This chapter examines gender differences in performance in PISA in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) using data from the 2022 PISA assessment. The participation of 14 countries, including first-time participants, El Salvador, Guatemala, Jamaica and Paraguay, provided insights into 15-year-old students’ knowledge and skills post-COVID-19. The findings revealed a significant decline in performance on average, with LAC countries experiencing the longest school closures and poor outcomes. Boys outperformed girls in mathematics on average, but the gender gap was smaller compared to OECD countries. Notably, in Jamaica and the Dominican Republic, girls outperformed boys in mathematics. Conversely, Chile, Peru, and Costa Rica exhibited large gender gaps favouring boys. These results underscore the need for equitable education systems in LAC countries.
Gender Differences in Education, Skills and STEM Careers in Latin America and the Caribbean
Abstract
In 2022, 14 countries from the Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) region participated in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) (see Box 3.1 below for full list of LAC countries that participated). First-time participants from the region included El Salvador, Guatemala, Jamaica and Paraguay, although Guatemala and Paraguay were a part of the PISA for Development initiative previously (OECD, 2023[1]). The increased LAC participation, with four more countries joining since PISA 2018, provides a richer assessment of 15-year-olds' knowledge and skills overall and regionally.
The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) is an international comparative study of 15-year-old students’ performance in reading, mathematics, and science literacy co-ordinated by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The PISA 2022 results represent outcomes from the eighth cycle of PISA since the study’s inception in 2000. PISA has been conducted every three years except for a one-year delay in the current cycle (from 2021 to 2022) due to the pandemic.
The main domain of the study rotates among mathematics, science and reading in each cycle. PISA also offers optional domains such as financial literacy and includes measures of general or cross-curricular competencies, such as collaborative problem solving. By design, PISA emphasises functional skills that students have acquired as they near the end of compulsory schooling.
Eighty-one countries and economies participated in the 2022 assessment, which focused on mathematics. The OECD released the data on 5 December 2023. A total of 14 countries from the Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) region participated in the PISA 2022 cycle: Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Chile, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Jamaica, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay.
The ninth cycle of the assessment, PISA 2025, is currently underway. The results will be published in 2026.
Source: (OECD, 2023[1])
Unlike physical units that have a substantive and universal meaning, PISA scores are established based on the range of results observed across all participants in each assessment. Results are standardised to approximate a normal distribution, meaning there are no strict theoretical minimums or maximums. As a result of the standardisation, the average score is around 500 points, with a standard deviation of approximately 100.
Proficiency levels
The score scale is categorised into proficiency levels of which there are 8 in PISA 2022. An individual at a particular proficiency level can generally handle items at that level and below but struggles with higher-level tasks. Each mathematics proficiency level spans approximately 62 score points while reading and science proficiency levels differ by about 73 and 75 score points, respectively. Differences of these magnitudes indicate different levels of skills and knowledge.
More importantly, Level 2 is considered the minimum proficiency level across reading, mathematics and science. In mathematics, students accomplish high levels of proficiency if they understand mathematical problems and can formulate models to solve them whereas reading proficiency is defined as “(…) understanding, using, evaluating, reflecting on, and engaging with texts in order to achieve one’s goals, to develop one’s knowledge and potential, and to participate in society”. Finally, proficiency in science is the capability of engaging with the discipline as a reflective citizen.
Score differences
Differences of smaller magnitudes may or may not reflect variations in terms of skills and knowledge. To compare these smaller differences, their statistical significance must be assessed because PISA results are estimates derived from samples. This is why interpreting results across different assessment years must be done using “link errors” as the same score may not represent the same skills and knowledge across assessments.
Source: Box 1, (OECD, 2023[1]).
PISA 2022 is an extremely crucial assessment not only because it followed school closures around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic, but also because it reveals a learning crisis. PISA 2022 shows a significant decline in the performance of OECD countries in mathematics and reading, with scores dropping by 15 points and 10 points, respectively, while science scores remained stable. Historically, the OECD average had fluctuated by no more than four points in mathematics and five points in reading between consecutive assessments, making these declines unprecedented. This drop suggests the widespread negative impact of school closures; however, it cannot be solely attributed to the pandemic as declines in reading and science performance had been observed prior to it (OECD, 2023[1]).
Latin America and the Caribbean, with the longest school closures in the world – averaging 70 weeks (29 weeks longer than the world average of 41 weeks) – experienced particularly poor outcomes, reflected in generalised low performance and a lack of proficiency among students across different domains compared to the OECD average (ECLAC, 2022[2]). It also highlighted the need for more equitable education systems in LAC countries (OECD, 2023[1]). From a gender perspective, the findings are especially interesting. LAC and OECD countries are, on average, similar in that boys outperformed girls in mathematics in most countries while girls performed better than boys in reading in almost all countries. However, the gender gap in performance is slightly smaller in LAC countries in both reading and mathematics on average. On the other hand, in science, LAC countries saw boys outperform girls while in OECD countries, there is no gender gap in science.
In PISA 2022, all participating LAC countries recorded mean scores in mathematics below the OECD average of 472 points. However, the gender gap in performance is slightly smaller among the LAC countries, on average, compared to the OECD. Across the participating LAC countries, boys outperformed girls in mathematics by 8 score points while in the OECD, boys outperformed girls by 9 score points. Eight out of the fourteen LAC countries recorded a larger gender gap than the OECD average (OECD, 2023[1]).
In contrast, in Jamaica and the Dominican Republic in the LAC region, girls outperformed boys in mathematics by 13 and 4 score points, respectively. Jamaica and the Dominican Republic are two of only 17 countries among all PISA-participating countries where girls performed better than boys in mathematics (OECD, 2023[1]). On the other hand, in Chile, Peru and Costa Rica, boys outperformed girls by 16 points, 15 points and 15 points, respectively, making them part of the seven countries with the widest gender gap in mathematics performance in favour of boys along with Italy, Austria, Albania and Jordan. Only in Panama is the difference in mathematics performance between girls and boys not statistically significant (Figure 3.1) (OECD, 2023[1])
Score-point difference in mathematics between boys and girls.
Note: Statistically significant differences at 5% are displayed in a darker tone
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 Database, Tables I.B1.2.1 and I.B1.4.17
In reading, girls outperformed boys on average in both the LAC region and OECD countries, with a wider gap than the one between boys and girls in mathematics in favour of boys. In almost all PISA-participating countries, girls performed better than boys in reading. The exceptions were two OECD LAC countries – Costa Rica and Chile – where the difference in performance between boys and girls is not statistically significant (OECD, 2023[1]). Similar to the gender gap in mathematics, the gender gap in reading – this time in favour of girls – is larger among OECD countries (24 points) than among the LAC countries (15 points). This suggests that girls in LAC countries do not have the same advantage in reading compared to the OECD average for girls.
In Jamaica and the Dominican Republic, girls outperformed boys by a larger margin than the OECD average (24 points), with differences of 35 and 34 score points, respectively (OECD, 2023[1]). Interestingly, 9 out of the 10 countries with the narrowest gender gap in reading performance are LAC countries – ranging from Costa Rica (3 score points, not statistically significant) to Uruguay (15 score points). The average gender gap across LAC countries (15 points) also falls in this range (Figure 3.2).
Score-point difference in reading between boys and girls.
Note: Statistically significant differences at 5% are displayed in a darker tone
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 Database, Tables I.B1.2.2 and I.B1.4.18
Unlike mathematics and reading, there is no significant difference in the science performance of boys and girls across the OECD (OECD, 2023[1]). However, on average across LAC countries, boys performed better than girls by 4 score points in science. Still, the average gender gap in performance between boys and girls in science is narrower than in reading and mathematics. In Panama, El Salvador and Paraguay, the difference between the science performance of girls and boys is not statistically significant. As in reading and mathematics, girls outperformed boys in science in Jamaica and the Dominican Republic by a large margin of 20 and 13 score points, respectively. In some LAC countries, such as Costa Rica (15 score points), Peru (14 score points), Chile (14 score points) and Mexico (14 score points), boys performed better than girls in science by the widest margins in comparison to all 81 participating PISA countries (Figure 3.3).
Score point in science between boys and girls
Note: Statistically significant differences at 5% are displayed in a darker tone.
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 Database, Tables I.B1.2.3 and I.B1.4.19
PISA 2022 data show that the region’s youth have low levels of foundational learning: in reading and science, more than half of the region’s 15-year-olds do not meet the minimum level of competencies while for mathematics, the percentage rises to 75% (OECD, 2023[1]) .
Without disaggregating by gender, PISA 2022 data show that Chile has the lowest rates of low performance in all three subjects, followed by Uruguay. On the other hand, of the 14 participating countries from the region, the Dominican Republic has the highest rates of low performance for all three subjects: 92% for mathematics, 75% for reading, and 77% for science (Figure 3.4). It is worth noting that, in all countries in the region, mathematics is the subject with the highest rates of low performance.
As much as the gender gaps in mean performance provide important insights into their skill acquisition and development within each country, gender differences at different proficiency levels are equally important. Figures 3.5 and 3.6 show the percentage of low performers among girls and boys in mathematics and reading in each country. Low performers are categorised as those below Level 2 (420.07 points), which is considered the minimum proficiency standard according to PISA (OECD, 2023[1]).
For Latin America and the Caribbean, this highlights that many students are not reaching basic proficiency, with over half of both boys and girls in the region failing to attain scores above the minimum proficiency level of Level 2 (Figure 3.4).
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 Database.
Figure 3.5 brings to attention an important pattern among low achievers in mathematics. In almost all LAC countries and OECD countries on average, the share of low achievers (students scoring below Level 2) in mathematics is greater among girls than boys, with Jamaica as the sole exception (OECD, 2023[1]).
Percentage of students who scored below proficiency Level 2 in mathematics, by gender
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 Database, Table I.B1.4.31
Both the Dominican Republic and Jamaica stand out in the previous analyses as girls outperformed boys on average in reading, mathematics and science. However, the above figure shows that 93% of girls and 92% of boys in the Dominican Republic were not able to achieve a score that situated them at even the minimum proficiency level. Meanwhile, in Jamaica the shares are lower but still high, with 78% of girls and 71% of boys as low achievers. At a regional level, the proportion of low achievers is considerably higher in LAC countries compared to the OECD average, with a pronounced gender gap. On average, 77% of girls are low performers compared to 72% of boys, a five-percentage-point difference. This gender disparity is much larger when considering the OECD average, where the gap in low achievement between boys and girls is just 0.9 percentage points.
On average in the OECD, 31% of girls and 30% of boys are classified as low achievers in mathematics, whereas in the 14 participating LAC countries, an average of 77% of girls and 72% of boys scored below Level 2 in mathematics. In Costa Rica, Peru, Chile and Mexico, the percentage of low performers among girls exceeded that of boys by more than 6 percentage points. These patterns are concerning from a gender perspective as the share of girls who are low performers in mathematics has increased in most countries since PISA 2018 (OECD, 2023[1]). The growing number of girls failing to achieve minimum proficiency in mathematics is likely to further deter their participation in STEM subjects, exacerbating the already low representation of women in these fields and impacting their ability to develop and maintain numeracy skills as adults. The underrepresentation of girls and women in STEM fields has long been a significant concern as it limits their employment and income prospects (Encinas-Martín and Cherian, 2023[3]).
Similar to low performers who fail to attain Level 2 in a subject, those who reach Level 5 (above 606.99 points for PISA 2022) or higher in a subject are considered top performers. As in PISA 2018, there are more boys than girls who are high achievers in mathematics across all countries. In LAC countries, only 0.4% of boys and 0.1% of girls reached the highest proficiency level in mathematics, while an average of 11% of boys and 7% of girls attained this level in the OECD (OECD, 2023[1]).
In Latin America, 55% of students are low performers in reading, more than double the rate reported by OECD countries (26%) and more than three times the percentage of students in the top 10 countries with the best results (15%). Arias Ortiz et al. (2023) point out that only 3 out of 12 countries in the region have managed to significantly reduce the percentage of students with low performance in reading between 2018 and 2022 (Arias Ortiz et al., 2023[4]).
Unlike mathematics, in reading, boys are overrepresented in the lower-performing group in all countries and regions. In both the OECD and LAC regions, the difference in the proportion of boys and girls in the low-achiever category is similar, with a gap of 9 percentage points in the OECD and 6.4 percentage points in LAC, both favouring girls. In the Dominican Republic and Jamaica, however, the gap is more pronounced, with the share of low achievers among boys surpassing that of girls by 16 percentage points in Jamaica and 11 percentage points in the Dominican Republic. Overall, the proportion of low achievers is significantly lower in the OECD, with 31% of boys and 22% of girls compared to 56% of boys and 50% of girls in the LAC region (OECD, 2023[1]).
Among high achievers in reading, the pattern is the opposite. Girls are equally or overrepresented in the top performer category and in no country is the share of boys who are top performers greater than the share of girls (Figure 3.6). However, the proportion of top performers is significantly higher in the OECD compared to LAC, with 6% of boys and 8% of girls in the OECD versus just 0.8% of boys and 1% of girls in LAC (OECD, 2023[1]).
Percentage of students who scored proficiency Level 2 in reading, by gender
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 Database, Table I.B1.4.32.
There are many possible reasons for boys’ poor performance in reading and girls’ underrepresentation at the highest proficiency level in mathematics – many relate to differences in behaviour between boys and girls, and differences in their attitudes towards learning.
Previous evidence suggests that the association between academic performance and enjoyment of reading is strong (OECD, 2015[5]; Guthrie, Schafer and Huang, 2001[6]; Mol and Jolles, 2014[7]) and that the influence runs in both directions (Mol and Bus, 2011[8]). Students who enjoy reading and make it a regular part of their lives are able to improve their reading skills through practice. Better readers tend to read more because they are more motivated to read, which, in turn, leads to improved vocabulary and comprehension skills (Sullivan and Brown, 2015[9]). In all PISA-participating countries and economies in 2018, girls reported much higher levels of enjoyment of reading than boys. On average across OECD countries, 24% of 15-year-old boys and 44% of girls the same age agreed that “Reading is one of my favourite hobbies” while 60% of boys but 39% of girls agreed that “I read only to get information that I need’' (OECD, 2019[10]).
Boys may also eschew reading to build their “masculine” social identity and status among peers since reading is viewed as more “feminine” (Espinoza and Strasser, 2020[11]). The belief that reading is not masculine may derive, in part, from the fact that boys are not exposed to reading early in their lives in the same way as girls. Fathers are, for example, less likely to read than mothers and fathers are less likely to read to sons than to daughters (Auxier et al., 2021[12]; Leavell et al., 2011[13]).
On the other hand, girls have also been found to have higher levels of math anxiety (Foley et al., 2017[14]), less confidence in their math abilities (OECD, 2015[5]), and a greater distaste for mathematics (Bharadwaj et al., 2016[15]). Much of this is driven by narratives around mathematics as a subject in which boys perform better (Justicia-Galiano et al., 2023[16]). According to PISA data, girls – even high-achieving girls – are also more likely to express strong feelings of anxiety towards mathematics. In the 81 countries and economies that participated in PISA 2022, girls reported more often, and to a larger extent than boys, fear of failure (OECD, 2023[1]). PISA reveals that self-efficacy (the extent to which students believe in their own ability to solve specific mathematics tasks) and self-concept (students’ beliefs in their own mathematics abilities) are much more strongly associated with performance among high-achieving than low-achieving students. Still, at every level of performance, girls tend to have much lower levels of self-efficacy and self-concept in mathematics and science. And while girls have less self-efficacy and lower self-concept, they tend to be highly motivated to do well in school, more than boys, and to believe that doing well at school is important.
Girls also tend to fear negative evaluations by others more than boys and are eager to meet others’ expectations for them (Encinas-Martín and Cherian, 2023[3]). Given girls’ keen desire to succeed in school, their fear of negative evaluations, and their lower self-confidence in mathematics and science, it is hardly surprising that high-achieving girls choke under (often self-imposed) pressure. In fact, even when controlling for test scores, high-school boys evaluate their math abilities as higher than girls’. Boys’ self-assessment is also less likely to be impacted by lower grades (Zander et al., 2020[17]).
Biases held by parents, teachers and peers – whether conscious or subconscious – also play a key role in these gendered differences in student academic performance. These biases may themselves lead to disparities in interests, learning motivation and educational outcomes, contributing to later life differences in field of study and occupation (OECD, 2019[10]; Carrell, Page and West, 2010[18]; Dee, 2007[19]; Gevrek, Gevrek and Neumeier, 2020[20]; Bian, Leslie and Cimpian, 2017[21]; Carlana, 2019[22]; Baker and Milligan, 2016[23]; Lavy and Sand, 2018[24])
An example is seen in the gender stereotypes that girls face at home, in school and within their communities. Parents still harbour stereotypical notions of what girls and boys excel at and the careers they can pursue when they enter the labour market. In all PISA countries and economies that distributed the parent questionnaire in 2012, parents were more likely to expect their sons, rather than their daughters, to work in a STEM field. These gender stereotypes are often reinforced in the classroom and are related to teachers’ conscious or unconscious biases about girls’ and boys’ strengths and weaknesses in various subjects, which are invariably reflected in student performance (OECD, 2015[5]). Student performance, in turn, is also related to students’ career expectations and field-of-study choices later on. PISA 2022 shows that, on average across OECD countries, only 10.7% of girls reported that they expect to work as professionals in science or engineering while 15% of boys so reported. Such decisions can have negative consequences for women’s labour market prospects (OECD, 2023[1]).
Both the proportion of students achieving minimum proficiency in core subjects and the provision of equal opportunities by gender are key indicators of how equitable an education system is. An inclusive education system ensures that all students meet baseline standards in core subjects; a fair system guarantees equal opportunities regardless of gender. Equity in education requires both inclusion and fairness (OECD, 2023[1]).
In light of PISA 2022, it is clear that education systems in the LAC region fall short of being equitable. The high percentage of low performers in core subjects, coupled with the clearly gendered profile of low performers – boys underperforming in reading and girls in mathematics – calls for urgent attention. While gender gaps in average performance are slightly narrower in LAC compared to the OECD, the persistent gaps among low achievers, particularly in mathematics for girls and reading for boys, highlight the need for targeted support. Effective policy changes must ensure that both boys and girls receive quality education that enables them to achieve at least minimum proficiency in all fields of study.
References
[4] Arias Ortiz, E. et al. (2023), PISA in Latin America and the Caribbean 2022: How Many Are Underperforming?, https://publications.iadb.org/publications/spanish/document/America-Latina-y-el-Caribe-en-PISA-2022-cuantos-tienen-bajo-desempeno.pdf.
[12] Auxier, B. et al. (2021), The gender gap in reading: Boy meets book, boy loses book, boy never gets book back, Deloitte, https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/technology/technology-media-and-telecom-predictions/2022/gender-gap-in-reading.html.
[23] Baker, M. and K. Milligan (2016), “Boy-Girl Differences in Parental Time Investments: Evidence from Three Countries”, Journal of Human Capital, Vol. 10/4, pp. 399-441, https://doi.org/10.1086/688899.
[15] Bharadwaj, P. et al. (2016), “The Gender Gap in Mathematics: Evidence from Chile”, Economic Development and Cultural Change, Vol. 65/1, pp. 141-166, https://doi.org/10.1086/687983.
[21] Bian, L., S. Leslie and A. Cimpian (2017), “Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability emerge early and influence children’s interests”, Science, Vol. 355/6323, pp. 389-391, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah6524.
[22] Carlana, M. (2019), “Implicit Stereotypes: Evidence from Teachers’ Gender Bias*”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 134/3, pp. 1163-1224, https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjz008.
[18] Carrell, S., M. Page and J. West (2010), “Sex and Science: How Professor Gender Perpetuates the Gender Gap<sup>*</sup>”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 125/3, pp. 1101-1144, https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.2010.125.3.1101.
[25] Chambers, N. et al. (2018), Drawing the Future: Exploring the Career Aspirations of Primary School Children from Around the World, https://www.educationandemployers.org/drawing-the-future-report-published/.
[26] Cobb-Clark, D. and J. Moschion (2017), Gender gaps in early educational achievement., Journal of Population Economics, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-017-0638-z.
[19] Dee, T. (2007), “Teachers and the Gender Gaps in Student Achievement”, Journal of Human Resources, Vol. XLII/3, pp. 528-554, https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.xlii.3.528.
[27] ECLAC (2023), Panorama Regional en Educación, https://www.cepal.org/sites/default/files/presentations/presentacion_d_trucco_cepal.pdf.
[2] ECLAC (2022), Educación en tiempos de pandemia: una oportunidad para transformar los sistemas educativos en América Latina y el Caribe, Social Policy series No. 243, LC/TS.2022/149), https://covid19.uis.unesco.org/data.
[3] Encinas-Martín, M. and M. Cherian (2023), Gender, Education and Skills: The Persistence of Gender Gaps in Education and Skills, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/34680dd5-en..
[11] Espinoza, A. and K. Strasser (2020), “Is reading a feminine domain? The role of gender identity and stereotypes in reading motivation in Chile”, Social Psychology of Education, Vol. 23/4, pp. 861-890, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-020-09571-1.
[14] Foley, A. et al. (2017), “The Math Anxiety-Performance Link”, Current Directions in Psychological Science, Vol. 26/1, pp. 52-58, https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416672463.
[20] Gevrek, Z., D. Gevrek and C. Neumeier (2020), “Explaining the gender gaps in mathematics achievement and attitudes: The role of societal gender equality”, Economics of Education Review, Vol. 76, p. 101978, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2020.101978.
[6] Guthrie, J., W. Schafer and C. Huang (2001), Benefits of opportunity to read and balanced instruction on the NAEP., The Journal of Educational Research, 94(3), 145–162., https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670109599912.
[16] Justicia-Galiano, M. et al. (2023), “Gender stereotypes about math anxiety: Ability and emotional components”, Learning and Individual Differences, Vol. 105, p. 102316, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102316.
[24] Lavy, V. and E. Sand (2018), “On the origins of gender gaps in human capital: Short- and long-term consequences of teachers’ biases”, Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 167, pp. 263-279, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2018.09.007.
[13] Leavell, A. et al. (2011), “African American, White and Latino Fathers’ Activities with their Sons and Daughters in Early Childhood”, Sex Roles, Vol. 66/1-2, pp. 53-65, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0080-8.
[28] Mann, A. et al. (2020), Dream Jobs? Teenagers’ Career Aspirations and the Future of Work, https://www.oecd.org/berlin/publikationen/Dream-Jobs.pdf.
[29] Miller, D. et al. (2018), The Development of Children’s Gender‐Science Stereotypes: A Meta‐analysis of 5 Decades of U.S. Draw‐A‐Scientist Studies., https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13039.
[8] Mol, S. and A. Bus (2011), To Read or Not to Read: A Meta-Analysis of Print Exposure From Infancy to Early Adulthood, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021890.
[7] Mol, S. and J. Jolles (2014), Reading enjoyment amongst non-leisure readers can affect achievement in secondary school, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01214.
[1] 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..
[31] OECD (2021), The Future at Five: Gendered Aspirations of Five-Year-Olds, https://www.oecd.org/education/school/early-learning-and-child-well-being-study/.
[30] OECD (2019), PISA 2018 Assessment and Analytical Framework. In PISA., OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/b25efab8-en.
[10] OECD (2019), PISA 2018 Results (Volume II): Where All Students Can Succeed, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b5fd1b8f-en.
[5] OECD (2015), The ABC of Gender Equality in Education: Aptitude, Behaviour, Confidence, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264229945-en.
[9] Sullivan, A. and M. Brown (2015), Reading for pleasure and progress in vocabulary and mathematics, https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3180.
[17] Zander, L. et al. (2020), “When Grades Are High but Self-Efficacy Is Low: Unpacking the Confidence Gap Between Girls and Boys in Mathematics”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 11, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.552355.