Instructional Quality and Mathematics Achievement in Colombia: A Multilevel Analysis of PISA 2022
Using a multilevel analysis of PISA 2022 data from 7,376 Colombian students, this study finds that while socioeconomic status and individual demographics significantly influence mathematics achievement, classroom disciplinary climate and reasoning-oriented cognitive activation are key positive predictors of performance, whereas teacher support and encouraging-mathematical-thinking facets show negative associations when controlling for other instructional factors.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
Mathematics is often seen as a universal language, but in classrooms around the world, the experience of learning it varies wildly. Some students sit in orderly rooms where the teacher guides them through clear, logical steps, while others struggle in chaotic environments where time is lost to disruption. Researchers have long suspected that these daily classroom conditions matter just as much as a student's family background or natural talent. To understand this, experts look at three main ingredients of teaching: how well a class is managed, how much emotional support a teacher offers, and how often students are asked to think deeply and explain their reasoning rather than just memorize answers. The question is not just whether these things help, but how they interact in a specific, complex setting where poverty, gender, and the age at which a child starts school play huge roles.
In Colombia, a country where many fifteen-year-olds are scattered across different grade levels due to repeated schooling or interrupted education, a team of researchers from the University of Antioquia set out to untangle these threads. They turned to a massive international test called PISA, which assesses the skills of fifteen-year-olds in dozens of countries. By looking at data from over 7,000 Colombian students in 260 schools, they built a detailed picture of what happens inside math classrooms and how those conditions link to test scores. They did not just ask if a teacher was "good"; they measured specific behaviors, such as whether the classroom was quiet enough to learn, whether students felt supported by their teacher, and whether the lessons pushed students to justify their answers and solve problems in new ways.
The results revealed a landscape of stark contrasts. First, the study confirmed that where a student goes to school in Colombia matters immensely. Nearly half of the differences in math scores between students could be explained by the school they attended, rather than their individual abilities. This suggests that the school environment itself is a powerful force, either lifting students up or holding them back. When the researchers looked at the specific ingredients of teaching, they found that order and deep thinking were the strongest allies. Schools where students reported a calm, disciplined atmosphere, free from constant disruption, saw higher math scores. Similarly, classrooms where teachers frequently asked students to explain their reasoning and connect different ideas produced better results. These findings align with a long history of educational research suggesting that a structured environment and challenging cognitive tasks are essential for learning.
However, the story became more complicated when the researchers examined the other two factors they measured: teacher support and the encouragement of mathematical thinking. In isolation, one might expect that a teacher who is warm, helpful, and encourages students to explore ideas would always lead to higher scores. Yet, in this specific analysis, when all the factors were weighed against each other, schools with high levels of reported teacher support actually saw lower math scores. The same was true for the specific type of instruction that encourages students to make connections and try different strategies. The researchers did not conclude that supportive teachers or creative thinking are bad for learning. Instead, they suggested that these results likely reflect a "compensatory" effect. In other words, teachers in schools with struggling students or difficult circumstances may work harder to provide support and encourage deep thinking precisely because their students are facing greater challenges. The data captures this reaction to need, creating a statistical link where high support appears alongside low scores, not because the support caused the low scores, but because the need for it was so great.
The study also highlighted the profound impact of a student's personal history. Socioeconomic status remained a powerful predictor, with students from wealthier backgrounds consistently outperforming those from poorer families. Gender played a significant role as well, with boys scoring nearly eighteen points higher on average than girls, a gap much wider than the global average. Perhaps most striking was the effect of grade repetition. In Colombia, a large portion of fifteen-year-olds have repeated a grade, a practice that is rare in many other countries. The data showed that students who had repeated a grade scored significantly lower than those who had not, even after accounting for their age and grade level. This suggests that the act of repeating a grade, or the circumstances that lead to it, carries a heavy cost for future learning.
Ultimately, the research paints a picture of a system where structural inequalities and classroom conditions are deeply intertwined. The findings suggest that improving math performance in Colombia requires a dual approach. On one hand, schools need to foster orderly, disciplined environments where teachers can focus on reasoning-rich instruction. On the other hand, the system must address the deep-seated issues of poverty and the high rate of grade repetition that keep so many students behind. The study does not offer a simple fix, but it provides a clear map of the terrain: order and deep thinking are the keys to unlocking potential, but they must be applied in a context that acknowledges the heavy burdens many students carry. The negative associations found with support and creative thinking serve as a reminder that in education, the relationship between what teachers do and how students perform is rarely straightforward, often reflecting the complex reality of who needs help the most.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.