Generative AI is now part of schoolwork for many students. PISA 2025 offers two useful pieces of context: students are answering some reading questions too quickly and incorrectly, and many report using AI weekly. The results do not connect those two patterns.
More answers are fast, and wrong
Across OECD countries, the share of all student responses classified as fast and incorrect or partial nearly doubled between 2018 and 2025. This counts item responses, not students. It is one signal of hasty responding, alongside a 25-point decline in average OECD reading performance.
The share of fast, incorrect or partial responses rose to 8.9%
OECD PISA reading assessment · percent of all responses
Do not confuse this response-level measure with the separate OECD category for students classed as “hasty readers”.
AI use is common in Portugal, close to the OECD average
In Portugal, 48% of 15-year-olds say they use AI weekly for learning. The OECD average is 46%. Portuguese students also report weekly AI use for research, summaries and drafting. PISA measures frequency here, not whether AI helped them learn or weakened independent reading.
Portugal reports slightly more weekly AI use across these tasks
Share of students · Portugal and OECD average · 2025
Copper marks Portugal; blue marks the OECD average. The category “learning” is the same measure highlighted in the country note.
Checking sources remains the harder question
In the OECD average, 46% of students say they check sources and trust scientific evidence over common sense when they encounter scientific information. Another 37% check sources but still rely on common sense. That distinction matters: finding a source is different from judging whether it is reliable.
Most students report checking sources, but not all then trust the evidence
Self-reported approaches to scientific information · OECD average · 2025
Rounded percentages sum to 99. These profiles are not a direct misinformation test.