The Ministry of Education on September 8 released the results of Rwanda’s first participation in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), with only 12.7 percent of 15-year-olds reaching Level 2 or higher in science, 7.7 percent in mathematics and 3.9 percent in reading. PISA assesses how well students can apply what they have learnt to real-world problems rather than simply recall information taught in class. ALSO READ: What PISA results say about Rwanda’s education system Here are 13 factors that help explain PISA results; 1. Struggling to apply knowledge PISA tests whether students can use what they have learnt to solve problems in unfamiliar, real-life situations. Soumaya Maghnouj, an analyst in the PISA Directorate for Education and Skills at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), said being below Level 2 does not necessarily mean students lack scientific knowledge. The challenge, she said, is whether they can apply that knowledge when faced with unfamiliar questions or situations. 2. Weak reading comprehension Reading was the weakest of the three assessed subjects, with a mean score of 301 points. Only 3.9 percent of students reached Level 2 or higher. The findings are consistent with concerns from national assessments, which show a gap between students’ ability to read a text and their ability to understand it. About 70 percent of learners read Kinyarwanda at the expected level, but only 44 percent adequately understand what they read. In English, about 60 percent can read at the expected level, while only 24 percent demonstrate adequate comprehension. The Ministry of Education aims to raise comprehension in Kinyarwanda to at least 65 percent and in English to at least 50 percent by 2028. 3. Low curiosity, perseverance and engagement The assessment points to challenges in how students engage with learning. The OECD found that countries experiencing declines in reading performance were also recording lower levels of curiosity and perseverance among students. Students performed worse on questions involving longer texts, while the assessment identified more “hasty readers” — those who answered quickly but incorrectly. This raises questions about students’ ability to remain focused on longer and more difficult material, which is important in PISA, where they must often work through unfamiliar texts and problems before reaching an answer. 4. Heavy use of digital devices Rwandan students reported among the highest levels of digital-device use at school for both learning and leisure. They spent an average of 3.2 hours a day using digital devices for learning and another 2.9 hours for leisure. The OECD found that moderate use of digital devices for learning can be associated with better performance, but that relationship changes beyond a certain level of use. Leisure use of more than an hour a day was associated with declining performance. 5. Weak ability to assess information PISA 2025 examined how students determine whether information is reliable. In Rwanda, about one in four students reported checking sources and relying on scientific studies when judging information. Many instead rely on what they consider common sense. The science assessment includes tasks requiring students to evaluate evidence, judge the credibility of information and use scientific knowledge to make decisions. Maghnouj said moderate use of artificial intelligence for learning can be beneficial, but using AI to complete assignments instead of doing the work oneself tends to be associated with poorer performance. 6. Low family support for learning Rwandan students reported relatively low levels of family support compared with students in many other participating countries. Support does not necessarily require parents to become tutors. Asking children what they learnt at school, discussing their performance and taking an interest in their future can support learning. PISA found a difference of about 40 points in science performance between students who reported being asked about what they had done at school and those who were not. Bernard Bahati, Director General of the National Examination and School Inspection Authority (NESA), said parents have a role in following up on their children’s education rather than leaving learning entirely to schools. 7. Bullying and cyberbullying Fifty-seven percent of Rwandan students reported experiencing at least one form of bullying a few times a month or more. About 22 percent said upsetting information about them had been published online without their consent at least a few times a month. Students who reported this form of cyberbullying scored 36 points lower in science on average. The findings suggest bullying is not only a student-welfare concern but is also associated with differences in learning outcomes. However, more than 70 percent of students said they feel they belong at school, showing that the school environment is not uniformly negative. 8. Absenteeism and missed learning time Around 40 percent of students reported skipping at least one day of school in the two weeks before the PISA test, while another 42 percent reported skipping at least one class. The OECD found that truancy and lateness are negatively associated with science performance and attitudes towards learning. For students already struggling with basic skills, repeated absence can leave them with even less time to practise, consolidate knowledge and catch up. 9. Shortages of learning materials and infrastructure Some 57 percent of students were in schools where principals said shortages of educational materials, including textbooks, IT equipment, library and laboratory materials, hindered instruction to some extent. Another 54 percent were in schools where physical infrastructure was reported as a hindrance to instruction. However, there was no major difference in reported shortages of education staff or educational materials between the most disadvantaged and most advantaged schools. Rwanda’s socioeconomic gap in science performance was also relatively small. The difference between students in the highest and lowest socioeconomic quarters was 30 points, compared with an OECD average of 84 points. This suggests socioeconomic background was associated with a smaller difference in science performance in Rwanda than in many other education systems. 10. Students do not always see the value of learning Almost half of Rwandan students said what they learn at school is useful for their future, meaning more than half did not give that response. The figure was considerably higher in some education systems, including Korea, Armenia and Japan, where more than 70 percent of students said what they learn at school is useful for their future. The finding highlights another challenge for the education system: ensuring students can see how classroom learning connects to their future lives, careers and the problems they will face beyond school. 11. Some disadvantaged students perform among the best Despite the overall low performance, some students from disadvantaged backgrounds performed strongly. About 22 percent of disadvantaged Rwandan students, those in the bottom quarter by socioeconomic status, were among the top quarter of science performers. The OECD describes such students as academically resilient. The figure was higher than the OECD average of 12 percent. 12. Many students expect to move up socially Rwandan students reported relatively positive expectations about their future social mobility. The OECD found that 10 percent or fewer expected to have stable or upward educational mobility but end up in a lower occupational group than their parents, compared with about 25 percent across OECD countries. The findings show that Rwandan students were generally optimistic about attaining higher education and occupational positions than their parents. 13. The reading gap between boys and girls is small Boys scored 304 points in reading, compared with 298 points for girls, a difference of just six points in favour of boys. That is very different from the OECD average, where girls scored 30 points higher than boys. Rwanda was one of only three PISA participants where girls did not outperform boys in reading.
