Educational Statistics

 

The Current Status and Perceptions of Students’ and

Teachers’ Use of AI and Digital Technologies:

Evidence from Data

 

 

 

Author: Im, So-Hyun (Director, Center for Education Statistics, KEDI)

 

 

 

The recently published OECD Digital Education Outlook 2026 presents the proportion of internet users who used ChatGPT during 2024-2025 and estimates the diffusion of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools across OECD member countries, accession countries, and key partner economies (see [Figure 1]). The use of generative AI services, including ChatGPT, has increased rapidly worldwide, with both the number of users and the intensity of use expanding substantially between 2024 and 2025. Notably, approximately 95% of generative AI use occurs through chatbot-based services, indicating that most users perceive and utilize AI primarily as a conversational tool (OECD, 2026). This trend is expected to be reflected in the education sector as well. Against this backdrop, this article examines the current status of and perceptions toward the use of AI and digital technologies among students and teachers.

 

 

 

 

■ Current Status and Perceptions of Students’ Use of AI and Digital Technologies

 

According to the 2024 ‘Survey on Youth Media Use and Harmful Environments,’ the proportion of elementary, middle, and high school students (17,140 students nationwide, including Grades 4-6 in elementary school, Grades 1-3 in middle school, and Grades 1-3 in high school) who had experience using generative AI was 49.9% overall. The proportions were similar by gender, at 49.7% for male students and 50.0% for female students (see [Figure 2]).

 

By grade level, the proportion of elementary school students with experience using generative AI ranged from 18.4% to 36.2%, remaining relatively lower than that of other school levels. Among middle school students, the proportion increased to between 40.9% and 54.9%. For high school students, it ranged from 71.3% to 77.5%, demonstrating a clear increase in experience with generative AI as grade level advanced. These findings suggest that generative AI is increasingly being used as a learning and information tool and that its use becomes more prevalent as students progress through school.

 

 

 

Although not based on a nationwide survey, the 2025 ‘Gimhae Youth Survey’ provides relatively recent evidence on the use of AI and digital technologies. The findings indicate that middle and high school students (approximately 2,000 students in Gimhae City) use AI and digital technologies across a wide range of activities, including learning, information search, leisure, and content creation. Overall, learning support (e.g., online lectures and AI tutors) accounted for the largest share (48.4%), followed by information search and news consumption (21.8%), games and entertainment (18.4%), content creation (e.g., video editing and design) (8.3%), and programming and software development (2.7%) (see [Figure 3]).

 

By school level, learning support represented the largest category among middle school students (38.7%), while the proportion using AI and digital technologies for games and entertainment increased to 25.1%. In particular, 33.4% of male middle school students reported using these technologies for games and entertainment, the highest proportion among the categories. Among high school students, the proportion using AI and digital technologies for learning support increased substantially to 57.2%, whereas the proportion using them for games and entertainment declined markedly to 12.4%. The proportion using them for information search and news consumption was similar across school levels (21.5% among middle school students and 22.1% among high school students).

 

 

 

Overall, elementary and middle school students showed highly positive perceptions of the educational use of digital technologies, although some differences were observed by grade level. On average, agreement exceeded 80% for most survey items. In particular, approximately 90% agreed that digital technologies ‘help increase interest in school subjects’ and ‘contribute to the development of digital literacy’ (see [Figure 4]).

 

A more detailed analysis shows that elementary school students reported agreement levels of 85% or higher across all survey items. Among fifth and sixth grade students, agreement exceeded 90% for many items, indicating highly positive perceptions of the educational benefits of digital technologies. In contrast, relatively lower levels of agreement (in the mid-70% range) were observed for relational aspects, such as ‘building close relationships with teachers’ and ‘relationships with classmates.’ Among middle school students, overall agreement tended to be somewhat lower than among elementary school students. In particular, third-year middle school students showed lower levels of agreement across most items than students in other grades, suggesting that expectations regarding the educational benefits of digital technologies decline somewhat as students progress through school. Nevertheless, relatively high levels of agreement (over 80%) were still observed for items related to ‘interest in school subjects,’ ‘understanding classroom instruction,’ and ‘improving digital literacy.’

 

 

 

■ Teachers’ Use of AI and Their Perceptions

 

According to the results of OECD TALIS 2024, substantial cross-national differences exist in teachers’ use of AI to support instruction and student learning (Lee et al., 2025). The OECD average was approximately 36.3%, whereas Korea recorded 42.7%, exceeding the OECD average. In other words, although Korean teachers use AI somewhat more frequently than the OECD average, a noticeable gap remains compared with leading countries (see [Figure 5]).

 

 

 

Overall, Korean teachers expressed strong expectations regarding the educational benefits of AI while simultaneously recognizing ethical and educational concerns associated with its use (see [Figure 6]).

 

First, teachers expressed positive perceptions regarding AI’s role in supporting instruction and improving administrative efficiency. 78.4% of Korean teachers agreed that AI ‘helps with lesson planning and improvement,’ substantially exceeding the OECD average (53.0%). Likewise, 79.7% agreed that AI ‘helps adapt learning materials for students with different learning levels,’ compared to the OECD average of 51.7%. Most notably, 82.0% viewed AI positively with respect to ‘supporting students with specific learning needs,’ indicating that Korean teachers consistently reported more favorable views of AI’s educational benefits than the OECD average.

 

At the same time, concerns regarding the educational and ethical implications of AI were also evident. Korean teachers expressed considerable concern that ‘students may mistake others’ work for their own’ (83.4%) and that AI may ‘pose risks to the protection of student data and personal information’ (74.7%). In addition, 71.6% agreed that AI could make it difficult to identify inappropriate or inaccurate information, while 60.0% agreed that AI could reinforce bias and lead to misconceptions, reflecting concerns about the potential negative effects of AI on learning.

 

 

Taken together, although the use of AI and digital technologies among students and teachers is expanding rapidly, differences remain in both the extent and the ways in which these technologies are used. Among students, AI use is becoming increasingly diversified beyond learning support to include information search, leisure activities (such as games and entertainment), and content creation, with utilization increasing as students progress through school. Among teachers, although AI use exceeds the OECD average, expectations regarding its educational benefits coexist with concerns about its ethical implications. Accordingly, future policy should focus not only on expanding access to technology but also on strengthening educators’ and students’ capacity to use AI effectively for learning while establishing ethical standards related to information reliability, personal data protection, and educational equity.