Country
Data profiles:
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2024) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2012) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2024) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2023) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2024) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2023) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions, primary education (TALIS 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2024) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2023) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions, lower and upper secondary education (TALIS 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2024) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2023) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| ECEC staff, leaders and their working conditions (Starting Strong Survey 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2024) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2024) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2024) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2023) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2024) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2023) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions, primary to upper secondary education (TALIS 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2024) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2023) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2024) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2023) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2024) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2023) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions, primary and lower secondary education (TALIS 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2024) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2023) |
| ECEC staff, leaders and their working conditions (Starting Strong Survey 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2024) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2015) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2024) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2023) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2024) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| ECEC staff, leaders and their working conditions (Starting Strong Survey 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2024) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2023) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2024) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2023) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| ECEC staff, leaders and their working conditions (Starting Strong Survey 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2024) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2023) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2024) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2023) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions, primary and lower secondary education (TALIS 2018) |
| ECEC staff, leaders and their working conditions (Starting Strong Survey 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2024) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2023) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions, primary and lower secondary education (TALIS 2018) |
| ECEC staff, leaders and their working conditions (Starting Strong Survey 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2024) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2023) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2024) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2023) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2024) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2024) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2018) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2024) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2023) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2024) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2023) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2024) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2023) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| ECEC staff, leaders and their working conditions (Starting Strong Survey 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2024) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2023) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2024) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2023) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions, lower and upper secondary education (TALIS 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2024) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2023) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2024) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2015) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions, lower and upper secondary education (TALIS 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2024) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2023) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions, primary and lower secondary education (TALIS 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2024) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2023) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions, primary to upper secondary education (TALIS 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2024) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2023) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2024) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2015) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions, primary to upper secondary education (TALIS 2018) |
| ECEC staff, leaders and their working conditions (Starting Strong Survey 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2024) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2023) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions, primary and lower secondary education (TALIS 2018) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2012) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2024) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2023) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2024) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions, primary and lower secondary education (TALIS 2018) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2024) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions, lower and upper secondary education (TALIS 2018) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2024) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2024) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions, primary to upper secondary education (TALIS 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2024) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2023) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions, lower and upper secondary education (TALIS 2018) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2018) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2024) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2024) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2018) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2024) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2018) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2024) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2024) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Adult skills (Survey of Adult Skills, PIAAC, 2023) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| Overview of the education system (EAG 2024) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions (TALIS 2018) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions, primary to upper secondary education (TALIS 2018) |
| Student performance in 18 out of 27 regions (PISA 2022) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Student performance (PISA 2022) |
| Teachers and teaching conditions, primary to upper secondary education (TALIS 2018) |
Profile View
Select first some countries to compare, choose the charts you wish to display and customise them.
The percentage of low performers in all subjects (mathematics, reading and science) is one of the lowest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (5.3 %, rank 77/80 , 2022) Download Indicator
The percentage of low performers in at least one subject (among mathematics, reading and science) is one of the lowest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (18.3 %, rank 78/80 , 2022) Download Indicator
The percentage of top performers in all subjects (mathematics, reading and science) is one of the highest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (7.6 %, rank 3/80 , 2022) Download Indicator
Student performance in mathematics
The mean score in mathematics performance is one of the highest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (536 PISA Score, rank 5/80 , 2022) Download Indicator
Boys' performance in mathematics is one of the highest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (540 PISA Score, rank 5/80 , 2022) Download Indicator
Girls' performance in mathematics is one of the highest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (531 PISA Score, rank 5/80 , 2022) Download Indicator
The percentage of low performers in mathematics (below proficiency Level 2) is one of the lowest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (12 %, rank 78/80 , 2022) Download Indicator
The percentage of top performers in mathematics (proficiency Level 5 or 6) is one of the highest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (23 %, rank 5/80 , 2022) Download Indicator
The percentage of low-performing boys in mathematics (below proficiency Level 2) is one of the lowest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (13.1 %, rank 78/80 , 2022) Download Indicator
The percentage of top-performing boys in mathematics (proficiency Level 5 or 6) is one of the highest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (26.6 %, rank 5/80 , 2022) Download Indicator
The percentage of low-performing girls in mathematics (below proficiency Level 2) is one of the lowest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (10.9 %, rank 78/80 , 2022) Download Indicator
The percentage of top-performing girls in mathematics (proficiency Level 5 or 6) is one of the highest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (19.4 %, rank 5/80 , 2022) Download Indicator
Student performance in reading
The mean score in reading performance is one of the highest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (516 PISA Score, rank 2/80 , 2022) Download Indicator
Boys' performance in reading is one of the highest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (508 PISA Score, rank 2/80 , 2022) Download Indicator
Girls' performance in reading is one of the highest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (524 PISA Score, rank 6/80 , 2022) Download Indicator
The difference between girls and boys in reading performance is one of the largest among PISA-participating countries and economies in favour of girls. (-17 PISA Score, rank 10/78 , 2022) Download Indicator
The percentage of low performers in reading (below proficiency Level 2) is one of the lowest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (13.8 %, rank 76/80 , 2022) Download Indicator
The percentage of top performers in reading (proficiency Level 5 or 6) is one of the highest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (12.3 %, rank 8/80 , 2022) Download Indicator
The percentage of low-performing boys in reading (below proficiency Level 2) is one of the lowest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (16.9 %, rank 77/80 , 2022) Download Indicator
The percentage of top-performing boys in reading (proficiency Level 5 or 6) is one of the highest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (11.6 %, rank 5/80 , 2022) Download Indicator
The percentage of low-performing girls in reading (below proficiency Level 2) is one of the lowest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (10.6 %, rank 75/80 , 2022) Download Indicator
The percentage of top-performing girls in reading (proficiency Level 5 or 6) is one of the highest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (13 %, rank 8/80 , 2022) Download Indicator
The change in reading performance between 2015 and 2018 shows one of the strongest increases among PISA-participating countries and economies. (12 PISA Score, rank 4/42 , 2022) Download Indicator
Student performance in science
The mean score in science performance is one of the highest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (547 PISA Score, rank 2/80 , 2022) Download Indicator
Boys' performance in science is one of the highest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (548 PISA Score, rank 2/80 , 2022) Download Indicator
Girls' performance in science is one of the highest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (546 PISA Score, rank 2/80 , 2022) Download Indicator
The percentage of low performers in science (below proficiency Level 2) is one of the lowest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (8 %, rank 78/80 , 2022) Download Indicator
The percentage of top performers in science (proficiency Level 5 or 6) is one of the highest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (18 %, rank 2/80 , 2022) Download Indicator
The percentage of low-performing boys in science (below proficiency Level 2) is one of the lowest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (9.3 %, rank 78/80 , 2022) Download Indicator
The percentage of top-performing boys in science (proficiency Level 5 or 6) is one of the highest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (20 %, rank 2/80 , 2022) Download Indicator
The percentage of low-performing girls in science (below proficiency Level 2) is one of the lowest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (6.8 %, rank 79/80 , 2022) Download Indicator
The percentage of top-performing girls in science (proficiency Level 5 or 6) is one of the highest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (16 %, rank 2/80 , 2022) Download Indicator
The change in science performance between 2015 and 2018 shows one of the strongest increases among PISA-participating countries and economies. (17 PISA Score, rank 5/38 , 2022) Download Indicator
Educational outcomes
The percentage of students who had attended pre-primary education (ISCED 0) for one year or less is one of the lowest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (0.3 %, rank 80/80 , 2022) Download Indicator
Participation in education
The percentage of students who have repeated a grade during primary, lower secondary or upper secondary school is one of the lowest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (0 %, rank 78/79 , 2022) Download Indicator
School climate
A small share of students reported skipping a whole school day at least once in the two weeks prior to the PISA test. (3.5 %, rank 79/80 , 2022) Download Indicator
The disciplinary climate in language-of-instruction lessons is one of the best compared to other countries and economies. (1.09 PISA Index, rank 1/80 , 2022) Download Indicator
Classroom environment
Japan has one of the smallest share of students in schools that group students by abillity for all subjects. (0.8 %, rank 77/80 , 2022) Download Indicator
Students' engagement, drive and self-beliefs
The share of students who disagreed or strongly disagreed that 'your intelligence is something about you that you can't change very much' in Japan is among the largest. (71 %, rank 5/75 , 2022) Download Indicator
The time spent on homework per day in a typical school week in Japan is long compared to the other OECD and partner countries/economies. (2 Hours, rank 6/80 , 2022) Download Indicator
Japan had one of the largest shares of students who disagree or strongly disagree that intelligence is something about you that you cannot change very much. (71 %, rank 5/74 , 2022) Download Indicator
Japan had one of the smallest shares of students who disagree or strongly disagree that some people are just not good at math, no matter how hard they study. (18.8 %, rank 73/74 , 2022) Download Indicator
Sense of belonging at school
In 2015, the index of sense of belonging was one of the highest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (0.25 PISA Index, rank 6/78 , 2022) Download Indicator
Learning strategies
Japan had one of the lowest shares of students who try to connect new material to what they have learned in previous math lessons, more than half the time. (27.2 %, rank 79/79 , 2022) Download Indicator
Students’ predispositions to learning
Japan had one of the smallest differences in the share of students who ask questions when they dont understand math content (at least half the time) between the top and bottom quarters of the math self-efficacy index (formal & applied math). (19.9 % points, rank 73/75 , 2022) Download Indicator
Confidence in mathematics: Preparing for the future
Japan had one of the lowest shares of students who frequently interpret mathematical solutions in the context of a real-life challenge. (15.3 %, rank 70/79 , 2022) Download Indicator
Japan had one of the lowest shares of students who feel confident in extracting mathematical information from diagrams, graphs, or simulations. (43.9 %, rank 72/75 , 2022) Download Indicator
Japan had one of the lowest shares of students who feel confident in interpreting mathematical solutions in the context of a real-life challenge. (30 %, rank 74/75 , 2022) Download Indicator
Bullying
In 2015, the index of exposure to bullying was one of the lowest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (-0.72 PISA Index, rank 77/79 , 2022) Download Indicator
Parental support and education expectations
In Japan, families tend to be less supportive than in the other OECD and partner countries/economies. (-0.54 PISA Index, rank 78/78 , 2022) Download Indicator
Students' sustained learning strategies by parental support
Japan had one of the lowest differences in the share of students connecting new material to prior math lessons (more than half the time) between those whose parents talk with them frequently (once a week or more) and less frequently (twice a month or less). (6 % points, rank 71/72 , 2022) Download Indicator
Performance and socio-economic status
The maths performance of students in the top international decile of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS) scale is among the highest, compared to countries and economies participating in PISA. (590 PISA Score, rank 5/79 , 2022) Download Indicator
The percentage of low performers in maths among disadvantaged students in Japan is among the lowest compared to countries and economies participating in PISA. (21.2 %, rank 76/79 , 2022) Download Indicator
The percentage of top performers in maths among disadvantaged students in Japan is among the highest compared to countries and economies participating in PISA. (10.2 %, rank 5/79 , 2022) Download Indicator
The percentage of low performers in maths among advantaged students in Japan is among the lowest compared to countries and economies participating in PISA. (5.9 %, rank 75/79 , 2022) Download Indicator
The percentage of top performers in maths among advantaged students in Japan is among the highest compared to countries and economies participating in PISA. (38.9 %, rank 6/79 , 2022) Download Indicator
In Japan, the variation between schools of the mathematics performance is among the largest, when compared to average total variation across OECD countries. (51.2 %, rank 10/80 , 2022) Download Indicator
The percentage of low performers in mathematics among socio-economically disadvantaged students is one of the lowest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (19 %, rank 54/60 , 2012) Download Indicator
Performance and diversity
Japan has a relatively low share of low performers in mathematics among students with an immigrant background, compared to other OECD and partner countries. (22.8 %, rank 67/76 , 2022) Download Indicator
The difference in mathematics performance between students enrolled in general or modular programmes and those in pre-vocational or vocational programmes is relatively small in Japan, after accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile. (-23 PISA Score points, rank 35/38 , 2022) Download Indicator
Resources for education
Japan has one of the smallest differences in mathematics performance associated with a one-hour increase in the time spent per day on digital devices for learning at school, after accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile. (-7 PISA Score points, rank 55/60 , 2022) Download Indicator
In Japan, students agree less with various statements about regulation of ICT use at school than in other the OECD and partner countries/economies. (-0.32 PISA Index, rank 50/52 , 2022) Download Indicator
Teachers
After accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile, Japan has one of the smallest differences in mathematics performance per 10 percentage-points increase in the share of teachers fully certified by the appropriate authority. (-4 PISA Score points, rank 17/18 , 2022) Download Indicator
Between 2012 and 2022, Japan recorded a particularly significant change in the percentage of teachers fully certified by the appropriate authority, compared to the other OECD and partner countries/economies. (-3.9 %, rank 6/38 , 2022) Download Indicator
Teachers' practices
The percentage of students reporting that their teacher gives extra help when students need it, in most or every mathematics lessons, is relatively high in Japan compared to other OECD and partner countries/economies. (83.6 %, rank 4/79 , 2022) Download Indicator
Teachers' engagement, motivation and drive
Japan has one of the lowest levels of preparedness for digital learning among OECD and partner countries/economies. (-0.79 Ratio, rank 70/70 , 2022) Download Indicator
Governance
The percentage of students attending government-independent private schools is one of the highest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (33.2 %, rank 4/78 , 2022) Download Indicator
In Japan, compared to attending a public school, the difference in mathematics performance associated with attendance at private schools is among the smallest of the OECD and partner countries/economies, after accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile. (-50 PISA Score points, rank 36/39 , 2022) Download Indicator
Japan has a school system where school selectivity is more intense than in the other OECD and partner countries/economies. (2.95 PISA Index, rank 1/80 , 2022) Download Indicator
Japan has a relatively high percentage of students in schools whose principal reported that there are two or more other schools in this area that compete for these students. (88.8 %, rank 4/80 , 2022) Download Indicator
*Japan has a relatively low percentage of students in schools whose principal reported that there is one other school in this area that compete for these students. (5.2 %, rank 77/80 , 2022) Download Indicator
COVID-19 effects on education
Japan cumulated one of the shortest school closure periods because of COVID-19 according to students (2 Months, rank 72/77 , 2022) Download Indicator
Japan cumulated one of the shortest school closure periods because of COVID-19 according to principals (35 Days, rank 74/77 , 2022) Download Indicator
In Japan, the schools were relatively badly prepared for remote instruction before the pandemic, compared to other OECD and partner countries/economies. (-0.44 PISA Index, rank 75/77 , 2022) Download Indicator
In Japan, the schools were relatively badly prepared for remote instruction after the pandemic, compared to other OECD and partner countries/economies. (-0.37 PISA Index, rank 39/48 , 2022) Download Indicator
Compared to other OECD and partner countries/economies, students in Japan had a relatively bad experience with learning at home. (-0.42 PISA Index, rank 71/71 , 2022) Download Indicator
Compared to other OECD and partner countries/economies, students in Japan had few problems with remote learning. (-0.65 PISA Index, rank 77/77 , 2022) Download Indicator
Schools in Japan developed few actions and activities to maintain learning, compared to other OECD and partner countries/economies. (-0.55 PISA Index, rank 76/77 , 2022) Download Indicator
Japan ranked among the countries where students reported a relatively low feeling of confidence in their capacity for self-directed learning, compared to the other OECD and partner countries/economies. (-0.68 PISA Index, rank 76/76 , 2022) Download Indicator
General findings
- Singapore scored significantly higher than all other countries/economies in mathematics (575 points) and, along with Hong Kong (China), Japan, Korea, Macao (China), and Chinese Taipei, outperformed all other countries and economies in mathematics. Another 17 countries also performed above the OECD average (472 points), ranging from Estonia (510 points) to New Zealand (479 points).
- Boys outperformed girls in mathematics by nine score points and girls outperformed boys in reading by 24 score points on average across OECD countries. In science, the performance difference between boys and girls is not significant.
- An average of 69% of students are at least basically proficient in mathematics in OECD countries. This means they are beginning to demonstrate the ability and initiative to use mathematics in simple real-life situations.
- In 16 out of 81 countries/economies participating in PISA 2022, more than 10% of students attained Level 5 or 6 proficiency, meaning they are high-performing: they understand that a problem is quantitative in nature and can formulate complex mathematical models to solve it. By contrast, less than 5% of students are high-performing in 42 countries/economies.
Visualisations
to display other variables
to display other variables
to display other variables
- Singapore scored significantly higher than all other countries/economies in reading (543 points) and science (561 points). Behind Singapore, Ireland performed as well as Estonia, Japan, Korea and Chinese Taipei while another 14 education systems performed above the OECD average in reading (476 points), ranging from Macao (China) (510 points) to Italy (482 points).
- About three out of four students have achieved basic proficiency in reading in OECD countries.
- In reading, an OECD average of 7% of students attained the highest proficiency levels of 5 or 6. In 13 countries/economies, more than 10% of students are top performers in reading.
- No change in the OECD average over consecutive PISA assessments up to 2018 has ever exceeded five points in reading: in PISA 2022, however, the OECD average dropped by about 10 score points in reading compared to PISA 2018.. The unprecedented drops reading point to the shock effect of COVID-19 on most countries.
- Only four countries and economies improved their performance between PISA 2018 and 2022 in all three subjects: Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, the Dominican Republic and Chinese Taipei.
- Trend analysis of PISA results reveals a decades-long decline that began well before the pandemic. In reading, performances peaked in 2012 and 2009, respectively, before dipping while performance began a downward descent in mathematics before 2018 in Australia, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Iceland, Korea, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the Slovak Republic and Switzerland.
Visualisations
to display other variables
to display other variables
to display other variables
- Mean performance in science remained stable.
- In science, the highest-performing education systems are Singapore, Japan, Macao (China), Chinese Taipei, Korea, Estonia, Hong Kong (China) and Canada. Finland performed as well as Canada in science. In addition to these nine countries and economies, another 15 education systems also performed above the OECD average in science (485 points), ranging from Australia (507 points) to Belgium (491 points).
- About three out of four students have achieved basic proficiency science in OECD countries.
- In science, an OECD average of 7% of students attained the highest proficiency levels of 5 or 6. In 14 countries/economies, more than 10% of students are top performers in science.
- Only four countries and economies improved their performance between PISA 2018 and 2022 in all three subjects: Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, the Dominican Republic and Chinese Taipei.
- Trend analysis of PISA results reveals a decades-long decline that began well before the pandemic. In science, performances peaked in 2012 and 2009, respectively, before dipping. while performance began a downward descent in mathematics before 2018 in Australia, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Iceland, Korea, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the Slovak Republic and Switzerland.
Visualisations
to display other variables
to display other variables
to display other variables
- Socio-economically advantaged students scored 93 points more in mathematics than disadvantaged students on average across OECD countries. The performance gap attributed to students' socio-economic status is greater than 93 score points in 22 countries or economies and 50 points or fewer in 13 countries or economies.
- Boys outperformed girls in mathematics by nine score points and girls outperformed boys in reading by 24 score points on average across OECD countries. In science, the performance difference between boys and girls is not significant.
- Non-immigrant students scored 29 points more than immigrant students in mathematics on average across OECD countries but non-immigrant students scored only five points more than immigrant students once socio-economic status and language spoken at home had been accounted for.
Visualisations
to display other variables
to display other variables
to display other variables
- Between 2018 and 2022 trends in students' sense of belonging at school were mixed, with equal proportions of countries/economies showing stable, improving or deteriorating trends. Of the 47 education systems with improving or stable trends, only 20 maintained or attained a level of students' sense of belonging at school that was at or above the OECD average.
- Around 10% of students reported feeling unsafe on their way to or from school, or in places outside of the classroom, on average across OECD countries. Some 20% of students reported that they are bullied at least a few times a month.
- Overall, students felt more confident about using digital technology for learning remotely during future school closures than they felt about taking responsibility for their own learning. For instance, on average across OECD countries, about three out of four students reported that they feel confident or very confident about using a learning-management system, a school learning platform or a video communication program, as well as about finding learning resources online on their own.
- Students' experience with learning at home was more positive in systems that were better prepared for remote learning. However, when learning remotely, 40% of all students reported feeling lonely and 50% of all students reported feeling anxious about schoolwork and that they fell behind in their studies; and three in ten students reported that teachers were not available when needed, on average across OECD countries.
Visualisations
to display other variables
to display other variables
to display other variables
- Singapore, Korea, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Estonia and Finland are the highest-performing systems in creative thinking, significantly above the OECD average. Students in Singapore score 41 points on average in creative thinking.
- There is a large performance gap in creative thinking between the highest-performing and lowest-performing country of 28 score points or around four proficiency levels. 97 out of 100 students in the five best-performing countries performed above the average student in the five lowest performing countries.
- Academic excellence is not a pre-requisite for excellence in creative thinking. While around half of all students who performed at the highest level in creative thinking performed at the highest level in mathematics, similar proportions of students within the third quintile of creative thinking performance scored within the second, third and fourth quintiles, respectively, in mathematics. However, very few students below a baseline proficiency in mathematics excelled in creative thinking.
- In no country or economy did boys outperform girls in creative thinking, with girls scoring 3 points higher in creative thinking on average across the OECD. The gender gap is significant in all countries/economies after accounting for mathematics performance and in around half of all countries/economies even after accounting for students reading performance.
- Students with higher socio-economic status performed better in creative thinking, with advantaged students scoring around 9.5 points higher than their disadvantaged peers on average across the OECD. In general, the strength of the association between socio-economic status and performance is weaker in creative thinking than it is for mathematics, reading and science.
Visualisations
to display other variables
to display other variables
to display other variables
- Asking questions is key to learning. However, less than half of students ask questions often when they dont understand something in mathematics class.
- Critical thinking is a vital learning strategy. It involves considering other perspectives before forming ones own opinion. Less than 60% of students employ critical-thinking strategies on average.
- Connecting new knowledge with existing knowledge is crucial. Yet, less than half of students report doing this regularly in mathematics lessons.
- Intrinsic motivation predicts the use of learning strategies. Only around half of students report being intrinsically motivated to learn new things in school.
- Growth mindsets are linked to positive learning strategies and outcomes. While 58% report a general growth mindset, fewer students feel this way specifically about mathematics.
- Most students feel confident finding information online, but judging the quality of that information remains a challenge, especially for lower performers.
- Proactive learners who connect new material with prior knowledge and stay engaged in the classroom are most confident in their mathematics skills for the 21st century.
- Only about a third of students are exposed to 21st-century mathematics tasks, such as applying solutions to real-life situations. Practices like exploring different problem-solving methods are associated with increased confidence in these skills.
Visualisations
to display other variables
to display other variables
to display other variables
All rankings for individual variables are compiled on the basis of OECD and G20 countries for which data are available. The OECD average includes only OECD countries which are listed here: http://www.oecd.org/about/membersandpartners/
Reference years displayed in the Education GPS correspond to the most common year of reference among countries for which data is available on each variable. Data for the latest available year is preferred and some countries may have provided data refering to a more recent or late year. To know more about possible exceptions on data please click on the "Download Indicator" link on each variable. When a year of reference corresponds to a school year encompassing two years, the reference reads as follows: 2018 for school year 2017/2018.
*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 averages. 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 2021 for more details about the data collections.
B-S-J-Z (China) refers to the four PISA-participating provinces/municipalities of the People's Republic of China: Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu and Zhejiang.
For additional notes, please refer to annexes in the list of links below the introductory country profile text.