and handle conflict" were added to the framework in PISA
2018, and the percentage of students who gave correct answer was low for items intended to measure these abilities.

○ In addition, according to the analysis of the responses to individual items, students in Japan continue to experienceproblem in explaining their own ideas using evidence, in open ended-response items. Regarding wrong answers, students
in Japan tended to have problem with stating their own ideas in a manner that other persons can understand, citing only aphrase from the text without giving a sufficient explanation.

An example of item with low correct answers among Japanese students Item relating to [(i) Locating information] and [(iii) Evaluating and reflecting] [New item in PISA 2018]
Students are required to locate necessary information from multiple texts that were transmitted from different
places, such as from a product company and an online magazine, and then asked to explain how they would
handle the issue, after assessing the quality and credibility of assertions and information while considering its
intentions.

Unit Text 1: A Company website(Advertising the safety of a
product) Text 2: Online magazine article(A different view on the safety of the
product)

Q1: Comprehend the meaning ofsentences
Q2: Assess the quality andcredibility of the statement(Open ended response)

Q3: Reflect on the content and themanner of the text
Q4: Make assumption and locate a
website which contains necessary
information[Subscale to be measured: [i] Locate
information]

題のうち、約７割の173題が新規問題。

 Comparing Texts 1 and 2
Q5: Identify differences between thetexts
Q6: Assess the quality and credibility of
information and explain the way tohandle the situation using evidence
from the text (open-ended response)[Subscale to be measured: [iii]Evaluate and reflect]*In Items like Q4 and Q6, the percentage of students in Japan who gave correct answer was lower than the OECD average.

4Computer-based testing (PISA 2015 and 2018)
 Shift to Computer-Based Testing in PISA 2015.
Exampleof actions

○
○
○
○

Read a lengthy text by scrolling
Typing answers using a computer keyboard (typing Japanese sentences using alphabetical keyboards)
Texts presented on multiple sheets (switching to another sheet by clicking on a website link or a tab)
Selecting an answer by using a mouse or giving an answer by using a “drag and drop” function on a screen*In mathematics, assessment is implemented on the computer by using items based on a conventional paper based items,
and new items designed for computer-based assessment will be developed for the next PISA 2021.

Design ofassessment○ PISA requires students to complete answers by a group of items. Students cannot return to the previous group of items
if they had moved to the next group after finishing the earlier group. Unlike in a paper-based assessment, students canneither grasp the whole composition of the items at the beginning nor go back to review the earlier answer at the end.

Features of Computer-Based Testing in reading literacy○ Use of online texts in various forms (web postings, emails, replies to participate in an online-forum, etc.) (in addition toconventional novels, drama scripts, biographies, academic papers, etc.)○ In PISA 2018, 173 items that accounted for about 70% of 245 items in total, were new items that were developed forcomputer-based testing. It is assumed that the number of items using digital texts in various forms (websites, web postings,
emails, etc.), cultural backgrounds, concepts, vocabularies, etc., that are unfamiliar to students in Japan, have increased.

● Released unit for PISA 2018 (reading) [Rapa Nui Island]Composed of three kinds of texts○ University professor's blog
○ Book review○ An article on an online sciencemagazine

Q1

Q1 [Subscale to be measured: [i] Locate
information]
After reading a university professor's blog byscrolling, students answer the time the fieldwork started by selecting an answer.
Students click on a tab to choose atext to be displayed on the screen.

Q6

Q6 [Subscale to be measured: [ii]Understand]Students complete the table by selecting
causes and a result relating to the twotheories, from answers and move them tothe correct positions, by using “drag anddrop” function.

5

Relationship between book-reading activities and reading performance OECD Trends, including Japan○ The frequency of reading books is on the decrease compared to 2009, irrespective of the kind of books.
• Percentage of students who answered that they read books "Several times a month" or "Several times a week“(e.g.) "Newspapers": Japan: 21.5% (36.0 points down); OECD average: 25.4% (37.1 points down)"Magazines": Japan: 30.8% (33.8 points down); OECD average: 18.5% (40.4 points down)○ Students who feel positive about reading and students who read books more frequently scored higher in reading.
Among them, students who often read fiction, non-fiction, and newspapers scored high in reading.

 Features of Japan○ Compared to the OECD average, the percentage of students who feel positive about reading is higher in Japan.
• "Reading is one of my favourite hobbies": Japan: 45.2% (3.2 points up); OECD average: 33.7% (0.4 points up)• "I read only if I have to": Japan: 39.3% (8.2 points down); OECD average: 49.1 % (7.8 points up)○ Compared to the OECD average, the percentage of students who read comic books (“manga”) and fiction is higher inJapan. For all of newspapers, fiction, non-fiction, and comic books, students who read them often scored high in reading.
* "Reading" includes various reading materials, such as books and websites, and also includes reading on digital devices.
* As the student questionnaire for reading and language-of-instruction lessons is conducted only when reading is the
major domain, the results are compared to the results of PISA 2009.
[Engagement with reading][Kinds of books students read/frequency]* Percentage of students who answered "Strongly agree" or "Agree"[Multiple answers allowed]* Percentage of students who answered "Several times a month" or "Several times a week"[Multiple answers allowed]

Japan
日本

Japan
日本
Magazines（％） 60OECD average
OECD平均I read only if I have to.
（％）60

40

40
I read only to
get informationthat I need.

Reading is one of
my favourite
hobbies.

200Newspapers

Comic books(“manga”)

20
0

Non-fiction(e.g. biographies and reportages)

I like talking aboutbooks with otherpeople.

For me, reading is
a waste of time.

OECD average
OECD平均Fiction(e.g. novels and stories)

Language-of-instruction lessons
 The index values for language-of-instruction lessons are relatively good in Japan.
Japan's values for the index of "disciplinary climate in language-of-instruction lessons" and the index of "teacher support inlanguage-of-instruction lessons" exceeded the OECD average, and climate in language-of-instruction lessons is relatively
positive in Japan. On the other hand, Japan's value is lower than the OECD average in "students' perception of feedback
from language-of-instruction teachers." This result can be considered to be affected by the fact that PISA is conductedduring the period between June and August in the first year of high school, which is just after student’s entering the school.
The index values are calculated based on the percentage of students who answered items that constitute each index.
Japan
OECD
average
日本
OECD平均Index of "disciplinary climate inlanguage-of-instruction lessons"(Point)Higher values indicate a student’s higher
perception of receiving feedback from teachers.
(Example items)• Students agree that “ they receive feedbackon their strength in the subject”• Students deny that “they are told whichareas they can still improve."

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4

Index of "students' perception of feedback
from language-of-instruction teachers"

Higher values indicate a more positive disciplinary climate.
(Example items)• Students deny that "Students don’t listen to what the teachersays."• Students deny that "There is noise and disorder."Higher values in the index mean that students perceive theirlanguage-of-instruction teacher are providing support more
frequently.
(Example items)• Students affirm that "The teacher helps students with theirlearning."• Students affirm that "The teacher continues teaching until
the students understand."Index of "teacher support inlanguage-of-instruction lessons"63. Mathematics and Science Literacies
Mathematics

Science Japan continues to be world's top level in PISA 2018.
The mean score for Japan is 527 score points.
Ranked 1st among the OECD member countries (range ofrank: 1st to 3rd)
 In terms of the long-term trend, Japan also maintains
world's top level performance.
The long-term trend of Japan's mean score for the period
between 2003 and 2018 falls under the "Flat" type with nostatistically significant rise or decline in score points type.
Japan maintains the world's top level performance.
 Status of the top three countries in PISA 2018
(OECD member countries)[Japan (1st)]
Flat[Korea (2nd)][Estonia (3rd)]

Increasingly negative

Steadily positive Japan continues to be world's top level in PISA 2018.
The mean score for Japan is 529 score points.
Ranked 2nd among the OECD member countries (range ofrank: 1st to 3rd)Compared to the previous assessment, the mean score of Japansignificantly declined, but the top countries reflect a similar
trend.
 In terms of the long-term trend, Japan also maintains theworld's top level performance.
The long-term trend of Japan's mean score for the period
between 2006 and 2018 falls under the "Hump-shaped" typewith no statistically significant rise or decline in score points
type. Japan maintains the world's top level performance.

[Estonia (1st)/Japan (2nd)][Finland (3rd)]

Hump- shaped/gentle parabola

Steadily negative
Score points in science

Score points in science

Score points in mathematics

Score points in mathematics

Score points in mathematics

Changes in Japan by the level of proficiency

Mathematics

 Status of the top three countries in PISA 2018
(OECD member countries)* The higher the level of proficiency is, the higher score points students attained, and higher levelsof proficiency indicate that students have sufficiently attained capacities in the relevant domain.
* Black dots in the graphs indicate the OECD average.
* Comparison starts in the assessment year when each domain became the major domain for the
first time.

There are fewer low-scoring students with Level 1 proficiency or lower, and there are many high-scoring
students with Level 5 or higher.

(%)

Level 1 or lower(Less than 420
score points)

2003 (534 score points)

Science

Level 2
(From 420 to less than 482
score points)

2006 (523 score points)

Level 3
(From 482 to less than 545
score points)

2009 (529 score points)

Level 4
(From 545 to less than 607
score points)

Level 5
(From 607 to less than 669
score points)

Level 6 or higher(From 669
score points)

2012 (536 score points)

2015 (532 score points)

2018 (527 score points)

There are fewer low-scoring students with Level 1 proficiency or lower, and there are many high-scoring students
with Level 5 or higher.

(%)

Level 1 or lower(Less than 410
score points)

Level 2
(From 410 to less than 484
score points)

2006 (531 score points)

Level 3
(From 484 to less than 559
score points)

2009 (539 score points)

Level 4
(From 559 to less than 633
score points)

2012 (547 score points)

Level 5
(From 633 to less than
708 score points)

2015 (538 score points)

2018 (529 score points)

Level 6 or higher(From 708
score points)

7

4. Mean Score and Economic, Social and Cultural Status (ESCS) Economic, social and cultural status (ESCS)The OECD has developed the ESCS Index based on the questionnaire items concerning parents' academic backgroundand household property. Students with a higher value in the index are deemed to be at a higher economic, social andcultural level. In PISA, students are divided into four groups based on the value in the ESCS index, and the relationshipwith score points in the three domains is analyzed.

 Relationship between ESCS and the share of students by the level of proficiency
In Japan and the OECD average, the share of students with high level of proficiency is larger for students with higher
level of ESCS and the share of low proficiency students was larger for students with lower level of ESCE.
Japan was one of the countries among OECD countries where the ESCS difference among the students was the smallest
and the difference of students’ ESCS had a lower impact on students' score points. PISA 2018 is in line with the trend
observed from the beginning of PISA.

● Share of Japanese students at each level of proficiency inthe three domains by the level of ESCS (PISA2018)
Reading
ESCS

3.3
9.5

Top 25%
最上位25%

17.3

28.3

27.0

14.5
2.0

13.2

Upper中上位25%
middle 25%

20.8

29.4

24.9

9.8
1.0

17.4

Lower 中下位25%
middle 25%

23.9

29.4

21.1

7.2
0.2

27.2

最下位25%
Lowest 25%
0%

28.5

10%

20%

Level 1 or lower
レベル1以下Level 2
レベル2

30%

40%

Level 3
レベル3

Mathematics

27.5
50%

60%

Level
レベル44

13.9 2.770%80%

Level 5
レベル5

90%

100%

Level 6 or higher
レベル6以上Science

ESCS

3.2

ESCS

最上位25％
Top 25% 6.0 12.5

23.7

Upper
middle 8.2 16.5
中上位25％
25%
Lower
中下位25％
middle 12.2
25%

29.3

25.3

20.2

8.3

17.3 5.1

27.6

2.8
19.9

28.4

24.4

12.2

最上位25％
Top 25% 6.0 13.4

28.1

31.6

17.7
2.2

Upper
middle 8.1 17.6
中上位25％
25%

29.0

30.0

13.2
0.8

Lower
中下位25％
middle 11.5
25%

21.4

30.6

25.8

0.9
Lowest
最下位25％
25%

0%
Level 1 or
レベル1以下
lower

19.7

26.2
20%

Level 2
レベル2

40%
Level 3レベル3

28.2

18.9 6.1

60%

80%

Level 4
レベル4

Level 5
レベル5

9.9
0.4

Lowest25%
最下位25％

17.8

27.6

100%

0%

20%

Level 6 or
レベル6以上higher

レベル1以下
Level
1 or
lower

Level 2
レベル2

40%
Level 3
レベル3

31.3
60%
Level
4
レベル4

18.5 4.580%

Level 5
レベル5100%

レベル6以上Level 6 orhigher8

5. ICT Survey
ICT Survey
Students were asked about their use of various digital devices, such as mobile phones, desktop/tablet computers, smartphones,
and game consoles

Use of the Internet outside of school
 Trends in the hours of its use• In both Japan and the OECD average, the share of students who use the Internet for 4 hours or more outside of school
during weekdays are increasing.
• Still, the share of Japanese students who use the Internet for 4 hours or more is lower than the OECD average.

 Relationship between the hours of its use and mean scores in the three domains• In both Japan and the OECD average, mean scores tended to decline for students who use the Internet for 4 hours or more
outside of school in all the three domains.
• On the other hand, among users with for less than 4 hours, there was little difference in mean scores in the three domains
between Japanese students who use the Internet for 30 minutes or more but less than 4 hours. However, for the OECDaverage, mean scores tend to be higher for students who use the Internet for longer time.

● Hours of use of the Internet outside of school during weekdays (trends)
Japan
日本

2018

1.6 4.6

8.6

12.8

2015 1.7 7.5
2012

3.5

25.3

14.1
14.1

OECD
2018

4.9 2.1 3.8

2015

4.4 3.1 6.2

2012

3.6 5.0
0%

15.7
17.9

6.4

24.5

9.6
13.5

18.9

40%
No time
利用しない
Between 2 hours and 4 hours per day
1日に2時間以上、4時間未満

6.3
5.5

4.4

19.7
15.4

26.0

20%

No
answer/other
無回答・その他
Between
1 hour and 2 hours per day
1日に1時間以上、2時間未満

17.3

25.9

7.4

7.6

20.9

27.6
20.0

9.8
22.5

16.5

16.6

9.8

29.8

15.4

24.5
60%

10.7

7.0

80%

1-30 minutes per day
1日に30分未満
Between 4 hours and 6 hours per day
1日に4時間以上、6時間未満

100%

31-60 minutes per day
1日に30分以上、1時間未満
More than 6 hours per day
1日に6時間以上● Mean scores in the three domains by hours of use of the Internet outside of school during weekdays (Mean score)
560
540

Japan

520
500
480
460

OECD average
440
420
400
No time
利用しない

1-301日にminutes
per day
30分未満

31-60
minutes
1日に
per day
30分以上、

1時間未満
Reading
読解力
読解力（OECD）
Reading (OECD)

Between
1日に 1hour and 2
1時間以上、hours per day

Between
1日に 2hour and 4
2時間以上、hours per day

2時間未満
4時間未満
Mathematics
数学的リテラシー
数学的リテラシー（OECD）
Mathematics (OECD)

Between
1日に 4hour and 6
4時間以上、hours per day

Morethan 61日にhours
per day
6時間以上

6時間未満

Science
科学的リテラシー
科学的リテラシー（OECD）
Science (OECD)

9

Use of digital devices in and outside of school The length of time which digital devices are used in school lessons (language-of-instruction, mathematics,
and science) are short in Japan. It was the shortest among OECD member countries.
The share of students who replied "No time" accounted for about 80%, which is the highest among OECD countries.

 Just as in other OECD member countries, students in Japan use digital devices for various purposes
outside of school.
○ The share of students who frequently use online chatting or games (one-player games/collaborative online games) is higher
in Japan than other countries, and has shown a notable growth.
• The increase of share of students who answered "Every day" or "Almost every day" (compared to PISA 2012)•"Chatting online": Japan: 60.5 points; OECD average: 15.4 points•"Playing one-player games": Japan: 21.3 points; OECD average: 7.1 points•"Playing collaborative online games": Japan: 19.4 points; OECD average: 7.9 points○ Japan is the least among OECD member countries in terms of the frequency of doing homework on a computer.

● Average length of time digital devices are used during classroom lessons in a week
Japan3.0 2.4 8.6
日本

Language-ofinstruction lessons

83.0

12.3

OECD
OECD

10.3

0.7 2.3
48.2

21.9

Japan2.6 1.9 3.3
日本

0.8 6.4

89.0

0.7 2.5

Mathematics
OECD
OECD

9.6

9.0

Japan
日本

6.2 5.3

7.5

OECD
OECD

11.7

54.4

19.2

0.8 6.9

75.9

2.3 2.8

Science
12.8

0%

20 %

週に1時間以上
minutes a week

31-60 minutes a week
週に30分以上、1時間未満

More than 60

43.9

22.1
40 %

2.6 6.960 %1-30 minutes a week 利用しない
No time
週に30分未満

80 %

100 %

I do not study this subject
この教科を受けていない

No answer/other
無回答・その他● Use of digital devices outside of school during weekdays(Blue bars and stars indicate the total of students who answered "Every day" or "Almost every day" for Japan and the OECD average, respectively.)

0%

20%

40%

60%

0%

80% 100%

20%

40%

Browsing the Internet forschoolwork (e.g. for
preparing an essay orpresentation)
Browsing the Internet tofollow up lessons, e.g. forfinding explanations

Downloading, uploading orbrowsing material from myschool's website (e.g.
timetable or course
materials).

3.0

87.4

Chatting online★26.7(OECD average)★23.0(OECD average)
6.0

47.7

Playing one-player games★28.9(OECD average)★20.1(OECD average)
Playing collaborative
online games

3.7

29.6

★17.7(OECD average)
3.0★25.5(OECD average)
Using email

3.4

9.1

★38.8(OECD average)★21.3(OECD average)
Checking the school's
website for announcements(e.g. absence of teachers)

80% 100%★67.3(OECD average)★22.2(OECD average)
Doing homework on acomputer

60%

Reading news on theInternet (e.g. current affairs)

43.4

10

Measures Taken by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science and Technology Based on PISA Results
1. Implementation of the New Course of Study that Addresses the Issues identified in PISA Results

The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology is steadfastly implementing the New Course of Study that addresses
issues identified by PISA results and promotes various measures to support the efforts of the Boards of Education, schools, and school staffs.

(1) Enhancement of lessons from the perspective of subjective, interactive, and deep learning• Support will be provided, for example, by accumulating good examples and providing information so that learning that puts emphasis on
having students understand the value of learning, shape ideas through careful examination of information, and find problems and think ofsolutions thereto can be enriched through improvement of lessons from the perspective of subjective, interactive, and deep learning(2) Development of reading literacy and other language abilities(i) Enrichment of instruction in Japanese language lessons throughout elementary and secondary schools• Solid acquisition of vocabulary necessary for the accurate understanding of texts and the manner of dealing with information (utilization of
dictionaries and encyclopedias, etc.)• During “reading” instruction, emphasis will be on (a) interpreting the content through understanding the composition of a text,
development of logic, and manner of expression, (b) understanding the content in light of the relationship between a text and a figure, and(c) having one's own idea based on what one understood by reading a text and expressing it.
• Emphasis on language activities, such as reading various kinds of texts and discussing about it or describing it in writing.

(ii) Enhancement of curriculum management with aim of developing student’s language abilities• More opportunities to experience interpreting graphs and figures and reading real-life texts (newspapers, public relations magazines, etc.)
and enhancement of language activities according to the nature of each subject for solid acquisition of vocabulary that supports learning ineach subject (utilization of dictionaries and encyclopedias, etc.)• Enhancement of language activities in Period for Integrated Study (Period for Inquiry-Based Cross-Disciplinary Study), Inquiry-BasedStudy of Science and Mathematics, by using more research papers and reports• Encouragement of reading through morning reading activities in schools, and improvement of a language environment, including
improvement and utilization of school libraries, etc.

(3) Development of the students’ capacity to utilize information• Introduction of programming education from the elementary school and promotion of use of computers in learning activities at school• Development of the abilities to acquire information by appropriately using computers, to organize and compare information, to transmit
and communicate information, and to save and share data, etc. and the acquisition of basic operational skills necessary for such activities• Promotion of education on information morals concerning appropriate use (length of time, SNS, etc.) of smartphones, etc. in collaboration
with households and communities(4) Enhancement of science and mathematics education• Enrichment of opportunities to utilize knowledge and skills in various situations and activities to think and solve problems statisticallyduring mathematics education• Enrichment of activities that put emphasis on the relationship with real life situations and society and scientific inquiry activities, including
experiment and observation, during science education(5) Improvement of guidance utilizing the outcome of National Assessment of Academic Ability• Improvement of guidance that develops staffs’ ability to utilize knowledge and skills in various real-life situations and the ability todevelop and put into practice visions to solve various problems, evaluate and to make improvements based on the understanding of thestatus of students' learning from the results of the National Assessment of Academic Ability

2. Measures to Accelerate Introduction of the ICT Environment in Schools(1) Measures to accelerate introduction of the ICT environment in schools
Allocation of one computer per learner and introduction of a high-speed/high-capacity communication network to all classrooms in schools
will be promoted(2) Development and implementation of "Policy to Use Cutting-Edge Technology to Support New Age Learning"Experiments concerning effective uses of cutting-edge technology at school and introduction of the ICT environment at school necessary forlearning in a new age will be promoted.

3. Building of a Safety Net by Ensuring Educational Opportunities for All Students(1) Provision of opportunities for high-quality education with the aim of narrowing the gap between social,economic and cultural status
Measures such as a tuition free education or reduction of family burden of education expenses in a continuous manner from early childhood tothe higher education stage and measures to improve the quality of education will be steadily introduced so that anyone can receive high-quality
education of his/her own choice without being influenced by the economic condition of his/her household(2) Enhancement of efforts in which schools, households, and communities collaborate with each other
Support for efforts in which schools, households, and communities collaborate with each other, such as integrated promotion of "community
school" and "community-school cooperative activities," promotion of support for parents’ education in communities, and promotion of various
activities outside schools
11[Reference] Outline of PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment)
Outline of PISA○ PISA is designed to assess to what extent 15-year-old students at the end of compulsory education can apply theirknowledge and skills to problems they face in various real-life situations.
○ PISA has been implemented every three years since 2000 in relation to three domains, reading, mathematics, andscience. In each PISA, one of the three domains is intensively assessed in rotating order as the major domain.
○ Items are not released to the public (only some items in the major domain are released) in order to see the trends inscore points by using the same items for a longer period of time.
○ Multiple item forms (36 kinds in PISA 2018) that differ in the combination of items in each domain are used. Students
solve one of those item forms in 2 hours.
○ The assessment mode has shifted from paper-based assessment to computer-based assessement in PISA 2015.
○ The way results are shown: The mean score of each country/each year is calculated by considering the mean score ofOECD member countries in the year when each domain became the major domain for the first time (2000 for reading,2003 for mathematics, and 2006 for science) as the standard value (500 score points) and making adjustments to makeit possible to compare the results in different assessment years. In the case of comparing mean scores, it is important
not only to see difference in value but also to confirm whether there is a statistically significant difference (significant
difference).
PISA 2018
 The major domain is reading literacy. The "multistage adaptive testing," in which items that differ in the level ofdifficulty are automatically set depending on the status of students' answers, and items to grasp the "fluency of reading"were introduced in order to increase the accuracy of measurement of the level of proficiency in reading literacy.
 About 600,000 students participated from 79 countries/economies. In Japan, about 6,100 students from 183 schools in
the first year of upper secondary schools, the latter half course of schools for secondary education or colleges oftechnology, who were randomly selected nationwide based on international standards participated in PISA 2018.
(Implemented during the period between June and August 2018)

Definition of the core domains
 Reading literacy
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 Mathematical literacy
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 wellfounded judgments and decisions needed by constructive, engaged and reflective citizens.
 Scientific literacy
To "explain phenomena scientifically," "evaluate and design scientific enquiry," and "interpret data and evidence
scientifically" as the ability to engage with science-related issues, and with the ideas of science

Major domain in PISAPISA 2000
Reading

PISA 2018
Reading

PISA 2009
Reading
PISA 2003
Mathematics
PISA 2006
SciencePISA 2012
Mathematics

PISA 2021
Mathematics

PISA 2015
Science

Information on PISA☞ National Institute for Educational Policy Research, ed., Knowledge and Skills for Life 1 to 3 (Gyosei) and Knowledge and Skills for Life 4 to 7 (Akashi Shoten)☞ Website• National Institute for Educational Policy Research (http://www.nier.go.jp/kokusai/pisa/)• OECD（http://www.oecd.org/pisa/)12