plenary session #1 - wordpress.com · professionals2 information and communication technology (ict)...

Plenary Session #1

Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Science Educa5on: Lessons from the World

Andreas Schleicher

1:00pm–2:30pm,April22,2017Hya3TexasBallroomA,B,andC

SanAntonio,TX

Andreas Schleicher

•  Director for Education and Skills and Special Advisor on Education Policy to the Secretary-General, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)

•  Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA),

OECD Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC), OECD Skills Strategy, OECD Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS)

Andreas Schleicher

Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in

Science Education: Lessons from the World

Strong performers and successful reformers in science education NARST 2017

Andreas SchleicherDirector for Education and Skills

PISA in brief - 2015

In2015,overhalfamillionstudents…-  represenAng28million15-year-oldsin72countries/economies

…tookaninterna9onallyagreed2-hourtest…-  GoesbeyondtesAngwhetherstudentscanreproducewhattheyweretaughttoassessstudents’capacityto

extrapolatefromwhattheyknowandcreaAvelyapplytheirknowledgeinnovelsituaAons-  Totalof390minutesofassessmentmaterial

…andrespondedtoques9onson…-  theirpersonalbackground,theirschools,theirwell-beingandtheirmoAvaAon

Parents,principals,teachersandsystemleadersprovideddataon:-  schoolpolicies,pracAces,resourcesandinsAtuAonalfactorsthathelpexplainperformancedifferences-  89,000parents,93,000teachersand17,500principalsresponded

Map of PISA countries and economies

PISA 2015

OECD Partners

Trends in science performance (PISA)

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

2003 2006 2009

Score points

Bel

ow L

evel

1 Le

vel 1

Le

vel 3

Le

vel

4 Le

v 5 Le

vel 2

450

470

490

510

530

550

570

2006 2009 2012 2015

OECD

450

470

490

510

530

550

570

OECD average

Stud

ent p

erfo

rman

ce

Trends in science performance (PISA)

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

2003 2006 2009

Score points

Bel

ow L

evel

1 Le

vel 1

Le

vel 3

Le

vel

4 Le

v 5 Le

vel 2

450

470

490

510

530

550

570

450

470

490

510

530

550

570

2006 2009 2012 2015

OECD average

“the ability to engage with science-related issues, and with the ideas of science, as a reflective citizen”

Science in PISA

• Explain phenomena scientifically • Evaluate and design scientific enquiry • Interpret data and evidence scientifically

Competencies

Recognise, offer and evaluate explanations for a range of natural and technological phenomena.

Describe and appraise scientific investigations and propose ways of addressing questions scientifically.

Analyse and evaluate data, claims and arguments in a variety of representations and draw appropriate scientific conclusions.


Knowledge

• Content knowledge • Knowledge of methodological procedures used in science

• Knowledge of the epistemic reasons and ideas used by scientists to justify their claims

Competencies

Each of the scientific competencies requires content knowledge (knowledge of theories, explanatory ideas, information and facts), but also an understanding of how such knowledge has been derived (procedural knowledge) and of the nature of that knowledge (epistemic knowledge)

“Epistemic knowledge” reflects students’ capacity to think like a scientist and distinguish between observations, facts, hypotheses, models and theories


Knowledge



Competencies

Peoples’ attitudes and beliefs play a significant role in their interest, attention and response to science and technology.

PISA distinguishes between attitudes towards science (e.g. interest in different content areas of science) and scientific attitudes (e.g. whether students value scientific approaches to enquiry) Attitudes

• Attitudes to science • Scientific attitudes


Knowledge



Competencies

Personal, local/national and global issues, both current and historical, which demand some understanding of science and technology

Attitudes • Attitudes to science • Scientific attitudes

Context • Personal, local, global • Current and historical

Drag Ragworms and Common Sole into Tank 2 and Marsh Grass and Shellfish into Tank 3 This question requires students to understand a system and the role of several organisms within that system. In order to answer correctly, students must understand the goal of the fish farm, the function of each of the three tanks therein, and which organisms will best fulfill each function. Students must use information provided in the stimulus and the diagram, including a footnote under the diagram

Singapore

Japan Estonia Chinese Tapei Finland Macao (China) Canada Vietnam Hong Kong (China)

B-S-J-G (China) Korea New Zealand Slovenia Australia United Kingdom Germany Netherlands Switzerland Ireland Belgium Denmark Poland Portugal Norway United States Austria France Sweden Czech Rep. Spain Latvia Russia Luxembourg Italy Hungary Lithuania Croatia CABA (Argentina) Iceland

Israel Malta Slovak Rep. Greece

Chile Bulgaria United Arab Emirates Uruguay Romania

Moldova Albania Turkey Trinidad and Tobago Thailand Costa Rica Qatar Colombia Mexico Montenegro Jordan Indonesia Brazil Peru Lebanon Tunisia

FYROM Kosovo Algeria

Dominican Rep. (332) 350

400

450

500

550

0 5 10 15 20 25

Mea

n sc

ienc

e pe

rfor

man

ce

Hig

her p

erfo

man

ce

High performanceHigh equity

Low performanceLow equity

Low performanceHigh equity

High performanceLow equity

Science performance in PISA (2015)

More equity

Singapore Japan

Estonia Chinese Tapei Finland Macao (China) Canada Viet Nam

Hong Kong (China) B-S-J-G (China) Korea New Zealand Slovenia

Australia United Kingdom Germany Netherlands

Switzerland Ireland Belgium Denmark Poland Portugal Norway United States Austria France

Sweden Czech Rep. Spain Latvia Russia Luxembourg Italy Hungary Lithuania Croatia Iceland

Israel Malta Slovak Rep.

Greece Chile

Bulgaria

United Arab Emirates Uruguay Romania

Moldova Turkey Trinidad and Tobago Thailand Costa Rica Qatar Colombia Mexico Montenegro Jordan

Indonesia Brazil Peru Lebanon

Tunisia

FYROM Kosovo

Algeria

Dominican Rep. (332)

350

400

450

500

550

Mea

n sc

ienc

e pe

rfor

man

ce

Hig

her p

erfo

man

ce

Science performance and equity in PISA (2015)

Some countries combine excellence with equity

More equity More equity

Poverty is not destiny - Science performance by international deciles of the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS)

280

330

380

430

480

530

580

630 D

omin

ican

Rep

ublic

40

Alg

eria

52

Kos

ovo

10

Qat

ar 3

FY

RO

M 1

3 Tu

nisi

a 39

M

onte

negr

o 11

Jo

rdan

21

Uni

ted

Ara

b E

mira

tes

3 G

eorg

ia 1

9 Le

bano

n 27

In

done

sia

74

Mex

ico

53

Per

u 50

C

osta

Ric

a 38

B

razi

l 43

Turk

ey 5

9 M

oldo

va 2

8 Th

aila

nd 5

5 C

olom

bia

43

Icel

and

1 Tr

inid

ad a

nd T

obag

o 14

R

oman

ia 2

0 Is

rael

6

Bul

garia

13

Gre

ece

13

Rus

sia

5 U

rugu

ay 3

9 C

hile

27

Latv

ia 2

5 Li

thua

nia

12

Slo

vak

Rep

ublic

8

Italy

15

Nor

way

1

Spa

in 3

1 H

unga

ry 1

6 C

roat

ia 1

0 D

enm

ark

3 O

EC

D a

vera

ge 1

2 S

wed

en 3

M

alta

13

Uni

ted

Sta

tes

11

Mac

ao (C

hina

) 22

Irela

nd 5

A

ustri

a 5

Por

tuga

l 28

Luxe

mbo

urg

14

Hon

g K

ong

(Chi

na) 2

6 C

zech

Rep

ublic

9

Pol

and

16

Aus

tralia

4

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

5

Can

ada

2 Fr

ance

9

Kor

ea 6

N

ew Z

eala

nd 5

S

witz

erla

nd 8

N

ethe

rland

s 4

Slo

veni

a 5

Bel

gium

7

Finl

and

2 E

ston

ia 5

Vi

et N

am 7

6 G

erm

any

7 Ja

pan

8 C

hine

se T

aipe

i 12

B-S

-J-G

(Chi

na) 5

2 S

inga

pore

11

Sco

re p

oint

s

Bottom decile Second decile Middle decile Ninth decile Top decile

Figure I.6.7

% of students in the bottom international

deciles of ESCS

OECD median student

Topperformers

Students who can develop and work with models for complex science situations, identifying constraints and specifying assumptions. They can select, compare and evaluate appropriate problem-solving strategies for

dealing with complex problems related to these models.

The global pool of top performers: A PISA perspective Figure I.2.18

United States (8.5%); 300k

B-S-J-G (China) (13.6%); 181k

Japan (15.3%); 174k

Germany (10.6%); 79k Viet Nam (8.3%); 72k

United Kingdom (10.9%); 68k

Korea (10.6%); 60k

France (8.0%); 59k

Russia (3.7%); 42k

Canada (12.4%); 41k

Chinese Taipei (15.4%); 39k

Australia (11.2%); Poland (7.3%);

Netherlands (11.1%) Italy (4.1%)

Spain (5.0%) Brazil (0.7%) Singapore (24.2%)

Belgium (9.0%)

Finland (14.3%)

Switzerland (9.8%) Sweden (8.5%)

Portugal (7.4%) New Zealand (12.8%)

Israel (5.9%) Others

Share of top performers among 15-year-old students:

Less than 1% 1 to 2.5% 2.5 to 5% 5% to 7.5% 7.5% to 10% 10% to 12.5% 12.5% to 15% More than 15%

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

Science Explaining phenomena scientifically

Evaluating and

designing scientific enquiry

Interpreting data and evidence

scientifically

Content knowledge

Procedural and

epistemic knowledge

Physical systems

Living systems

Earth and space

Boys' and girls' strengths and weaknesses in science Figure I.2.29

It is harder for boys, on average, to perform well on these types of tasks...

Sco

re-p

oint

diff

eren

ce (b

oys

- girl

s)

Knowledge types Science competencies Content areas

Boys do better

Girls do better

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25


Evaluating and



scientifically

Content knowledge

Procedural and

epistemic knowledge

Physical systems

Living systems

Earth and space

Top-performing boys' and girls' strengths and weaknesses Figure I.2.29

...but the highest-achieving boys perform better than the highest-achieving girls on all types of tasks, including these

Sco

re-p

oint

diff

eren

ce (b

oys

- girl

s)


Boys do better

Girls do better

-16

-14

-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4


Evaluating and



scientifically

Content knowledge

Procedural and

epistemic knowledge

Physical systems

Living systems

Earth and space

Bottom-performing boys' and girls' strengths and weaknesses Figure I.2.29

... It is harder for girls to perform well on these types of tasks, even among low achievers

Sco

re-p

oint

diff

eren

ce (b

oys

- girl

s)


Boys do better

Girls do better

Scienceandcareers

Expectations of a science career by gender

Figure I.3.5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 %

United States OECD average

Science-related technicians or associate

professionals2

Information and communication technology

(ICT) professionals

Health professionals

Science and engineering professionals

Boys

Girls

Boys

Girls

Boys

Girls

Boys

Girls

Students expecting a career in science Figure I.3.2

0 5

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Dom

inic

an R

ep.

12

Cos

ta R

ica

11

Jord

an

6

Uni

ted

Ara

b E

m.

11

Mex

ico

6

Col

ombi

a

8 Le

bano

n 1

5 B

razi

l 1

9 P

eru

7

Qat

ar

19

Uni

ted

Sta

tes

13

Chi

le

18

Tuni

sia

19

Can

ada

21

Slo

veni

a 1

6 Tu

rkey

6

A

ustra

lia

15

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

17

M

alay

sia

4

Kaz

akhs

tan

14

Spa

in

11

Nor

way

21

U

rugu

ay

17

Sin

gapo

re

14

Trin

idad

and

T.

13

Isra

el

25

CA

BA

(Arg

.) 1

9 P

ortu

gal

18

Bul

garia

25

Ire

land

13

K

osov

o

7 A

lger

ia

12

Mal

ta

11

Gre

ece

12

New

Zea

land

24

A

lban

ia

29

Est

onia

15

O

EC

D a

vera

ge

19

Bel

gium

16

C

roat

ia

17

FYR

OM

20

Li

thua

nia

21

Icel

and

22

Rus

sia

19

HK

G (C

hina

) 2

0 R

oman

ia

20

Italy

17

A

ustri

a 2

3 M

oldo

va

7

Latv

ia

19

Mon

tene

gro

18

Fran

ce

21

Luxe

mbo

urg

18

Pol

and

13

Mac

ao (C

hina

) 1

0 C

hine

se T

aipe

i 2

1 S

wed

en

21

Thai

land

27

Vi

et N

am

13

Sw

itzer

land

22

K

orea

7

H

unga

ry

22

Slo

vak

Rep

ublic

24

Ja

pan

18

Finl

and

24

Geo

rgia

27

C

zech

Rep

ublic

22

B

-S-J

-G (C

hina

) 3

1 N

ethe

rland

s 1

9 G

erm

any

33

Indo

nesi

a 1

9 D

enm

ark

48

% Percentage of students who expect to work in science-related professional and technical occupations when they are 30

Science-related technicians and associate professionals Information and communication technology professionals Health professionals Science and engineering professionals

%ofstude

ntsw

ith

vagueorm

issing

expe

ctaA

ons

SingaporeCanadaSloveniaAustralia

UnitedKingdomIrelandPortugal

ChineseTaipeiHongKong(China)

NewZealandDenmark

JapanEstoniaFinland

Macao(China)VietNam

B-S-J-G(China)Korea

GermanyNetherlandsSwitzerlandBelgiumPoland

SwedenLithuaniaCroa9aIcelandGeorgiaMalta

UnitedStatesSpainIsrael

UnitedArabEmirates

BrazilBulgariaChile

ColombiaCostaRica

DominicanRepublicJordanKosovo

LebanonMexicoPeruQatar

TrinidadandTobagoTunisiaTurkeyUruguay

Above-averagescienceperformance

Strongerthanaverageepistemicbeliefs

Above-averagepercentageofstudentsexpecAngtoworkinascience-relatedoccupaAon

Norway

Mul

tiple

out

com

es

0

10

20

30

40

50

300 400 500 600 700

Perc

enta

ge o

f stu

dent

s ex

pect

ing

a ca

reer

in s

cien

ce

Score points in science

Low enjoyment of science

High enjoyment of science

Students expecting a career in science by performance and enjoyment of learning

Figure I.3.17

L

J

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Comparedtoother

departments,theschool‘ssciencedepartmentiswell-equipped

Scienceteachersareamongourbest-educatedstaffmembers

Schooloffersascienceclub

Schooloffersscience

compeAAons

LearningAmeinregularsciencelessons,inhours

Timeperweekstudyingscience

aWerschool,inhours

Teacher-directedinstrucAon

Perceivedfeedback

adapAveinstrucAon

Enquiry-basedinstrucAon

Teachersupport

z-scores

AWeraccounAngforscienceperformanceandthesocio-economicprofileofstudentsandschoolsBeforeaccounAngforscienceperformanceandthesocio-economicprofileofstudentsandschools

Explaining students' expectations of a career in science Figure II.2.22

Science-specificresources

Scienceac9vi9es Learning9me Teachingstrategiesinsciencelessons

Con

fiden

ce

No association

Less

ons

from

PIS

A

Lowimpactonoutcomes

Highimpactonoutcomes

Lowfeasibility Highfeasibility

Moneypits

Musthaves

Lowhangingfruits

Quickwins

Less

ons

from

PIS

A

Lowimpactonoutcomes



Moneypits

Musthaves

Lowhangingfruits

Quickwins

Commitmenttouniversalachievement

Gateways,instrucAonalsystems

Capacityatpointofdelivery

IncenAvestructuresandaccountability

Resourceswheretheyyieldmost

AlearningsystemCoherence

Less

ons

from

PIS

A

Lowimpactonoutcomes



Moneypits

Musthaves

Lowhangingfruits

Quickwins







AcommitmenttoeducaAonandthebeliefthatcompetenciescanbelearnedandthereforeallchildrencanachievel  UniversaleducaAonalstandardsand

personalizaAonastheapproachtoengagewithdiversity…

… asopposedtoabeliefthatstudentshavedifferentdesAnaAonstobemetwithdifferentexpectaAons,andselecAon/straAficaAonastheapproachtoheterogeneity

l  CleararAculaAonwhoisresponsibleforensuringstudentsuccessandtowhom

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Mal

ta

Sin

gapo

re

New

Zea

land

Ire

land

A

ustra

lia

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

C

hine

se T

aipe

i G

erm

any

Finl

and

Nor

way

D

enm

ark

Slo

veni

a Vi

et N

am

Sw

eden

P

olan

d Fr

ance

K

orea

A

ustri

a C

AB

A (A

rgen

tina)

B

elgi

um

Can

ada

B-S

-J-G

(Chi

na)

Spa

in

Por

tuga

l Lu

xem

bour

g S

witz

erla

nd

OE

CD

ave

rage

Le

bano

n G

eorg

ia

Mac

ao (C

hina

) Ja

pan

Net

herla

nds

Uni

ted

Sta

tes

Mol

dova

La

tvia

C

zech

Rep

ublic

E

ston

ia

Lith

uani

a Ic

elan

d C

roat

ia

Gre

ece

Trin

idad

and

Tob

ago

Qat

ar

Uni

ted

Ara

b E

mira

tes

Italy

H

ong

Kon

g (C

hina

) M

alay

sia

FYR

OM

S

lova

k R

epub

lic

Bra

zil

Jord

an

Chi

le

Rus

sia

Isra

el

Uru

guay

M

onte

negr

o Tu

rkey

B

ulga

ria

Kaz

akhs

tan

Rom

ania

M

exic

o H

unga

ry

Per

u Tu

nisi

a In

done

sia

Cos

ta R

ica

Col

ombi

a A

lger

ia

Thai

land

K

osov

o D

omin

ican

Rep

ublic

Sco

re-p

oint

diff

eren

ce

Average students 10th percentile (lowest-achieving students) 90th percentile (highest-achieving students)

Students’ self-efficacy in science and science performance

Figure I.3.22

Score-point difference associated with one-unit increase in the index of self-efficacy

Less

ons

from

PIS

A

Lowimpactonoutcomes



Moneypits

Musthaves

Lowhangingfruits

Quickwins







InvesAngresourceswheretheycanmakemostofadifferencel  Alignmentofresourceswithkeychallenges(e.g.a3racAngthemosttalentedteacherstothemostchallengingclassrooms)

l  EffecAvespendingchoicesthatprioriAsehighqualityteachersoversmallerclasses

Inequityinopportunity

Resources

Spending per student from the age of 6 to 15 and science performance

Figure II.6.2

Luxembourg

Switzerland Norway Austria

Singapore

United States

United Kingdom

Malta

Sweden

Belgium

Iceland Denmark

Finland

Netherlands

Canada

Japan Slovenia

Australia Germany

Ireland France Italy

Portugal

New Zealand

Korea Spain

Poland Israel

Estonia

Czech Rep.

Latvia Slovak Rep.

Russia

Croatia Lithuania

Hungary Costa Rica

Chinese Taipei

Chile

Brazil

Turkey

Uruguay Bulgaria

Mexico

Thailand Montenegro Colombia

Dominican Republic

Peru

Georgia

11.7, 411

R² = 0.01

R² = 0.41

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Scie

nce

perf

orm

ance

(sco

re p

oint

s)

Average spending per student from the age of 6 to 15 (in thousands USD, PPP)

Differences in educational resources between advantaged and disadvantaged schools

Figure I.6.14

-3

-2

-2

-1

-1

0

1

1

CA

BA

(Arg

entin

a)

Mex

ico

Per

u M

acao

(Chi

na)

Uni

ted

Ara

b E

mira

tes

Leba

non

Jord

an

Col

ombi

a B

razi

l In

done

sia

Turk

ey

Spa

in

Dom

inic

an R

epub

lic

Geo

rgia

U

rugu

ay

Thai

land

B

-S-J

-G (C

hina

) A

ustra

lia

Japa

n C

hile

Lu

xem

bour

g R

ussi

a P

ortu

gal

Mal

ta

Mas

sach

uset

ts

Italy

N

ew Z

eala

nd

Cro

atia

Ire

land

A

lger

ia

Nor

way

Is

rael

D

enm

ark

Sw

eden

U

nite

d S

tate

s M

oldo

va

Bel

gium

S

love

nia

OE

CD

ave

rage

H

unga

ry

Chi

nese

Tai

pei

Viet

Nam

C

zech

Rep

ublic

S

inga

pore

Tu

nisi

a G

reec

e Tr

inid

ad a

nd T

obag

o C

anad

a R

oman

ia

Qat

ar

Mon

tene

gro

Kos

ovo

Net

herla

nds

Kor

ea

Finl

and

Sw

itzer

land

G

erm

any

Hon

g K

ong

(Chi

na)

Aus

tria

FYR

OM

P

olan

d A

lban

ia

Bul

garia

S

lova

k R

epub

lic

Lith

uani

a E

ston

ia

Icel

and

Cos

ta R

ica

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

La

tvia

Mea

n in

dex

diffe

renc

e be

twee

n ad

vant

aged

an

d di

sadv

anta

ged

scho

ols

Index of shortage of educational material Index of shortage of educational staff

Disadvantaged schools have more resources than advantaged schools

Disadvantaged schools have fewer resources than advantaged schools

0

1

2

3

4

5

Swed

en

Estonia

Russia

Latvia

Bulgaria

Iceland

Norway

Hungary

Denm

ark

Finland

Singapore

Israel

Belgium

HongKon

g(China)

Spain

SlovakRep

ublic

Uruguay

France

Macao(C

hina)

Brazil

B-S-J-G

(China)

Japan

Germ

any

CzechRe

public

Lithuania

Sloven

ia

Thailand

Au

stria

CroaAa

Ita

ly

ChineseTaipei

OEC

Daverage

Poland

Pe

ru

Korea

Mexico

Luxembo

urg

Greece

Mon

tene

gro

DominicanRep

ublic

New

Zealand

UnitedKingdo

m

UnitedStates

Switzerland

Co

staRica

Qatar

UnitedArabEmira

tes

Colombia

Australia

Canada

Chile

Ireland

Massachuse3

sTunisia

Po

rtugal

Turkey

Years

Disadvantagedschools Advantagedschools

Numberofyearsinpre-primaryeducaAonamongstudentsa3endingsocio-economically…

Attendance at pre-primary school by schools’ socio-economic profile

Table II.6.51

OECD average

0

5

10

15

20

25

Thematerialforhands-onacAviAesinscienceisingoodshape

Comparedtoother

departments,ourschool‘sscience

departmentiswell-equipped

Comparedtosimilarschools,wehaveawell-

equippedlaboratory

Wehaveextralaboratorystaff

thathelpssupportscience

teaching

Wehaveenoughlaboratory

materialthatallcoursescan

regularlyuseit

Ifweeverhavesomeextrafunding,abigsharegoesintoimprovementofourscienceteaching

Ourschoolspendsextra

moneyonup-to-datescienceequipment

Scienceteachersareamongourbest-educatedstaffmembers

Score-po

intd

ifferen

ce

AWeraccounAngforstudents'andschools'socio-economicprofileBeforeaccounAngforstudents'andschools'socio-economicprofile

Science-specific resources at school and science performance

Figure II.2.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Sw

itzer

land

Ja

pan

Icel

and

Jord

an

Nor

way

A

ustri

a N

ethe

rland

s A

lger

ia

Uru

guay

R

oman

ia

Leba

non

Den

mar

k B

razi

l Vi

et N

am

Ger

man

y G

reec

e Tu

rkey

Ita

ly

Chi

le

Fran

ce

Tuni

sia

Luxe

mbo

urg

Isra

el

CA

BA

(Arg

entin

a)

Bel

gium

O

EC

D a

vera

ge

Thai

land

K

osov

o M

exic

o C

hine

se T

aipe

i S

wed

en

Per

u Ire

land

FY

RO

M

Col

ombi

a U

nite

d S

tate

s N

ew Z

eala

nd

Can

ada

Trin

idad

and

Tob

ago

Spa

in

Bul

garia

K

orea

M

alta

U

nite

d K

ingd

om

Cro

atia

S

love

nia

Slo

vak

Rep

ublic

G

eorg

ia

Indo

nesi

a C

zech

Rep

ublic

H

ong

Kon

g (C

hina

) Q

atar

La

tvia

S

inga

pore

D

omin

ican

Rep

ublic

Fi

nlan

d Li

thua

nia

Uni

ted

Ara

b E

mira

tes

Hun

gary

P

ortu

gal

Aus

tralia

M

onte

negr

o B

-S-J

-G (C

hina

) P

olan

d A

lban

ia

Cos

ta R

ica

Est

onia

R

ussi

a M

oldo

va

Mac

ao (C

hina

)

Disadvantaged schools Advantaged schools

Science competitions offered at school, by schools' socio-economic profile

Figure II.2.10

%

Inequityinopportunity

Behaviour

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

StaffresisAngchange

Teachersbeingtoostrictwithstudents

TeachersnotmeeAngindividualstudents’needs

Teacherabsenteeism

Teachersnotbeingwellpreparedfor

classes

Studentuseofalcoholorillegaldrugs

StudentsinAmidaAngorbullying

otherstudents

Studentsskippingclasses

Studenttruancy

Studentslacking

respectforteachers

Score-po

intd

ifferen

ce

AWeraccounAngforstudents'andschools'socio-economicprofileBeforeaccounAngforstudents'andschools'socio-economicprofile

Student and teacher behaviour hindering learning and science performance

Figure II.3.10

Less

ons

from

PIS

A

Lowimpactonoutcomes



Moneypits

Musthaves

Lowhangingfruits

Quickwins







❒  Capacityatthepointofdeliveryl  A3racAng,developingandretaininghighquality

teachersandschoolleadersandaworkorganisaAoninwhichtheycanusetheirpotenAal

l  InstrucAonalleadershipandhumanresourcemanagementinschools

l  Keepingteachingana3racAveprofessionl  System-widecareerdevelopment…

Student-teacher ratios and class size Figure II.6.14

CABA (Argentina)

Jordan Viet Nam

Poland

United States

Chile

Denmark

Hungary

B-S-G-J (China) Turkey

Georgia

Chinese Taipei

Mexico

Russia

Albania

Hong Kong (China)

Japan

Belgium

Algeria

Colombia

Peru

Macao (China)

Switzerland

Malta

Dominican Republic

Netherlands

Singapore

Brazil

Kosovo

Finland

Thailand

R² = 0.25

5

10

15

20

25

30

15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Stud

ent-t

each

er ra

tio

Class size in language of instruction

High student-teacher ratios and small class sizes

Low student-teacher ratios and large class sizes

OECD average

OE

CD

ave

rage

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

100

Dis

cuss

indi

vidu

al

stud

ents

Sha

re re

sour

ces

Team

con

fere

nces

Col

labo

rate

for

com

mon

sta

ndar

ds

Team

teac

hing

Col

labo

rativ

e P

D

Join

t act

iviti

es

Cla

ssro

om

obse

rvat

ions

Perc

enta

ge o

f tea

cher

s

Average

Professional collaboration

Percentage of lower secondary teachers who report doing the following activities at least once per month

Professional collaboration among teachers

Exchange and co-ordination

(OECD countries)

Teachers Self-Efficacy and Professional Collaboration

11.40

11.60

11.80

12.00

12.20

12.40

12.60

12.80

13.00

13.20

13.40

Nev

er

Onc

e a

year

or l

ess

2-4

times

a y

ear

5-10

tim

es a

yea

r

1-3

times

a m

onth

Onc

e a

wee

k or

mor

e

Teac

her s

elf-e

ffica

cy (l

evel

) Teach jointly as a team in the same class

Observe other teachers’ classes and provide feedback

Engage in joint activities across different classes

Take part in collaborative professional learning

Less frequently

More frequently

External forces exerting pressure and influence inward on

an occupation Internal motivation and efforts of the members of the profession itself

46 Professionalism

ProfessionalismisthelevelofautonomyandinternalregulaAonexercisedbymembersofanoccupaAoninprovidingservicestosociety

Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 4

7 47

Policy levers to teacher professionalism

Knowledge base for teaching (initial education and incentives for professional development)

Autonomy: Teachers’ decision-making power over their work (teaching content, course offerings, discipline practices)

Peer networks: Opportunities for exchange and support needed to maintain high standards of teaching (participation in induction, mentoring, networks, feedback from direct observations)

Teacher professionalism

Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 4

8 48

Teacher professionalism

Knowledge base for teaching (initial education and incentives for professional development)

Autonomy: Teachers’ decision-making power over their work (teaching content, course offerings, discipline practices)

Peer networks: Opportunities for exchange and support needed to maintain high standards of teaching (participation in induction, mentoring, networks, feedback from direct observations)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 S

pain

Japa

n

Fran

ce

Bra

zil

Finl

and

Flan

ders

Nor

way

Alb

erta

(Can

ada)

Aus

tralia

Den

mar

k

Isra

el

Kor

ea

Cze

ch R

epub

lic

Sha

ngha

i (C

hina

)

Latv

ia

Net

herla

nds

Pol

and

Eng

land

New

Zea

land

Sin

gapo

re

Est

onia

Networks Autonomy Knowledge

Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 49 49 TALIS Teacher professionalism index

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Low professionalism

High professionalism

Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 50 50 Teacher professionalism index and teacher outcomes

Perceptions of teachers’ status

Satisfaction with the profession

Satisfaction with the work environment

Teachers’ self-efficacy

Predicted percentile

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Mal

ta

Qat

ar

Uni

ted

Sta

tes

Sin

gapo

re

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

C

roat

ia

Aus

tralia

S

lova

k R

epub

lic

Gre

ece

Rom

ania

G

eorg

ia

Luxe

mbo

urg

Trin

idad

and

Tob

ago

Japa

n P

ortu

gal

Leba

non

Sw

itzer

land

U

nite

d A

rab

Em

irate

s Vi

et N

am

Bra

zil

Chi

le

Mon

tene

gro

B-S

-J-G

(Chi

na)

Can

ada

Net

herla

nds

Isra

el

Est

onia

Li

thua

nia

New

Zea

land

N

orw

ay

Mex

ico

Ger

man

y C

zech

Rep

ublic

O

EC

D a

vera

ge

Kos

ovo

Col

ombi

a R

ussi

a A

ustri

a FY

RO

M

Latv

ia

Finl

and

Bul

garia

S

pain

M

acao

(Chi

na)

Hon

g K

ong

(Chi

na)

Turk

ey

Dom

inic

an R

epub

lic

Thai

land

B

elgi

um

Pol

and

Indo

nesi

a Jo

rdan

H

unga

ry

Den

mar

k S

wed

en

Fran

ce

Uru

guay

Ire

land

M

oldo

va

Italy

P

eru

Slo

veni

a C

osta

Ric

a C

hine

se T

aipe

i Ic

elan

d A

lger

ia

Tuni

sia

Kor

ea

CA

BA

(Arg

entin

a)

Sco

re-p

oint

diff

eren

ce

After accounting for socio-economic status Before accounting for socio-economic status

Disciplinary climate and science performance Figure II.3.7

A more positive disciplinary climate is associated with better student performance in almost all countries/economies

Students who feel very anxious for a test even if they are well prepared

Figure III.4.1

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Cos

ta R

ica

Bra

zil

Dom

inic

an R

epub

lic

Col

ombi

a S

inga

pore

U

rugu

ay

New

Zea

land

U

nite

d K

ingd

om

Per

u Ita

ly

Por

tuga

l U

nite

d S

tate

s A

ustra

lia

Spa

in

Hon

g K

ong

(Chi

na)

Chi

nese

Tai

pei

Mac

ao (C

hina

) Q

atar

M

onte

negr

o D

enm

ark

Can

ada

Thai

land

Ire

land

Ja

pan

Slo

veni

a B

-S-J

-G (C

hina

) U

nite

d A

rab

Em

irate

s S

wed

en

Nor

way

M

exic

o Tu

nisi

a G

reec

e Tu

rkey

C

hile

Li

thua

nia

OE

CD

ave

rage

K

orea

B

ulga

ria

Hun

gary

E

ston

ia

Rus

sia

Icel

and

Aus

tria

Finl

and

Luxe

mbo

urg

Fran

ce

Slo

vak

Rep

ublic

C

roat

ia

Pol

and

Isra

el

Latv

ia

Bel

gium

G

erm

any

Cze

ch R

epub

lic

Net

herla

nds

Sw

itzer

land

Percentage of students

More teacher support and less anxiety Figure III.4.5

5% less likely 4% less likely

16% more likely

29% more likely

9% less likely 17% less likely

44% more likely

60% more likely

The teacher adapts the lesson to my class’s needs

and knowledge

The teacher provides individual help when a student has difficulties

understanding a topic or task

Teachers graded me harder than they graded other

students

Teachers gave me the impression that they think I am less smart than I really

am

Odd

s ra

tios

(loga

rithm

ic s

cale

)

Even if I am well prepared for a test I feel very anxious I get very tense when I study More likely

Less likely

As likely

Teacher support is higher in "happy" schools

-0.60

-0.40

-0.20

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

Aus

tria

Net

herla

nds

Slo

veni

a 0

.2

Cro

atia

Slo

vak

Rep

ublic

Ger

man

y

C

zech

Rep

ublic

0.

2 H

unga

ry

S

witz

erla

nd

P

olan

d 0

.3

Hon

g K

ong

(Chi

na)

Fran

ce

Ita

ly

0.3

Kor

ea

0.3

Est

onia

0.

3 O

EC

D a

vera

ge

0.2

Lith

uani

a

Ja

pan

0.4

S

pain

0.

3 B

ulga

ria

C

hine

se T

aipe

i 0

.3

Latv

ia

0.2

Tuni

sia

Uru

guay

Gre

ece

0.3

Q

atar

0.

1 Tu

rkey

Chi

le

M

onte

negr

o 0

.6

Col

ombi

a

U

nite

d K

ingd

om

R

ussi

a 0

.5

B-S

-J-G

(Chi

na)

0.5

Th

aila

nd

0.2

Bra

zil

Uni

ted

Sta

tes

Uni

ted

Ara

b E

mira

tes

0.3

C

osta

Ric

a 0

.3

Mex

ico

0.4

P

eru

0.3

P

ortu

gal

0.6

Mean index Relatively happy schools

Figure III.3.7

Relatively happy schools are schools where students' life satisfaction is significantly above the average

Less

ons

from

PIS

A

Lowimpactonoutcomes



Moneypits

Musthaves

Lowhangingfruits

Quickwins


Gateways,instruc9onalsystems





❒  ClearambiAousgoalsthataresharedacrossthesystemandalignedwithhighstakesgatewaysandinstrucAonalsystems

l  WellestablisheddeliverychainthroughwhichcurriculargoalstranslateintoinstrucAonalsystems,instrucAonalpracAcesandstudentlearning(intended,implementedandachieved)

l  HighlevelofmetacogniAvecontentofinstrucAon

The‘producAvity’puzzle

MakinglearningAmeproducAvesothatstudentscanbuildtheiracademic,socialandemoAonal

skillsinabalancedway

Learning time and science performance Figure II.6.23

Finland

Germany Switzerland

Japan Estonia

Sweden

Netherlands New Zealand

Macao (China)

Iceland

Hong Kong (China) Chinese Taipei

Uruguay

Singapore

Poland United States

Israel

Bulgaria

Korea

Russia Italy

Greece

B-S-J-G (China)

Colombia

Chile

Mexico

Brazil

Costa Rica

Turkey Montenegro Peru

Qatar Thailand

United Arab

Emirates

Tunisia

Dominican Republic

R² = 0.21

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

35 40 45 50 55 60

PISA

sci

ence

sco

re

Total learning time in and outside of school

OECDaverage

OECD average

OE

CD

ave

rage

Learning time and science performance Figure II.6.23

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Finl

and

Ger

man

y S

witz

erla

nd

Japa

n E

ston

ia

Sw

eden

N

ethe

rland

s N

ew Z

eala

nd

Aus

tralia

C

zech

Rep

ublic

M

acao

(Chi

na)

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

C

anad

a B

elgi

um

Fran

ce

Nor

way

S

love

nia

Icel

and

Luxe

mbo

urg

Irela

nd

Latv

ia

Hon

g K

ong

(Chi

na)

OE

CD

ave

rage

C

hine

se T

aipe

i A

ustri

a P

ortu

gal

Uru

guay

Li

thua

nia

Sin

gapo

re

Den

mar

k H

unga

ry

Pol

and

Slo

vak

Rep

ublic

M

assa

chus

ets

Spa

in

Cro

atia

U

nite

d S

tate

s Is

rael

B

ulga

ria

Kor

ea

Rus

sia

Italy

G

reec

e B

-S-J

-G (C

hina

) C

olom

bia

Chi

le

Mex

ico

Bra

zil

Cos

ta R

ica

Turk

ey

Mon

tene

gro

Per

u Q

atar

Th

aila

nd

Uni

ted

Ara

b E

mira

tes

Tuni

sia

Dom

inic

an R

epub

lic

Sco

re p

oint

s in

sci

ence

per

hou

r of t

otal

lear

ning

tim

e

Hours Intended learning time at school (hours) Study time after school (hours) Score points in science per hour of total learning time

EffecAveteaching

Awell-structured,clearandinformaAvelessononatopicincludingteachers’explanaAons,classroomdebatesandstudents’quesAonspays

off,asdoesadapAveinstrucAonInquiry-basedscienceinstrucAon(e.g.experimentaAonandhands-onacAviAes)tendstorelatenegaAvelytoperformancebutposiAvelyto

studentengagementandcareerexpectaAons

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

Ita

ly

Aus

tralia

Is

rael

M

alta

Le

bano

n S

pain

Q

atar

S

inga

pore

U

nite

d S

tate

s Fi

nlan

d N

orw

ay

Uni

ted

Ara

b E

mira

tes

Gre

ece

Can

ada

Hon

g K

ong

(Chi

na)

Rus

sia

Jord

an

New

Zea

land

M

acao

(Chi

na)

Por

tuga

l C

AB

A (A

rgen

tina)

P

olan

d B

-S-J

-G (C

hina

) G

eorg

ia

Mol

dova

Lu

xem

bour

g Ire

land

O

EC

D a

vera

ge

Icel

and

Uru

guay

N

ethe

rland

s Th

aila

nd

Mex

ico

Chi

nese

Tai

pei

Ger

man

y Fr

ance

C

roat

ia

Sw

itzer

land

D

enm

ark

Bra

zil

Kos

ovo

Aus

tria

Chi

le

Rom

ania

C

olom

bia

Trin

idad

and

Tob

ago

Hun

gary

S

wed

en

Latv

ia

Dom

inic

an R

epub

lic

Bel

gium

Tu

nisi

a Vi

et N

am

Per

u Ja

pan

Alg

eria

FY

RO

M

Est

onia

C

zech

Rep

ublic

Tu

rkey

Li

thua

nia

Slo

vak

Rep

ublic

C

osta

Ric

a B

ulga

ria

Mon

tene

gro

Indo

nesi

a K

orea

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Sco

re-p

oint

diff

eren

ce


Teacher-directed instruction: demonstrating scientific ideas Table II.2.18

Students who reported that their science teacher explains scientific ideas in many lessons or every lesson perform better in science

Nor

way

N

ethe

rland

s U

nite

d A

rab

Em

irate

s Q

atar

D

enm

ark

Finl

and

Sin

gapo

re

Aus

tralia

S

wed

en

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

Ic

elan

d G

erm

any

Bul

garia

P

ortu

gal

Latv

ia

Isra

el

Bra

zil

Rus

sia

B-S

-J-G

(Chi

na)

Hon

g K

ong

(Chi

na)

Chi

le

Can

ada

Turk

ey

OE

CD

ave

rage

C

zech

Rep

ublic

Ire

land

C

olom

bia

Pol

and

New

Zea

land

M

acao

(Chi

na)

Est

onia

Li

thua

nia

Sw

itzer

land

Th

aila

nd

Dom

inic

an R

epub

lic

Slo

vak

Rep

ublic

U

rugu

ay

Uni

ted

Sta

tes

Cos

ta R

ica

Kor

ea

Gre

ece

Mon

tene

gro

Hun

gary

M

exic

o C

roat

ia

Italy

Fr

ance

S

pain

B

elgi

um

Tuni

sia

Luxe

mbo

urg

Per

u Ja

pan

Aus

tria

Chi

nese

Tai

pei -2

0 2 4 6 8

10 12 14 16 18

Sco

re-p

oint

diff

eren

ce

Score-point difference associated with the index of adaptive instruction

Adaptive instruction and science performance Figure II.3.16

Students who reported that their science teacher adapts more frequently their lessons to students’ needs and knowledge perform better in science

Students’ use of memorisation strategies

Source: Figure 4.1

Mac

ao-C

hina

1

5 R

ussi

an F

eder

atio

n

16

Serb

ia

11

Slov

ak R

epub

lic

11

Alb

ania

1

2 Sw

itzer

land

1

3 M

exic

o

19

Pola

nd

9

M

alay

sia

1

2 Li

echt

enst

ein

1

7 Vi

et N

am

5

Li

thua

nia

1

4 K

azak

hsta

n

22

Chi

nese

Tai

pei

16

H

ong

Kon

g-C

hina

1

0 D

enm

ark

2

8 Ita

ly

10

Latv

ia

22

Col

ombi

a

26

Icel

and

2

3 G

erm

any

1

7 Ja

pan

1

2 Q

atar

1

3 K

orea

1

7 Sl

oven

ia

11

Tuni

sia

1

0 R

oman

ia

16

Peru

2

2 C

roat

ia

9

Fr

ance

1

9 M

onte

negr

o

13

Cos

ta R

ica

1

9 A

rgen

tina

2

1 Sw

eden

3

1 C

zech

Rep

ublic

2

5 Sh

angh

ai-C

hina

2

5 Es

toni

a

14

Bul

garia

1

1 O

ECD

ave

rage

2

1 Tu

rkey

1

3 B

razi

l

30

Can

ada

2

6 Si

ngap

ore

2

2 G

reec

e

20

Aus

tria

1

3 Po

rtug

al

27

Finl

and

3

2 U

nite

d St

ates

2

9 H

unga

ry

17

Luxe

mbo

urg

1

3 N

orw

ay

28

Bel

gium

2

4 Jo

rdan

1

4 Is

rael

1

4 Th

aila

nd

46

Uni

ted

Ara

b Em

irate

s

13

Aus

tral

ia

35

Chi

le

22

New

Zea

land

3

5 In

done

sia

2

3 Sp

ain

1

9 N

ethe

rland

s

22

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

3

7 Ire

land

2

8 U

rugu

ay

23

Below the OECD average At the same level as the OECD average Above the OECD average

% of students who report they learn by heart

62

Mem

oris

atio

n

More

Less

Memorisa9onislessusefulasproblemsbecomemoredifficult(OECDaverage)

R²=0.81

0.70

1.00

300 400 500 600 700 800Difficultyofmathema9csitemonthePISAscale

Source: Figure 4.3

Difficult problem

Easy problem

Greater success

Less success

Odds ratio

There are large international differences in the use of control strategies

Source: Figure 5.1

Tuni

sia

4

6 Jo

rdan

4

3 Th

aila

nd

19

Spai

n

42

Uru

guay

5

5 Q

atar

5

3 U

nite

d A

rab

Emira

tes

5

5 Pe

ru

49

Indo

nesi

a

39

Mon

tene

gro

4

8 C

zech

Rep

ublic

3

5 C

hile

5

4 C

hine

se T

aipe

i

42

Cro

atia

4

3 Tu

rkey

5

9 H

unga

ry

46

Rom

ania

4

8 N

ethe

rland

s

54

Slov

enia

3

2 Sh

angh

ai-C

hina

4

0 Ire

land

4

9 G

reec

e

46

Italy

4

4 B

razi

l

45

Lith

uani

a

56

Esto

nia

4

8 K

orea

4

0 A

rgen

tina

4

4 N

orw

ay

48

Uni

ted

Stat

es

40

Latv

ia

46

Slov

ak R

epub

lic

49

Port

ugal

4

4 Fi

nlan

d

45

Mal

aysi

a

50

Col

ombi

a

40

Serb

ia

40

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

4

3 Lu

xem

bour

g

55

Swed

en

44

Bul

garia

6

2 O

ECD

ave

rage

4

9 N

ew Z

eala

nd

46

Viet

Nam

5

4 B

elgi

um

53

Rus

sian

Fed

erat

ion

4

4 Po

land

6

5 A

ustr

alia

4

5 Is

rael

6

1 Si

ngap

ore

4

7 C

osta

Ric

a

48

Aus

tria

5

5 Li

echt

enst

ein

4

2 K

azak

hsta

n

49

Mex

ico

5

4 C

anad

a

48

Den

mar

k

48

Alb

ania

5

4 G

erm

any

5

0 H

ong

Kon

g-C

hina

6

0 Sw

itzer

land

5

5 Fr

ance

6

2 Ja

pan

5

9 M

acao

-Chi

na

53

Icel

and

5

9


% of students who try to work out what the most

important parts to learn are

64

Con

trol

More

Less

Controlstrategiesarealwayshelpfulbutlesssoasproblemsbecomemoredifficult(OECDaverage)

R²=0.310.95

1.20

300 400 500 600 700 800Difficultyofmathema9csitemonthePISAscale

Using control strategies is associated with a lower chance of success as problems

become more difficult

Source: Figure 5.2 65

Difficult problem

Greater success

Less success

Easy problem

Odds ratio

Students’ use of elaboration strategies

Source: Figure 6.1

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

2

0 Ic

elan

d

18

Aus

tral

ia

20

Irela

nd

23

Fran

ce

19

New

Zea

land

1

9 Is

rael

2

6 C

anad

a

26

Aus

tria

3

2 Ja

pan

2

9 B

elgi

um

22

Sing

apor

e

31

Uru

guay

2

2 G

erm

any

3

3 N

ethe

rland

s

24

HK

-Chi

na

30

Luxe

mbo

urg

3

3 C

osta

Ric

a

33

Nor

way

2

3 Fi

nlan

d

23

Uni

ted

Stat

es

30

Port

ugal

2

9 O

ECD

ave

rage

3

0 D

enm

ark

2

3 In

done

sia

3

8 Sw

itzer

land

3

2 B

ulga

ria

27

Mac

ao-C

hina

3

2 C

hile

2

4 A

lban

ia

33

Swed

en

24

Kaz

akhs

tan

2

9 G

reec

e

35

UA

E

32

Hun

gary

3

7 B

razi

l

25

Arg

entin

a

35

Liec

hten

stei

n

41

Esto

nia

3

8 M

exic

o

27

Spai

n

39

Turk

ey

28

Shan

ghai

-Chi

na

35

Pola

nd

27

Col

ombi

a

33

Kor

ea

43

Latv

ia

32

Cze

ch R

epub

lic

40

Viet

Nam

4

1 C

roat

ia

48

Slov

enia

5

6 R

oman

ia

36

Rus

sian

Fed

.

41

Mon

tene

gro

3

9 M

alay

sia

3

8 Pe

ru

30

Italy

4

6 Se

rbia

5

0 Sl

ovak

Rep

ublic

4

0 Li

thua

nia

3

0 Th

aila

nd

34

Qat

ar

34

Chi

nese

Tai

pei

42

Jo

rdan

4

4 Tu

nisi

a

44


% of students who understand new

concepts by relating them to things they

already know

66

Ela

bora

tion

More

Less

Elabora9onstrategiesaremoreusefulasproblemsbecomemoredifficult(OECDaverage)

R²=0.82003

0.80

1.50

300 400 500 600 700 800

Difficultyofmathema9csitemonthePISAscale

Using elaboration

strategies is associated

with a greater chance

of success as problems

become more difficult

Source: Figure 6.2

Difficult problem

Greater success

Less success

Easy problem

Odds ratio

Teachingandlearningstrategiesinmathema9cs

R²=0.10

Moreteacher-directed

instruc0onTeaching

Morememorisa0on

Learning

OECDaverage

Moreelabora0on

Morestudent-oriented

instruc0on

Chinese Taipei Vietnam

Macao-China Korea

Hong-Kong China

Japan

Shanghai- China

Ireland

Hungary

France

Croatia

United Kingdom

Australia New Zealand

Approaches to teaching

Be3erEngagementand

careerexpectaAons Be3erLearningoutcomes

Student-oriented Teacher-directed

Less

ons

from

PIS

A

Lowimpactonoutcomes



Moneypits

Musthaves

Lowhangingfruits

Quickwins




Incen9vestructuresandaccountability



Governance,incenAves,accountability,knowledgemanagementl  AlignedincenAvestructures

Forstudentsl  Howgatewaysaffectthestrength,direcAon,clarityandnatureoftheincenAves

operaAngonstudentsateachstageoftheireducaAonl  DegreetowhichstudentshaveincenAvestotaketoughcoursesandstudyhardl  Opportunitycostsforstayinginschoolandperformingwell

Forteachersl  MakeinnovaAonsinpedagogyand/ororganisaAonl  Improvetheirownperformance

andtheperformanceoftheircolleaguesl  PursueprofessionaldevelopmentopportuniAes

thatleadtostrongerpedagogicalpracAces

l  AbalancebetweenverAcalandlateralaccountabilityl  EffecAveinstrumentstomanageandshareknowledgeandspread

innovaAon–communicaAonwithinthesystemandwithstakeholdersaroundit

l  AcapablecentrewithauthorityandlegiAmacytoact

Publicandprivateschools

AcrossOECDcountries,84%ofstudentsa3endpublicschools,12%government-dependentprivateschoolsand4%independentprivate

schoolsPISAgenerallyobservesnosystemaAcnetperformancedifferences

-100 -80 -60 -40 -20

0 20 40 60

Turk

ey

Sin

gapo

re

Viet

Nam

Ja

pan

Tuni

sia

Italy

C

hine

se T

aipe

i Th

aila

nd

Gre

ece

Sw

itzer

land

C

zech

Rep

ublic

U

nite

d S

tate

s E

ston

ia

Uru

guay

Fr

ance

A

ustri

a C

AB

A (A

rgen

tina)

K

osov

o M

exic

o H

ong

Kon

g (C

hina

) In

done

sia

Luxe

mbo

urg

Sw

eden

H

unga

ry

Mal

ta

Dom

inic

an R

epub

lic

Latv

ia

OE

CD

ave

rage

B

-S-J

-G (C

hina

) P

ortu

gal

Slo

veni

a S

pain

U

nite

d K

ingd

om

Slo

vak

Rep

ublic

N

orw

ay

Aus

tralia

C

roat

ia

Den

mar

k P

eru

Jord

an

Cos

ta R

ica

Col

ombi

a C

hile

N

ethe

rland

s K

orea

N

ew Z

eala

nd

Can

ada

Lith

uani

a Ire

land

G

eorg

ia

Trin

idad

and

Tob

ago

FYR

OM

G

erm

any

Finl

and

Leba

non

Bel

gium

P

olan

d B

razi

l U

nite

d A

rab

Em

irate

s Q

atar

Sco

re-p

oint

diff

eren

ce


Science performance in public and private schools Figure II.4.14

Students in private schools perform better

Students in public schools perform better

Spend time just talking to my child

Eat <the main meal> with my child around a table

Discuss how well my child is doing at school

Attended a scheduled meeting or conferences for parents

Talked about how to support learning at home and homework with my child’s teachers

Discussed my child’s progress with a teacher on my own initiative

Exchanged ideas on parenting, family support, or the child’s development with my child’s teacher

Discussed my child's behaviour with a teacher on my own initiative Students' likelihood of being very satisfied with

their life when their parents reported having participated in these school-related activities in the previous academic year Students' likelihood of being very satisfied with their life when parents reported engaging in these activities "at least once a week"

Parents’ activities and students’ life satisfaction, Average-18 Figure III.9.4

20% more likely

60% more likely...

As likely

40% 30% 10% 50%

… To report high levels of life satisfaction

22(12)PISApointsadvantage19(10)PISA

pointsadvantage

Less

ons

from

PIS

A

Lowimpactonoutcomes



Moneypits

Musthaves

Lowhangingfruits

Quickwins







❒  CoherenceofpoliciesandpracAcesl  Alignmentofpolicies

acrossallaspectsofthesysteml  Coherenceofpolicies

oversustainedperiodsofAmel  ConsistencyofimplementaAonl  FidelityofimplementaAon

(withoutexcessivecontrol)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

TotalAmeperweekinregularlessonsIndexofteachersupportSchoolislocatedinacity

IndexofshortageofeducaAonalmaterialSchooloffersascienceclub

SchoolofferssciencecompeAAonsAcademicperformanceconsideredforschooladmission

Indexofscience-specificresourcesClasssize

Student'ssocio-economicprofile,squaredStudenthasnoimmigrantbackground

IndexofschooldisciplinaryclimateStudentisenrolledinageneralprogrammeStudentspeaksathomethetestlanguage

IndexofdisciplinaryclimateinsciencelessonsRequirementtoa3endatleastonesciencecourse

School'ssocio-economicprofileIndexofteacher-directedinstrucAon

IndexofadapAveinstrucAonStudent'ssocio-economicprofile

Levelofconfidencethatarela9onshipexists(z-scores)

AllcountriesandeconomiesOECDcountries

Factors associated with a higher science performance Figure II.7.2

PosiAveassociaAonwithscienceperformance

-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0

Abilitygroupingwithinschools

Teachers'parAcipaAoninprofessionaldevelopment

IndexofeducaAonalleadership

Residenceconsideredforschooladmission

Studenta3endsaprivateschool

Indexofstudentbehaviourhinderinglearning

Studentskippedaschoolday

Studentarrivedlateforclasses

Indexofenquiry-basedinstrucAon

Studentisagirl

AWer-schoolstudyAme

Indexofperceivedfeedback

Studenthadrepeatedagradeatleastonce

Levelofconfidencethatarela9onshipexists(z-scores)

AllcountriesandeconomiesOECDcountries

Factors associated with a lower science performance Figure II.7.2

NegaAveassociaAonwithscienceperformance

RouAnecogniAveskills Complexwaysofthinking,complexwaysofdoing,collecAvecapacity

Somestudentslearnathighlevels(sorAng) AllstudentsneedtolearnathighlevelsStudentinclusion

Curriculum,instrucAonandassessment

StandardisaAonandcompliance High-levelprofessionalknowledgeworkersTeacherquality

‘TaylorisAc’,hierarchical Flat,collegialWorkorganisaAon

PrimarilytoauthoriAes PrimarilytopeersandstakeholdersAccountability

SystemtransformaAonsTheoldbureaucraAcsystem Themodernenablingsystem

Findoutmoreaboutourworkatwww.oecd.org/pisa– Allpublica9ons– Thecompletemicro-leveldatabase

Email:[email protected]:SchleicherOECDWechat:AndreasSchleicher

andremember:Withoutdata,youarejustanotherpersonwithanopinion

Thank you

plenary session #1 - wordpress.com · professionals2 information and communication technology (ict)...

Documents