高利害考试会阻碍创造性思维培养吗？——制度逻辑视角下的国际比较

doi:10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2026.04.003

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

营造有利于学生创造性思维培养的制度环境，是建设教育强国的重要基础。本研究聚焦高利害考试这一关键制度，立足多重制度逻辑视角，基于PISA2022数据，运用三层线性模型、分位数回归、跨层交互及中介效应检验等方法，考察高利害考试对学生创造性思维的影响及机制。结果显示：（1）从全球整体趋势来看，考试问责程度越高的国家和地区，学生创造性思维得分越低；（2）高利害考试对学生群体的影响呈现明显分化，认知能力较低、创造性思维水平较弱及家庭资源弱势学生受到的负面影响更大；（3）高利害考试对学校影响亦呈分化趋势，教育质量较低、资源相对匮乏的学校受负面冲击更大；（4）作为承接制度压力的中间组织，学校在高利害考试压力下往往会增加与“创新”相关的活动，但这些活动偏向形式化、象征性展示，难以真正促进学生创造性思维发展，即使是资源充足的学校，也会陷入开展形式化创新活动的倾向。对于我国而言，需深化教育评价改革，弱化单一高利害考试主导地位，构建多元化评价体系，为创新人才培养提供更具支持性的制度环境。

关键词: 高利害考试, 创造性思维, 制度逻辑, PISA

Abstract:

Creating an institutional environment that supports the development of students’ creative thinking is a critical foundation for building an education powerhouse. High-stakes testing (HST) has played an important role in improving educational quality and ensuring fairness, but it is also widely seen as a major constraint on creativity. Yet its actual effects on students’ creative thinking and the mechanisms behind them remain unclear. Drawing on the perspective of multiple institutional logics and data from PISA 2022, this study examined the effects and mechanisms of HST on students’ creative thinking by applying three-level hierarchical linear modeling, quantile regression, cross-level interaction, and mediation analysis.The findings revealed that (1) systems with more HST were more likely to have lower creativity scores; (2) the impact of HST was strongly differentiated across student groups, with more negative effects for students with lower cognitive ability, weaker creative thinking, and disadvantaged family backgrounds; (3) the negative impact of HST was also more pronounced for schools with lower educational quality and relatively scarce resources; (4) as intermediate organizations that transmitted institutional pressure, schools in high-stakes environments tended to increase “creative” activities, yet these activities were often formalistic and symbolic, and thus did not substantively enhance students’ creative thinking—even well-resourced schools tended to engage in such symbolic innovation practices. For China, these results underline the importance of advancing education evaluation reform, reducing the dominance of single-metric HST, and building a more diversified evaluation system that creates an environment supportive of cultivating innovative talents.

Key words: high-stakes testing, creative thinking, institutional logics, PISA

崔媛, 侯杰泰, 赵茜. 高利害考试会阻碍创造性思维培养吗？——制度逻辑视角下的国际比较[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2026, 44(4): 22-39.

Yuan Cui, Kit-tai Hau, Qian Zhao. Does High-Stakes Testing Hinder the Cultivation of Creative Thinking? An International Comparison from the Perspective of Institutional Logics[J]. Journal of East China Normal University(Educationa, 2026, 44(4): 22-39.

图/表 6

图 1

表 1

表 2

图 2

表 3

表 4

参考文献

	蔡瑜琢, 姜琳丽. (2024). 高等教育管理与领导: 制度逻辑理论的视角. 北京大学教育评论, 22 (03), 49- 75+188.
	褚宏启. (2024). 拔尖创新人才培养要警惕“掐尖”乱象. 中小学管理, (03), 63.
	方杰, 张敏强, 邱皓政. (2010). 基于阶层线性理论的多层级中介效应. 心理科学进展, 18 (08), 1329- 1338.
	顾秀林, 丁念金. (2017). 核心素养导向的课程改革——新加坡基础教育课程改革刍议. 外国中小学教育, (04), 68- 75.
	柯政, 李恬. (2023). 拔尖创新人才培养的重点与方向. 全球教育展望, 52 (04), 3- 13.
	柯政, 梁灿. (2023). 论应试教育与学生创造力培养之间的关系. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 41 (04), 72- 82.
	李杨, 许庆瑞. (2025). 不同制度理论流派对企业创新能力发展的解释差异与观点弥合——一个整合性综述框架. 科技进步与对策, 42 (06), 151- 160.
	林崇德. (2024). 教育促进创新人才发展的理论思考和实践探索. 中国教育科学(中英文), 7 (05), 6- 19.
	刘华杰, 崔岐恩. (2010). 我们的教育有利于创造力的培养吗——对创造力阻滞因素的审视. 教育发展研究, 30 (06), 8- 11.
	钱佳, 李青青. (2024). “应试”教学如何影响学生创造力发展——基于SSES2019调查数据的实证分析. 基础教育, 21 (04), 59- 74.
	朱德全, 刘璐璐. (2024). 新时代教育评价改革的“兼容-中心”识别: 分析框架与制度逻辑. 教育研究与实验, (03), 111- 121.
	Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39 (5), 1154- 1184.
	Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36 (5), 258- 267.
	Besharov, M. L., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. Academy of Management Review, 39 (3), 364- 381.
	Bicer, A., Aldemir, T., Krall, G., Quiroz, F., Chamberlin, S., Nelson, J. L., Lee, Y., & Kwon, H. (2024). Exploring creativity in mathematics assessment: An analysis of standardized tests. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 54, 1- 19.
	Cai, Y., & Mountford, N. (2022). Institutional logics analysis in higher education research. Studies in Higher Education, 47 (8), 1627- 1651.
	Dai, Y., Chen, S., Mao, F., & Xu, J. (2024). Determinants of Creativity in Migrant versus Urban Children: A Case Study in China. Children, 11 (7), 802.
	Diamond, J. B., & Spillane, J. P. (2004). High-stakes accountability in urban elementary schools: Challenging or reproducing inequality?. Teachers College Record, 106 (6), 1145- 1176.
	Drake, S. M., & Savage, M. J. (2016). Negotiating accountability and integrated curriculum from a global perspective. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 15(6), 127—144.
	Fan, H., Ma, Y., Xu, J., Chang, Y., & Guo, S. (2022). Effects of homework creativity on academic achievement and creativity disposition: Evidence from comparisons with homework time and completion based on two independent Chinese samples. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 923882.
	Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. Academy of Management Annals, 5 (1), 317- 371.
	Guliban, C. B., & Tagadiad, C. L. (2024). School Culture Triage and School Quality as Predictors of Organizational Resilience. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 8 (12), 3496- 3511.
	Kandler, C., Riemann, R., Angleitner, A., Spinath, F. M., Borkenau, P., & Penke, L. (2016). The nature of creativity: The roles of genetic factors, personality traits, cognitive abilities, and environmental sources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111 (2), 230.
	Kirkpatrick, R., & Zang, Y. (2011). The negative influences of exam-oriented education on Chinese high school students: Backwash from classroom to child. Language Testing in Asia, 1 (3), 36.
	Liu, J., Sun, X., Sun, M., Zhou, Y., Li, X., Cao, J., . . & Xu, F. (2021). Factors influencing the creativity of chinese upper-secondary-school students participating in programming education. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 732605.
	Murphy, K., Murphy, S., & Swain, N. (2025). Australian teachers’ adoption of critical and creative thinking as curriculum. The Australian Educational Researcher, 52 (1), 275- 294.
	Nagengast, B., & Marsh, H. W. (2012). Big fish in little ponds aspire more: mediation and cross-cultural generalizability of school-average ability effects on self-concept and career aspirations in science. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104 (4), 1033.
	Ocasio, W. (1997). Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18 (S1), 187- 206.
	OECD (2019), PISA 2021 Creative Thinking Framework (Third Draft)., Paris: OECD Publishing.
	OECD (2024), PISA 2022 Technical Report, Paris: OECD Publishing.
	Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16 (1), 145- 179.
	Pache, A. C., & Santos, F. (2013). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56 (4), 972- 1001.
	Pasarin-Lavin, T., Abin, A., Garcia, T., & Rodriguez, C. (2023). Relationship between executive functions and creativity in children and adolescents: A systematic review. Children, 10 (6), 1002.
	Polesel, J., Rice, S., & Dulfer, N. (2014). The impact of high-stakes testing on curriculum and pedagogy: a teacher perspective from Australia. Journal of Education Policy, 29, 640- 657.
	Posso, C., Saravia, E., & Uribe, P. (2023). Acing the test: Educational effects of the SaberEs test preparation program in Colombia. Economics of Education Review, 97, 102459.
	Tan, J. P. L., Koh, E., Chan, M., Costes-Onishi, P., & Hung, D. (2017). Advancing 21st century competencies in Singapore. Asia Society: Centre for Global Education, 1—28.
	Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. England: Oxford University Press.
	Ugarte, C., Urpí, C., & Costa-Paris, A. (2020). The need of autonomy for flexible management in the fostering of school quality. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 25, 124- 146.
	Verger, A., Parcerisa, L., Pagès, M., & Camphuijsen, M. (2024). School autonomy with accountability as a cross-national policy model: diverse adoptions, practices and impacts. Nordic journal of studies in educational policy, 10 (3), 167- 179.
	Williams, N. J., Preacher, K. J., Allison, P. D., Mandell, D. S., & Marcus, S. C. (2022). Required sample size to detect mediation in 3-level implementation studies. Implementation Science, 17 (1), 66.
	Wong, H. M., Kwek, D., & Tan, K. (2020). Changing assessments and the examination culture in Singapore: A review and analysis of Singapore’s assessment policies. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 40 (4), 433- 457.
	Xu, S., & Lu, C. (2022). Hybridization of curriculum integration and high-stakes testing: Chinese teachers’ experiences and struggles in handling competing institutional logics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 119, 103845.
	Yonwong, P., Thongsuk, T., & Hemtasin, C. (2024). Creativity development of secondary school students using four thinking activities blended inquiry-based learning. International Journal of Instruction, 17 (1), 579- 598.

	模型1	模型2	模型3	模型4	模型5	模型6	模型7
水平-1 (学生层）
性别		–0.221***	–0.221***	–0.219***	–0.221***	–0.222***	–0.222***
		(0.002)	(0.002)	(0.002)	(0.002)	(0.002)	(0.002)
家庭社会经济地位		0.039***	0.039***	0.040***	0.039***	0.039***	0.039***
		(0.001)	(0.001)	(0.001)	(0.001)	(0.001)	(0.001)
移民背景		–0.018***	–0.017***	–0.027***	–0.019***	–0.023***	–0.020***
		(0.004)	(0.004)	(0.004)	(0.004)	(0.004)	(0.004)
数学成绩		0.422***	0.422***	0.422***	0.423***	0.422***	0.422***
		(0.001)	(0.001)	(0.001)	(0.001)	(0.001)	(0.001)
水平-2（学校层）
学校社会经济地位		0.049***	0.051***	0.050***	0.050***	0.054***	0.046***
		(0.003)	(0.003)	(0.003)	(0.003)	(0.003)	(0.003)
生师比		0.003	0.002	0.002	0.002	0.003	0.003
		(0.002)	(0.002)	(0.002)	(0.002)	(0.002)	(0.002)
学校类型		–0.033***	–0.034***	–0.035***	–0.034***	–0.023***	–0.033***
		(0.006)	(0.006)	(0.006)	(0.006)	(0.006)	(0.006)
学校教育质量		0.376***	0.375***	0.375***	0.375***	0.374***	0.380***
		(0.003)	(0.003)	(0.003)	(0.003)	(0.003)	(0.003)
水平-3（国家/地区层）
高利害考试			–0.106*	–0.106*	–0.106*	–0.103*	–0.104*
			(0.044)	(0.044)	(0.044)	(0.044)	(0.044)
高利害考试×学生数学成绩				0.033***
				(0.001)
高利害考试×学生家庭社会经济地位					0.006***
					(0.001)
高利害考试×学校教育质量						0.032***
						(0.002)
高利害考试×学校社会经济地位							0.030***
							(0.002)
ln GDP		0.386***	0.366***	0.367***	0.366***	0.368***	0.367***
		(0.041)	(0.041)	(0.041)	(0.041)	(0.041)	(0.041)
常数项		0.144***	0.139***	0.139***	0.139***	0.131**	0.138***
		(0.042)	(0.040)	(0.040)	(0.040)	(0.040)	(0.040)

学生层方差	0.547	0.357	0.359	0.357	0.359	0.359	0.359
学校层方差	0.215	0.036	0.036	0.036	0.036	0.035	0.036
国家（地区）层方差	0.243	0.100	0.091	0.091	0.091	0.091	0.091

学生样本量	372967	372967	372967	372967	372967	372967	372967
学校样本量	13787	13787	13787	13787	13787	13787	13787
国家（地区）样本量	58	58	58	58	58	58	58

ICC（学校层）	0.456	0.276	0.262	0.263	0.262	0.261	0.262
ICC（国家或地区层）	0.242	0.203	0.188	0.188	0.188	0.188	0.188

解释变量的分位数	0.1	0.2	0.3	0.4	0.5	0.6	0.7	0.8	0.9
控制变量	已控制	已控制	已控制	已控制	已控制	已控制	已控制	已控制	已控制
高利害考试	–0.172***	–0.155***	–0.139***	–0.126***	–0.114***	–0.102**	–0.090**	–0.075**	–0.052*
	(0.032)	(0.037)	(0.043)	(0.042)	(0.043)	(0.041)	(0.039)	(0.038)	(0.033)
Pseudo R²	0.523	0.526	0.527	0.528	0.528	0.527	0.527	0.526	0.524
N	372967	372967	372967	372967	372967	372967	372967	372967	372967

路径	估计值	标准误	95%的置信区间
高利害考试→学校创造性活动	0.539***	0.121	[0.302, 0.777]
学校创造性活动→创造性思维
组内层面（Within-level）	–0.110***	0.015	[–0.139, –0.081]
组间层面（Between-level）	–0.533***	0.075	[–0.679, –0.387]
高利害考试→学校创造性活动→创造性思维
间接效应	–0.288***	0.077	[–0.439, –0.136]
直接效应（控制中介后）	0.001	0.080	[–0.156, 0.157]

当学校社会经济地位在高、低两种水平时，高利害考试→学校创造性活动→创造性思维的间接效应
路径	估计值	标准误	95%的置信区间
学校社会经济地位差异
高（M+1SD）	–0.138**	0.056	[–0.249, –0.027]
低（M–1SD）	–0.195***	0.069	[–0.330, –0.060]
差异	–0.057	0.089	[–0.231, 0.117]
当学校教育质量在高、低两种水平时，高利害考试→学校创造性活动→创造性思维的间接效应
学校教育质量差异
高（M+1SD）	–0.066*	0.033	[–0.131, –0.001]
低（M–1SD）	–0.116***	0.045	[–0.203, –0.028]
差异	–0.050	0.056	[–0.159, 0.059]

[1]	郅庭瑾, 刘文萍. 中小学校长职级结构的制度特征与治理进路[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2026, 44(4): 116-126.
[2]	金金, 程天君. 普职分流政策的变迁：脉络、结构与逻辑[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2023, 41(6): 26-37.
[3]	刘骥, 张晋. 国际学生评估项目（PISA）衍生品：全球教育治理的功利化挑战[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2023, 41(2): 53-62.
[4]	刘宝存, 黄秦辉. PISA高绩效地区学生的全球素养：个体和学校因素的影响[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2023, 41(2): 38-52.
[5]	黄声华, 尹弘飚, 靳玉乐. 家长教育卷入类型与中学生学科素养：基于PISA 2018中国香港及澳门数据的潜在类别分析[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2023, 41(1): 50-59.
[6]	李小红, 王杉, 陈晨, 杨婕, 唐向黎. 家庭文化资本对学生阅读素养的影响：基于多层logistic模型的实证研究[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2022, 40(8): 57-66.
[7]	李立国. 大学治理的制度逻辑：融通“大学之制”与“大学之治”[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2021, 39(3): 1-13.
[8]	[德]安德烈亚斯·施莱希尔（Andreas Schleicher）. 教育面向学生的未来，而不是我们的过去[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2020, 38(5): 1-21.
[9]	伍远岳, 郭元祥. 中学生科学学习的性别差异与课程应对——基于PISA 2015中国四省市的数据分析[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2019, 37(5): 115-127.
[10]	王富伟, 阎凤桥. 独立学院组织种群的制度起源[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2018, 36(6): 118-134+159.
[11]	陈纯槿, 顾小清. 义务教育年限延长与基础教育发展——基于PISA 2015数据的实证研究[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2018, 36(5): 71-82+167+168.