Study habits vary from the amount of homework students complete to whether they check answers, connect new lessons with earlier learning, and ask for help. PISA 2022 student-reported statistics, mainly from 15-year-olds in mathematics-learning contexts, provide a broad international picture. These figures describe associations rather than causal effects, and percentages may be rounded.
Contents
- Homework time and workload
- Checking work before submission
- Proactive study behaviors
- Self-directed learning and asking for help
- Motivation and study resources
- Digital study and evaluating information
Homework time and workload
Across OECD countries, students reported spending an average of 1.5 hours per day on homework during a typical school week in PISA 2022. The international distribution was broad:
- 27% reported doing up to 30 minutes per day.
- 19% reported more than 30 minutes and up to 1 hour.
- 23% reported between 1 and 2 hours.
- 31% reported more than 2 hours.
Students in 54 countries and economies reported up to 2 hours of homework per day on average. Students in Colombia, Guatemala, Morocco, Panama, and Peru reported more than 2.5 hours per day on average, while students in the Czech Republic, Finland, and Switzerland reported less than 1 hour. These are country-level averages, so they do not describe every student in each education system. OECD, Investments in a solid foundation for learning and well-being: PISA 2022 Results (Volume II)
The relationship with mathematics performance was not simply “more homework is always better.” After socioeconomic adjustment, students doing 30–60 minutes scored 16 mathematics points higher than students doing less than 30 minutes. Students doing 1–2 hours scored 2 points higher than those doing 30–60 minutes. Above 2 hours per day, homework time was negatively associated with mathematics performance. These results are associations, not proof that a particular homework duration causes a particular score.
| Reported homework time | PISA 2022 student share | Reported mathematics relationship |
|---|---|---|
| Up to 30 minutes | 27% | Reference group in the reported comparison |
| More than 30 minutes to 1 hour | 19% | 16 points higher than under 30 minutes, after adjustment |
| 1 to 2 hours | 23% | 2 points higher than 30–60 minutes, after adjustment |
| More than 2 hours | 31% | Negatively associated with performance |
For study planning, the figures support paying attention to workload and diminishing returns. They do not establish a universal ideal schedule, and the categories refer to a typical school week rather than a single evening.
Checking work before submission
Checking is one of the clearest measurable study habits in the PISA data. Overall, 64% of students agreed or strongly agreed that they like to make sure there are no mistakes in their work. The figure was 71% among skilled mathematics performers, compared with about 50% among low performers.
A narrower habit was less common: 44% reported carefully checking homework before turning it in. Among skilled performers, 46% reported double-checking homework before submission, compared with 42% of low performers. Students may therefore value accuracy in principle without applying the same routine consistently to completed homework. In fact, 44% of students who generally try not to make mistakes did not apply that checking habit to homework.
Country patterns also differed. About 75% of students in Cambodia, Indonesia, and Uzbekistan reported checking homework before submission. Fewer than 30% did so in Finland, the Netherlands, and Latvia. The reported performance association was modest: students who checked homework scored 4 mathematics points higher on average than those who did not, after socioeconomic adjustment. OECD, Learning strategies: Student approaches to learning: PISA 2022 Results (Volume V)
The practical implication is specific: build a final checking step into the study routine. Checking the question, calculations, units, spelling, and whether every part was answered is a different behavior from merely feeling that mistakes should be avoided.
Proactive study behaviors
PISA 2022 measured several ways students take initiative during mathematics learning. Forty-six percent reported trying to relate new mathematics material to previous lessons more than half of the time on their own. The same percentage reported often starting mathematics assignments right away. Group discussion was less frequent: 33% reported frequently engaging in group discussions during mathematics class when given the opportunity.
The overall difference between students was substantial. The top quarter of students for proactive mathematics study behavior scored 45 points higher on average than the bottom quarter. This is a descriptive performance gap, not evidence that the behaviors alone produced the difference.
Teacher encouragement was reported less often than the corresponding student behavior: 31% said their teachers encourage connecting new information with what was already learned in mathematics. About 50% of skilled performers reported frequently connecting new and previous material, while less than 40% of low performers did so. Less than 40% of low performers also reported frequently starting assignments right away. OECD, From data to insights: PISA 2022 Results (Volume V)
These statistics point to three observable habits: retrieve a related earlier idea before starting, begin promptly instead of postponing the first step, and participate in discussion when an opportunity is available. The data do not show that every student needs the same method or that group discussion suits every assignment.
Self-directed learning and asking for help
Confidence in managing one’s own learning was closely related to several reported behaviors. Students with high self-directed-learning confidence were 22 percentage points more likely to ask questions when they did not understand mathematics material. The confidence gap ranged from 12 points in Poland to 35 points in Viet Nam.
The same pattern appeared in checking routines. Students with high self-directed-learning confidence were 20 points more likely to check work for mistakes and 24 points more likely to check homework before submission. New Zealand had the largest reported confidence gaps for checking mistakes and homework: 39 and 37 points, respectively. OECD, Students’ readiness for self-directed learning: PISA 2022 Results (Volume V)
Self-directed learning also related to perspective-taking. Students with high confidence were 17 points more likely to consider everybody’s perspective before taking a position. That gap exceeded 28 points in Austria, Bulgaria, and Malaysia, but was under 10 points in Brazil and Greece.
For students, asking a question is therefore part of the measurable study routine, not a sign that learning has failed. The international comparisons show that the size of the relationship differed by education system, so local context matters.
Motivation and study resources
The PISA analysis considered four types of motivation. Among them, students with intrinsic motivation were more likely to use control, self-monitoring, and critical-thinking strategies after socioeconomic adjustment. Enjoying learning new things had the strongest average relationship with checking work for mistakes, especially homework. In the analysis of three proactive mathematics study behaviors, wanting to do well in mathematics was the main driver overall. OECD, Empowering students to be motivated lifelong learners: PISA 2022 Results (Volume V)
Access to digital study resources also showed associations with study behaviors. Educational-software users were 33% more likely to connect new mathematics learning to what they already knew and 56% more likely to check mathematics homework. A computer for schoolwork was linked to higher proactive study behavior in 66 of 79 countries and economies. After socioeconomic adjustment, that computer link remained in 49 of 79 countries and economies. OECD, How are students’ relationships with families and teachers associated with their use of sustained learning strategies?: PISA 2022 Results (Volume V)
These findings should not be read as proof that software or a computer automatically improves habits. They describe relationships in PISA 2022, and access, home circumstances, teacher support, and prior learning may all be relevant to how students use study tools.
Digital study and evaluating information
Finding an online resource and judging whether it is reliable are different skills. In PISA 2022, 73% of students reported having no trouble finding learning resources online by themselves. When asked about evaluating online information quality, 51% said they could do so easily, 33% said they could do so with some effort, 9% reported struggling, and 4% said they were unable to judge quality at all.
The distribution varied across education systems. At least 40% of students in Brunei Darussalam, Croatia, Estonia, Japan, Macao (China), and Slovenia reported evaluating information quality with some effort. OECD, From data to insights: PISA 2022 Results (Volume V)
For digital study, the statistics separate access from evaluation. A student may be able to locate a learning resource while still needing time or support to assess its quality. A careful routine can therefore include finding more than one explanation, checking the source and date, comparing claims, and distinguishing evidence from opinion. PISA 2022 measures the reported difficulty of these tasks; it does not independently verify the accuracy of students’ evaluations.