Reading is a far more complex task today than it once was. The Internet has transported the written word from the confines of a few carefully curated books to the phone screens in everyone’s pocket, and accredited publishers are no longer the gatekeepers of what and how we read – today, anyone can publish with almost no constraints. How can we verify what we read online? What skills are involved in evaluating the trustworthiness of a source and understanding the information provided? In 2018, the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) addressed reading as its main subject, and the reading framework was devised to include essential reading skills in a digital world, to provide important insights into how 15-year-old students are developing reading skills to navigate the technology-rich 21st century, and how this varies by geography, social background or gender. It also explores what teachers can do to help students navigate ambiguity and manage complexity. Join Andreas Schleicher, OECD Director for Education and Skills, as he presents the latest findings from PISA 2018, published in the upcoming report 21st-Century Readers: Developing Literacy Skills in a Digital World.

1. PISA 2018 Results
Programme for International Student Assessment
21st-century Readers
Developing literacy skills in a digital world
Andreas
Schleicher

2. OECD average reading score
340
350
360
370
380
390
400
410
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
490
500
510
520
530
540
550
560
Reading in the digital world (PISA)
Student
performance
2009 2012 2015
2006 2018
2000 2003
47% of 15-year-olds in OECD countries are able
to distinguish facts from opinions in texts

3. Students and computers

4. The digital world has become the real world
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Denmark
Sweden
Chile
New
Zealand
Uruguay
United
States
Costa
Rica
Bulgaria
Australia
Serbia
Latvia
Thailand
Iceland
Luxembourg
Estonia
United
Kingdom
Hungary
Poland
Lithuania
Brazil
Finland
Croatia
Russia
Belgium
Singapore
Italy
Slovak
Republic
OECD
average
Spain
Austria
Malta
France
Israel
Ireland
Greece
Brunei
Darussalam
Czech
Republic
Switzerland
Macao
(China)
Chinese
Taipei
Slovenia
Hong
Kong
(China)
Georgia
Dominican
Republic
Mexico
Turkey
Kazakhstan
Panama
Albania
Japan
Korea
Morocco
Hours Outside of school At school
Number of hours per week spent using the Internet Fig 1.1
Outside of school
At school

5. Digital and non-digital divides

6. Access to a computer linked to the Internet at home for doing schoolwork
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Indonesia
Peru
Morocco
Philippines
Mexico
Viet
Nam
Panama
Dominican
Republic
Thailand
Colombia
Malaysia
Brazil
Turkey
Albania
Argentina
Costa
Rica
Jordan
Lebanon
Brunei
Darussalam
Baku
(Azerbaijan)
Japan
Saudi
Arabia
Kazakhstan
B-S-J-Z
(China)
Uruguay
Chile
Georgia
Qatar
Moldova
Kosovo
Romania
Chinese
Taipei
United
States
Greece
Ukraine
Bulgaria
Hong
Kong
(China)
United
Arab
Emirates
Hungary
Slovak
Republic
OECD
average
Ireland
Montenegro
Italy
Singapore
Israel
France
Germany
New
Zealand
Bosnia
and
Herzegovina
Korea
Belarus
Spain
Belgium
Australia
North
Macedonia
Estonia
Russia
Luxembourg
Macao
(China)
Malta
Austria
Netherlands
Portugal
Canada
Serbia
United
Kingdom
Czech
Republic
Croatia
Latvia
Lithuania
Sweden
Finland
Switzerland
Slovenia
Norway
Iceland
Poland
Denmark
%
Disadvantaged schools Advantaged schools
Fig 2.2
Percentage of students in advantaged and disadvantaged schools

7. Change between 2009 and 2018 in access to a computer that they can use
for schoolwork and a link to the Internet at home
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Denmark
Norway
Slovenia
Poland
Iceland
Lithuania
Switzerland
Netherlands
Czech
Republic
Sweden
Finland
Austria
Latvia
Canada
Australia
Portugal
Russia
Serbia
Malta
Belgium
United
Kingdom
Israel
Slovak
Republic
Macao
(China)
Germany
New
Zealand
Luxembourg
Croatia
Hungary
Spain
France
Bulgaria
Korea
OECD
average-31
Italy
Singapore
Hong
Kong
(China)
Greece
Romania
Montenegro
Estonia
United
States
United
Arab
Emirates
Ireland
Moldova
Qatar
Chinese
Taipei
Georgia
Uruguay
Chile
Kazakhstan
Costa
Rica
Argentina
Albania
Turkey
Jordan
Japan
Brazil
Colombia
Panama
Mexico
Thailand
Malaysia
Peru
Indonesia
PISA 2018 PISA 2003
% x
Fig 2.1

8. Widening gaps in cultural capital: Books at home
Fig
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2000 2009 2018
Number of books Advantaged students Disadvantaged students
Disadvantaged students
Advantaged students

9. Use of digital devices at school

10. Used by both the teacher
and students
Used only
by students
Used only by the teacher Not used
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %
Frequency of use of digital device for teaching and learning in language class
Fig 6.10
Percentage of students who reported that during the last month a digital device has been used for learning
and teaching, OECD average
For test language lessons,
digital devices were:

11. Relationship between reading performance and the type of school activities
done on digital devices
Fig 6.13
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
Playing
simulations at
school
Posting my
work on the
school’s website
Doing
homework on a
school
computer
Downloading,
uploading or
browsing
material from
the school’s
website (e.g.
<intranet>)
Using learning
apps or learning
websites
Using school
computers for
group work and
communication
with other
students
Practicing and
drilling, such as
for foreign
language
learning or
mathematics
Using email at
school
<Chatting
online> at
school
Browsing the
Internet for
schoolwork
Score-point
difference
Before accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile
After accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile
Score-point difference in reading between students who reported using digital devices for the following activities at school
compared to those who reported that never did, OECD average
School activities done on digital devices are positively associated with reading performance
School activities done on digital devices are
negatively associated with reading performance

12. Reading performance and browsing the Internet for schoolwork
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
Malta
Russia
Greece
Poland
Georgia
Morocco
Albania
Turkey
Kazakhstan
Brazil
Czech
Republic
Serbia
Hungary
Singapore
Hong
Kong
(China)
Bulgaria
Lithuania
Israel
Korea
Dominican
Republic
Luxembourg
Latvia
Brunei
Darussalam
Slovak
Republic
Belgium
Slovenia
Estonia
Italy
Japan
Ireland
Croatia
Switzerland
Panama
OECD
average
Thailand
Mexico
Chinese
Taipei
Chile
Spain²
France
Uruguay
United
Kingdom
Costa
Rica
Macao
(China)
United
States
New
Zealand
Finland
Australia
Sweden
Iceland
Denmark
Score-point
difference
Before accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile
After accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile
Students who reported using digital devices for browsing the Internet for schoolwork
scored higher on reading performance than those who reported that never did it
Fig 6.14

13. Distinguishing fact from opinion

14. Students' knowledge of reading strategies for assessing the credibility of sources
Tables B.5.11 and
B.5.12c.
In this task, students were asked what strategies would be more appropriate for responding to a spam email
-1.00
-0.80
-0.60
-0.40
-0.20
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
United
Kingdom
Japan
Germany
Netherlands
Denmark
Ireland
Finland
Singapore
Austria
Australia
New
Zealand
Greece
France
Sweden
Estonia
B-S-J-Z
(China)
Switzerland
Ukraine
Belgium
Latvia
Portugal
Canada
United
States
Spain
OECD
average
Czech
Republic
Slovenia
Norway
Poland
Italy
Lithuania
Argentina
Luxembourg
Russia
Moldova
Macao
(China)
Belarus
Romania
Hong
Kong
(China)
Viet
Nam
Saudi
Arabia
Croatia
Malta
Iceland
Israel
Slovak
Republic
Turkey
Jordan
Qatar
United
Arab
Emirates
Brunei
Darussalam
Costa
Rica
Uruguay
Hungary
Colombia
Korea
Serbia
Chinese
Taipei
Chile
Brazil
Panama
Mexico
Morocco
Peru
Malaysia
Montenegro
Bosnia
and
Herzegovina
Georgia
Bulgaria
Dominican
Republic
Kosovo
Albania
Kazakhstan
Philippines
Baku
(Azerbaijan)
Thailand
Indonesia
All students
Mean index
Tables B.5.11 and B.5.12c.

15. Students' knowledge of reading strategies for assessing the credibility of sources
Tables B.5.11 and
B.5.12c.
In this task, students were asked what strategies would be more appropriate for responding to a spam email
-1.00
-0.80
-0.60
-0.40
-0.20
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
United
Kingdom
Japan
Germany
Netherlands
Denmark
Ireland
Finland
Singapore
Austria
Australia
New
Zealand
Greece
France
Sweden
Estonia
B-S-J-Z
(China)
Switzerland
Ukraine
Belgium
Latvia
Portugal
Canada
United
States
Spain
OECD
average
Czech
Republic
Slovenia
Norway
Poland
Italy
Lithuania
Argentina
Luxembourg
Russia
Moldova
Macao
(China)
Belarus
Romania
Hong
Kong
(China)
Viet
Nam
Saudi
Arabia
Croatia
Malta
Iceland
Israel
Slovak
Republic
Turkey
Jordan
Qatar
United
Arab
Emirates
Brunei
Darussalam
Costa
Rica
Uruguay
Hungary
Colombia
Korea
Serbia
Chinese
Taipei
Chile
Brazil
Panama
Mexico
Morocco
Peru
Malaysia
Montenegro
Bosnia
and
Herzegovina
Georgia
Bulgaria
Dominican
Republic
Kosovo
Albania
Kazakhstan
Philippines
Baku
(Azerbaijan)
Thailand
Indonesia
All students Socio-economically disadvantaged students¹ Socio-economically advantaged students
Mean index
Tables B.5.11 and B.5.12c.

16. Relationship between the reading item of distinguishing facts from opinions and the
index of knowledge of reading strategies for assessing the credibility of sources
Fig 5.7

17. Correlations between access to learning digital skills in school and the
reading item of distinguishing facts from opinions in OECD countries
R² = 0.11
R² = 0.10
R² = 0.14
R² = 0.46
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
How to decide whether to trust information from the Internet
How to compare different web pages and decide what information is more relevant for your schoolwork
To understand the consequences of making information publicly available online on <Facebook©>, <Instagram©>, etc
How to detect whether the information is subjective or biased
Fig 2.6
Percentage
correct
in
the
item
of
distinguishing
facts
from
opinions
(Equated
P+,
Rapa
Nui
Question
3)
Percentage of students who reported that during their entire school experience they were taught the following:
System-level analysis (OECD countries)

18. Navigating information

19. 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Hong
Kong
(China)
34
Singapore
38
Japan
34
B-S-J-Z
(China)
39
Korea
39
Russia
22
United
Kingdom
22
Chinese
Taipei
46
United
States
30
Israel
17
Canada
26
Finland
20
Australia
26
Ireland
20
Macao
(China)
39
Netherlands
22
Malta
18
Croatia
19
Malaysia
27
New
Zealand
30
Latvia
18
Estonia
24
Austria
22
Slovenia
20
Belarus
27
Germany
22
Poland
29
Brunei
Darussalam
26
Lithuania
22
UAE
25
Czech
Republic
27
OECD
average
24
France
28
Belgium
27
Denmark
16
Albania
11
Overall
average
22
Hungary
25
Norway
16
Switzerland
23
Portugal
26
Italy
25
Qatar
23
Philippines
19
Costa
Rica
21
Sweden
18
Bulgaria
14
Slovak
Republic
19
Turkey
36
Luxembourg
28
Thailand
24
Iceland
31
Brazil
15
Chile
25
Greece
18
Indonesia
14
Serbia
18
Mexico
15
Spain¹
23
Kazakhstan
20
Georgia
15
Panama
17
BiH
12
Montenegro
14
Uruguay
8
Dominican
Republic
9
Colombia
22
Peru
18
Baku
(Azerbaijan)
15
Kosovo
7
Morocco
6
Strictly focused navigation Actively explorative navigation Limited navigation No navigation
%
Task-oriented navigation activities
Fig 3.7
Percentage
of
students
who
self
activated
the
multiple-source
by
clicking
hyperlink
Highly effective navigation
Actively explorative navigation Limited navigation
No navigation

20. Distribution of navigation behaviours, by reading proficiency levels
2%
8% 10%
16%
23%
31%
37%
42%
6%
11%
15%
21%
25%
28%
30%
31%
7%
23%
27%
30%
29%
26%
23%
19%
17%
93%
69%
54%
44%
34%
25%
18%
13% 10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Below
Level 1c
Level 1c Level 1b Level 1a Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6
Actively Explorative Navigation Strictly Focused Navigation Limited Navigation No Navigation
Overall average Fig. 3.13

21. Fig 4.5a
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Japan
Hungary
Czech
Republic
Uruguay
Slovenia
Portugal
Belgium
Latvia
Croatia
Norway
Slovak
Republic
Austria
France
Italy
Luxembourg
Iceland
Germany
Turkey
Argentina
Chile
Canada
United
Kingdom
Netherlands
Israel
Lithuania
Colombia
OECD
average
Costa
Rica
Denmark
Poland
Singapore
Malta
Finland
Montenegro
Estonia
Spain
Qatar
United
Arab
Emirates
Sweden
Panama
Hong
Kong
(China)
Brazil
Romania
Bulgaria
Macao
(China)
Switzerland
Greece
Peru
Serbia
Malaysia
Chinese
Taipei
Mexico
Ireland
United
States
Korea
New
Zealand
Moldova
Australia
Georgia
Thailand
Russia
Albania
Jordan
Indonesia
Kazakhstan
%
2009 2018
Reading e-mails
What students read: emails

22. What students read: online discussion groups or forums
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Hong
Kong
(China)
Estonia
Slovenia
Lithuania
Finland
Czech
Republic
Latvia
Qatar
Bulgaria
Slovak
Republic
Belgium
Macao
(China)
Italy
Germany
Croatia
Austria
Switzerland
Greece
Israel
Netherlands
France
Norway
Denmark
Chinese
Taipei
Luxembourg
Portugal
OECD
average
Costa
Rica
Japan
Sweden
Korea
Montenegro
Colombia
Peru
Spain
Argentina
Uruguay
Chile
Georgia
Iceland
Romania
Serbia
United
Arab
Emirates
Panama
Turkey
United
Kingdom
Malta
Canada
Singapore
Brazil
Russia
Poland
Ireland
Mexico
United
States
Australia
Jordan
Moldova
Albania
New
Zealand
Hungary
Kazakhstan
Malaysia
Indonesia
Thailand
%
2009 2018
Taking part in online discussion groups or forums

23. What students read: chatting online
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Lithuania
Bulgaria
Estonia
Hungary
Sweden
Norway
Macao
(China)
Slovenia
Slovak
Republic
Iceland
Canada
Portugal
Czech
Republic
Denmark
United
Arab
Emirates
Netherlands
Malta
France
United
Kingdom
Qatar
Australia
Hong
Kong
(China)
Luxembourg
Finland
United
States
Belgium
Poland
Germany
Austria
OECD
average
Latvia
Switzerland
Russia
Spain
Romania
Chinese
Taipei
Georgia
Singapore
Montenegro
Turkey
Italy
Uruguay
Croatia
Chile
Colombia
Peru
Brazil
Moldova
Argentina
Greece
Israel
Panama
New
Zealand
Korea
Ireland
Albania
Mexico
Serbia
Costa
Rica
Jordan
Thailand
Kazakhstan
Malaysia
Indonesia
Japan
%
2009 2018
Chatting online

24. What students read: online news
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Slovenia
Montenegro
Israel
Slovak
Republic
Korea
Estonia
Hong
Kong
(China)
Iceland
Lithuania
Qatar
Macao
(China)
Czech
Republic
Germany
Austria
Bulgaria
Norway
Poland
Croatia
Sweden
Portugal
Latvia
Turkey
United
Arab
Emirates
Netherlands
United
States
OECD
average
Malta
Luxembourg
United
Kingdom
Singapore
Canada
Australia
Serbia
Chinese
Taipei
Moldova
Hungary
Switzerland
Italy
Denmark
Uruguay
Georgia
Brazil
Romania
New
Zealand
Chile
France
Finland
Argentina
Colombia
Greece
Belgium
Spain
Panama
Costa
Rica
Japan
Peru
Jordan
Mexico
Malaysia
Russia
Albania
Ireland
Indonesia
Thailand
Kazakhstan
%
2009 2018
Reading online news

25. What students read: searching for information
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Qatar
Norway
Czech
Republic
Portugal
Spain
Slovenia
United
Arab
Emirates
Israel
Uruguay
Lithuania
Montenegro
Hungary
Colombia
Bulgaria
Denmark
Turkey
Malta
Slovak
Republic
Chinese
Taipei
Austria
Canada
Croatia
Poland
Iceland
Peru
Korea
Chile
Australia
Estonia
OECD
average
Macao
(China)
Germany
Hong
Kong
(China)
United
Kingdom
Costa
Rica
Luxembourg
Greece
Latvia
Mexico
Sweden
Romania
Switzerland
New
Zealand
Argentina
United
States
Singapore
Italy
France
Netherlands
Georgia
Belgium
Panama
Jordan
Finland
Moldova
Brazil
Serbia
Albania
Thailand
Malaysia
Ireland
Japan
Russia
Indonesia
Kazakhstan
%
2009 2018
Searching for information online on a particular topic

26. 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Qatar
Latvia
Hong
Kong
(China)
Bulgaria
Czech
Republic
Israel
Sweden
Malta
Iceland
Chinese
Taipei
Estonia
Romania
Portugal
Costa
Rica
Slovak
Republic
Greece
United
Arab
Emirates
Canada
Lithuania
Serbia
Korea
Argentina
Montenegro
United
Kingdom
Germany
Netherlands
Chile
Peru
Colombia
Norway
Macao
(China)
Switzerland
Poland
Austria
OECD
average
Hungary
France
United
States
Turkey
Singapore
Australia
Georgia
Spain
Croatia
Luxembourg
Jordan
Ireland
Brazil
Finland
Denmark
Albania
Belgium
New
Zealand
Uruguay
Moldova
Panama
Italy
Slovenia
Mexico
Japan
Malaysia
Russia
Thailand
Indonesia
Kazakhstan
%
2009 2018
Searching for practical information on line
What students read: searching for information

27. Enjoyment of reading

28. Change in enjoyment of reading
-0.80
-0.60
-0.40
-0.20
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
Germany
Norway
Finland
Denmark
Switzerland
Thailand
Netherlands
Belgium
New
Zealand
Sweden
Lithuania
Iceland
Croatia
Austria
France
Portugal
Canada
Australia
Hungary
United
Kingdom
Singapore
Luxembourg
Montenegro
OECD
average
Serbia
Chinese
Taipei
Hong
Kong
(China)
United
States
Slovenia
Kazakhstan
Romania
Ireland
Moldova
Albania
Italy
Estonia
Malaysia
Israel
Turkey
Greece
Latvia
Qatar
Indonesia
Malta
Czech
Republic
Brazil
Japan
Spain
Korea
Chile
Peru
United
Arab
Emirates
Georgia
Panama
Poland
Argentina
Macao
(China)
Mexico
Slovak
Republic
Colombia
Bulgaria
Russia
Costa
Rica
Uruguay
Mean index
2009 2018
Fig 4.2
Reading enjoyment decreased Reading enjoyment increased

29. Enjoyment of reading and reading performance
Fig 4.1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Chinese
Taipei
Ireland
Macao
(China)
Malta
New
Zealand
Finland
Australia
Canada
Poland
Georgia
Iceland
United
Arab
Emirates
Philippines
Russia
Singapore
Japan
Qatar
Korea
Hong
Kong
(China)
Estonia
Brunei
Darussalam
Greece
United
Kingdom
United
States
Latvia
Uruguay
Ukraine
Malaysia
France
Colombia
Belarus
Portugal
Netherlands
Spain²
Brazil
OECD
average
Mexico
B-S-J-Z
(China)
Switzerland
Argentina
Norway
Slovak
Republic
Denmark
Luxembourg
Chile
Baku
(Azerbaijan)
Hungary
Sweden
Belgium
Germany
Austria
Peru
Thailand
Moldova
Bulgaria
Saudi
Arabia
Kosovo
Czech
Republic
Montenegro
Albania
Turkey
Panama
Indonesia
Dominican
Republic
Bosnia
and
Herzegovina
Serbia
Italy
Romania
Slovenia
Costa
Rica
Croatia
Israel
Lithuania
Kazakhstan
Score-point difference
Students with a higher index of reading for enjoyment
scored higher in reading performance
Change in reading performance associated with a one-unit increase in the index of enjoyment
of reading, after accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile and gender

30. Relationship between students' and parents' enjoyment of reading,
and students' characteristics
Fig 4.8
-0.05
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
Hong
Kong
(China)
Korea
Macao
(China)
Belgium
Chile
Brazil
Georgia
Overall
average
Ireland
Germany
Mexico
Italy
Croatia
Luxembourg
Portugal
Panama
Malta
Dominican
Republic
Index of parents' enjoyment of reading Interaction between gender and parents' enjoyment of reading
Change
in
the
index
of
students'
enjoyment
of
reading
Change in the index of students' enjoyment of reading associated with one-unit increase of the following variables,
based on students' and parents' reports

31. Reading for enjoyment and format

32. Enjoyment of reading and reading format
Fig 4.9
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
I read books more often on
digital devices
(e.g. ereader, tablet, smartphone, computer)
I read books more often in
paper format
I read books equally often in
paper format and on digital devices
Difference
in
the
index
of
enjoyment
of
reading
Before accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile, and gender
After accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile, and gender
Difference in enjoyment of reading between students who read books in the following way and those who
"rarely or never read books", OECD average
Students who reported reading more often in paper or equally often in paper format and on digital devices reported
more enjoyment than those who reported that they rarely or never read books

33. Correlations between reading performance and the format of reading books
Fig 4.13
System-level analysis (All)
R² = 0.15
R² = 0.21
370
390
410
430
450
470
490
510
530
550
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Reading
performance
Percentage of students who reported that the following statements best describes how they read books
Read books more often in
paper format
Read books more often
on digital devices

34. Reading at school

35. -5
0
5
10
15
20
Fiction
(e.g., novels, short stories)
Texts that include
tables or graphs
Texts that include
diagrams or maps
Digital texts including links
Score-point
difference
Before accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile¹
After accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile
Reading performance, by the type of text read for school
Fig 6.3
Score-point difference between "two or more times" and "once or none" during the previous month, OECD average
Reading fiction texts such as novels or,
texts that include tables, graphs or diagrams,
are associated with students’ reading skills

36. Reading fiction for school and reading fiction for pleasure
Fig 6.4
Percentage of students who reported reading fiction books, more than once a month
Students who read fiction books for school tend to read
fiction books for pleasure
After accounting for GDP and reading performance:
R = 0.49 - All countries and economies
R = 0.42 - OECD countries

37. Predictors of reading performance
Fig 5.13
0 5 10 15 20 25
Perceived difficulty in reading
Knowledge of reading strategies for
understanding and remembering
Perceived competence in reading
Reading self-efficacy
Knowledge of reading strategies for
writing a summary
Knowledge of reading strategies for
assessing the credibility of sources
Score-point difference in reading
Reading
Change in reading performance associated with a one-unit increase in the following indices
after accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile, gender, and the effect of the rest of the indices,
OECD average

38. Reading long text

39. 100
80
60
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
Finland
Denmark
Canada
United
Kingdom
Chile
Australia
Belarus
Poland
Slovenia
France
Croatia
New
Zealand
Belgium
Netherlands
Lithuania
United
States
Estonia
Spain
Switzerland
Russia
Serbia
Luxembourg
Romania
Bosnia
and
Herzegovina
Ukraine
Turkey
OECD
average
Austria
Germany
Montenegro
Iceland
Ireland
Sweden
Hong
Kong
(China)
Georgia
Czech
Republic
Norway
Italy
Argentina
Colombia
Hungary
Chinese
Taipei
Costa
Rica
Latvia
Albania
Slovak
Republic
Moldova
Israel
Peru
B-S-J-Z
(China)
Malta
Kazakhstan
Portugal
Baku
(Azerbaijan)
United
Arab
Emirates
Malaysia
Indonesia
Philippines
Singapore
Qatar
Bulgaria
Mexico
Panama
Macao
(China)
Dominican
Republic
Uruguay
Brazil
Korea
Brunei
Darussalam
Kosovo
Greece
Thailand
Jordan
Morocco
Japan
Saudi
Arabia
Viet
Nam
%
Length of the longest piece of text that students had to read for school
Fig 6.5
Between 11 and 100 pages
10 pages or less
More than 100 pages

40. Reading performance, by the length of text read for school
Fig 6.6
350
400
450
500
550
10 pages or less Between 11 and 100 pages 101 pages or more
PISA reading
score
OECD average
Reading longer pieces of text for school is
associated with students’ reading skills

41. Career expectations

42. Reading habits, by students' career expectation
Fig 4.11
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Reading is one of
my favourite hobbies
I like talking about books
with other people
For me,
reading is a waste of time
I read only to
get information that I need
%
Health professional Science and engineering professional
Science-related technician¹ ICT professional
Students expect to work as:
Percentage of students who expect to work in the following careers, and
who agreed or strongly agreed on the following reading behaviours, OECD average

43. Find out more about our work at
www.oecd.org/education
Email: Andreas.Schleicher@OECD.org
Twitter: @SchleicherOECD
Wechat: AndreasSchleicher
and remember:
Without data, you are just another person with an opinion
Thank you