Reacción a "Interpreting the results of the PISA 2025 report"

I would like to comment on a few aspects of the report relating to technology and education, as educational technology is my field of research and work.

When discussing PISA, it is essential to begin with a methodological clarification that is often overlooked in the analyses carried out. PISA is an assessment conducted by an external body, the OECD, using questionnaires and assessment tests. Specifically, a large proportion of the questions relating to technology (the use of resources and AI) are based on perceived data, rather than direct observation of actual teaching practices in the classroom. These limitations are inherent in any research based on self-reported surveys and are not a criticism of this aspect of PISA per se, but rather methodological characteristics that define its strengths and weaknesses.

PISA is excellent at providing descriptive data that enable international comparisons, identify patterns and trends over time, and serve as a starting point for suggesting more in-depth research questions. However, PISA is insufficient for establishing clear causal relationships between the use of technology and academic outcomes, for explaining the underlying mechanisms of why something works or does not work, or for reaching definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of specific education policies.

With regard to the impact of technology on education, various data points are presented. On the one hand, the capacity of the school’s digital environment to improve teaching and learning is assessed by the headteachers who have provided their views. They are asked about the availability of technology at the school and their opinion on the teaching skills of the staff, amongst other things. Headteachers at Spanish schools express a less favourable view of their schools’ ability to improve teaching and learning through digital resources. Headteachers at state schools perceive this more negatively than those at private schools in Spain.

On the other hand, pupils are asked about the number of hours spent using technology, distinguishing between learning activities and leisure activities. Once again, the data is interesting, but the concept of ‘learning activity’ as self-assessed by a student does not distinguish between fundamental aspects such as the methodological use of the tool. Reading a digital textbook is not the same as programming a robot or developing a telecollaborative project; yet all these tasks can be framed as learning activities.

We know from research in this field that simply knowing the number of hours is not enough to conclude that it is the use of technology that determines performance, as it does not take into account the type of task being carried out or the teacher’s pedagogical approach. We lack key information regarding the methodological context: we do not know the type of lessons the pupils receive, the specific tasks required of them, the pupils’ own digital competence, or the specific technological resource being used.

As for AI, the report attempts to define the type of task to some extent, but even so, the approach is very general and it cannot be claimed that AI contributes to poorer performance. The questions raised by the report regarding artificial intelligence overlook the fact that the determining factor is the teacher’s pedagogical intent and the design of the task. Using AI in the classroom as a guided tool (for example, to check for errors in a model, analyse biases or design a project under supervision) is not the same as relying on it to independently complete homework, where it is often used merely as a shortcut.

For all these reasons, the PISA data are extremely interesting, but must be analysed with caution. Although the report presents findings that suggest certain correlations, the type of question and the methodological approach do not allow for a clear cause-and-effect relationship to be established, particularly in a context such as education, where the didactic aspect—which is one of the key elements of educational research—has not been taken into account.