Explore the OECD's reports or draw from a wide variety of education indicators and data to construct your own, customised country reports, highlighting the facts, developments and outcomes of your choice.

Country

Viet Nam
Change country

Data profiles:


Viet Nam
Student performance (PISA 2022)
  • In mathematics, the main topic of PISA 2022, 15-year-olds in score 469 points compared to an average of 472 points in OECD countries.
  • On average, 15-year-olds score 462 points in reading compared to an average of 476 points in OECD countries.
  • In Viet Nam, the average performance in science of 15-year-olds is 472 points, compared to an average of 485 points in OECD countries.
  • A smaller proportion of students in Viet Nam, than on average across OECD countries, were top performers (Level 5 or 6) in at least one subject. At the same time a similar proportion of students as on average across OECD countries achieved a minimum level of proficiency (Level 2 or higher) in all three subjects.
  • In Viet Nam, 72% of students attained at least Level 2 proficiency in mathematics (OECD average: 69%). At a minimum, these students can interpret and recognize, without direct instructions, how a simple situation can be represented mathematically (e.g. comparing the total distance across two alternative routes, or converting prices into a different currency).
  • Some 5% of students in Viet Nam were top performers in mathematics, meaning that they attained Level 5 or 6 in the PISA mathematics test (OECD average: 9%). At these levels, students can model complex situations mathematically, and can select, compare and evaluate appropriate problem-solving strategies for dealing with them.
  • In Viet Nam socio-economically advantaged students (the top 25% in terms of socio-economic status) outperformed disadvantaged students (the bottom 25%) by 78 score points in mathematics. This is smaller than the average difference between the two groups (93 score points) across OECD countries.
  • Boys outperformed girls in mathematics by 10 score points. Globally, in mathematics, boys outperformed girls in 40 countries and economies, girls outperformed boys in another 17 countries or economies, and no significant difference was found in the remaining 24.
  • In Viet Nam, 40% of students reported that their school building was closed for more than three months due to COVID-19. On average across OECD countries, 51% of students experienced similarly long school closures. In education systems where performance remained high and students' sense of belonging improved, fewer students experienced longer school closures.
    • | PISA 2022 | Country Note | PISA 2022 Assessment and Analytical Framework | PISA Database | Glossary |
    Profile View

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

    The following list displays indicators for which your selected country shows the highest and lowest values among countries. The list can be sorted by level of education or by age group. All rankings are calculated including available data from OECD and partner countries. Find out more about the methodology here.

    Show indicators for which your country ranks among the top or bottom: Sort by:

    Student performance in reading

    The score difference in reading between the 10% of students with the highest scores and the 10% of students with the lowest scores is one of the smallest among PISA-participating countries and economies. (197 PISA Score, rank 73/80 , 2022) Download Indicator

    Student performance in science

    The difference between girls and boys in science performance is one of the largest among PISA-participating countries and economies in favour of girls. (6 PISA Score, rank 10/47 , 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. (8.4 %, rank 77/80 , 2022) Download Indicator

    The disciplinary climate in language-of-instruction lessons is one of the best compared to other countries and economies. (0.39 PISA Index, rank 4/80 , 2022) Download Indicator

    The share of students who reported having missed school for more than three consecutive months because they were bored is smaller in Viet Namthan in other OECD and partner countries/economies. (8.2 %, rank 69/69 , 2022) Download Indicator

    Students' engagement, drive and self-beliefs

    The time spent on homework per day in a typical school week in Viet Nam is long compared to the other OECD and partner countries/economies. (2 Hours, rank 6/80 , 2022) Download Indicator

    Viet Nam has one of the largest differences in mathematics performance associated with a one-hour increase in the time spent doing homework in mathematics, after accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile. (10 PISA Score points, rank 2/59 , 2022) Download Indicator

    Viet Nam had one of the highest shares of students who agree or strongly agree they love learning new things in school. (87.2 %, rank 1/75 , 2022) Download Indicator

    Viet Nam had one of the most frequent shares of students whose teacher asked them to think about how new and old math topics were related, in more than half of the lessons at least. (48.1 %, rank 5/79 , 2022) Download Indicator

    Sense of belonging at school

    Viet Nam saw one of the strongest decreases on the index of sense of belonging between PISA 2012 and PISA 2022 (-0.27 PISA Index, rank 38/43 , 2022) Download Indicator

    Learning strategies

    Viet Nam had one of the highest shares of students who try to connect new material to what they have learned in previous math lessons, more than half the time. (59.2 %, rank 2/79 , 2022) Download Indicator

    Students’ predispositions to learning

    Viet Nam had one of the smallest differences in the share of students who ask questions when they don’t understand math content (at least half the time) between the top and bottom quarters of the math self-efficacy index (formal & applied math). (21.7 % points, rank 69/75 , 2022) Download Indicator

    Viet Nam had one of the smallest differences in the share of students who love learning new things in school between students in the top and bottom quarters of the index of math self-efficacy (formal & applied math). (8 % points, rank 70/71 , 2022) Download Indicator

    Confidence in mathematics: Preparing for the future

    Viet Nam had one of the lowest shares of students who frequently extract mathematical information from diagrams, graphs, or simulations. (20.2 %, rank 77/79 , 2022) Download Indicator

    Performance and socio-economic status

    The maths performance of students in the bottom international decile of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS) scale is among the highest, compared to countries and economies participating in PISA. (427 PISA Score, rank 4/64 , 2022) Download Indicator

    The mean PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS) in Viet Nam is one of the lowest among countries and economies participating in PISA. (-1.29 PISA Index, rank 73/79 , 2022) Download Indicator

    Performance and diversity

    The percentage of students with an immigrant backgroung is one of the lowest among countries and economies participating in PISA. (0.1 %, rank 80/80 , 2022) Download Indicator

    Among 15 year-olds, the share of first generation immigrant students in Viet Nam is one of the smallest among OECD and partner countries with available data. (0.1 %, rank 78/80 , 2022) Download Indicator

    Among 15 year-olds, the share of second generation immigrant students in Viet Nam is one of the smallest among OECD and partner countries with available data. (0.1 %, rank 78/80 , 2022) Download Indicator

    Resources for education

    The share of students in schools whose principal reported that the use of cell phones is not allowed on the school premises is relatively low in Viet Nam. (11.6 %, rank 75/80 , 2022) Download Indicator

    Teachers

    Between 2018 and 2022, Viet Nam recorded a particularly small change in the percentage of teachers fully certified by the appropriate authority, compared to the other OECD and partner countries/economies. (-13.4 %, rank 30/34 , 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 Viet Nam compared to other OECD and partner countries/economies. (83.1 %, rank 5/79 , 2022) Download Indicator

    Governance

    In Viet Nam, 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. (-37 PISA Score points, rank 32/39 , 2022) Download Indicator

    Demographic indicators

    The coverage of the national 15-year-old population in PISA 2018 is one the lowest among countries and economies participating in PISA. (68.37 Ratio, rank 72/80 , 2022) Download Indicator

    COVID-19 effects on education

    In Viet Nam, students are characterized by their strong emotional control, when compared to other OECD and partner countries/economies, as measured by the PISA index of students' emotional control. (0.24 PISA Index, rank 2/61 , 2022) Download Indicator

    In Viet Nam, the schools were relatively well prepared for remote instruction before the pandemic, compared to other OECD and partner countries/economies. (0.49 PISA Index, rank 10/77 , 2022) Download Indicator

    Compared to other OECD and partner countries/economies, students in Viet Nam had a relatively good experience with learning at home. (0.56 PISA Index, rank 2/71 , 2022) Download Indicator

    The difference between boys and girls in the confidence they have on their capacity to drive self-directed learning is one of the largest among countries participating in PISA (0.08 PISA Index, rank 9/30 , 2022) Download Indicator


    The data table will display up to six selected countries.
    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.
    
                            
    
                            
    
                                | PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The State of Learning and Equity in Education | Education policies: Skills | 
    
                            
    
                                Visualisations
    
                            

                            
    
                                Click the arrow sign next to the title:
                                    arrows
                                    to display other variables
                                    
                                
    
                                
                                    
                                
    
                            
    
                            
    
                                Click the arrow sign next to the title:
                                    arrows
                                    to display other variables
                                
    
                                
                                    
                                
    
                            
    
                            
    
                                Click the arrow sign next to the title:
                                    arrows
                                    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.
    
                            
    
                            
    
                                | PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The State of Learning and Equity in Education | Education policies: Skills | 
    
                            
    
                                Visualisations
    
                            

                            
    
                                Click the arrow sign next to the title:
                                    arrows
                                    to display other variables
                                    
                                
    
                                
                                    
                                
    
                            
    
                            
    
                                Click the arrow sign next to the title:
                                    arrows
                                    to display other variables
                                
    
                                
                                    
                                
    
                            
    
                            
    
                                Click the arrow sign next to the title:
                                    arrows
                                    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.
    
                            
    
                            
    
                                | PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The State of Learning and Equity in Education | Education policies: Skills | 
    
                            
    
                                Visualisations
    
                            

                            
    
                                Click the arrow sign next to the title:
                                    arrows
                                    to display other variables
                                    
                                
    
                                
                                    
                                
    
                            
    
                            
    
                                Click the arrow sign next to the title:
                                    arrows
                                    to display other variables
                                
    
                                
                                    
                                
    
                            
    
                            
    
                                Click the arrow sign next to the title:
                                    arrows
                                    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.
    
                            
    
                            
    
                                | PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The State of Learning and Equity in Education | PISA 2022 Results (Volume II): Learning During - and From - Disruption | Education policies: Gender | Education policies: Socio-economic status | Education policies: Migrant background | 
    
                            
    
                                Visualisations
    
                            

                            
    
                                Click the arrow sign next to the title:
                                    arrows
                                    to display other variables
                                    
                                
    
                                
                                    
                                
    
                            
    
                            
    
                                Click the arrow sign next to the title:
                                    arrows
                                    to display other variables
                                
    
                                
                                    
                                
    
                            
    
                            
    
                                Click the arrow sign next to the title:
                                    arrows
                                    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. 
    
                            
    
                            
    
                                | PISA 2022 Results (Volume II): Learning During - and From - Disruption | Education policies: Students' Well-Being | Education policies: Student engagement and motivation | Education policies: Learning time & Disciplinary climate | OECD Better Life Index | 
    
                            
    
                                Visualisations
    
                            

                            
    
                                Click the arrow sign next to the title:
                                    arrows
                                    to display other variables
                                    
                                
    
                                
                                    
                                
    
                            
    
                            
    
                                Click the arrow sign next to the title:
                                    arrows
                                    to display other variables
                                
    
                                
                                    
                                
    
                            
    
                            
    
                                Click the arrow sign next to the title:
                                    arrows
                                    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.
    
                            
    
                            
    
                                | PISA 2022 Results (Volume III): Creative Minds, Creative Schools | 
    
                            
    
                                Visualisations
    
                            

                            
    
                                Click the arrow sign next to the title:
                                    arrows
                                    to display other variables
                                    
                                
    
                                
                                    
                                
    
                            
    
                            
    
                                Click the arrow sign next to the title:
                                    arrows
                                    to display other variables
                                
    
                                
                                    
                                
    
                            
    
                            
    
                                Click the arrow sign next to the title:
                                    arrows
                                    to display other variables
                                
    
                                
                                    
                                
    
                            
    
                    
            

    
                        
    
                            
    
                                
    • Asking questions is key to learning. However, less than half of students ask questions often when they don’t understand something in mathematics class.
    • Critical thinking is a vital learning strategy. It involves considering other perspectives before forming one’s 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.
    
                            
    
                            
    
                                | PISA 2022 Results (Volume V): Learning Strategies and Attitudes for Life | 
    
                            
    
                                Visualisations
    
                            

                            
    
                                Click the arrow sign next to the title:
                                    arrows
                                    to display other variables
                                    
                                
    
                                
                                    
                                
    
                            
    
                            
    
                                Click the arrow sign next to the title:
                                    arrows
                                    to display other variables
                                
    
                                
                                    
                                
    
                            
    
                            
    
                                Click the arrow sign next to the title:
                                    arrows
                                    to display other variables
                                
    
                                
                                    
                                
    
                            
    
                    
            
                
    
            
    
        
    
        
    
            
        
    
        
    
            
        
    

        
        
		
        
		
    
			
    
				Key
            
    
            Diagram of funding flows - Viet Nam
            
    
            
    
        
    


        
		
    
            
    
			Click on the coverpage to see the full OECD iLibrary version
			
    
				Key
            
    
            Country Reviews for Viet Nam
            
    
            
    
			
    
        
    
		
              
              
              
              
              
              
              
              
              
        
    
            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.
    
            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.