Skip to main content

What PISA measures: some remarks on standardized assessment and science education

Abstract

Drawing on a sociocultural perspective on educational assessment the empirical examples of Margareta Serder and Anders Jakobsson serve as a starting point for a critical analysis of PISA and the image of science education it perpetuates. While PISA claims to neutrally measure competencies relevant to science education, I argue that the test questions enact a very narrow definition of science and fail to account for the social context of testing.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J.-C. (1990). Reproduction in education, society, and culture. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Breidenstein, G., & Kelle, H. (2002). Die Schulklasse als Publikum. Zum Verhältnis von Peer Culture und Unterricht. Die Deutsche Schule, 94(3), 318–329.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Breidenstein, G., Meier, M., & Zaborowski, K. U. (2008). Being tested and receiving marks. An ethnography of pupil assessment in the classroom. In H.-H. Krüger, W. Helsper, G. Foljanty-Jost, R.-T. Kramer & M. Hummrich (Eds.), Family, school, youth culture: International perspectives of pupil research (pp. 163–177). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

  4. Filer, A. (Ed.). (2000). Assessment: Social practice and social product. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Filer, A., & Pollard, A. (2000). Social world of pupil assessment: Process and contexts of primary schooling. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Goffman, E. (1966). Encounters: Two studies in the sociology of interaction. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Gorur, R. (2011). ANT on the PISA trail: Following the statistical pursuit of certainty. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(5–6), 76–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Grek, S. (2009). Governing by numbers: The PISA ‘effect’ in Europe. Journal of Education Policy, 24(1), 23–37. doi:10.1080/02680930802412669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hanson, F. A. (2000). How tests create what they are intended to measure. In A. Filer (Ed.), Assessment: Social practice and social product (pp. 67–80). London: Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Herdegen, P. (2009). Schulische Prüfungen: EntstehungEntwicklungFunktion. Prüfungen am bayerischen Gymnasium vom 18. bis zum 20. Jahrhundert. Kempten: Klinkhardt.

  11. Kalthoff, H. (2013). Practices of grading: An ethnographic study of educational assessment. Ethnography and Education, 8(1), 89–104. doi:10.1080/17457823.2013.766436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Harvard: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Liu, O. L., Lee, H.-S., Hofstetter, C., & Linn, M. C. (2008). Assessing knowledge integration in science: Construct, measures, and evidence. Educational Assessment, 13(1), 33–55. doi:10.1080/10627190801968224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Luhmann, N., & Schorr, K. E. (2000). Problems of reflection in the system of education. Münster/New York: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Lynch, M., Livingston, E., & Garfinkel, H. (1983). Temporal order in laboratory work. In K. Knorr Cetina & M. Mulkay (Eds.), Science observed: Perspectives on the social study of science (pp. 205–238). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Madaus, G. F., & Horn, C. (2000). Testing technology: The need for oversight. In A. Filer (Ed.), Assessment: Social practice and social product (pp. 47–66). London: Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Mehan, H. (1998). The structure of classroom discourse. In T. A. Van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis III: Discourse and dialogue (pp. 120–132). London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  21. OECD. (2009). PISA 2009 Assessment framework: Key competencies in reading, mathematics and science. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  22. OECD. (2013). PISA 2015: Draft science framework. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  24. Pitt, J. C. (1990). The myth of science education. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 10(1), 7–17. doi:10.1007/BF00367684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Popham, W. J. (2012). Assessment bias: How to banish it. Boston: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Roth, W.-M., & McGinn, M. K. (1997). Science in school and everywhere else: What science educators should know about science and technology studies. Studies in Science Education, 29, 1–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Schatzki, T. R. (2002). The site of the social: A philosophical account of the constitution of social life and change. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Serder, M. & Jakobsson, A. (2015). "Why bother so incredibly much?": Student perspectives on PISA assignments. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 10(3), 833–853. doi:10.1007/s11422-013-9550-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tobias Roehl.

Additional information

Lead editor: D. Long.

This review essay addresses issues raised in Margareta Serder and Anders Jakobsson’s (2015) paper entitled: “Why bother so incredibly much?”: Student perspectives on PISA science assignments. doi:10.1007/s11422-013-9550-3.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Roehl, T. What PISA measures: some remarks on standardized assessment and science education. Cult Stud of Sci Educ 10, 1215–1222 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-015-9662-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Assessment
  • Testing
  • Performativity
  • PISA
  • Science education
  • Social practices