OECD Director for Education and Skills Andreas Schleicher presents the PISA 2022 findings at the Global Launch on 5 December 2023.

1. The global yardstick for educational success
PISA 2022

2. PISA participants
Around 690,000 15-year-old students in
81 countries and economies took PISA 2022
PISA Newcomers: El Salvador, Jamaica, Mongolia, the Palestinian Authority and Uzbekistan

3. Contexts
• Personal
• Occupational
• Societal
• Scientific
21st Century
Skills
• critical thinking;
• creativity;
• research and inquiry;
• self-direction, initiative and
persistence;
• information use;
• systems thinking;
• communication; and
• reflection
Employ
Mathematical
reasoning
Mathematical reasoning (both deductive and
inductive) involves evaluating situations,
selecting strategies, drawing logical
conclusions, developing and describing
solutions, and recognising how those
solutions can be applied
Quantity: number sense and estimation;
quantification of attributes, objects, relationships,
situations and entities in the world; understanding
various representations of those quantifications,
and judging interpretations and arguments based
on quantity
Uncertainty and data: recognising the place of
variation in the real world, including having a
sense of the quantification of that variation, and
acknowledging its uncertainty and error in related
inferences. It also includes forming, interpreting
and evaluating conclusions drawn in situations
where uncertainty is present.
Change and relationships: understanding
fundamental types of change and recognising
when they occur in order to use suitable
mathematical models to describe and predict
change. Includes appropriate functions and
equations/inequalities as well as creating,
interpreting and translating among symbolic
and graphical representations of relationships
Space and shape: patterns; properties
of objects; spatial visualisations;
positions and orientations;
representations of objects; decoding
and encoding of visual information;
navigation and dynamic interaction
with real shapes as well as
representations, movement,
displacement, and the ability to
anticipate actions in space
PISA
Sample test
questions

4. The state of global education
PISA 2022

5. Two volumes
The State of Learning and Equity in Education Learning During – and From – Disruption
PISA 2022 Volume I PISA 2022 Volume II

6. More to come
PISA volumes to be released in 2024
1. Creative Thinking
2. Financial Literacy
3. Student readiness for life-long learning

7. 330
340
350
360
370
380
390
400
410
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
490
500
510
520
530
540
550
560
570
580
Average math performance dropped by almost
OECD average
Mathematics (PISA)
Previous changes in OECD average never exceeded four score points in mathematics
15 score points since 2018 across the OECD
Student
performance
2006 2022
2018
2003 2009 2015
2012

8. 330
340
350
360
370
380
390
400
410
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
490
500
510
520
530
540
550
560
570
580
OECD average
Mathematics (PISA)
2012 2015 2018
2009 2022
2003 2006
Student
performance
55% enrolled
76% enrolled
36% enrolled
74% enrolled
Singapore
Macao (China)
Chinese Taipei
Hong Kong (China)*
Japan
Korea
Estonia
Switzerland
Canada*
Netherlands*
Ireland*
Belgium
Denmark*
United Kingdom*
Poland
Austria
Australia*
Czech Republic Slovenia
Finland
Latvia* Sweden
New Zealand*
Lithuania
Germany France
Spain
Hungary
Portugal
Italy Viet Nam
Norway Malta
United States*
Slovak Republic Croatia
Iceland Israel
Türkiye
Brunei Darussalam
Ukrainian regions (18 of 27) Serbia
United Arab Emirates Greece
Romania Kazakhstan
Mongolia
Bulgaria
Moldova
Qatar Chile
Uruguay
Malaysia
Montenegro
Baku (Azerbaijan)
Mexico
Thailand
Peru
Georgia
Saudi Arabia
North Macedonia Costa Rica
Colombia
Brazil
Argentina
Jamaica*
Albania
Palestinian Authority Indonesia
Morocco
Uzbekistan Jordan
Panama*
Kosovo
Philippines
Guatemala
El Salvador
Dominican Republic
Paraguay
Cambodia

9. 330
340
350
360
370
380
390
400
410
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
490
500
510
520
530
540
550
560
570
580
OECD average
2012 2015 2018
2009 2022
2003 2006
Student
performance
Poverty need not be destiny
Math skills of students
from most advantaged decile
Math skills of students
from poorest decile
Singapore
Macao (China)
Chinese Taipei
Hong Kong (China)*
Japan
Korea
Estonia
Switzerland
Canada*
Netherlands*
Ireland*
Belgium
Denmark*
United Kingdom*
Poland
Austria
Australia*
Czech Republic Slovenia
Finland
Latvia* Sweden
New Zealand*
Lithuania
Germany France
Spain
Hungary
Portugal
Italy Viet Nam
Norway Malta
United States*
Slovak Republic Croatia
Iceland Israel
Türkiye
Brunei Darussalam
Ukrainian regions (18 of 27) Serbia
United Arab Emirates Greece
Romania Kazakhstan
Mongolia
Bulgaria
Moldova
Qatar Chile
Uruguay
Malaysia
Montenegro
Baku (Azerbaijan)
Mexico
Thailand
Peru
Georgia
Saudi Arabia
North Macedonia Costa Rica
Colombia
Brazil
Argentina
Jamaica*
Albania
Palestinian Authority Indonesia
Morocco
Uzbekistan Jordan
Panama*
Kosovo
Philippines
Guatemala
El Salvador
Dominican Republic
Paraguay
Cambodia

10. Disparities in minimum achievement in mathematics
(parity index), by gender and socio-economic background Figure I.3.7
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
El
Salvador
Panama*
Dominican
Republic
Guatemala
Philippines
Paraguay
Peru
Brazil
Colombia
Argentina
Palestinian
Authority
Morocco
Jordan
Cambodia
Indonesia
Romania
Malaysia
Bulgaria
Kosovo
North
Macedonia
Uruguay
Mexico
Qatar
Mongolia
Moldova
Jamaica*
Thailand
Saudi
Arabia
Georgia
Slovak
Republic
Albania
Montenegro
Chile
Israel
Hungary
Ukrainian
regions
(18
of
27)
Baku
(Azerbaijan)
Greece
Brunei
Darussalam
United
Arab
Emirates
Serbia
Uzbekistan
United
States*
France
Czech
Republic
Belgium
Germany
Türkiye
Portugal
Austria
Lithuania
New
Zealand*
OECD
average
Italy
Iceland
Croatia
Sweden
Spain
Malta
Norway
Netherlands*
Australia*
Slovenia
Poland
Kazakhstan
Viet
Nam
Switzerland
Finland
Latvia*
United
Kingdom*
Denmark*
Ireland*
Canada*
Korea
Chinese
Taipei
Estonia
Singapore
Japan
Hong
Kong
(China)*
Macao
(China)
Costa
Rica
Parity index Girls compared to boys Disadvantaged students compared to advantaged students
No disparity
Socio-economic gap
Gender gap

11. 110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Iceland
Saudi
Arabia
Ireland*
Finland
Denmark*
Uzbekistan
Palestinian
Authority
Dominican
Republic
Norway
Jordan
Philippines
Baku
(Azerbaijan)
El
Salvador
Mexico
Cambodia
Kosovo
Spain
Costa
Rica
Estonia
Portugal
Sweden
Indonesia
Chile
Latvia*
Canada*
Morocco
Moldova
Guatemala
Kazakhstan
Malta
Panama*
Greece
Paraguay
Malaysia
Albania
United
Kingdom*
Peru
Argentina
Brazil
Montenegro
New
Zealand*
Georgia
United
States*
Colombia
Uruguay
North
Macedonia
Brunei
Darussalam
Mongolia
Thailand
Macao
(China)
Lithuania
Ukrainian
regions
(18
of
27)
Viet
Nam
Australia*
Jamaica*
OECD
average
Serbia
Qatar
Croatia
France
Switzerland
Italy
Korea
Austria
Singapore
Poland
Belgium
Slovenia
Czech
Republic
Germany
Hong
Kong
(China)*
Japan
Israel
Türkiye
Hungary
United
Arab
Emirates
Romania
Chinese
Taipei
Bulgaria
Slovak
Republic
Netherlands*
%
Can the closest school be the best school?
Variation in mathematics performance between and within schools Figure I.2.6
OECD average: 32%
OECD average: 68%
Performance variation between schools
Performance variation within schools

12. Combining excellence and equity
Strength of socio-economic gradient and mathematics performance Figure I.4.2
Switzerland
Belgium
Austria
Czech Republic
Germany
France
Hungary
Portugal
Slovak Republic Israel
Romania
Brazil
Netherlands*
Ukrainian regions (18 of 27)
Colombia
Slovenia
Viet Nam
Brunei Darussalam
Malaysia
Chinese Taipei
Sweden
Panama*
United States*
El Salvador
Mongolia Bulgaria
Spain
Italy
Serbia
Estonia
Argentina
New Zealand*
Moldova
Lithuania
Poland
Guatemala
Singapore
Peru
Uruguay
Australia*
Croatia
Indonesia
Korea
Japan
Türkiye
Norway
Denmark*
Baku (Azerbaijan)
Finland
Mexico
Kosovo
Saudi Arabia
Greece
Paraguay
Kazakhstan
Hong Kong (China)*
Montenegro
Macao (China)
Iceland
Latvia*
Thailand
Qatar
Ireland*
Cambodia
United Arab Emirates
Jamaica*
North Macedonia
Uzbekistan
Jordan
Albania
Canada*
Morocco
Chile
Palestinian Authority
Philippines
Dominican Republic
Malta
United Kingdom*
Georgia
300
320
340
360
380
400
420
440
460
480
500
520
540
560
580
600
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Mean
score
in
mathematics
Socio-economic fairness is below the OECD average
Socio-economic fairness is not statistically significantly different from the OECD average
Socio-economic fairness is above the OECD average
Above-average in mathematics performance
and socio-economic fairness
Below-average in mathematics performance
and socio-economic fairness
Above-average in mathematics performance
Below-average in socio-economic fairness
Below-average in mathematics performance
Above-average in socio-economic fairness
Greater socio-economic fairness
OECD average: 472 points
OECD average: 15%

13. Money matters up to a point
Using resources effectively

14. Learning time ≠ learning outcomes
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Morocco
Argentina
Colombia
Costa
Rica
Uzbekistan
Mongolia
Peru
Albania
Cambodia
United
Arab
Emirates
Kosovo
Paraguay
Chile
Italy
Jordan
Malta
Palestinian
Authority
Thailand
Kazakhstan
North
Macedonia
Israel
Brazil
Uruguay
Malaysia
Georgia
El
Salvador
Panama*
Viet
Nam
Guatemala
Dominican
Republic
Baku
(Azerbaijan)
Jamaica*
Philippines
Moldova
Saudi
Arabia
Singapore
Spain
Indonesia
Bulgaria
Greece
Brunei
Darussalam
Portugal
Lithuania
Germany
Belgium
Mexico
United
Kingdom*
Poland
Ireland*
France
OECD
average
Serbia
Latvia*
Croatia
Qatar
Ukrainian
regions
(18
of
27)
Chinese
Taipei
Türkiye
Iceland
Hungary
Austria
Hong
Kong
(China)*
Montenegro
Macao
(China)
Romania
Japan
Estonia
Australia*
Slovenia
Sweden
Norway
Denmark*
Korea
Netherlands*
Canada*
Slovak
Republic
New
Zealand*
Finland
Czech
Republic
United
States*
Switzerland
Score
points
in
mathematics
per
hour
of
total
learning
time
Hours
Based on students' reports
Figure II.5.11
Hours learning in school
Hours learning out of school

15. Learning time ≠ learning outcomes
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Morocco
Argentina
Colombia
Costa
Rica
Uzbekistan
Mongolia
Peru
Albania
Cambodia
United
Arab
Emirates
Kosovo
Paraguay
Chile
Italy
Jordan
Malta
Palestinian
Authority
Thailand
Kazakhstan
North
Macedonia
Israel
Brazil
Uruguay
Malaysia
Georgia
El
Salvador
Panama*
Viet
Nam
Guatemala
Dominican
Republic
Baku
(Azerbaijan)
Jamaica*
Philippines
Moldova
Saudi
Arabia
Singapore
Spain
Indonesia
Bulgaria
Greece
Brunei
Darussalam
Portugal
Lithuania
Germany
Belgium
Mexico
United
Kingdom*
Poland
Ireland*
France
OECD
average
Serbia
Latvia*
Croatia
Qatar
Ukrainian
regions
(18
of
27)
Chinese
Taipei
Türkiye
Iceland
Hungary
Austria
Hong
Kong
(China)*
Montenegro
Macao
(China)
Romania
Japan
Estonia
Australia*
Slovenia
Sweden
Norway
Denmark*
Korea
Netherlands*
Canada*
Slovak
Republic
New
Zealand*
Finland
Czech
Republic
United
States*
Switzerland
Score
points
in
mathematics
per
hour
of
total
learning
time
Hours
Based on students' reports
Figure II.5.11
Hours learning in school
Hours learning out of school
Productivity

16. Shortage of education staff
Based on principals' reports
Figure II.5.4
-1.50
-1.00
-0.50
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
Bulgaria
Serbia
Albania
Poland
Denmark*
Qatar
Georgia
Switzerland
Singapore
Paraguay
Montenegro
Romania
Lithuania
Kazakhstan
Guatemala
Moldova
Thailand
Brazil
Ukrainian
regions
(18
of
27)
Iceland
Austria
Spain
Australia*
United
States*
United
Arab
Emirates
Slovenia
El
Salvador
Jamaica*
Indonesia
Mexico
Panama*
Philippines
Ireland*
Türkiye
Malta
Norway
Czech
Republic
Viet
Nam
Croatia
Kosovo
Argentina
OECD
average
New
Zealand*
Finland
Chile
Mongolia
Brunei
Darussalam
Cambodia
Peru
Dominican
Republic
United
Kingdom*
Latvia*
Hong
Kong
(China)*
Hungary
Colombia
Greece
Germany
Sweden
Netherlands*
Israel
Baku
(Azerbaijan)
Italy
France
Uruguay
Saudi
Arabia
Portugal
Jordan
Costa
Rica
Palestinian
Authority
Morocco
Mean
index
of
shortage
of
education
staff

17. Shortage of education staff and material resources, and
mathematics performance
Change in mathematics performance associated with principals reporting that the school's capacity to provide
instruction is hindered to some extent or a lot by the following; OECD average
Figure II.5.6
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
A lack of teaching
staff
Inadequate or
poorly qualified
teaching staff
A lack of assisting
staff
Inadequate or
poorly qualified
assisting staff
A lack of
educational
material
Inadequate or
poor-quality
educational
material
A lack of physical
infrastructure
Inadequate or
poor-quality
physical
infrastructure
A lack of digital
resources
Inadequate or
poor-quality
digital resources
Before accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile¹ After accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile
Score-point
difference

18. Unlocking the potential of the digital world
Revolutionising learning?

19. Time spent at school in regular lessons and on digital devices
Time spent per day by students (in hours)
Figure II.5.15
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Ireland*
Paraguay
Japan
Brunei
Darussalam
Peru
Malta
France
Slovenia
United
Kingdom*
Germany
Serbia
Saudi
Arabia
Spain
Montenegro
Dominican
Republic
Greece
Cambodia
Jordan
Switzerland
Panama*
Belgium
Georgia
Qatar
Palestinian
Authority
Morocco
Türkiye
Jamaica*
Brazil
Mexico
El
Salvador
Austria
Portugal
Costa
Rica
Chile
Malaysia
Kosovo
Moldova
Uruguay
Hong
Kong
(China)*
Israel
Viet
Nam
Kazakhstan
Colombia
Albania
Argentina
OECD
average
Canada*
North
Macedonia
Czech
Republic
Guatemala
Uzbekistan
Netherlands*
Croatia
Singapore
Macao
(China)
Korea
Estonia
Poland
Chinese
Taipei
Indonesia
Mongolia
Hungary
Baku
(Azerbaijan)
Iceland
Slovak
Republic
Lithuania
Philippines
Latvia*
Romania
United
Arab
Emirates
New
Zealand*
Australia*
Norway
Finland
Sweden
Thailand
Italy
Bulgaria
Denmark*
Ukrainian
regions
(18
of
27)
Using digital devices for learning at school Using digital devices for leisure at school Regular lessons at school per school day
Hours
Devices / learning at school
Devices / leisure at school

20. Time spent on digital devices at school and mathematics performance
Based on students' reports; OECD average
Figure II.5.14
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
490
500
None Up to 1 hour More than 1 hour and
up to 2 hours
More than 2 hours
and up to 3 hours
More than 3 hours
and up to 5 hours
More than 5 hours
and up to 7 hours
More than 7 hours
Mean
score
in
mathematics
Time spent on digital devices at school per day
Technology used for learning in school
Technology used for leisure at school

21. Students' confidence in self-directed learning
Percentage of students who reported feeling confident/very confident in taking the following actions if their school building closes again in the future
Figure II.2.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Japan
Poland
Brunei
Darussalam
United
Kingdom*
Ireland*
Israel
Netherlands*
Latvia*
New
Zealand*
Canada*
Greece
Belgium
Brazil
Malta
Slovenia
Chinese
Taipei
Hong
Kong
(China)*
Serbia
Montenegro
Australia*
Macao
(China)
United
States*
Thailand
Estonia
Jamaica*
Korea
Morocco
Malaysia
OECD
average
Italy
Germany
Georgia
Sweden
Slovak
Republic
Uruguay
Argentina
Türkiye
Hungary
Jordan
Lithuania
Spain
Kosovo
Chile
Finland
Mongolia
Austria
Ukrainian
regions
(18
of
27)
Palestinian
Authority
Qatar
Switzerland
France
Moldova
Romania
Portugal
Viet
Nam
Bulgaria
Dominican
Republic
Philippines
Uzbekistan
North
Macedonia
United
Arab
Emirates
Baku
(Azerbaijan)
Albania
Costa
Rica
Indonesia
Peru
Paraguay
Mexico
Croatia
Saudi
Arabia
Iceland
Cambodia
Kazakhstan
Guatemala
El
Salvador
Panama*
Colombia
%
Using a video communication program Motivating myself to do school work

22. How smart phones and tablets can impair learning
Digital distractions

23. Distraction from digital devices in mathematics lessons
Percentage of students who reported that the following happens in every or in most of their mathematics lessons
Figure II.3.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Argentina
Uruguay
Chile
Bulgaria
New
Zealand*
Brazil
Canada*
Latvia*
Philippines
Finland
Australia*
Morocco
Greece
Italy
Sweden
Montenegro
Romania
Poland
Costa
Rica
Serbia
Portugal
Netherlands*
Mongolia
Spain
Moldova
Baku
(Azerbaijan)
Iceland
Paraguay
Denmark*
Norway
Israel
Dominican
Republic
Czech
Republic
OECD
average
Colombia
France
Kosovo
Jamaica*
United
States*
Georgia
North
Macedonia
Belgium
Hungary
Estonia
Germany
Jordan
Singapore
Panama*
Thailand
Slovak
Republic
Palestinian
Authority
Lithuania
Mexico
Albania
Indonesia
United
Arab
Emirates
Ukrainian
regions
(18
of
27)
El
Salvador
Türkiye
Austria
Slovenia
Kazakhstan
Switzerland
Croatia
Qatar
Peru
Malaysia
Ireland*
Uzbekistan
Saudi
Arabia
Cambodia
United
Kingdom*
Malta
Hong
Kong
(China)*
Chinese
Taipei
Viet
Nam
Guatemala
Macao
(China)
Brunei
Darussalam
Korea
Japan
%
Students get distracted by using digital devices
Students get distracted by other students who are using digital devices

24. Feeling nervous/anxious when digital devices are not near
Based on students' reports
Figure II.5.16
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Costa
Rica
Netherlands*
Colombia
El
Salvador
Peru
Panama*
Slovenia
Portugal
Mexico
France
Ireland*
Spain
Dominican
Republic
Hungary
Kosovo
Uruguay
Japan
Belgium
Switzerland
Argentina
New
Zealand*
Montenegro
Croatia
Albania
North
Macedonia
Iceland
Estonia
Mongolia
Italy
Morocco
Kazakhstan
United
Kingdom*
OECD
average
Australia*
Serbia
Czech
Republic
Norway
Denmark*
Sweden
Chinese
Taipei
Chile
Germany
Canada*
Lithuania
Uzbekistan
Moldova
Korea
Bulgaria
Finland
Saudi
Arabia
Austria
Singapore
Brazil
Georgia
Palestinian
Authority
Romania
Ukrainian
regions
(18
of
27)
Qatar
Slovak
Republic
Jamaica*
Latvia*
Poland
Jordan
United
Arab
Emirates
Indonesia
Israel
Baku
(Azerbaijan)
Greece
Philippines
Hong
Kong
(China)*
Malta
Thailand
Brunei
Darussalam
Macao
(China)
Malaysia
Türkiye
Never or almost never Less than half of the time About half of the time or more than half of the time All or almost all of the time Not applicable
%

25. Outcomes of feeling nervous/anxious when digital devices are not near
Based on students' reports; OECD average
Figure II.5.17
-10
-9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
Mathematics performance
Score-point
difference
-1.0
-0.9
-0.8
-0.7
-0.6
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
Life satisfaction Emotional control Stress resistance
Before accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile¹ After accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile
Index-point
difference

26. School policies for the use of digital devices
Frequency of use of digital devices
in mathematics lessons
Digital devices, distraction and school policies
Change in the likelihood of students becoming distracted by using digital devices in mathematics lessons when students reported that
they use their smartphone at school and school principals reported the school's policy on smartphone use; OECD average
Figure II.5.9
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
In less than half of
the lessons
In about half of the
lessons
In more than half of
the lessons
In every or almost
every lesson
The school has
written statement
about the general
use of digital
devices on school
premises
The use of cell
phones is not
allowed on school
premises
Teachers establish
rules for when
students may use
digital devices
during lessons
Teachers establish
rules in
collaboration with
students about
their use of digital
resources at school
or in class
The school has a
specific programme
to prepare students
for responsible
Internet behaviour
Teachers have the
necessary technical
and pedagogical
skills to integrate
digital devices in
instruction
Odds ratio

27. Are some students being let down?
Teachers and teaching

28. Teacher support
Percentage of students who agreed or strongly agreed with the following statements about the time when their
school building was closed because of COVID-19; based on students' reports
Figure II.2.10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Japan
Morocco
Jordan
Poland
Greece
Mongolia
Palestinian
Authority
United
Kingdom*
Israel
Kosovo
Argentina
Brazil
Saudi
Arabia
Spain
Iceland
Türkiye
Serbia
Uzbekistan
France
Italy
Uruguay
Romania
Panama*
Jamaica*
Macao
(China)
Bulgaria
Montenegro
Mexico
Slovenia
North
Macedonia
Slovak
Republic
Georgia
Dominican
Republic
OECD
average
Qatar
Chile
Ireland*
Malaysia
Peru
Czech
Republic
Austria
Moldova
Belgium
Malta
Costa
Rica
Ukrainian
regions
(18
of
27)
Korea
Croatia
Paraguay
Hong
Kong
(China)*
Chinese
Taipei
El
Salvador
Hungary
Australia*
Baku
(Azerbaijan)
Lithuania
Thailand
Cambodia
Kazakhstan
Colombia
United
States*
New
Zealand*
Canada*
Guatemala
Switzerland
Germany
Finland
United
Arab
Emirates
Netherlands*
Latvia*
Sweden
Portugal
Estonia
Albania
Indonesia
Philippines
Brunei
Darussalam
Viet
Nam
%
My teachers were available when I needed help I felt lonely

29. Students learn best from teachers they love
Remote learning, mathematics performance and confidence in self-directed learning
Change in the index of confidence in students' capacity for self-directed learning/in mathematics performance, when students agreed or disagreed with the
following statements about the time when their school building was closed because of COVID-19; OECD average
Figure II.2.12
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
(Agree)
I was well prepared to
learn on my own
(Agree)
My teachers were
available when I
needed help
(Disagree)
I felt anxious about
school work
(Disagree)
I felt lonely
Score-point
difference
in
mathematics
performance
Students agreed or strongly agreed/disagreed or strongly disagreed
with the statements above
Before accounting
After accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile
Students
scored
lower
Students
scored
higher
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
(Agree)
I was well prepared
to learn on my own
(Agree)
My teachers were
available when I
needed help
(Disagree)
I felt anxious about
school work
(Disagree)
I felt lonely
Students agreed or strongly agreed/disagreed or strongly disagreed
with the statements above
Before accounting
After accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile, and mathematics performance
Students with more positive learning
experiences are more confident
in their ability to learn autonomously
and remotely
Students
are
more
confident
(Change
in
the
index
of
confidence
in
capacity
for
self-directed
learning)

30. School actions and activities to maintain learning and well-being
Percentage of students who reported that someone from their school did the following actions every day daily when
their school building was closed because of COVID-19; OECD average
Figure II.2.16
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Checked in with them to
ask how they were
feeling
Gave them helpful tips
about how to study on
their own
Checked in with them to
ensure that they were
completing their
assignments
Sent them learning
materials to study on
their own
Asked them to submit
completed school
assignments
Sent them assignments Uploaded material on a
learning-management
system or school learning
platform
Offered live virtual
classes on a video
communication program
%
Students reported that someone from their school did the above actions every day or almost every day
Bottom country/economy OECD average Top country/economy
Least common daily school actions and activities
promoting students' well-being and self-directed learning, as reported by students
Most common daily school actions and activities
ensuring that curriculum goals are met, as reported by students

31. School actions to maintain learning and selected student outcomes
Change associated with a one-unit increase in the index of school actions and activities to maintain learning; OECD average
Figure II.2.18
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
Boys Girls Advantaged Disadvantaged
Index-point
change
Change in the index of students' confidence in
their capacity for self-directed learning
-0.09
-0.08
-0.07
-0.06
-0.05
-0.04
-0.03
-0.02
-0.01
0.00
Boys Girls Advantaged Disadvantaged
Index-point
change
Change in mathematics anxiety
0.02
0.04
0.03

32. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
The lack of experience in providing remote instruction among teachers hindered the capacity to provide remote
instruction
The lack of access to the Internet among students while school buildings were closed hindered the capacity to
provide remote instruction
The difficulty of getting in touch with students while school buildings were closed hindered the capacity to
provide remote instruction
At least half of the classes were cancelled and not replaced by remote instruction
At least half of the classes were taught remotely using digital devices
Never attended distance learning activities
Attended distance learning activities in a typical week
Percentage of students
Private Public
Students reported that they:
Students in school whose principal reported that:
Handling school closures due to COVID-19, by school type
Figure II.6.10
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Preparedness for digital learning
School preparedness for remote instruction in response to COVID-19
School preparedness for remote instruction before COVID-19
Problems with schools’ capacity to provide remote instruction
Mean index
Index of:
Higher values in the index

33. Why they matter
Parents and families

34. Parents-initiated talks about students’ progress
Percentage of students in schools whose principal reported that at least 50% of students' parents are involved in
discussing their child’s progress with a teacher on their own initiative
Figure II.3.15
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Norway
(-13)
Ireland*
Switzerland
Argentina
Uruguay
Morocco
Finland
(-22)
Hungary
(-12)
Japan
Serbia
(-31)
Sweden
(-21)
Brazil
Czech
Republic
(-11)
Brunei
Darussalam
(-11)
Poland
(-26)
Netherlands*
(-25)
Croatia
(-30)
Denmark*
(-9)
Singapore
(-18)
Slovenia
(-32)
France
(-12)
nited
Kingdom*
(-13)
Estonia
(-11)
Bulgaria
Belgium
New
Zealand*
Iceland
(-7)
Germany
Jordan
Costa
Rica
OECD
average
(-10)
Hong
Kong
(China)*
Australia*
(-11)
Chile
Lithuania
(-10)
United
States*
(-12)
Korea
Slovak
Republic
Moldova
(-31)
Montenegro
(-31)
Latvia*
Dominican
Republic
Malaysia
Malta
(-11)
Peru
Macao
(China)
(2)
Greece
(-31)
North
Macedonia
(-24)
Mexico
(16)
Israel
Saudi
Arabia
Canada*
Indonesia
Türkiye
Baku
(Azerbaijan)
(-30)
Spain
(-8)
Romania
(12)
Kosovo
Thailand
Panama*
Portugal
(-13)
Qatar
(-3)
Colombia
Chinese
Taipei
Italy
(-16)
United
Arab
Emirates
(-5)
Albania
(-14)
Georgia
Kazakhstan
(-14)
Viet
Nam
Philippines
%
PISA 2018 PISA 2022

35. Family support and sense of belonging
Figure II.3.17
Serbia
Netherlands*
Moldova
Saudi Arabia
Germany
Finland
Brunei Darussalam
Indonesia
United States*
Slovak Republic
El Salvador
Latvia*
Japan
Georgia
Uruguay
Türkiye
North Macedonia
Philippines
Morocco
Albania
Cambodia
New Zealand*
United Kingdom*
Croatia
Czech Republic
Brazil
Colombia
Guatemala
Belgium
Viet Nam
Peru
Denmark*
Paraguay
Mongolia
Kazakhstan
Slovenia
Singapore
Iceland
Panama*
Italy
Argentina
Sweden
Australia*
Greece
Dominican Republic
Mexico
Chile
Norway
Lithuania
United Arab Emirates
Thailand
Malaysia
Ireland*
Hungary
Qatar
Uzbekistan
Romania
Austria
Switzerland
Poland
Jamaica*
Estonia
Bulgaria
Malta
Portugal
Canada*
Jordan
Montenegro
France
Spain
Korea
Palestinian Authority
Hong Kong (China)*
Chinese Taipei
Macao (China)
Baku (Azerbaijan)
Ukrainian regions (18 of 27)
R² = 0.12
-0.60
-0.40
-0.20
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
-0.60 -0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60
Family support (mean index)
Students'
sense
of
belonging
(mean
index)
Average sense of belonging is higher in systems where
students receive stronger support from their families
Students enjoy more support from their families
Stronger
sense
of
belonging
at
school
OECD average
OECD average

36. Student well-being
Beyond academic learning

37. Life satisfaction and satisfaction with different aspects of life
Average of countries/economies with available data
Figure II.1.7
1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.20
Their relationship with their parents/guardians
Their life at school
Their health
All the things [they] have
The way they look
The friends they have
How they use their time
The neighbourhood they live in
Their relationship with their teachers
What they learn at school
Point change on the life-satisfaction scale
Change in life satisfaction when students reported that they are satisfied or totally satisfied with the following:

38. Students’ sense of belonging at school, across all countries and economies
Table II.B1.1.1
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Brunei
Darussalam
Cambodia
Hong
Kong
(China)*
Philippines
Thailand
Jamaica*
Poland
Macao
(China)
Türkiye
New
Zealand*
Morocco
Viet
Nam
Czech
Republic
Malaysia
El
Salvador
United
States*
Latvia*
Paraguay
Malta
Dominican
Republic
Australia*
Singapore
Chile
Jordan
United
Kingdom*
Brazil
Peru
Slovak
Republic
United
Arab
Emirates
Argentina
Panama*
Bulgaria
Mexico
Guatemala
Palestinian
Authority
Baku
(Azerbaijan)
Canada*
Colombia
Qatar
Mongolia
Kazakhstan
Estonia
Indonesia
Ireland*
Costa
Rica
Uruguay
Ukrainian
regions
(18
of
27)
Italy
Greece
Moldova
Georgia
France
Lithuania
OECD
average
Romania
Saudi
Arabia
Chinese
Taipei
Belgium
Slovenia
Uzbekistan
Portugal
Sweden
Finland
Netherlands*
Denmark*
North
Macedonia
Croatia
Montenegro
Hungary
Iceland
Serbia
Norway
Japan
Albania
Korea
Germany
Spain
Switzerland
Austria
Mean index
Based on students' reports

39. Growth mindset
and mathematics performance Table I.B1.2.1 &
Table I.B1.2.16
Australia*
Austria
Belgium
Canada*
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Czech Republic
Denmark*
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland*
Italy
Japan
Korea
Latvia*
Lithuania
Mexico
Netherlands*
New Zealand*
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Türkiye
United Kingdom*
United States*
Albania Argentina
Baku (Azerbaijan)
Brazil
Brunei Darussalam
Bulgaria
Croatia
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Georgia
Hong Kong (China)*
Indonesia
Jamaica*
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kosovo
Macao (China)
Malaysia
Malta
Moldova
Mongolia
Montenegro
Morocco
North Macedonia
Palestinian Authority
Panama*
Peru
Philippines
Qatar
Romania
Saudi Arabia
Serbia
Singapore
Chinese Taipei
Thailand
Ukrainian regions (18 of 27)
United Arab Emirates
Uruguay
Uzbekistan
320
340
360
380
400
420
440
460
480
500
520
540
560
580
600
25 35 45 55 65 75 85
Mean
score
in
mathematics
Percentage of students who disagreed or strongly disagreed that their intelligence cannot change very much (%)
Higher
score
More students holding a growth mindset
OECD average: 58%
OECD average: 472 points

40. Mathematics performance and anxiety in mathematics among
students with fixed and growth mindsets Figure I.2.2
400
420
440
460
480
500
520
540
Growth mindset Fixed mindset Growth mindset Fixed mindset
Low anxiety High anxiety
Mean
score
in
mathematics

41. Social and emotional skills, and mathematics performance
Change in mathematics performance associated with a one-unit increase in the following indices; OECD average
Figure II.2.6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Curiosity Persistence Emotional control Stress resistance Assertiveness Empathy Co-operation
Score-point
difference

42. The impact of bullying on learning
Under the surface

43. School safety risks
Percentage of students who reported that the following happened at school during the four weeks prior
to the PISA assessment; OECD average
Figure II.3.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
I heard a student threaten to
hurt another student
Our school was vandalised I witnessed a fight on school
property in which someone got
hurt
I saw gangs in school I saw a student carrying a gun
or knife at school
% Top country/economy OECD average Bottom country/economy

44. Feeling safe
Based on students' reports
Figure II.3.9
-1.0
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Jamaica*
Cambodia
Mongolia
Thailand
Türkiye
Brazil
Philippines
Chile
Mexico
Malaysia
Georgia
Morocco
Viet
Nam
Indonesia
Palestinian
Authority
Baku
(Azerbaijan)
Colombia
Peru
Uruguay
Romania
Brunei
Darussalam
Poland
Argentina
New
Zealand*
Jordan
United
States*
Kazakhstan
Costa
Rica
Hong
Kong
(China)*
Bulgaria
Czech
Republic
United
Kingdom*
Macao
(China)
Greece
Slovak
Republic
Australia*
Dominican
Republic
France
Malta
El
Salvador
Paraguay
North
Macedonia
Hungary
Italy
Belgium
Saudi
Arabia
OECD
average
Chinese
Taipei
Serbia
Kosovo
Netherlands*
Guatemala
Slovenia
Ireland*
Panama*
Uzbekistan
Iceland
Sweden
United
Arab
Emirates
Qatar
Canada*
Ukrainian
regions
(18
of
27)
Lithuania
Korea
Portugal
Latvia*
Croatia
Montenegro
Singapore
Albania
Estonia
Norway
Finland
Austria
Switzerland
Mean index

45. School safety risks and student well-being
Change in the following indices per one-unit increase in the index of school safety risks; OECD average
Figure II.3.6
-0.30
-0.25
-0.20
-0.15
-0.10
-0.05
0.00
0.05
0.10
Life satisfaction Sense of belonging at school Confidence in capacity for self-
directed learning
Mathematics anxiety
Change
in
indices

46. Reasons for long-term absenteeism
Percentage of students who reported the following reasons for having missed school for
more than three consecutive months
Figure II.3.13
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
I could not pay
school fees
I was pregnant I had to get work
to bring money
home
I was suspended
for something
I had to help with
work at home,
the family
business or on
the family land
I could not reach
school because of
transportation
problems
I had to take care
of a family
member
School was closed
because of a
natural disaster
I was bored I did not feel safe
at school
I was sick
% Bottom country/economy OECD average Top country/economy

47. Percentage of students that did not eat at least once a week in the
past 30 days, because there was not enough money to buy food Figure I.4.6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Cambodia
Jamaica*
Baku
(Azerbaijan)
Philippines
Kosovo
Thailand
Morocco
Uzbekistan
Jordan
Palestinian
Authority
Albania
Brunei
Darussalam
Panama*
Malaysia
Bulgaria
North
Macedonia
Guatemala
Indonesia
Türkiye
Georgia
Peru
Viet
Nam
Qatar
United
Arab
Emirates
Romania
El
Salvador
Dominican
Republic
Saudi
Arabia
Macao
(China)
New
Zealand*
Hong
Kong
(China)*
Colombia
Chile
United
States*
Mongolia
Singapore
Paraguay
Kazakhstan
Lithuania
United
Kingdom*
Serbia
Mexico
Moldova
Chinese
Taipei
Czech
Republic
Malta
Ukrainian
regions
(18
of
27)
Estonia
Canada*
Brazil
France
OECD
average
Slovenia
Uruguay
Latvia*
Ireland*
Poland
Switzerland
Denmark*
Slovak
Republic
Hungary
Croatia
Korea
Iceland
Netherlands*
Finland
Portugal
Every day or almost every day 4 to 5 times a week 2 to 3 times a week About once a week Never or almost never
%

48. Resilient education systems
Figure II.1.1
RESILIENCE IN EQUITY
RESILIENCE IN
MATHEMATICS
PERFORMANCE
RESILIENCE IN
SENSE OF
BELONGING
Hong Kong (China)*
United Kingdom*
United States*
Australia*
Singapore Switzerland
Japan,
Korea,
Lithuania,
Chinese Taipei
Austria, Croatia, Finland,
France, Georgia, Germany, Hungary,
Iceland, Montenegro, Portugal,
Romania, Saudi Arabia, Serbia,
Slovenia, Sweden

49. Some lessons from the pandemic
Keep schools open longer for more students
Prepare students for self-directed learning / teacher support
Strengthen foundations for learning and well-being / safety and sense of belonging
Limit digital distractions
Strengthen partnerships with families and parents’ involvement in student learning
Delay institutional stratification
Align staff and material with needs
Make schools hubs for social interaction
Combine school autonomy with quality assurance

50. PISA main reports PISA Country notes
Find out more about our work at www.oecd.org/pisa
Email: Andreas.Schleicher@OECD.org
X : SchleicherEDU
WeChat : AndreasSchleicher
Take the test: bit.ly/PISA-Test
PISA FAQs: www.oecd.org/pisa/pisafaq
PISA Data Explorer: www.oecd.org/pisa/data