Exploring Urban Factors Influencing Academic Achievement: An International Comparative Study
Abstract
This study investigates the impact of urbanization on the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) academic performance and conducts comparisons among different countries. Rather than focusing only on school-based variables, it examines whether broader urban and well-being conditions help explain cross-national differences in student achievement. Various dimensions of urbanization, including economic, social, and educational outcomes, are examined. This quantitative study employs a correlational design. Utilizing methodologies such as stepwise regression analysis, hierarchical cluster analysis, and discriminant function analysis, this research sheds light on the complex relationship between urbanization and education, providing valuable insights for future research endeavors. Using OECD Better Life Index data, the study identifies the most salient predictors, groups countries according to shared patterns, and distinguishes between relatively higher- and lower-performing contexts. The study covers 37 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. The study empirically demonstrates that indicators such as rooms per person, homicide rate, years in education, long-term unemployment, and life satisfaction significantly correlate with PISA academic performance. These results also reveal distinct country clusters associated with different combinations of urban advantages and disadvantages. The findings suggest that urbanization should be understood not simply as population concentration, but as a multidimensional process shaped by housing quality, safety, educational participation, labour market conditions, and subjective well-being..
Keywords
urbanization, PISA, academic achievement, overurbanization, urban primacy
References
- Andersson, R., Quigley, J. M., & Wilhelmsson, M. (2009). Urbanization, productivity, and innovation: Evidence from investment in higher education. Journal of Urban Economics, 66(1), 2–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2009.02.004
- Acido, J. V., & Caballes, D. G. (2024). Assessing educational progress: A comparative analysis of PISA results (2018 vs. 2022) and HDI correlation in the Philippines. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 21(1), 462–474. https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2024.21.1.0020
- Avcu, A. (2021). How central is the PISA outcomes on human development? International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 8(4), 16–26. https://doi.org/10.33200/ijcer.930927
- Buğra, A. (2018). Kapitalizm, yoksulluk ve Türkiye’de sosyal politika (9th ed.) [Capitalism, Poverty, and Social Policy in Turkey]. İletişim Pub.
- Byun, S., & Kim, K. (2010). Educational inequality in South Korea: The widening socioeconomic gap in student achievement. In E. Hannum, H. Park, & Y. Goto Butler (Eds.), Globalization, Changing Demographics, and Educational Challenges in East Asia (Vol. 17, pp. 155–182). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-3539(2010)0000017008
- Chmielewski, A. K. (2019). The Global Increase in the Socioeconomic Achievement Gap, 1964 to 2015. American Sociological Review, 84(3), 517–544. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122419847165
- Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge.
- Cook, R. D., & Weisberg, S. (1982). Residuals and influence in regression. Chapman and Hall.
- Craney, T. A., & Surles, J. G. (2002). Model-dependent variance inflation factor cutoff values. Quality Engineering, 14(3), 391–403.
- Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
