The global knowledge assessment Pisa 2025 offered unexpectedly bad news, with historically low results in mathematics, reading comprehension and science.
Neither the OECD, which is responsible for Pisa, nor the Swedish National Agency for Education can point to a single explanation. But when Samuel Sollerman, a researcher in mathematics proficiency measurements at Stockholm University, looks at the report, he sees certain tendencies.
It is certainly true that Swedish students are less able. But there are also signs that Swedish students are not making enough of an effort. The report shows that Swedish students answer quickly and incorrectly. They do so to a greater extent than the OECD average, which may indicate that they have not done their best.
The foundation of everything
Reading researcher Camilla Olsson at the University of Gothenburg notes that reading ability is central to all learning.
It is therefore serious that 31 percent of 15-year-olds do not reach a basic level. Basic reading training should therefore not end after primary and secondary school.
But why has reading ability deteriorated? The result, with large knowledge losses also internationally, suggests that the challenges lie at a more general level. It probably has to do with digital reading habits, with shorter texts or recorded texts to listen to. It does not provide practice in reading fluency, explains Camilla Olsson.
Now we need to do further research, and we need to work with basic processes in secondary school, explain how texts work, read longer texts and motivate reading.
Quick interventions
She herself believed that the Pisa results would show stabilization, given that printed textbooks have once again gained a greater role in schools.
But it may be something that will only be visible in the next Pisa survey.
Regardless, action is needed as soon as possible.
We need more research and more reading training in secondary schools. This also means that secondary school teachers need further training, says Camilla Olsson.
Corrected: In an earlier version of this text, the Timss survey was given an incorrect title.
