PISA Results 2022 (Volume III) ‑ Factsheets: Latvia
Table of contents
A Latvian version of this Country Note is available at this link.
In 2022, the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) assessed the creative thinking abilities of 15-year-old students. The test explores how well students can generate diverse and creative ideas, and how well they can evaluate and improve others’ ideas to reach creative outcomes. Tasks in the test are situated in four domain contexts: written expression, visual expression, social problem solving and scientific problem solving. Volume III of PISA 2022 Results gives insights into how well education systems are preparing students to think outside the box and to come up with creative ideas in a range of different contexts. By comparing results internationally, policymakers and educators in Latvia can learn from other countries’ policies and practices.
Latvia, OECD average and selected comparison countries/economies
Notes: Comparison countries include the six highest-performing countries (overall and relatively), or the six countries with the smallest share of variance in creative thinking uniquely explained by mathematics performance, and five neighbouring or comparable countries. Horizontal lines that extend beyond the markers represent a measure of uncertainty associated with mean estimates (the 95% confidence interval).
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 Database, Tables III.B1.2.1, III.B1.2.4 and III.B1.2.3.
With a mean score of 35 out of 60 possible points, students in Latvia scored significantly higher than the OECD average in creative thinking (33).
Students’ relative results in creative thinking are above what could be expected from Latvia based on their performance in mathematics; and above what could be expected based on their performance in reading.
In Latvia, 24% of the variation in creative thinking performance can be uniquely attributed to variation in mathematics performance, which is below the OECD average. Within Latvia, the correlation between students’ creative thinking and mathematic performance is 0.57, and 0.55 between creative thinking and reading performance (OECD averages: 0.67 and 0.66). For comparison, on average across OECD countries, the correlation between students’ mathematics and reading performance is 0.80.
Note: Numbers inside the figure correspond to percentages.
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 Database, Table III.B1.2.2.
In Latvia, 92% of students attained at least a baseline proficiency in creative thinking (Level 3), significantly more than on average across OECD countries (78%). At a minimum, these students can generate appropriate ideas for simple to moderately complex expressive and problem-solving tasks, and they also begin to demonstrate the ability to generate original ideas or solutions in familiar task contexts. In 21 countries and economies out of 64 tested, more than 1 in 2 students did not reach this baseline level of proficiency in creative thinking.
26% of students in Latvia are top performers in creative thinking, meaning that they attained Level 5 or 6 in the PISA Creative Thinking test (OECD average: 27%). In Australia*, Finland, New Zealand*, Canada* and Korea, around 4 in 10 students are top performers, and in Singapore, more than 1 in 2. At these proficiency levels, students can generate, evaluate and improve creative ideas in diverse and complex tasks, including abstract design tasks or more constrained/unfamiliar scientific and social problem scenarios. Only in 20 out of 64 countries and economies taking the PISA 2022 Creative Thinking test can more than 25% of students be considered top performers.
In Latvia, just about 16% of top performers in creative thinking are also top performers in mathematics, and 11% are top performers in reading (OECD averages: 20% and 17%). This suggests that one can excel in creative thinking without excelling in academic domains (and vice-versa), though a baseline level of proficiency in one domain complements proficiency in the others (see Figure III.2.4 in the report).
Latvia, OECD average and selected comparison countries/economies
Notes: The relative success is the difference between the percentage of correct responses in one ideation process and average percent correct on all other tasks (full credit only). This difference accounts for the international difficulty of each task. Comparison countries include the six countries with the highest relative performance in each ideation process, and five neighbouring or comparable countries. Horizontal lines that extend beyond the markers represent a measure of uncertainty associated with mean estimates (the 95% confidence interval).
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 Database, Table III.B1.4.3.
The PISA 2022 Creative Thinking test explored students’ proficiency across three ideation processes: generating diverse ideas, generating creative ideas, and evaluating and improving ideas. In light of their overall performance in the test, and accounting for tasks’ respective difficulty, students in Latvia scored relatively higher in tasks that required evaluating and improving ideas than in others.
Across all participating countries and economies, students struggled relatively more with tasks that required generating diverse ideas, accounting for their respective difficulty.
Latvia, OECD average and selected comparison countries/economies
Notes: The relative success is the difference between the percentage of correct responses in one domain context and average percent correct on all other tasks (full credit only). This difference accounts for the international difficulty of each task. Comparison countries include the six countries with the highest relative performance in each domain context, and five neighbouring or comparable countries. Horizontal lines that extend beyond the markers represent a measure of uncertainty associated with mean estimates (the 95% confidence interval).
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 Database, Table III.B1.4.4.
All 32 tasks in the test were also situated in four domain contexts: written expression, visual expression, social problem solving, and scientific problem solving. Relative to their performance in all other tasks, and accounting for their respective difficulty, students in Latvia showed higher proficiency in tasks that involved written expression and visual expression.
Across all participating countries and economies, and accounting for their respective difficulty, students struggled more with tasks that involved solving both social and scientific problems with creative ideas.
This PISA test was originally due to be conducted in 2021 but was delayed by one year due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The exceptional circumstances throughout this period, including lockdowns and school closures in many countries, led to occasional difficulties in collecting some data. While the vast majority of countries and economies met PISA’s technical standards, a small number did not. A country or economy in this note with an asterisk (*) next to its name means that caution is required when interpreting estimates because one or more PISA sampling standards were not reached. Two asterisks (**) means that caution is required when comparing estimates with other countries/economies as a strong linkage to the international PISA creative thinking scale could not be established. Further information can be found in the Reader’s Guide and in Annexes A2 and A4 of the main report.
Notes: Vertical bars that extend beyond the markers represent a measure of uncertainty associated with each estimate (the 95% confidence interval). Horizontal, dashed lines represent the uncertainty associated with the mean score of the most advantaged group of students (the top quartiles) within Latvia.
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 Database, Table III.B1.3.7.
In Latvia, socio-economically advantaged students outperformed disadvantaged students in creative thinking by 6.2 score points, on a scale that counts 60 points. This is smaller than the average difference between the two groups across OECD countries (9.5 score points).
Like student performance in the mathematics, reading and science assessments, socio-economic status was a strong predictor of performance in creative thinking in all PISA participating countries and economies. It explained 8% of the variation in creative thinking performance in Latvia (compared to 12% on average across OECD countries). However, in general, the association between socio-economic status and performance in creative thinking was weaker than the equivalent association with mathematics performance.
Some 15% of disadvantaged students in Latvia were able to score in the top quarter of creative thinking performance within Latvia. These students can be considered resilient creative thinkers because, despite their socio-economic disadvantage, they have attained excellence in performance by comparison with students in their own country. On average across OECD countries, 13% of disadvantaged students scored in the top quarter of creative thinking performance in their own countries/economies.
On average, girls outperformed boys in creative thinking by 2.6 score points in Latvia. This is on par with the average gender gap across OECD countries (2.7 score points). In no PISA participating country or economy did boys score above girls in creative thinking.
Within Latvia, the gender gap persists towards the top of the distribution, with a score-point difference of 2.5 between high-achieving girls and boys (i.e. those who score at or above the 75th percentile in Latvia).
The share of students attaining Level 5 or 6 in creative thinking (the top performers) in Latvia is larger among girls (31%) than among boys (21%) (OECD averages: 31% and 23%). At the other end, the share of students who do not reach the baseline Level 3 is larger among boys (11%) than among girls (6%) (OECD averages: 25% and 18%).
Note: Numbers inside the figure correspond to percentages.
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 Database, Tables III.B1.5.2, III.B1.5.4, III.B1.5.11, III.B1.5.19, III.B1.5.23, III.B1.5.29, and III.B1.5.33.
In Latvia, 75% of students agreed or strongly agreed that it is possible to be creative in nearly any subject, compared to 82% on average across OECD countries. These students outscored those with a narrower view of creativity, by 1.1 points accounting for students’ and schools’ socio-economic characteristics. Yet, 48% of students in Latvia think that their creativity is something about them that they cannot change very much – a “fixed mindset” that is associated with a 0.9-point lower score on average across OECD countries, accounting for the same characteristics.
In general, students reported relatively high levels of imagination, openness to intellect, and creative self-efficacy. These are attitudes that relate positively to their creative thinking performance, on average across OECD countries. In Latvia, 72% of students agreed or strongly agreed that doing something creative satisfies them, while only 25% said they have difficulty using their imagination. On average across OECD countries, those students scored respectively 2.9 score-points higher and 2.3 score-points lower than their peers, accounting for students’ and schools’ characteristics.
Some social-emotional characteristics, such as curiosity, perspective taking, and persistence, were also identified as distinctive markers of creative thinkers. In Latvia, 73% of students like to know how things work, 67% want to understand why people behave the way they do, and 45% complete tasks even when they become more difficult than they thought. Those students performed significantly better on the creative thinking test than their peers with similar socio-economic characteristics.
In Latvia, 63% of 15-year-old students expect to complete at least a higher education degree (ISCED 5 or higher; OECD average: 70%). On average across OECD countries, those students demonstrated a stronger creative thinking proficiency than their peers, even after accounting for their mathematics and reading performance and socio-economic characteristics. Furthermore, 10% of students in Latvia expect to work a job in the creative and cultural sectors at 30 years old – while 2% report having a parent working such a job. On average across OECD countries, accounting for gender and socio-economic characteristics, students aspiring to a career in the creative and cultural sectors scored significantly higher than their peers on the creative thinking test, by 1.1 points. For comparison, those who expect to work as managers or professionals outscored their peers by 0.7 points.
Note: Numbers inside the figure correspond to percentages.
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 Database, Table III.B1.6.1.
In Latvia, 60% of students reported that their teachers give them enough time to come up with creative solutions on assignments (OECD average: 63%). Across participating countries and economies, students who said their teachers value student creativity (71% in Latvia) are more likely to score well in the creative thinking test, especially on tasks that require evaluating and improving ideas, an ideation process that appears generally more easily amenable than generating diverse or creative ideas.
Students in Latvia also have access to art (84%), drama (69%), creative writing (29%) or computer programming (53%) classes/activities once a week or more at school, according to their school principals; they are attended by respectively 30%, 10%, 17% and 12% of students (OECD averages: 27%, 11%, 16%, and 17%).
Digitalisation is transforming the social environment of 15-year-old students, at school as well as outside of it. In Latvia, 59% of students use digital tools for learning purposes for one hour a day or more at school, and 59% outside of school on a typical weekend day (OECD averages: 55% and 50%). In general, this type of use appears positively but modestly associated with students’ performance in creative thinking, up to a certain point – as is the case with their performance in mathematics.
Using digital tools for leisure purposes, however, plays out differently on students’ creative thinking performance. In Latvia, 47% of students spend more than one hour a day on digital leisure activities while at school (OECD average: 35%). On average across OECD countries, this context and type of use relate negatively to students creative thinking performance. However, students in Latvia who spend more than one hour a day on digital tools for leisure outside of school, e.g. on a typical weekend day, scored 3.1 points higher than their peers, accounting for gender and students’ and schools’ socio-economic profiles. This represents 91% of students in Latvia, and 80% on average across OECD countries.
In the case of Latvia, digital leisure activities like playing video games, as well as browsing (but not necessarily engaging in) social networks, for an hour a day or more on the weekend, were associated with stronger creative thinking performance (respectively 1 and 1 score-point differences, accounting for the same socio-economic characteristics).
PISA 2022 was implemented in 81 countries and economies. Results for mathematics, reading and science were released on 5 December 2023, and reported in PISA 2022 Volumes I and II as well as in this factsheet for Latvia.
For the first time in 2022, 64 countries and economies also implemented the PISA Creative Thinking cognitive test, including Latvia. Ten more countries and economies implemented the creative thinking items in the background questionnaires.
PISA defines creative thinking as the ability to generate, evaluate and improve ideas to produce original and effective solutions, advance knowledge and create impactful expressions of imagination”.
The PISA 2022 Creative Thinking test consists of 32 tasks designed to measure three ideation processes: generating diverse ideas, generating creative ideas, and evaluating and improving ideas. It encompasses both divergent and convergent cognitive processes associated with “little‑c” creativity; in other words, it measures the types of creative thinking skills that 15-year-old students around the world can reasonably demonstrate in “everyday” contexts.
The test also aimed to measure different applications of creative thinking, given that the capacity to generate relevant and innovative ideas depends on knowledge and practice in specific domains. The tasks are thus situated in four domain contexts: written expression, visual expression, social problem solving, and scientific problem solving.
Every task being open-ended, they were essentially infinite ways of demonstrating creative thinking. Scoring for this assessment therefore relied on human judgement following detailed scoring rubrics and well-defined coding procedures. Find more details on the test’s items and coding procedures in Chapter 1, Annex A1, and Annex C of the PISA 2022 Results (Volume III); or have a go at some of the creative thinking tasks here.
Students, teachers, school principals and parents also answered questions on their beliefs, attitudes and practices related to creativity and creative thinking, as part of the PISA background questionnaires.
Some 690 000 students took the assessment in 2022, representing about 29 million 15-year-olds in the schools of the 81 participating countries and economies.
In Latvia, 5373 students, in 225 schools, completed the assessment in mathematics, reading or science, representing about 16 800 15-year-old students (an estimated 85% of the total population of 15-year-olds).
References
OECD (2023), “PISA 2022 Creative Thinking Framework”, in PISA 2022 Assessment and Analytical Framework, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/471ae22e-en
OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The State of Learning and Equity in Education, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en
OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume II): Learning During – and From – Disruption, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a97db61c-en
OECD (2024), PISA 2022 Results (Volume III): Creative Minds, Creatives Schools, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/765ee8c2-en
OECD (2024), PISA 2022 Technical Report, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/01820d6d-en
For more information about PISA 2022 visit www.oecd.org/pisa
Explore, compare and visualise more data and analysis using http://gpseducation.oecd.org.
Questions can be directed to the PISA team at the Directorate for Education and Skills: edu.pisa@oecd.org.
This work is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO). For specific information regarding the scope and terms of the licence as well as possible commercial use of this work or the use of PISA data please consult Terms and Conditions on www.oecd.org.
This work is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Member countries of the OECD.
This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.
Note by the Republic of Türkiye
The information in this document with reference to “Cyprus” relates to the southern part of the Island. There is no single authority representing both Turkish and Greek Cypriot people on the Island. Türkiye recognises the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). Until a lasting and equitable solution is found within the context of the United Nations, Türkiye shall preserve its position concerning the “Cyprus issue”.
Note by all the European Union Member States of the OECD and the European Union
The Republic of Cyprus is recognised by all members of the United Nations with the exception of Türkiye. The information in this document relates to the area under the effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus.
Kosovo*: This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244/99 and the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on Kosovo’s declaration of independence.