Abstract
In this study, we use decomposition methods on PISA 2006 data to compare student academic performance across OECD countries. We first establish an empirical model to explain the variation in academic performance across individuals, and then use the Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition method to decompose the achievement gap between each of the OECD countries and the OECD average. Results indicate that the explained portion of the achievement gap varies across countries. In some countries, our empirical models are able to account for almost all the achievement gap, while unexplained country-specific effects still dominate in other countries. Finally, we use two Asian countries, Japan and Korea, to demonstrate how to identify major factors that have contributed to the observed achievement gap across countries.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Results from these stepwise regressions are available upon request.
Results for science and reading tests reveal similar patterns.
Results for science and reading scores are not reported here and are available upon request.
References
Ammermüller, A. (2007). PISA: What makes the difference? Explaining the gap in test scores between Finland and Germany. Empirical Economics, 33, 263–287.
Anderson, J., Lin, H., Treagust, D., Ross, S. P., & Yore, L. (2007). Using large-scale assessment datasets for research in science and mathematics education: Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5, 591–614.
Baker, D. P., Goesling, B., & Letendre, G. K. (2002). Socioeconomic status, school quality, and national economic development: A cross-national analysis of the “Heyneman-Loxley effect” on mathematics and science achievement. Comparative Education Review, 46(3), 291–312.
Baker, D. P., Lee, J., & Heyneman, S. P. (2003). Should America be more like them? Cross-national achievement and U.S. policy. Brookings Papers on Education Policy, 6, 309–338.
Bielefeldt, T. (2005). Computers and student learning: interpreting the multivariate analysis of PISA 2000. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(4), 339–347.
Blinder, A. (1973). Wage discrimination: reduced form and structural estimates. The Journal of Human Resources, 8(4), 436–455.
Casey, M. B., Nuttall, R., & Pezaris, E. (2001). Spatial-mechanical reasoning skills versus mathematical self-confidence as mediators of gender differences on mathematics subtests using cross-national gender-based items. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(1), 28–57.
Cotton, J. (1988). On the decomposition of wage differentials. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 70(2), 236–243.
Fertig, M. (2003). Who’s to blame? The determinants of German students’ achievement in the PISA 2000 study. IZA discussion paper no. 739, IZA-Bonn.
Fertig, M., & Schmidt, C. (2002). The role of background factors for reading literacy: Straight national scores in the PISA 2000 study. IZA Discussion Paper No. 545, IZA-Bonn.
Fuchs, T., & Wößmann, L. (2007). What accounts for international differences in student performance? A re-examination using PISA data. Empirical Economics, 32, 433–464.
Ganzeboom, H., De Graaf, P., & Treiman, D. (1992). A standard international socio-economic index of occupational status. Social Science Research, 21, 1–56.
Goldberger, A., & Duncan, O. D. (1973). Structural equation models in the social sciences. New York: Seminar Press.
Hanna, G. (1989). Achievement of girls and boys in grade eight: results from twenty countries. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 20(2), 225–232.
Hernandez-Zavala, M., Patrinos, H, Sakellariou, C., & Shapiro, J. (2006). Quality of schooling and quality of schools for indigenous students in Guatemala, Mexico and Peru. Policy research working paper no. 3982. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Knighton, T., & Bussiere, P. (2006). Educational outcomes at age 19 associated with reading ability at age 15. Culture, Tourism and the Centre for Education Statistics Research Paper (Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 81–595-MIE2006043). Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada.
Kotte, D., Lietz, P., & Lopez, M. (2005). Factors influencing reading achievement in Germany and Spain: Evidence from PISA 2000. International Education Journal, 6(1), 113–124.
Lynn, R., & Mikk, J. (2007). National differences in intelligence and educational attainment. Intelligence, 35, 115–121.
Lynn, R., & Mikk, J. (2009). National IQs predict educational attainment in math, reading, and science across 56 nations. Intelligence, 37, 305–310.
MacNab, D. (2000). Raising standards in mathematics education: Values, vision, and TIMSS. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 42(1), 61–80.
Marks, G. N. (2005). Accounting for immigrant non-immigrant differences in reading and mathematics in twenty countries. Ethic and Racial Studies, 28(5), 925–946.
McEwan, P., & Marshall, J. (2004). Why does academic achievement vary across countries? Evidence from Cuba and Mexico. Education Economics, 12(3), 205–217.
Neumark, D. (1988). Employers’ discriminatory behavior and the estimation of wage discrimination. The Journal of Human Resources, 23(3), 279–295.
Oaxaca, R. (1973). Male-female wage differentials in urban labor markets. International Economic Review, 14(3), 693–709.
OECD. (2004). Learning for tomorrow’s world: First results from PISA 2003. Paris: OECD.
OECD. (2009). PISA data analysis manual: SPSS (2nd ed.). Paris: OECD.
Reimers, C. (1983). Labor market discrimination against Hispanic and black men. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 65(4), 570–579.
Rinderman, H. (2007). The g-factor of international cognitive ability comparisons: the homogeneity of results in PISA, TIMSS, PIRLS, and IQ-tests across nations. Europena Journal of Personality, 21, 667–706.
Schneider, B., Carnoy, M., Kilpatrick, J., Schmidt, W., & Shavelson, R. (2007). Estimating causal effects using experimental and observational designs. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Schuab, M., & Baker, D. P. (1991). Solving the math problem: exploring mathematics achievement in Japanese and American middle grades. American Journal of Education, 99(4), 623–642.
Schütz, G., West, M. R., & Wößmann, L. (2007). School accountability, autonomy, choice and the equity of student achievement: International evidence from PISA 2003. OECD education working paper no. 12, EDU/WKP(2007)7. Paris: OECD.
Shin, J., Lee, H., & Kim, Y. (2009). Student and school factors affecting mathematics achievement: International comparisons between Korea, Japan and the USA. School Psychology International, 30, 520–537.
Tatsuoka, K., Corter, J., & Tatsuoka, C. (2004). Patterns of diagnosed mathematical content and process skills in TIMSS-R across a sample of 20 countries. American Educational Research Journal, 41(4), 901–926.
Wang, J., & Lin, E. (2005). Comparative studies on U.S. and Chinese mathematics learning and the implications for standards-based mathematics teaching reform. Educational Researcher, 34(5), 3–13.
Westbury, I. (1992). Comparing American and Japanese achievement: Is the United States really a low achiever? Educational Researcher, 21(5), 18–24.
Williams, T., Williams, K., Kastberg, D., & Jocelyn, L. (2005). Achievement and affect in OECD nations. Oxford Review of Education, 31(4), 517–545.
Wu, M., & Adams, R. (Eds.). (2002). PISA 2000 technical report. Paris: OECD.
Wößmann, L. (2000). Schooling resources, educational institutions, and student performance: The international evidence. Kiel working paper no. 983. Kiel: Kiel Institute of World Economics.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zhang, L., Lee, K.A. Decomposing achievement gaps among OECD countries. Asia Pacific Educ. Rev. 12, 463–474 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-011-9151-3
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-011-9151-3