View
253.252
Download
2
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
The capacity to engage creatively in cognitive processing to understand and resolve problem situations where a method of solution is not immediately obvious (including motivational and affective aspects).
Citation preview
OECD EMPLOYER BRANDPlaybook
1
PISA 2012Creative Problem SolvingStudents’ skills in tackling real-life problems
1 April 2014Andreas Schleicher
2 PISA in brief
• Over half a million students…– representing 28 million 15-year-olds in 65 countries/economies– Schools and students randomly selected by OECD
… took an internationally agreed 2-hour test…– Goes beyond testing whether students can
reproduce what they were taught…… to assess students’ capacity to extrapolate from what they know and
creatively apply their knowledge in novel situations– Mathematics, reading, science, problem-solving, financial literacy– Total of 390 minutes of assessment material
… and responded to questions on…– their personal background, their schools
and their engagement with learning and school• Parents, principals and system leaders provided data on…
– school policies, practices, resources and institutional factors that help explain performance differences .
…the capacity to engage creatively in cognitive processing to understand and
resolve problem situations where a method of solution is not immediately obvious
(including motivational and affective aspects).
Problem Solving: 85 000 students in 44 countries/economies took
an additional 40-min test
3
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2006 200935
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
Routine manualNonroutine manualRoutine cognitiveNonroutine analyticNonroutine interpersonal
Mean task input in percentiles of 1960 task distribution
The case for creative problem-solvingTrends in different tasks in occupations (United States)
Source: Autor, David H. and Brendan M. Price. 2013. "The Changing Task Composition of the US Labor Market: An Update of Autor, Levy, and Murnane (2003)." MIT Mimeograph, June.
5
TRAFFIC
Problem Solving – Sample Question 1
Julio lives in Silver, Maria lives in Lincoln, and Don lives in Nobel. They want to meet in a suburb on the map. No-one wants to travel for more than 15 minutes. Where could they meet?
This is an easy item – Level 1 on the problem-solving scale (below baseline)
All information required is given at the outset: it is a static problem
An embedded calculator ensures the item measures problem solving –
not arithmeticsThis item focuses on students’ ability to monitor and reflect on solutions.
6
TICKETSYou plan to take four trips around the city on the subway today. You are a student, so you can use concession fares. Use the ticketing machine to find the cheapest ticket and press BUY. Once you have pressed BUY, you cannot return to the question;
Problem Solving – Sample Question 2
This is a harder item – Level 5 on the problem-solving scale
Students must engage with the machine, and use the feedback and information uncovered to reach a
solution: it is an interactive problem
This main demand is exploring and understanding (knowledge acquisition)
Sample items can be tried at cbasq.acer.edu.au and www.oecd.org/pisa
7 77 Performance in problem-solving
How well do 15-year-olds engage creatively in cognitive processing to understand and resolve
problem situations?
• Exploring and understanding the information provided with the problem.
• Representing and formulating: constructing graphical, tabular, symbolic or verbal representations of the problem situation and formulating hypotheses about the relevant factors and relationships between them.
• Planning and executing: devising a plan by setting goals and sub-goals, and executing the sequential steps identified in the plan.
• Monitoring and reflecting: monitoring progress, reacting to feedback, and reflecting on the solution, the information provided with the problem, or the strategy adopted.
390
400
410
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
490
500
510
520
530
540
550
560
570SingaporeKorea
Japan
Macao-ChinaHong Kong-China Shanghai-ChinaChinese TaipeiCanadaAustraliaFinlandEngland (U.K.)Estonia France NetherlandsItalyCzech RepublicGermany
United States BelgiumAustriaNorwayIrelandDenmark
PortugalSwedenRussian Fed.Slovak RepublicPoland SpainSlovenia SerbiaCroatiaHungaryTurkeyIsraelChile
BrazilMalaysia
U.A.EMontenegro UruguayBulgaria Colombia
Chart TitleMean scoreStrong performance in
problem solving
Low performance in problem solving
Average performanceof 15-year-olds in
problem solvingFig V.2.3
8
99 Excellence in education
Top-performers in problem-solving
1010 The rising demand for advanced skills
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009*
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25%
Evolution of employment in occupational groups defined by PIAAC problem-solving skills
Employment of workers with advanced
problem-solving skills
Employment of workers with poor problem-solving skillsEmployment of workers with
medium-low problem-solving skills (PIAAC)
Source:PIAAC 2011
12
Singap
oreJa
pan
Chines
e Taip
ei
Canad
a
Macao
-Chin
a
Belgium
Netherl
ands
German
y
Czech
Rep
ublic
United
Stat
es
Austria
Irelan
d
Sweden
Slovak
Rep
ublic
Portug
al
Poland
Hunga
ry
Croatia
Turke
yBraz
il
Urugua
y
Malays
ia0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
%
Top performers in problem solving, by gender Tab V.4.6
Boys are more likely to be top performers than girls. In Italy, the Slovak Republic and Croatia, there are two top-performing boys for every girl performing at the top
Top performers attain proficiency Level 5 or 6 in problem solving, meaning that they can systematically explore a complexproblem scenario, devise multi-step solutions that take into account all constraints, and adjust their plans in light of thefeedback received.
1414 Strengths and weaknesses in problem-solving
Which countries have particular strengths in problem-solving ?
200 300 400 500 600 700 800200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Patterns of relative performance in problem solving
Problem solving performance
Mathematics performance
Fig V.2.16Fig V.2.17
Average relationship between problem
solving and mathematics performance
The United States and England (UK) perform better-than-expected in problem solving. The difference between
observed and expected performance is larger among strong performers in mathematics
Japan performs better-than-expected in problem solving. The difference between observed and expected performance is larger
among low achievers in mathematics Poland’s performance is lower-than-
expected in problem solving. The gap between observed and expected
performance is similar at all levels of mathematics performance.
15
Spain’s performance is lower-than-expected in problem solving. The
gap between observed and expected performance is wider
among low achievers in mathematics.
Singapore’s performance in problem solving is as high as
expected at all levels of mathematics performance
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
Bul
garia
Sha
ngha
i-Chi
na Pol
and
Uni
ted
Ara
b E
mira
tes Hun
gary
Slo
veni
a Isra
elU
rugu
ayM
onte
negr
oC
roat
iaS
pain
Irela
ndH
ong
Kon
g-C
hina
Net
herla
nds
Est
onia
Turk
eyM
alay
sia
Ger
man
yD
enm
ark
Bel
gium
Chi
nese
Tai
pei
Finl
and
OE
CD
ave
rage
Col
ombi
aA
ustri
aS
lova
k R
epub
licR
ussi
an F
eder
atio
nP
ortu
gal
Sw
eden
Can
ada
Cze
ch R
epub
licC
hile
Nor
way
Sin
gapo
reFr
ance
Aus
tralia
Bra
zil
Mac
ao-C
hina
Eng
land
(U.K
.)Ita
lyU
nite
d S
tate
sS
erbi
aJa
pan
Kor
ea
%
Relative performance in problem solving Fig V.2.15
Students' performance in problem solving is lower than their expected performance
Students' performance in problem solving is higher than their expected performance
16
Strengths and weaknesses:interactive and static tasks
Fig V.3.10
Better performance on static tasks
Better performance on interactive tasks
17
-0.04
0.03
-0.02
-0.09-0.08
0.02
-0.05-0.04
0.01
-0.07
0.05
-0.08
-0.11
0.07
0.12
-0.05-0.06
-0.23
0.01
-0.17
0.01
-0.04-0.06
-0.02
0.12
0.02
-0.07
0.060.04
-0.10
0.03
-0.04
0.06
0.16
0.03
-0.05
0.10
0.04
-0.01
-0.10
-0.07
0.05
-0.11
Strengths and weaknesses:knowledge-generation and knowledge-utilisation
Fig V.3.10
-0.04-0.02
-0.09-0.08
0.000.00
-0.10-0.04
0.00
-0.07 -0.08-0.11
-0.05
0.000.00
-0.06-0.10
-0.23
-0.07-0.17
0.00-0.06
0.00
-0.11
0.07
0.02885661401751490.02208824856682450
0.05973764032933910.03591911502528650
0.0562423276944717
0.159159543072608
0 0
0.04603303344194690.0709923378877416 0.02
0.0446300944948380.116200450695827
0 00
Better performance on knowledge-utilisation tasks
Better performance on knowledge-generation tasks
18
Strengths and weaknesses Fig V.3.10
0.120889317275453
-0.036300979726331
6
England
-0.020577267252252
9
-0.086093979745376
Slovak Rep.
0.0220882485668245
-0.069920444406873
4
Czech Rep.
0.0597376403293391
0.0359191150252865
-0.048054334958160
1 -0.099986094875926
9
-0.041963270528034
7
0.0300635292143855
-0.036533287518606
3
0.0562423276944717
0.159159543072608
0.00575540583173983
0.0302653486953077
-0.066219933920109
3
0.0460330334419469
-0.079882303872247
4-0.113958483588313
0.0709923378877416
-0.052595194122935
3
0.103124116781034
0.044630094494838
-0.014479321264834
3
0.116200450695827
-0.049554806433831-
0.0644115958595918 -0.102993319678348
-0.230282724675781
-0.070204676855154
2
U.A.E.
-0.170035342380878
0.0519337892269319
0.00765462843677577
-0.041373188066178
1 -0.059267106157907
3
Russian Fed.
-0.111913047794784
OEC
D a
v-
erag
e
OECD average
Better performance on interactive tasks
Better performance on static tasks
Better performance on knowledge-acquisition tasks
Better performance on knowledge-generation tasks
Stronger-than-expected performance on interactive items, weaker-than-expected performance on knowledge-acquisition tasks
Stronger-than-expected performance on interactive items and on knowledge-acquisition tasks
Weaker-than-expected performance on interactive items and on knowledge-acquisition tasks
Weaker-than-expected performance on interactive items , stronger-than-expected
performance on knowledge-acquisition tasks
19
2020 Student resilience
The country where students go to class matters more than what social class students come from
2121PISA mathematics performance by decile of social background
Mex
ico
Gre
ece
Swed
en
Isra
el
Unite
d St
ates
Denm
ark
Aust
ralia
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
m
Cana
da
Aust
ria
Liec
hten
stei
n
Esto
nia
Slov
enia
New
Zea
land
Net
herl
ands
Switz
erla
nd
Belg
ium
Mac
ao-C
hina
Kore
a
Chin
ese
Taip
ei300
325
350
375
400
425
450
475
500
525
550
575
600
625
650
675
Source: PISA 2012
22
Macao
-Chin
a
Hong K
ong-C
hina
Norway
Estonia
Sweden
United
Arab
Emira
tesSpa
in
Austra
lia
Netherl
ands
Monten
egro
Irelan
d
Austria
Poland
Sloven
ia
France
Serbia
Belgium Braz
il
Malays
iaChil
e
Urugua
y
Hunga
ry0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Problem solving Mathematics
Per
cent
age
of v
aria
tion
in p
erfo
rman
ce
expl
aine
d by
soc
io-e
cono
mic
sta
tus
Relationship between socio-economic background and performance in problem solving and mathematics
Fig V.4.9a
23
Mac
ao-C
hina
Hon
g K
ong-
Chi
naS
inga
pore
Kor
eaJa
pan
Sha
ngha
i-Chi
naC
hine
se T
aipe
iC
anad
aIta
lyE
ston
iaFi
nlan
dA
ustra
liaE
ngla
nd (U
K)
Uni
ted
Sta
tes
Fran
ceP
ortu
gal
Turk
eyN
ethe
rland
sB
elgi
umO
EC
D a
vera
geS
pain
Cze
ch R
epub
licA
ustri
aG
erm
any
Nor
way
Irela
ndD
enm
ark
Sw
eden
Pol
and
Rus
sian
Fed
erat
ion
Ser
bia
Cro
atia
Slo
vak
Rep
ublic
Bra
zil
Slo
veni
aC
hile
Hun
gary
Col
ombi
aIs
rael
Cyp
rus
Mal
aysi
aU
rugu
ayM
onte
negr
oU
.A.E
.B
ulga
ria
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
%
Percentage of ‘resilient’ students in problem solving Fig II.2.4
Socio-economically disadvantaged students not only score lower in problem solving, they also report lower levels of engagement, drive, motivation and self-beliefs. Resilient students break this link and share many characteristics of advantaged high-achievers.
A resilient student is situated in the bottom quarter of the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS) in the country of assessment and performs in the top quarter of students among all countries, after accounting for socio-economic status.
24
Finlan
d
Sweden
Denmark
Estonia
Irelan
dKore
aJa
pan
Austra
lia
Poland
Croatia Ita
lySpa
inIsr
ael
United
Stat
es
German
y
Turkey
Austria
Hong K
ong-C
hina
Slovak
Rep
ublic
Hunga
ry
Urugua
yChil
e0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Problem solving Mathematics PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS)
Pro
porti
on o
f var
iatio
n be
twee
n sc
hool
sas
a p
erce
ntag
e of
the
over
all (
with
in a
nd b
etw
een
scho
ol) v
aria
tion
Between-school differences in problem-solving, mathematics and socio-economic status
Fig V.2.12
2626 Country examples
Developing creative problem-solving skills
Country examples
• Involve employers and parents in developing a vision for education
• Make problem-solving competence an overarching goal of the curriculum
• Give every student a chance to engage in deep learning through meaningful projects
• Support teachers to ensure that project time is learning time
Embed learning of 21st century competencies and attitudes such as inquiry-based authentic learning in curricular subjects and co-curricular activitiesClear articulation of desired student outcomes to guide schools’ and teachers’ efforts and ensure coherence and alignment of curriculum, pedagogy and assessment.
Alberta’s Curriculum Redesign Project
Singapore’s 21st Century Competencies Framework
Japan’s Zest for Life approach
2828Le
sson
s fro
m h
igh
perfo
rmer
s
Strong performers and successful reformers
Low impact on outcomes
High impact on outcomes
Low feasibility High feasibility
Money pits
Must haves
Low hanging fruits
Quick wins
2929Le
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 systemCoherence
3030Le
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 systemCoherence
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
31 Students and perseverance Percentage of students who reported that the following statements describe someone "very much like me" or "mostly like me" (*) or "not much like me" or "not at all like me" (**)
Disagree: When confronted with a problem, I give up easily
Disagree: I put off difficult problems
Agree: I remain interested in the tasks that I start
Agree: I continue working on tasks until everything is perfect
Agree: When confronted with a problem, I do more than what is expected of me
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Singapore OECD average
Fig III.3.2
32
Finlan
d
Norway
Chines
e Taip
ei
Sweden
Austra
lia
Portug
al
France
United
King
domJa
pan
Jorda
n
Macao
-Chin
a
Canad
a
OECD avera
geLa
tvia
United
Stat
es
Luxe
mbourg
Shang
hai-C
hina
Austria
Bulgari
a
Malays
ia
Mexico Peru
Turkey
Singap
ore
Czech
Rep
ublic
Argenti
na
Serbia
Sloven
ia
Indon
esia
Colombia
Netherl
ands
Estonia
Albania
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Score-point difference in mathematics associated with one unit of the index of perseverance
Average studentChange in performance per one unit of the index among lowest-achieving studentsChange in performance per one unit of the index among highest-achieving students
Scor
e-po
int d
iffer
ence
Perseverant students perform better (mathematics) Fig III.3.3
33 Openness to problem solvingPercentage of students who reported "agree" or "strongly agree" with the following statements:
I can handle a lot of information
I am quick to understand things
I seek explanation for things
I can easily link facts together
I like to solve complex problems
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Poland Singapore OECD average
%
Fig III.3.4
34
Korea
Austra
lia
Finlan
d
Czech
Rep
ublic
Lithu
ania
Denmark
Norway
Austria
Estonia
OECD avera
geLa
tvia
Liech
tenste
in
Icelan
d
Greece
Switzerl
andJa
pan
Luxe
mbourg
Poland
Slovak
Rep
ublic
Russia
n Fed
.
Mexico
Netherl
ands
Urugua
y
Turkey
Peru
Serbia
Roman
ia
Argenti
na
Malays
iaQata
r
Kazak
hstan
Colombia
Albania
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Score-point difference in mathematics associated withone unit of the index of students' openness to problem solving
Average studentChange in performance per one unit of the index among lowest-achieving students
Scor
e-po
int d
iffer
ence
Students open to problem solving perform better (math) Fig III.3.5
3535Le
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 systemCoherence
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 …
3636Le
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 systemCoherence
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 …
3737Le
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 systemCoherence
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
3838Le
sson
s fro
m h
igh
perfo
rmer
s38 School autonomy
39
39
39
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
531.551979302783
414.947431329217
430.53288984921
423.795593172672
484.685067484024
507.375949559565
493.913526079401
557.719613495498
454.493852942216459.674291542381
419.468595641077
488.357558008343
404.86657067849406.81928697245
410.692469685374
455.967032005237
396.468122669645
431.953772561969416.098738598916
300.849653448456
527.668467891543
404.539944308878
440.111661967012
474.054187560775
464.989161819408
547.743708881437
626.566663790363
452.789179885987
529.511834268283
497.071637137884
453.49524309675
482.577394045123
532.465311188924
506.274697797594
488.818411796174
402.907104971934
498.55233132561486.358212456265
502.809277446549
485.011835724539
525.143096315803
466.514022482625
460.853234111852
488.150072840935484.3703865799
468.514073102546
499.317279833724
438.810335285436
499.440165643771501.844010272146
478.664970193416480.554307802789
498.658254792673
481.116171960251
503.011259906496490.67709912419
463.432481043829
552.313972933536
478.845972683071R² = 0.133981453407518
Index of school responsibility for curriculum and assessment (index points)
Mat
hem
atic
s pe
rform
ance
(sco
re p
oint
s)Countries that grant schools autonomy over curricula and assessments tend to perform better in mathematics
Source: PISA 2012
Less school autonomy
More school autonomy
455
460
465
470
475
480
485
No standardised math policy
Standardised math policy
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
Less school autonomy
More school autonomy
455
460
465
470
475
480
485
Teachers don't participate in management
Teachers participate in management
Score points
School autonomy for resource allocation x System's level of teachers participating in school managementAcross all participating countries and economies
Fig IV.1.17
Schools with more autonomy perform better than schools with less autonomy in systems with more accountability arrangements
Less school autonomy
More school autonomy
464
466
468
470
472
474
476
478
School data not public
School data public
Score points
School autonomy for curriculum and assessment x system's level of posting achievement data publicly
Fig IV.1.16
43
Written specification of the school's curriculum and educational goals
Written specification of student-performance standards
Systematic recording of data, including teacher and student attendance and graduation rates, test results and professional development of teachers
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 a period of at least six months with the aim of improving the school
Implementation of a standardised policy for mathematics
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percentage of students in schools whose principal reported that their schools have the following for quality assurance and improvement:
Singapore OECD average
%
Quality assurance and school improvement Fig IV.4.14
4444Le
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 systemCoherence
Investing resources where they can make mostof 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
4545 Align the resources with the challenges
-0.500.511.5300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700R² = 0
Equity in resource allocation (index points)
Mat
hem
atic
s pe
rform
ance
(sco
re p
oint
s)
Greater equityLess equity
Adjusted by per capita GDP
Countries with better performance in mathematics tend to allocate educational resources more equitably
Source: PISA 2012
4646 Adequate resources to address disadvantage
Disadvantaged schools reported more teacher shortage
Advantaged schools reported more teacher shortage
Kor
eaEs
toni
aIs
rael
Latv
iaSl
oven
iaIta
lyPo
land
Sing
apor
eA
rgen
tina
Net
herla
nds
Portu
gal
Col
ombi
aFr
ance
Finl
and
Tuni
sia
Mac
ao-C
hina
Spai
nG
reec
eSw
itzer
land
Nor
way
Rus
sian
Fed
.Ja
pan
Aus
tria
Mon
tene
gro
Cro
atia
Can
ada
OEC
D a
vera
geG
erm
any
Den
mar
kH
unga
ryU
nite
d K
ingd
omLu
xem
bour
gH
ong
Kon
g-C
hina
Bel
gium
Icel
and
Viet
Nam
Irela
ndU
nite
d St
ates
Chi
leC
zech
Rep
ublic
Serb
iaTu
rkey
Mex
ico
Indo
nesi
aU
rugu
aySh
angh
ai-C
hina
Slov
ak R
epub
licSw
eden
Bra
zil
New
Zea
land
Aus
tralia
Chi
nese
Tai
pei-0.5
-0.3
-0.1
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.3
1.5Difference between socio-economically disadvantaged and socio-economically advantaged schools
Mea
n in
dex
diffe
renc
e
A shortage of qualified teachers is more of concern in disadvantaged schools
47
Shang
hai-C
hina
Franc
e
Macao
-Chin
a
Switzerla
nd
Czech
Rep
ublic
Thail
and
Denmark
Viet N
amU.A
.E.
Greec
eSpa
in
Singapo
re
Finlan
d
Poland
Austra
lia
OECD averag
e
Malays
ia
Luxe
mbourg
Mexico Per
u
Portugal
Turke
y
Canada
Tunisi
aChile
Korea
Russian
Fed.
Kazakh
stan
Colombia
Sloven
iaLa
tvia
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
before accounting for students' socio-economic status after accounting for students' socio-economic status
Scor
e po
int d
iffer
ence
Difference in mathematics performance, by attendance at pre-primary school
Students who attended pre-primary school perform better
Fig III.4.12
4848Le
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 systemCoherence
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)
4949Le
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 systemCoherence
5050Le
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 workingCurriculum, 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
Thank you !
Find out more about PISA at www.pisa.oecd.org• All national and international publications• The complete micro-level database
Email: Andreas.Schleicher@OECD.orgTwitter: SchleicherEDU
and remember:Without data, you are just another person with an opinion
Recommended