Belgium vs Japan: PISA: 15-year-olds by reading proficiency level (%). Level 2
PISA: 15-year-olds by reading proficiency level (%). Level 2 over time
- Belgium
- Japan
How they compare
Belgium currently reports 22.0% against 22.0% in Japan, a difference of 0.0%.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 7 shared years of data; in 2000 it was Japan ahead.
Belgium ranks 37th and Japan ranks 37th of 55 countries.
Across the 2 decades both report, Belgium averaged higher in 1 and Japan in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Belgium | Japan | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 18.5% | 19.8% | 1.2% | Japan |
| 2010s | 21.0% | 19.7% | 1.3% | Belgium |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher pisa: 15-year-olds by reading proficiency level (%). level 2, Belgium or Japan?
- Belgium, at 22.0% against 22.0% in Japan as of 2018.
- What is the difference in pisa: 15-year-olds by reading proficiency level (%). level 2 between Belgium and Japan?
- 0.0%, with Belgium ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Belgium and Japan?
- 7 years are reported by both, from 2000 to 2018.
- How do Belgium and Japan rank globally for pisa: 15-year-olds by reading proficiency level (%). level 2?
- Belgium ranks 37th and Japan ranks 37th of 55 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), published as PISA: 15-year-olds by reading proficiency level (%). Level 2. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
Percentage of 15-year-old students scoring higher than 407 but lower than or equal to 480 on the PISA reading scale. Readers at Level 2 can identify the main idea in a piece of text of moderate length. They can 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. They can 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. Readers at Level 2 can, when explicitly cued, reflect on the overall purpose, or on the purpose of specific details, in texts of moderate length. They can reflect on simple visual or typographical features. They can compare claims and evaluate the reasons supporting them based on short, explicit statements. Tasks at Level 2 may involve comparisons or contrasts based on a single feature in the text. Typical reflective tasks at this level require readers to make a comparison or several connections between the text and outside knowledge by drawing on personal experience and attitudes. 2000, 2003, and 2006 PISA assessments used a different reading proficiency scale (Levels 1 to 5) than later assessments. PISA 2000/2003/2006 Level 2 data have been included in this database as Level 2 because they are based on an identical score range. Use caution in comparing proficiency scores across years. For more information on comparability of results, consult the PISA website: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/