# PISA 2025: a classroom guide to reading, evidence and reasoning

> Use two short practice sources to help students compare evidence, explain a conclusion and revise their thinking. A practical classroom response to the questions raised by PISA 2025.

Canonical: https://class2class.org/resources/pisa-2025-reading-evidence-reasoning/

Content contract: 2.0

Revision: 02d5c60c-2883-4ff4-802b-290e6187fa76

Payload checksum (SHA-256): a9f8f564404ab8ff84dea05fe9d229e5ea63185efee897d48a24c5e3d2f06e76

Locale: en

Last updated: 2026-09-12T20:13:38.992Z

Last reviewed: 2026-09-12T20:13:38.992Z

## Direct answer

Use a two-source task: read a claim, compare totals with rates, write an individual explanation and revise it after questions from another group. The routine is a teaching proposal, not a tested route to higher PISA scores.

## Credits

- Giancarlo Mena, Product, Learning and Compliance Lead (author): https://class2class.org/people/giancarlo-mena/
- Leonard Abrahamian, Technical Lead (reviewer): https://class2class.org/people/leonard-abrahamian/

## What can teachers take from PISA 2025?

PISA 2025 assesses how sampled 15-year-old students apply knowledge in reading, mathematics and science. OECD published Volume I, Future-Ready Students, on 8 September 2026. The assessment year and publication year are different. Read the [OECD report](https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2026/09/pisa-2025-results-volume-i_5265bfb1/73451bc5-en.pdf) for its full scope and methods.

OECD reports that its average reading score fell by 28 points and mathematics by 22 points between 2015 and 2025. These are score points, not percentages. Trends differ across countries; an OECD average cannot describe every education system or your class.

The results give context for questions about learning. They do not diagnose an individual pupil, isolate one cause of a decline or test the activity below. Sampling uncertainty and differences between assessment cycles matter. This guide makes no claim that Class2Class or international collaboration raises PISA scores.

## Try a two-source reasoning exercise

Can a headline be numerically correct but still leave out an important comparison? Ask students to investigate: “Did a school poster reduce lunch leftovers?” Everything in the two source notes below is invented for practice. None of the figures is OECD data or a real school result.

Plan around 35-45 minutes for learners aged approximately 13-16, adapting the reading and calculation demands to your class. This is a suggested allocation, not a tested lesson duration. You need paper or a shared display, pencils and optional calculators. The task works without a device, account or partner class.

Copy both practice source notes for students. Let them read Note A first and underline its claim. Then give them Note B and ask what they now need to compare. Introduce leftovers as food left after lunch, and distinguish the total amount from the amount per lunch.

> Image: Two different source sheets beside a lunch tray and pencil.
> /assets/editorial/pisa-2025/pisa-guide-body-1ccd437ad2f5.webp

## Two practice sources to give your class

### Practice source A: school notice

Practice source A: a fictional school notice. “In two five-day school weeks, we recorded 12 kg of lunch leftovers in week 1 and 9 kg in week 2. A new poster went up at the start of week 2 asking pupils to take only what they expected to eat. Less food was left over, so our poster worked.” This notice and its claim are invented for the exercise.

### Practice source B: catering log

Practice source B: a fictional catering log. Week 1 served 160 lunches; week 2 served 100. Both weeks used the same method to weigh leftovers after lunch. The menu changed, and fewer pupils attended in week 2. The log does not explain why pupils left food. These details are also invented for practice.

| Practice measure | Week 1 | Week 2 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Total leftovers | 12 kg | 9 kg |
| Lunches served | 160 | 100 |
| Leftovers per lunch | 75 g | 90 g |

All values in this table are practice data. For the first student attempt, you can cover its last row. Convert kilograms to grams before dividing: 12,000 ÷ 160 = 75 g per lunch, and 9,000 ÷ 100 = 90 g per lunch. The total fell, while the amount per lunch rose.

Note A records a lower total and credits the poster. Note B adds the number of lunches served and changes in the menu and attendance. The log gives a reason to question that inference: the number of lunches and the menu changed too. Neither the lower total nor the higher rate establishes what the poster caused.

## Read, explain, compare and revise

1. Read and question, about 5 minutes. Each student marks the claim in Note A, the data that support it and one piece of missing context. Ask who wrote each fictional note and what each note records.
2. Model a fair comparison, about 8 minutes. Work through one grams-per-lunch calculation. Say why dividing by lunches served answers a different question from comparing totals. Keep units visible.
3. Write individually, about 7 minutes. Each student answers the school question in three or four sentences, using a figure from each note, an explanation of the comparison and a limitation.
4. Exchange explanations, about 8 minutes. Another group, or an optional partner class, identifies the strongest evidence and asks one question. Ask students to challenge the reasoning respectfully, not rank one another.
5. Revise individually, about 7 minutes. Each student writes a revised answer and completes: “I changed or kept my conclusion because …” Allow more time or a second lesson where needed.

One possible student answer is: “The total fell from 12 kg to 9 kg, but fewer lunches were served. Leftovers per lunch rose from 75 g to 90 g. I cannot tell whether the poster worked because the menu and attendance changed. I would collect more comparable observations before deciding.” This is an example of reasoning, not the only acceptable wording.

An extension is to plan better evidence. Ask students what they would keep consistent, what they would record and which comparison would answer their question. More observations can improve a description, but simply adding weeks does not remove every possible explanation for a change.

## Look for each student’s thinking

Use the following prompts to give feedback on this task. They are proposed classroom criteria, not a validated assessment instrument or a PISA marking rubric. A polished group poster is not a substitute for an individual explanation.

- Evidence: Does the answer use the two notes faithfully and include quantities with the correct units?
- Comparison: Does it distinguish total leftovers from leftovers per lunch and show how the rate was calculated?
- Reasoning: Does it explain why the evidence supports, qualifies or challenges the headline?
- Limits: Does it separate an observed difference from a claim about the poster’s effect?
- Revision: Can the student name the question or evidence that changed their answer, or explain why they kept it?

For vocabulary support, explain claim, evidence, total, per lunch and limitation before students write. Offer a sentence starter such as “The total suggests …, but the rate shows …”. Allow oral rehearsal or a teacher-supported spoken response where appropriate, while keeping each student’s own reasoning visible.

## Optional follow-up: check the reasoning on a new example

In a later lesson, give students a fresh example before they discuss it with others. Keep their usual accessibility support. Ask each student to explain what the evidence shows and what it cannot establish. This checks their reasoning on another task; it does not certify a PISA level or establish lasting improvement.

Fictional library notice: "Sixty books were returned late before our reminder campaign and sixty afterwards. The campaign made no difference."

Fictional library log: The earlier period had 300 loans; the later period had 600. The library also changed its return deadlines. All these details are invented for practice.

Ask: How many books were late per 100 loans in each period? Does the notice describe the comparison fully? Can either source establish the campaign's effect?

Teacher notes: Late returns were 20 per 100 loans, then 10 per 100. The total stayed the same while the rate fell. The deadline change and other possible differences prevent attributing the change to the campaign from these records alone. Keep these notes back until students have attempted the task.

## Add another perspective when it serves the task

A second group in the same room can complete the exchange. If you already work with another class, send the same practice sources and ask each class to share an anonymised explanation and one question. Agree the language, timing and what may be shared under your schools’ existing privacy and safeguarding arrangements.

The useful addition is another interpretation to examine. Do not turn the exercise into a comparison of countries or pupils’ ability. You can adapt the local question later, but real measurements need a clear method and honest limits. An online exchange is optional.

Keep the classroom discussion focused on the fictional records. Any later food project should avoid asking pupils to disclose hunger, family income or personal diets.

For a broader account of observing communication, collaboration and critical thinking in project work, read our [guide to 21st-century skills](/impact/21st-century-skills-global-classroom-projects/).

To explore a future collaboration, browse Class2Class Discover and inspect a project’s age range, language, timing and participation details. Choose a project that fits your teaching purpose. This exercise does not require a dedicated PISA project or guarantee that a suitable partner is available.

## Sources and how this guide will be reviewed

The research context is OECD, [PISA 2025 Results (Volume I): Future-Ready Students](https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2026/09/pisa-2025-results-volume-i_5265bfb1/73451bc5-en.pdf), DOI 10.1787/73451bc5-en. The source was checked on 8 September 2026. Consult the report and its technical notes before interpreting national trends or small score differences.

The classroom routine, fictional notes and feedback prompts are original Class2Class editorial proposals. They are not OECD materials or an OECD-endorsed intervention. Teachers may copy the practice exercise for classroom use.

[Explore classroom projects](https://platform.class2class.org/en/discover)

### Is this an official PISA lesson or test?

No. It is an original classroom proposal using invented practice sources. It is not an OECD test item, a validated PISA rubric or evidence that an activity improves PISA scores.

### Do I need a partner class or student accounts?

No. Students can work with paper copies and exchange explanations with another group in the same classroom. A partner-class exchange is optional.

### Can students reach different conclusions?

They can phrase or qualify their answers differently. Each answer should use the sources accurately, distinguish total from per-lunch amounts and avoid claiming that the poster caused a change.

## Related content

- [/impact/assessing-student-work-international-collaborations/](/impact/assessing-student-work-international-collaborations/)
- [/resources/collaboration-guide-get-to-know-each-other/](/resources/collaboration-guide-get-to-know-each-other/)

## Typed relations

- topic:education-future-skills
- subject:mathematics
- age-school-level:secondary
- learning-outcome:critical-thinking
- learning-outcome:communication
- learning-outcome:collaboration
- audience:teachers
- format:article