Search for specific education indicators by country, theme or level of education and compare the results using interactive charts and tables.

Base Theme

Education at a Glance 2017: Highlights
Education at a Glance 2017 (EAG 2017): Full selection of indicators
PISA 2015: Full selection of indicators
PISA 2015 (Volume III): Students' Well-Being
PISA 2015 (Volume IV): Students' Financial Literacy
PISA 2015 (Volume V): Collaborative Problem Solving
Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC 2015): Full selection of indicators
TALIS 2013: Full selection of indicators
Access to education and participation
Economic and social outcomes and transition to the labour market
Financial and human resources invested in education
The learning environment and organisation of schools
Teachers and school leadership
Early childhood education and care
Tertiary education
Migrant background
Gender differences in education
Computers, education and skills
Low performers
Impact of the global economic crisis on education
Demographic, social and economic indicators
Computers, education and skills
The following findings, based on an analysis of the 2012 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) data, tell us that, despite the pervasiveness of information and communication technologies (ICT) in our daily lives, these technologies have not yet been as widely adopted in formal education. But where they are used in the classroom, their impact on student performance is mixed, at best. In fact, PISA results show no appreciable improvements in student achievement in reading, mathematics or science in most countries that had invested heavily in ICT for education.

  • The countries with the greatest integration of ICT in schools are Australia, Denmark, the Netherlands and Norway. Rapid increases in the share of students doing schoolwork on computers can often be related to large-scale laptop-acquisition programmes, such as those observed in Australia, Chile, Greece, New Zealand, Sweden and Uruguay.
  • On average, seven out of ten students use computers at school – a proportion unchanged since 2009. Among these students, the frequency of computer use increased in most countries during the period.
  • Only 42% of students in Korea and 38% of students in Shanghai-China reported that they use computers at school – and Korea and Shanghai-China were among the top performers in the digital reading and computer-based mathematics tests in the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) in 2012.
  • Singapore, Korea, Hong Kong-China, Japan, Canada and Shanghai-China were the top-performing countries/economies in digital reading in 2012; Singapore, Shanghai-China, Korea, Hong Kong-China, Macao-China, Japan and Chinese Taipei were top performers in the 2012 computer-based mathematics assessment.
  • Overall, the relationship between computer use at school and performance is graphically illustrated by a hill shape, which suggests that limited use of computers at school may be better than no use at all, but levels of computer use above the current OECD average are associated with significantly poorer results.


  • | PISA 2012 Results in Focus | Students, Computers and Learning: Making the Connection | Who are the best online readers? | PISA Glossary |
    tips

    Select first some countries to compare, choose the charts you wish to display and customise them.

    Browser View

    Select OECD Countries

    Australia
    Austria
    Belgium
    Belgium (Flanders)
    Belgium (excluding Flanders)
    Canada
    Canadian provinces
    Chile
    Czech Republic
    Denmark
    Estonia
    Finland
    France
    Germany
    Greece
    Hungary
    Iceland
    Ireland
    Israel
    Italy
    Japan
    Korea
    Latvia
    Luxembourg
    Mexico
    Netherlands
    New Zealand
    Norway
    Poland
    Portugal
    Slovak Republic
    Slovenia
    Spain
    Sweden
    Switzerland
    Turkey
    United Kingdom
    United States
    OECD average

    Non-OECD Countries

    TALIS average
    Albania
    Algeria
    Argentina
    Buenos Aires (Argentina)
    Brazil
    Bulgaria
    China
    Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, Guangdong (China)
    Hong Kong (China)
    Macao (China)
    Shanghai (China)
    Chinese Taipei
    Colombia
    Costa Rica
    Croatia
    Dominican Republic
    Georgia
    India
    Indonesia
    Jordan
    Kazakhstan
    Kosovo
    Lebanon
    Liechtenstein
    Lithuania
    Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
    Malaysia
    Malta
    Moldova
    Montenegro
    Peru
    Qatar
    Romania
    Russian Federation
    Saudi Arabia
    Serbia
    Singapore
    South Africa
    Thailand
    Trinidad and Tobago
    Tunisia
    United Arab Emirates
    Abu Dhabi (UAE)
    Uruguay
    Viet Nam
    The data table will display up to four selected countries (unselect the OECD average to have one more).
    Click the arrows for more indicators
    Click the arrows for more indicators
    Click the arrows for more indicators
    Click the arrows for more indicators
    Country Profile quick links
    Note: These values should be interpreted with care since they are influenced by countries' specific contexts and trade-offs. In education, there is often no simple most- or least-efficient model. For instance, the share of private expenditure in education must be read against other measures designed to mitigate inequities, such as loans and grants; longer learning time is an opportunity to convey more and better content to students, but may hinder investments in other important areas. If you want further information on the nature of different variables, please take the time to read the analysis and contextual information, available at the website for each publication.
    The OECD average includes only OECD countries which are listed here: http://www.oecd.org/about/membersandpartners/

    *TALIS averages are based on all countries participating in the TALIS survey, including partner countries and economies. This explains the difference between the OECD average and the TALIS average. Data from the TALIS survey and Education at a Glance (EAG) may differ. See Annex E of the TALIS technical report and Annex 3 of EAG 2017 for more details about the data collections.

    For additional notes, please refer to annexes in the list of links below the introductory text.