1.PISA propageerde destijds student-oriented classroom climate

Let’s recall the way that PISA defines effective teaching in 2013:
““In its Analytical Framework (OECD, 2013), PISA defines the three dimensions of good teaching as: clear, well-structured classroom management; supportive, student-oriented classroom climate; and cognitive activation with challenging content (Klieme et al, 2009; Baumert et al, 2010; Lipowsky et al, 2009; Kunter et al 2008).” [my emphasis]

So , in 2012, they decided to examine the relationship between a student-oriented approach to teaching mathematics and PISA mathematics scores. They created a series of survey questions in order to try to measure the level of student orientation. They found that this correlated negatively with scores – the more student-oriented the teaching, the worse the PISA maths result. The graph below gives some idea and a more sophisticated statistical analysis may be found in this paper.

PISA-2015 : student-oriented approach leidt tot lagere prestaties

It is clear what they wanted to find – that a more student-oriented approach led to better results. Unfortunately they found the reverse. However, this finding has not been publicised much by PISA. For instance, in their recent guidance for maths teachers it isn’t really mentioned. Instead, the authors tend to focus on the limitations of teacher-directed instruction which, according to their own data, are far less profound than those of student-orientated instruction.

In 2015, the PISA focus shifted to science. This time, they decided to focus on the role of enquiry-based learning. They created a survey to try to capture this and I imagine that, again, they expected to see it relate positively to science performance.
Unfortunately, it did not. PISA’s enquiry-based science construct actually correlates negatively to PISA science scores across nearly all countries that took part. The graph below shows a good summary: