The current study aimed to reveal how schools’ characteristics affected students’ mathematical literacy according to PISA 2022 in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UAE. The sample included all schools and students who participated from these countries (39,204 students from 1,261 schools). The number of participants in Saudi Arabia reached (6,928 students & 193 schools) with an average score of (389), (7,676 students & 229 schools) participants with an average score of (412) in Qatar, while participants from the Emirates “UAE” reached (24,600 students & 840 schools) with an average score of (433). Multiple regression analysis was used, which revealed that these variables contributed to explaining (35.7%) of the variance in mathematical literacy in Saudi Arabia, (46.6%) in Qatar, and (47.4%) in UAE. The study found that school type significantly affected mathematical literacy in all three countries. Community size positively influenced mathematical literacy in the UAE, while larger math class sizes and student truancy negatively affected it in the UAE. Additionally, students skipping classes negatively impacted mathematical literacy in Qatar. However, bullying had no effect on mathematical literacy in any of the countries. The study concluded with a detailed analysis of the results and recommendations for improving mathematical literacy in the region.
AlexanderV.MaedaY. (2010). Understanding student achievement in mathematics and science: The case of Trinidad and Tobago: The Case of Trinidad and Tobago, (in Arabic). Translated by Ḥamdi Al-Zayyat. Futures, 45(4), 870–849. (The translation Year 2015).
2.
Alharbi MohammedS.Alhaisoni EidM.Almatham KhaledA.AlreshidiA. M. (2021). The contribution of reading strategies to mathematical literacy of students: A comparison of Singapore, Australia, The United States of America, and Saudi Arabia based on PISA 2018 data. Revista de Educacion, 391(3), 39–85.
3.
Al-HarbiM. S. (2020). The level of mathematical literacy among Saudi students in the program for International Student Assessment “PISA 2018” in light of some variables, (in Arabic). Saudi Journal of Educational Sciences, 1(58), 31–51.
4.
Al-MaskariA. (2018). The effects of bullying on students’ academic achievement in Kuwait. Journal of Educational Research and Development, 7(3), 33–45.
5.
Al-MasoudiN. B. M.Al-HarbiM. B. S. B. S. (2023). School characteristics affecting the variation in the level of mathematical literacy among Saudi students according to the results of the International Program for Student Assessment (PISA 2018). Saudi Journal of Educational Sciences, 1(10), 1–18.
6.
Al-RashidiA. (2016). The impact of parental involvement on students’ mathematical achievement in Oman. International Journal of Educational Research, 29(1), 1–10.
7.
AlreshidiA. M.AlsharifK. M.KandeelR. A. A. (2022). Five important parental involvement variables that affect young children’s mathematical achievements: A comparative study. Education and Urban Society, 54, 1072–1096. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131245211048440
8.
AnwarS.PujiastutiH.MutaqinA. (2019). Pengaruh contextual teaching and learning dan self-regulated learning terhadap Kemampuan Koneksi Matematis. Prima: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 3(2), 116–133.
9.
Alreshidi, A. M. (2024). Variation of mathematical literacy among students participating in (PISA 2022) attributed to students’ demographic, economic, and family variables: A comparative study of the results of participants from Saudi Arabia, Emirates, Qatar, and Singapore. Saudi Journal of Educational Sciences, 16, 47–68.
10.
CansızM.OzbaylanlıB.ÇolakoğluM. (2019). Impact of school type on student academic achievement. Education Sciences, 44, 275–314. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2019.7378
11.
GamazoA.Martínez-AbadF. (2020). An exploration of factors linked to academic performance in PISA 2018 through data mining techniques. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 575167. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.575167
12.
HattieJ. (2009). Visible learning: Meta-analyses of the effects of the visible learning strategies. Routledge.
13.
KandeelR. A. A. (2021). Learners’ mathematics proficiency levels on Pisa 2018: A comparative study. International Journal of Instruction, 14(3), 393–416. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2021.14323a
14.
Kerlinger FredN. (1978). Foundations of behavioral research. New York University.
15.
NurvicalestiN.WalidW.DewiN. R. (2021). Mathematics literacy skill seen from self-regulated learning (SRL) in SQ4R learning with mathematics realistic approach. Unnes Journal of Mathematics Education Research, 10(A), 68–74.
OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 results (volume III): What school life means for students’ lives. PISA. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/acd78851-en.
18.
OECD. (2023a). PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The State of Learning and Equity in Education. PISA, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en.
19.
OECD. (2023b). PISA 2022 Results (Volume II): Learning During – and From – Disruption, PISA. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/a97db61c-en.
20.
OzkanY. O.GüvendirM. A. (2014). Socioeconomic factors of students’ relation to mathematic achievement: Comparison of PISA and ÖBBS. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 6(3), 776-789.
21.
OzyildirimG.KaradağE. (2024). The effect of peer bullying on academic achievement: A meta-analysis study related to results of TIMSS and PIRLS. Psychology in the Schools, 61, 2185–2203. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.23159
22.
RutkowskiD.RutkowskiL.WildJ.BurroughsN. (2018). Poverty and educational achievement in the US: A less-biased estimate using PISA 2012 data. Journal of Children and Poverty, 24, 47–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/10796126.2017.1401898
23.
ShinI. S.ChungJ. Y. (2009). Class size and student achievement in the United States: A meta-analysis. KEDI. Journal of Educational Policy, 6, 3–19.
24.
SullivanK.PerryL. B.McConneyA. (2013). How do school resources and academic performance differ across Australia’s rural, regional and metropolitan communities?Australian Educational Researcher, 40(3), 353–372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-013-0100-5
25.
TrinidadJ. E. (2020). Material resources, school climate, and achievement variations in the Philippines: Insights from PISA 2018. International Journal of Educational Development, 75, 102174.
26.
UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2018). International policies for Third World education: Literacy and development. Routledge.
27.
UstaH. G. (2016). Analysis of student and school level variables related to mathematics self-efficacy level based on PISA 2012 results for China-Shanghai, Turkey, and Greece. Educational Sciences Theory & Practice, 16(4), 1297–1323.
28.
Van der WerfC. (2014). The effects of bullying on academic achievement. Desarrollo Y Sociedad, 47, 275–308. https://doi.org/10.13043/DYS.74.6
