how to best shape effective learning and teaching?...organisation's innovation activities face...
TRANSCRIPT
1 1 NIER Symposium
How to best shape effective learning and teaching?
NIER Symposium
17 November 2014, Tokyo
Andreas Schleicher
2 2 21st century skills
The context
The kinds of things that are easy to teach and test are also easy to digitise,
automate and outsource
100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100
PolandIreland
Slovak RepublicEstonia
KoreaUnited States
AustriaCzech Republic
AverageFlanders (Belgium)
JapanEngland/N. Ireland (UK)
GermanyCanada
AustraliaDenmark
NorwayNetherlands
FinlandSweden
Basic digitalproblem-solvingskills
Advanceddigital problem-solving skills
Young adults (16-24 year-olds) All adults (16-65 year-olds)
Problem solving skills in a digital environment
%
3
Evolution of employment in occupational groups defined by problem-solving skills
4
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25Medium-lowlevel ofproblem-solving
Low level ofproblem-solving
Medium-highlevel ofproblem-solving
%
5 Changes in the demand for skills Trends in different tasks in occupations (United States)
-1.2
-0.7
-0.2
0.3
0.8
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005
Nonroutine analyticNonroutine interactiveRoutine cognitiveRoutine manualNonroutine manual
Percentage point changes in mean task inputs across occupations relative to 1960
Source: OECD (2014a), PISA 2012 Results: Skills for Life (Volume V): Student Performance in Problem Solving
6 Critical skills for the most innovative jobs, by type of innovation
Critical skills for the most innovative jobs, by type of innovation: Tertiary-educated workers who contribute to their organisation's innovation activities face higher skill requirements than non-innovative graduates Source: Avvisati, F., G. Jacotin and S. Vincent-Lancrin (2013), “Educating Higher Education Students for Innovative Economies: What International Data Tell Us”, Tuning Journal for Higher Education, No. 1, November 2013, pp. 223-240
2.9
2.3
1.9
1.9
2.3
1.9
2.3
1.9
1.7
1.9
1.7
2.0
2.4
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.4
1.7
1.5
1 2 4
technology or tools
3.6
2.9
2.9
2.6
2.7
2.5
2.9
2.4
2.4
2.5
2.5
2.1
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1 2 4
knowledge or methods
3.2
2.6
2.5
2.7
2.0
2.4
2.1
2.3
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.7
1.8
2.0
1.8
1.8
2.3
1.9
1.7
124
come with news ideas/solutionswillingness to question ideaspresent ideas in audiencealertness to opportunitiesanalytical thinkingcoordinate activitiesacquire new knowledgemobilize capacities of othersmake your meaning clearmaster of your own fieldwrite reports or documentswrite and speak a foreign languageuse computers and internetwork productively with othersuse time efficientlyperform under pressurenegociateknowledge of other fieldsassert your authority
product or service
3.9
3.0
2.8
2.7
2.6
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
1.8
124
any type of innovation
Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 7 7 Most teachers value 21st century pedagogies…
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who "agree" or "strongly agree" that:
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Students learn best by finding solutions to problems on theirown
Thinking and reasoning processes are more important thanspecific curriculum content
Students should be allowed to think of solutions to practicalproblems themselves before the teacher shows them how they
are solved
My role as a teacher is to facilitate students' own inquiry
Japan Average
0 20 40 60 80 100
Students work on projects that require at least one week tocomplete
Students use ICT for projects or class work
Give different work to the students who have difficultieslearning and/or to those who can advance faster
Students work in small groups to come up with a jointsolution to a problem or task
Let students practice similar tasks until teacher knows thatevery student has understood the subject matter
Refer to a problem from everyday life or work to demonstratewhy new knowledge is useful
Check students' exercise books or homework
Present a summary of recently learned content
Japan Average
Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 8 8 …but teaching practices do not always reflect that
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who report using the following teaching practices "frequently" or "in all or nearly all lessons"
9 9 Schooling outcomes
Combining equity and excellence
Singapore
Hong Kong-China Chinese Taipei Korea
Macao-China Japan Liechtenstein Switzerland
Netherlands Estonia Finland Canada Poland Belgium Germany Viet Nam
Austria Australia Ireland Slovenia Denmark New Zealand
Czech Republic France United Kingdom Iceland Latvia Luxembourg Norway
Portugal Italy Spain Russian Fed. Slovak Republic United States Lithuania Sweden Hungary Croatia
Israel
Greece Serbia Turkey
Romania Bulgaria U.A.E. Kazakhstan Thailand
Chile Malaysia Mexico
410
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
490
500
510
520
530
540
550
560
570
580Mean score
High mathematics performance
Low mathematics performance
… Shanghai-China performs above this line (613)
… 12 countries perform below this line
Average performance of 15-year-olds in
Mathematics Fig I.2.13
Socially equitable distribution of learning
opportunities
High mathematics performance
Low mathematics performance
Average performance of 15-year-olds in
mathematics
Strong socio-economic impact on student
performance
Singapore
Hong Kong-China Chinese Taipei Korea
Macao-China Japan Liechtenstein Switzerland
Netherlands Estonia Finland Canada Poland Belgium Germany Viet Nam
Austria Australia Ireland Slovenia Denmark New Zealand
Czech Republic France United Kingdom Iceland Latvia Luxembourg Norway
Portugal Italy Spain Russian Fed. Slovak Republic United States Lithuania Sweden Hungary Croatia
Israel
Greece Serbia Turkey
Romania Bulgaria U.A.E. Kazakhstan Thailand
Chile Malaysia Mexico
Australia Austria
Belgium Canada
Chile
Czech Rep. Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Rep.
Slovenia
Spain Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
UK
US
Singapore
Hong Kong-China Chinese Taipei
Macao-China Liechtenstein
Viet Nam
Latvia
Russian Fed. Lithuania
Croatia
Serbia Romania
Bulgaria United Arab Emirates Kazakhstan
Thailand Malaysia
02468101214161820222426
2012
Socially equitable distribution of learning
opportunities
Strong socio-economic impact on student
performance
Australia Austria
Belgium Canada
Chile
Czech Rep. Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Rep.
Slovenia
Spain Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
UK
US
Australia Austria Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Rep. Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey UK US
2012
Socially equitable distribution of learning
opportunities
Strong socio-economic impact on student
performance
Australia Austria
Belgium Canada
Chile
Czech Rep. Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Rep.
Slovenia
Spain Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
UK
US
Australia Austria Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Rep. Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey UK US
Australia Austria
Belgium Canada
Chile
Czech Rep. Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Rep.
Slovenia
Spain Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
UK
US
Australia Austria Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Rep. Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey UK US
Singapore
Shanghai
Singapore
2003 - 2012
Increase percentage correct
0.8
1.7 1.7
6.5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Multiple-choice - reproducing knowledge
Open-ended - constructing knowledge (21st century skills)
OECD Japan
OECD OECD Japan
Japan
Changes in instructional practice – PISA 2006-9
17 17 Keep track of ‘added value’
The country where students go to class matters more than what social class students come from
18 18 Resilience in education PISA performance by decile of social background
300
325
350
375
400
425
450
475
500
525
550
575
600
625
650
675
Mex
ico
Chile
Gre
ece
Norw
aySw
eden
Icel
and
Isra
elItal
yU
nited
Sta
tes
Spai
nD
enm
ark
Luxe
mbourg
Aust
ralia
Irel
and
United
Kin
gdom
Hungar
yCan
ada
Finla
nd
Aust
ria
Turk
eyLi
echte
nst
ein
Cze
ch R
epublic
Esto
nia
Port
ugal
Slove
nia
Slova
k Rep
ublic
New
Zea
land
Ger
man
yN
ether
lands
Fran
ceSw
itze
rlan
dPola
nd
Bel
giu
mJa
pan
Mac
ao-C
hin
aH
ong K
ong-C
hin
aKore
aSi
ngap
ore
Chin
ese
Taip
eiSh
anghai
-Chin
a
Source: PISA 2012
19 19 Le
sson
s fro
m h
igh
perfo
rmer
s
Catching up with the top-performers
Low impact on outcomes
High impact on outcomes
Low feasibility High feasibility
Money pits
Must haves
Low hanging fruits
Quick wins
20 20 Le
sson
s fro
m h
igh
perfo
rmer
s
Low impact on outcomes
High impact on outcomes
Low feasibility High feasibility
Money pits
Must haves
Low hanging fruits
Quick wins
Commitment to universal achievement
Gateways, instructional systems
Capacity at point of delivery
Incentive structures and accountability
Resources where they yield most
A learning system Coherence
21 21 Le
sson
s fro
m h
igh
perfo
rmer
s
Low impact on outcomes
High impact on outcomes
Low feasibility High feasibility
Money pits
Must haves
Low hanging fruits
Quick wins
Commitment to universal achievement
Gateways, instructional systems
Capacity at point of delivery
Incentive structures and accountability
Resources where they yield most
A learning system Coherence
A commitment to education and the belief that competencies can be learned and therefore all children can achieve Universal educational standards and personalization as
the approach to heterogeneity in the student body… … as opposed to a belief that students have different
destinations to be met with different expectations, and selection/stratification as the approach to heterogeneity
Clear articulation who is responsible for ensuring student success and to whom
United States
Poland
Hong Kong-China
Brazil
New Zealand
Greece
Uruguay
United Kingdom
Estonia Finland
Albania
Croatia
Latvia
Slovak Republic Luxembourg
Germany
Lithuania
Austria
Czech Republic
Chinese Taipei
France Thailand
Japan
Turkey Sweden
Hungary Australia
Israel
Canada
Ireland Bulgaria
Jordan
Chile
Macao-China
U.A.E.
Belgium Netherlands
Spain
Argentina
Indonesia
Denmark
Kazakhstan
Peru
Costa Rica
Switzerland
Montenegro
Tunisia
Iceland
Slovenia
Qatar
Singapore
Portugal
Norway
Colombia
Malaysia
Mexico
Liechtenstein
Korea
Serbia
Russian Fed.
Romania
Viet Nam
Italy
Shanghai-China
R² = 0.36
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
-0.60 -0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
Mea
n m
athe
mat
ics
perf
orm
ance
Mean index of mathematics self-efficacy
OEC
D a
vera
ge
Countries where students have stronger beliefs in their abilities perform better in mathematics 22 Fig III.4.5
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
Mal
aysi
aA
lban
iaIn
done
sia
Kaz
akhs
tan
Rom
ania
Por
tuga
lP
eru
Pol
and
Vie
t Nam
Turk
eyS
lova
k R
epub
licTh
aila
ndC
olom
bia
Mon
tene
gro
Spa
inS
hang
hai-C
hina
Mex
ico
Bul
garia
Tuni
sia
Arg
entin
aK
orea
Mac
ao-C
hina
Ser
bia
Slo
veni
aIta
lyC
hile
Hun
gary
Bra
zil
Chi
nese
Tai
pei
Gre
ece
Rus
sian
Fed
.U
nite
d S
tate
sIre
land
Uru
guay
Sin
gapo
reC
osta
Ric
aJa
pan
U.A
.E.
Jord
anC
roat
iaC
anad
aLi
thua
nia
Isra
elO
EC
D a
vera
geE
ston
iaLa
tvia
Sw
eden
Luxe
mbo
urg
Nor
way
Cze
ch R
epub
licD
enm
ark
Qat
arH
ong
Kon
g-C
hina
Aus
tria
New
Zea
land
Uni
ted
Kin
gdom
Aus
tralia
Net
herla
nds
Bel
gium
Fran
ceS
witz
erla
ndLi
echt
enst
ein
Finl
and
Ger
man
yIc
elan
d
Mea
n in
dex
diffe
renc
e (b
oys-
girls
)
Difference in the mean index
Gender gap adjusted for differences in mathematics performance between boys and girlsGender gap
Boys tend to have greater beliefs in their mathematics abilities than girls 23 Fig III.7.7
B
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
Col
ombi
aC
osta
Ric
aP
eru
Isra
elLu
xem
bour
gC
hile
Tuni
sia
Slo
vak
Rep
ublic
Liec
hten
stei
nIta
lyK
orea
Spa
inA
rgen
tina
Bra
zil
Por
tuga
lG
reec
eJa
pan
Aus
tria
Uru
guay
Mex
ico
Hon
g K
ong-
Chi
naB
ulga
riaTu
rkey
Indo
nesi
aH
unga
ryV
iet N
amU
nite
d S
tate
sR
oman
iaU
.A.E
.C
hine
se T
aipe
iC
anad
aIre
land
Bel
gium
Kaz
akhs
tan
Cze
ch R
epub
licO
EC
D a
vera
geC
roat
iaFr
ance
Sha
ngha
i-Chi
naM
onte
negr
oP
olan
dS
erbi
aM
alay
sia
Est
onia
Qat
arM
acao
-Chi
naN
ethe
rland
sN
ew Z
eala
ndN
orw
ayLi
thua
nia
Slo
veni
aD
enm
ark
Jord
anS
witz
erla
ndA
ustra
liaG
erm
any
Latv
iaR
ussi
an F
ed.
Sw
eden
Sin
gapo
reU
nite
d K
ingd
omTh
aila
ndFi
nlan
dIc
elan
d
Scor
e-po
int d
iffer
ence
(boy
s-gi
rls)
Gender gap among the highest-achieving students (90th percentile)
Gender gap adjusted for differences in mathematics self-efficacy between boys and girlsGender gap
Greater self-efficacy among girls could shrink the gender gap in mathematics performance, particularly among the highest-performing students 24 Fig III.7.12
B
Boys do better
Girls do better
Percentage of girls and boys who intend to take additional mathematics, rather than language, courses after they leave school
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Turk
eyJo
rdan
*Cost
a Ric
a *
Thai
land
Kaz
akhs
tan
*Ic
elan
dSh
angha
i-Chi
na *
Vie
t N
amAlb
ania
*Uni
ted A
rab E
mirat
es *
Qat
arM
alay
sia
*N
orw
ayIsra
elCyp
rus
Indone
sia
*Po
rtug
al *
Colo
mbia
Japan
Net
herlan
ds
Cro
atia
Latv
iaUru
gua
yArg
entina
Den
mar
kPe
ruM
exic
oTu
nisia
Esto
nia
Chi
leLi
echt
enst
ein
Mac
ao-C
hina
Pola
ndLu
xem
bour
gFr
ance
Spai
nItal
ySw
eden
Belg
ium
Uni
ted S
tate
sCze
ch R
epub
licChi
nese
Tai
pei
Sing
apore
OEC
D a
vera
ge
Slove
nia
Can
ada
Gre
ece
Lith
uani
aBu
lgar
iaSw
itze
rlan
dFi
nlan
dUni
ted K
ingdom
Slova
k Rep
ublic
Rom
ania
Rus
sian
Fed
erat
ion
Aus
tria
Mont
eneg
roBr
azil
Irel
and
Ger
man
yH
ong
Kong
-Chi
naAus
tral
iaN
ew Z
eala
ndSe
rbia
Kore
aH
ungar
y
Girls Boys%
26
26
26 A continuum of support
Make learning central, encourage engagement and responsibility
Be acutely sensitive to individual differences
Provide continual assessment with formative feedback
Be demanding for every student
Ensure that students feel valued and included and learning is collaborative
27 27 Le
sson
s fro
m h
igh
perfo
rmer
s
Low impact on outcomes
High impact on outcomes
Low feasibility High feasibility
Money pits
Must haves
Low hanging fruits
Quick wins
Commitment to universal achievement
Gateways, instructional systems
Capacity at point of delivery
Incentive structures and accountability
Resources where they yield most
A learning system Coherence
Clear ambitious goals that are shared across the system and aligned with high stakes gateways and instructional systems Well established delivery chain through which
curricular goals translate into instructional systems, instructional practices and student learning (intended, implemented and achieved)
High level of metacognitive content of instruction …
28 28 Le
sson
s fro
m h
igh
perfo
rmer
s
Low impact on outcomes
High impact on outcomes
Low feasibility High feasibility
Money pits
Must haves
Low hanging fruits
Quick wins
Commitment to universal achievement
Gateways, instructional systems
Capacity at point of delivery
Incentive structures and accountability
Resources where they yield most
A learning system Coherence
Capacity at the point of delivery Attracting, developing and retaining high quality
teachers and school leaders and a work organisation in which they can use their potential
Instructional leadership and human resource management in schools
Keeping teaching an attractive profession System-wide career development …
Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 29 29 Teachers' perceptions of the value of teaching
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who "agree" or "strongly agree" that teaching profession is a valued profession in society
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Mal
aysia
Sing
apore
Kore
a
Abu
Dha
bi (U
AE)
Finl
and
Mex
ico
Alb
erta
(Can
ada)
Flan
der
s (B
elgiu
m)
Net
herlan
ds
Aus
tral
ia
Engla
nd (U
K)
Rom
ania
Isra
el
Uni
ted S
tate
s
Chi
le
Ave
rage
Norw
ay
Japan
Latv
ia
Serb
ia
Bulg
aria
Den
mar
k
Pola
nd
Icel
and
Esto
nia
Braz
il
Ital
y
Cze
ch R
epub
lic
Portug
al
Cro
atia
Spai
n
Swed
en
Fran
ce
Slova
k Rep
ublic
Perc
enta
ge
of tea
cher
s
Above-average performers in PISA
Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 30 30
Countries where teachers believe their profession is valued show higher levels of student achievement
Relationship between lower secondary teachers' views on the value of their profession in society and the country’s share of top mathematics performers in PISA 2012
Australia
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia Finland France
Iceland Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Latvia
Mexico
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Serbia
Singapore
Slovak Republic
Spain Sweden
Alberta (Canada)
England (UK)
Flanders (Belgium)
United States
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Shar
e of
mat
hem
atic
s to
p p
erfo
rmer
s
Percentage of teachers who agree that teaching is valued in society
R2 = 0.24 r= 0.49
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100D
iscu
ss ind
ivid
ual
stud
ents
Shar
e re
sour
ces
Team
conf
eren
ces
Colla
bora
te for co
mm
on
stan
dar
ds
Team
tea
chin
g
Colla
bora
tive
PD
Join
t ac
tiviti
es
Cla
ssro
om
obse
rvat
ions
Perc
enta
ge
of
teac
her
s
Average Japan
Professional collaboration
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who report doing the following activities at least once per month
Teacher co-operation 31
Exchange and co-ordination
Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 32 32 Drivers of job satisfaction
The more frequently that
teachers report participating
in collaborative practices
with their colleagues,
the higher their level of
self-efficacy.
The same is true
for job satisfaction.
Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 33 33 Teachers' needs for professional development
Percentage of lower secondary teachers indicating they have a high level of need for professional development in the following areas
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Knowledge of the curriculum
Knowledge of the subject field(s)
School management and administration
Pedagogical competencies
Developing competencies for future work
Teaching cross-curricular skills
Student evaluation and assessment practice
Student career guidance and counselling
Approaches to individualised learning
Teaching in a multicultural or multilingual setting
Student behaviour and classroom management
New technologies in the workplace
ICT skills for teaching
Teaching students with special needs
Average
Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 34 34 Barriers to professional development participation
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who "agree" or "strongly agree" that the following elements represent barriers to their participation in professional development activities
0 20 40 60 80 100
Do not have the pre-requisites (e.g., qualifications, experience,seniority)
There is a lack of employer support
Lack of time due to family responsibilities
There is no relevant professional development offered
Professional development is too expensive/unaffordable
There are no incentives for participating in such activities
Professional development conflicts with my work schedule
Japan Average
Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 35 35 Impact of professional development
…the professional development in which they have participated has had a positive impact on their teaching. ·
Regardless of the content, over 3/4 of
teachers report that…
Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 36 36
Teachers feedback : direct classroom observations
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bul
garia
Pol
and
Uni
ted
Sta
tes
Rom
ania
Alb
erta
(Can
ada)
Cro
atia
Cze
ch R
epub
lic
Abu
Dha
bi (U
AE)
Flan
ders
(Bel
gium
)
Ser
bia
Slo
vak
Rep
ublic
Japa
n
Isra
el
Ave
rage
Sin
gapo
re
Latv
ia
Bra
zil
Mex
ico
Mal
aysi
a
Sw
eden
Est
onia
Eng
land
(UK)
Nor
way
Finl
and
Por
tuga
l
Den
mar
k
Kor
ea
Chi
le
Italy
Net
herla
nds
Fran
ce
Spa
in
Icel
and
Aus
tralia
Perc
enta
ge o
f tea
cher
s
Principals School Management Other teachers
Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 37 37
Teachers feedback : never received
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Icel
and
Finl
and
Swed
en
Flan
der
s (B
elgiu
m)
Fran
ce
Ital
y
Den
mar
k
Net
herlan
ds
Norw
ay
Spai
n
Aus
tral
ia
Cro
atia
Alb
erta
(Can
ada)
Uni
ted S
tate
s
Japan
Portug
al
Ave
rage
Isra
el
Engla
nd (U
K)
Chi
le
Esto
nia
Serb
ia
Cze
ch R
epublic
Slova
k Rep
ublic
Mex
ico
Sing
apore
Bra
zil
Kore
a
Pola
nd
Abu
Dha
bi (U
AE)
Bul
gar
ia
Rom
ania
Latv
ia
Mal
aysia
Per
centa
ge
of
teac
her
s
Analysis of students' test scores Assessment of content knowledge Direct classroom observation
Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 38 38 Feedback and change in behavior
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who report a "moderate" or "large" positive change in the following issues after they received feedback on their work
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Con
fiden
ce a
s a
teac
her
Mot
ivat
ion
Job
satis
fact
ion
Kno
wle
dge
and
unde
rsta
ndin
g of
mai
nsu
bjec
t fie
ld(s
)
Teac
hing
pra
ctic
es
Stu
dent
ass
essm
ents
to im
prov
e st
uden
tle
arni
ng
Cla
ssro
om m
anag
emen
t pra
ctic
es
Met
hods
for t
each
ing
stud
ents
with
spe
cial
need
s
Pub
lic re
cogn
ition
Job
resp
onsi
bilit
ies
Rol
e in
sch
ool d
evel
opm
ent i
nitia
tives
Am
ount
of p
rofe
ssio
nal d
evel
opm
ent
Like
lihoo
d of
car
eer a
dvan
cem
ent
Sal
ary
and/
or fi
nanc
ial b
onus
Average Japan
Personal Pedagogical Professional
Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 39 39 Consequences of feedback
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who "agree" or "strongly agree" that:
0 20 40 60 80
If a teacher is consistently underperforming, he/she would bedismissed
The best performing teachers in this school receive the greatestrecognition
Teacher appraisal and feedback have little impact upon the wayteachers teach in the classroom
A mentor is appointed to help teachers improve his/her teaching
A development or training plan is established to improve theirwork as a teacher
Japan Average
Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 40 40 Teachers and feedback
On average across TALIS countries,
...and only one in 5 receive feedback from three sources.
Just above half of the teachers report receiving feedback on
their teaching from one or two sources
41 41 Le
sson
s fro
m h
igh
perfo
rmer
s
Low impact on outcomes
High impact on outcomes
Low feasibility High feasibility
Money pits
Must haves
Low hanging fruits
Quick wins
Commitment to universal achievement
Gateways, instructional systems
Capacity at point of delivery
Incentive structures and accountability
Resources where they yield most
A learning system Coherence
Incentives, accountability, knowledge management Aligned incentive structures
For students How gateways affect the strength, direction, clarity and nature of the
incentives operating on students at each stage of their education Degree to which students have incentives to take tough courses and study hard Opportunity costs for staying in school and performing well
For teachers Make innovations in pedagogy and/or organisation Improve their own performance
and the performance of their colleagues Pursue professional development opportunities
that lead to stronger pedagogical practices
A balance between vertical and lateral accountability Effective instruments to manage and share knowledge and spread
innovation – communication within the system and with stakeholders around it
A capable centre with authority and legitimacy to act
42 42 Le
sson
s fro
m h
igh
perfo
rmer
s
42
42 Align autonomy with accountability
The question is not how many charter schools you have but how you enable every teacher to assume charter-like autonomy
43 43 Le
sson
s fro
m h
igh
perfo
rmer
s
43
43
Hong Kong-China
Brazil
Uruguay
Albania
Croatia
Latvia
Lithuania
Chinese Taipei
Thailand Bulgaria
Jordan
Macao-China
UAE Argentina
Indonesia
Kazakhstan
Peru
Costa Rica Tunisia
Qatar
Singapore
Colombia
Malaysia
Serbia
Romania
Viet Nam
Shanghai-China
USA
Poland
New Zealand
Greece
UK
Estonia
Finland
Slovak Rep.
Luxembourg
Germany Austria
Czech Rep.
France
Japan
Turkey
Sweden
Hungary Australia
Israel
Canada
Chile
Belgium Netherlands
Spain Denmark
Switzerland
Iceland
Slovenia Portugal
Norway
Korea
Italy
R² = 0.13
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
Mat
hem
atic
s pe
rfor
man
ce (s
core
poi
nts)
Index of school responsibility for curriculum and assessment (index points)
Countries that grant schools autonomy over curricula and assessments tend to perform better in mathematics
Source: PISA 2012
No standardisedmath policy
Standardised mathpolicy455
460
465
470
475
480
485
Less school autonomy
More school autonomy
Schools with more autonomy perform better than schools with less autonomy in systems with standardised math policies
Score points
School autonomy for curriculum and assessment x system's extent of implementing a standardised math policy (e.g. curriculum and instructional materials)
Fig IV.1.16
Schools with more autonomy perform better than schools with less autonomy in systems with more collaboration
Teachers don't participate inmanagement
Teachers participate inmanagement455
460
465
470
475
480
485
Less school autonomy
More school autonomy
Score points
School autonomy for resource allocation x System's level of teachers participating in school management Across all participating countries and economies
Fig IV.1.17
0 20 40 60 80 100
Written specification of the school's curriculum andeducational goals
Written specification of student-performance standards
Systematic recording of data, including teacher andstudent attendance and graduation rates, test results…
Internal evaluation/self-evaluation
External evaluation
Written feedback from students (e.g. regarding lessons,teachers or resources)
Teacher mentoring
Regular consultation with one or more experts over aperiod of at least six months with the aim of improving…
Implementation of a standardised policy for mathematics
%
Percentage of students in schools whose principal reported that their schools have the following for quality assurance and improvement:
Japan Singapore OECD average
Quality assurance and school improvement Fig IV.4.14 46
47 47 Le
sson
s fro
m h
igh
perfo
rmer
s
Low impact on outcomes
High impact on outcomes
Low feasibility High feasibility
Money pits
Must haves
Low hanging fruits
Quick wins
Commitment to universal achievement
Gateways, instructional systems
Capacity at point of delivery
Incentive structures and accountability
Resources where they yield most
A learning system Coherence
Investing resources where they can make most of a difference Alignment of resources with key challenges (e.g.
attracting the most talented teachers to the most challenging classrooms)
Effective spending choices that prioritise high quality teachers over smaller classes
Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 48 48 What teachers do beyond teaching
Average number of 60-minute hours teachers report spending on the following tasks in an average week
Finland Malaysia
Abu Dhabi (United Arab Emirates) Flanders (Belgium)
Israel Italy Malaysia
Japan Malaysia Sweden
Finland Korea
Finland Malaysia
Finland Korea
Finland Malaysia Portugal Singapore
Croatia Finland Japan
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Number of hours
School management
Communication with parents
All other tasks
Extracurricular activities
Student counselling
Team work
Administrative work
Marking
Planning
Hong Kong-China
Brazil Uruguay
Croatia
Latvia
Chinese Taipei
Thailand Bulgaria
Jordan
Macao-China
UAE Argentina
Indonesia Kazakhstan
Peru
Costa Rica Montenegro
Tunisia
Qatar
Singapore
Colombia
Malaysia Serbia
Romania
Viet Nam
Shanghai-China
USA
Poland
New Zealand
Greece
UK
Estonia
Finland Slovak Rep.
Luxembourg
Germany Austria France
Japan
Turkey Sweden Hungary Australia Israel
Canada Ireland
Chile
Belgium
Spain Denmark
Switzerland
Iceland
Slovenia
Portugal Norway
Mexico
Korea
Italy
R² = 0.19
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
-0.500.511.5
Mat
hem
atic
s pe
rfor
man
ce (s
core
poi
nts)
Equity in resource allocation (index points)
Countries with better performance in mathematics tend to allocate educational resources more equitably
Greater equity
Less equity
Adjusted by per capita GDP
Fig IV.1.11
30% of the variation in math performance across OECD countries is explained by the degree of similarity of
educational resources between advantaged and disadvantaged schools
OECD countries tend to allocate at least an equal, if not a larger, number of teachers per student to disadvantaged schools; but disadvantaged schools tend to have great difficulty in attracting qualified teachers.
Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 50 50
Distribution of experienced teachers in more and less challenging schools
Schools with more than 30% of students from socioeconomically disadvantaged homes
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
Bra
zil
Kore
a
Cro
atia
Net
herlan
ds
Uni
ted S
tate
s
Chi
le
Latv
ia
Mex
ico
Portug
al
Ital
y
Serb
ia
Fran
ce
Bul
gar
ia
Abu
Dha
bi (U
AE)
Slova
k Rep
ublic
Pola
nd
Mal
aysia
Spai
n
Ave
rage
Aus
tral
ia
Sing
apore
Esto
nia
Japan
Engla
nd (U
nite
d K
ingdom
)
Isra
el
Rom
ania
Alb
erta
(Can
ada)
Swed
en
Flan
der
s (B
elgiu
m)
Difference in the proportion of teachers with more than 5 years teaching experience who work in more challenging schools and those who do not
Higher proportion of experienced teachers in challenging schools
Higher proportion of experienced teachers in schools that are less
challenging
51 51 Le
sson
s fro
m h
igh
perfo
rmer
s
Low impact on outcomes
High impact on outcomes
Low feasibility High feasibility
Money pits
Must haves
Low hanging fruits
Quick wins
Commitment to universal achievement
Gateways, instructional systems
Capacity at point of delivery
Incentive structures and accountability
Resources where they yield most
A learning system Coherence
A learning system An outward orientation to keep the system learning,
technology, international benchmarks as the ‘eyes’ and ‘ears’ of the system
Recognising challenges and potential future threats to current success, learning from them, designing responses and implementing these
52 52 Le
sson
s fro
m h
igh
perfo
rmer
s
Low impact on outcomes
High impact on outcomes
Low feasibility High feasibility
Money pits
Must haves
Low hanging fruits
Quick wins
Commitment to universal achievement
Gateways, instructional systems
Capacity at point of delivery
Incentive structures and accountability
Resources where they yield most
A learning system Coherence
Coherence of policies and practices Alignment of policies
across all aspects of the system Coherence of policies
over sustained periods of time Consistency of implementation Fidelity of implementation
(without excessive control)
53 53 Le
sson
s fro
m h
igh
perfo
rmer
s
Low impact on outcomes
High impact on outcomes
Low feasibility High feasibility
Money pits
Must haves
Low hanging fruits
Quick wins
Commitment to universal achievement
Gateways, instructional systems
Capacity at point of delivery
Incentive structures and accountability
Resources where they yield most
A learning system Coherence
54 54 Le
sson
s fro
m h
igh
perfo
rmer
s
Some students learn at high levels All students need to learn at high levels
Student inclusion
Routine cognitive skills, rote learning Learning to learn, complex ways of thinking, ways of working
Curriculum, instruction and assessment
Few years more than secondary High-level professional knowledge workers
Teacher quality
‘Tayloristic’, hierarchical Flat, collegial
Work organisation
Primarily to authorities Primarily to peers and stakeholders
Accountability
What it all means
The old bureaucratic system The modern enabling system
55 55 Le
sson
s fro
m h
igh
perfo
rmer
s
55
55 Thank you
Find out more about our work at www.oecd.org – All publications – The complete micro-level database
Email: [email protected] Twitter: SchleicherEDU
and remember: Without data, you are just another person with an opinion