Upload
eduskills-oecd
View
2.349
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Teacher policy and practiceInsights from PISA
Andreas SchleicherDirector for Education and Skills
PISA in brief - 2015
In 2015, over half a million students…- representing 28 million 15-year-olds in 72 countries/economies
… 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- Total of 390 minutes of assessment material
… and responded to questions on…- their personal background, their schools, their well-being and their motivation
Parents, principals, teachers and system leaders provided data on:- school policies, practices, resources and institutional factors that help explain performance differences- 89,000 parents, 93,000 teachers and 17,500 principals responded
PISA 2015
OECD
Partners
Poverty is not destiny - Science performanceby international deciles of the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS)
280
330
380
430
480
530
580
630D
om
inic
an R
ep
ub
lic 4
0A
lge
ria 5
2K
oso
vo
10
Qa
tar
3F
YR
OM
13
Tu
nis
ia 3
9M
on
ten
eg
ro 1
1Jord
an 2
1U
nite
d A
rab
Em
ira
tes 3
Ge
org
ia 1
9L
eb
an
on
27
Indo
nesia
74
Me
xic
o 5
3P
eru
50
Co
sta
Ric
a 3
8B
razil
43
Tu
rke
y 5
9M
old
ova 2
8T
haila
nd
55
Co
lom
bia
43
Ice
lan
d 1
Trin
idad
and
Tob
ago
14
Ro
ma
nia
20
Isra
el 6
Bu
lga
ria
13
Gre
ece
13
Russia
5U
rug
ua
y 3
9C
hile
27
Latv
ia 2
5L
ith
uan
ia 1
2S
lova
k R
ep
ub
lic 8
Italy
15
Norw
ay 1
Sp
ain
31
Hun
ga
ry 1
6C
roa
tia
10
De
nm
ark
3O
EC
D a
vera
ge
12
Sw
ed
en
3M
alta 1
3U
nite
d S
tate
s 1
1M
acao
(C
hin
a)
22
Ire
lan
d 5
Au
str
ia 5
Po
rtug
al 2
8L
uxe
mb
ourg
14
Hon
g K
on
g (
Ch
ina
) 2
6C
zech
Rep
ublic
9P
ola
nd
16
Au
str
alia
4U
nite
d K
ing
do
m 5
Can
ad
a 2
Fra
nce 9
Ko
rea
6N
ew
Zea
land
5S
witze
rlan
d 8
Ne
the
rlan
ds 4
Slo
ve
nia
5B
elg
ium
7F
inla
nd
2E
sto
nia
5V
iet
Nam
76
Ge
rma
ny 7
Jap
an 8
Chin
ese
Ta
ipe
i 1
2B
-S-J
-G (
Chin
a)
52
Sin
ga
pore
11
Score
poin
ts
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
The ‘productivity’ puzzle
Making learning time productive so that students can build their academic, social and emotional
skills in a balanced way
Learning time and science performanceFigure II.6.23
Finland
Germany Switzerland
Japan Estonia
Sweden
NetherlandsNew Zealand
Macao(China)
Iceland
Hong Kong(China) Chinese Taipei
Uruguay
Singapore
PolandUnited States
Israel
Bulgaria
Korea
Russia Italy
Greece
B-S-J-G (China)
Colombia
Chile
Mexico
Brazil
CostaRica
Turkey
MontenegroPeru
QatarThailand
UnitedArab
Emirates
Tunisia
Dominican Republic
R² = 0.21
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
35 40 45 50 55 60
PIS
A s
cie
nce s
co
re
Total learning time in and outside of school
OECD average
OECD average
OE
CD
ave
rage
Learning time and science performanceFigure II.6.23
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Fin
land
Germ
any
Sw
itzerl
and
Japa
nE
sto
nia
Sw
ede
nN
eth
erl
and
sN
ew
Zeala
nd
Austr
alia
Czech R
epu
blic
Ma
ca
o (
Ch
ina
)U
nite
d K
ing
dom
Ca
nad
aB
elg
ium
Fra
nce
No
rwa
yS
loven
iaIc
ela
nd
Lu
xe
mbo
urg
Irela
nd
La
tvia
Ho
ng K
on
g (
Chin
a)
OE
CD
avera
ge
Ch
ine
se
Taip
ei
Austr
iaP
ort
ug
al
Uru
guay
Lithu
ania
Sin
gapo
reD
enm
ark
Hu
nga
ryP
ola
nd
Slo
vak R
epub
licS
pain
Cro
atia
Un
ite
d S
tate
sIs
rael
Bulg
aria
Kore
aR
ussia
Ita
lyG
reece
B-S
-J-G
(C
hin
a)
Co
lom
bia
Ch
ileM
exic
oB
razil
Co
sta
Ric
aT
urk
ey
Mo
nte
neg
roP
eru
Qata
rT
ha
iland
Un
ite
d A
rab E
mira
tes
Tun
isia
Do
min
ican
Rep
ublic
Score
poin
ts in s
cie
nce p
er
hour
of to
tal le
arn
ing t
ime
Hours Intended learning time at school (hours) Study time after school (hours) Score points in science per hour of total learning time
Teaching resources
Variation in science performance between and within schoolsFigure I.6.11
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
Ne
therl
and
s
114
B-S
-J-G
(C
hin
a)
119
Bulg
aria
1
15
Hu
nga
ry 1
04
Trin
ida
d a
nd T
obag
o 9
8B
elg
ium
1
12
Slo
ven
ia 1
01
Germ
any 1
10
Slo
vak R
epub
lic
10
9M
alta
1
54
Un
ite
d A
rab E
mira
tes 1
10
Austr
ia
10
6Is
rael 1
26
Le
ban
on
91
Czech R
epu
blic
1
01
Qata
r 10
9Japa
n 9
7S
witzerl
and
1
10
Sin
gapo
re 1
20
Ita
ly 9
3C
hin
ese
Taip
ei 1
11
Lu
xe
mbo
urg
1
12
Turk
ey 7
0B
razil
89
Cro
atia
8
9G
reece
94
Ch
ile 8
3Lithu
ania
9
2O
EC
D a
vera
ge 1
00
Uru
guay 8
4C
AB
A (
Arg
entina
)
82
Ro
man
ia
70
Vie
t N
am
6
5K
ore
a
10
1A
ustr
alia
1
17
Un
ite
d K
ing
dom
1
11
Peru
6
6C
olo
mbia
7
2T
ha
iland
6
9H
ong K
on
g (
Chin
a)
72
FY
RO
M 8
0P
ort
ug
al 94
Do
min
ican
Rep
ublic
5
9In
don
esia
5
2G
eo
rgia
9
2Jord
an
7
9N
ew
Zeala
nd 1
21
Un
ite
d S
tate
s
108
Mo
nte
neg
ro 8
1T
un
isia
4
7S
wede
n 1
17
Me
xic
o 5
7A
lba
nia
6
9K
osovo 5
7M
aca
o (
Ch
ina
) 74
Alg
eria
54
Esto
nia
8
8M
old
ova 8
3C
osta
Ric
a 5
5R
ussia
7
6C
anad
a 9
5P
ola
nd
92
De
nm
ark
9
1La
tvia
7
5Ir
ela
nd
8
8S
pain
8
6N
orw
ay
10
3F
inla
nd
103
Icela
nd
9
3
Between-school variation Within-school variation
Total variation as a
proportion of the OECD
average
OECD average 69%
OECD average 30%
%
Differences in educational resourcesbetween advantaged and disadvantaged schools
Figure I.6.14
-3
-2
-2
-1
-1
0
1
1
CA
BA
(A
rgentina
)M
exic
oP
eru
Ma
ca
o (
Ch
ina
)U
nite
d A
rab E
mira
tes
Le
ban
on
Jord
an
Co
lom
bia
Bra
zil
Indon
esia
Turk
ey
Spain
Do
min
ican
Rep
ublic
Geo
rgia
Uru
guay
Tha
iland
B-S
-J-G
(C
hin
a)
Austr
alia
Japa
nC
hile
Lu
xe
mbo
urg
Ru
ssia
Port
ug
al
Ma
lta
Ita
lyN
ew
Zeala
nd
Cro
atia
Irela
nd
Alg
eria
No
rwa
yIs
rael
De
nm
ark
Sw
ede
nU
nite
d S
tate
sM
old
ova
Belg
ium
Slo
ven
iaO
EC
D a
vera
ge
Hu
nga
ryC
hin
ese
Taip
ei
Vie
t N
am
Czech R
epu
blic
Sin
gapo
reT
un
isia
Gre
ece
Trin
ida
d a
nd T
obag
oC
anad
aR
om
an
iaQ
ata
rM
onte
neg
roK
osovo
Ne
therl
and
sK
ore
aF
inla
nd
Sw
itzerl
and
Germ
any
Ho
ng K
on
g (
Chin
a)
Austr
iaF
YR
OM
Pola
nd
Alb
ania
Bulg
aria
Slo
vak R
epub
licLithu
ania
Esto
nia
Icela
nd
Co
sta
Ric
aU
nite
d K
ing
dom
La
tvia
Me
an
in
de
x d
iffe
ren
ce
betw
een
ad
va
nta
ge
d
and
dis
adva
nta
ge
d s
ch
oo
ls
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
Student-teacher ratios and class sizeFigure II.6.14
CABA (Argentina)
Jordan
Viet Nam
Poland
United States
Chile
Denmark
Hungary
B-S-G-J(China)
Turkey
Georgia
ChineseTaipei
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
Stu
den
t-te
ach
er
rati
o
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
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
Ho
ng
Ko
ng
(Ch
ina)
Qat
arTr
inid
ad a
nd
To
bag
oM
acao
(C
hin
a)B
elgi
um
Swit
zerl
and
Bu
lgar
iaG
ree
ceU
nit
ed A
rab
Em
irat
esSi
nga
po
reIt
aly
Mal
taSw
eden
Ger
man
yTu
rkey
Ko
rea
Hu
nga
rySl
ove
nia
Den
mar
kC
hile
Can
ada
Jap
anC
roat
iaU
nit
ed S
tate
sJo
rdan
OEC
D a
vera
geA
ust
ralia
Ko
sovo
CA
BA
(A
rgen
tin
a)FY
RO
MIr
elan
dP
ola
nd
Net
her
lan
ds
Mex
ico
Ro
man
iaU
rugu
ayIs
rael
Tun
isia
Luxe
mb
ou
rgLa
tvia
Leb
ano
nIn
do
ne
sia
Lith
uan
iaP
eru
Co
lom
bia
Cze
ch R
epu
blic
Un
ited
Kin
gdo
mC
ost
a R
ica
Fran
ceP
ort
uga
lTh
aila
nd
Do
min
ican
Rep
ub
licN
ew Z
eala
nd
Vie
t N
amB
razi
lR
uss
iaG
eorg
iaB
-S-J
-G (
Ch
ina)
Slo
vak
Rep
ub
licM
on
ten
egro
Spai
nN
orw
ayA
ust
ria
Mo
ldo
vaFi
nla
nd
Esto
nia
Icel
and
Ch
ines
e Ta
ipei
Alg
eria
Sco
re-p
oin
t d
iffe
ren
ce
Student-teacher ratio Class size in language-of-instruction class
Students in schools with more students per teacher or larger classes score lower in science
Students in schools with morestudents per teacher or largerclasses score higher in science
Class size and student-teacher ratio,
and science performance
Figure II.6.15
Different approaches
Overall science scale, 532
Content knowledge, 538
Procedural and epistemic
knowledge, 528
480 490 500 510 520 530 540 550 560
Ch
ine
se
Ta
ipe
i
Score points
Comparing countries and economies on the
different science knowledge subscales
Figure I.2.30
Overall science scale, 556
Overall science scale, 532
Content knowledge, 553
Content knowledge, 538
Procedural and epistemic knowledge, 558
Procedural and epistemic knowledge, 528
480 490 500 510 520 530 540 550 560
Sin
ga
po
reC
hin
es
e T
aip
ei
Score points
Comparing countries and economies on the
different science knowledge subscales
Figure I.2.30
Overall science scale, 556
Overall science scale, 532
Overall science scale, 495
Content knowledge, 553
Content knowledge, 538
Content knowledge, 501
Procedural and epistemic knowledge, 558
Procedural and epistemic knowledge, 528
Procedural and epistemic knowledge, 490
480 490 500 510 520 530 540 550 560
Sin
ga
po
reC
hin
es
eT
aip
ei
Au
str
ia
Score points
Comparing countries and economies on the
different science knowledge subscales
Figure I.2.30
Overall science scale, 556
Overall science scale, 532
Overall science scale, 496
Content knowledge, 553
Content knowledge, 538
Content knowledge, 490
Procedural and epistemic knowledge, 558
Procedural and epistemic knowledge, 528
Procedural and epistemic knowledge, 501
480 490 500 510 520 530 540 550 560
Sin
ga
po
reC
hin
es
eT
aip
ei
Un
ite
dS
tate
s
Score points
Comparing countries and economies on the
different science knowledge subscales
Figure I.2.30
Un
ite
d K
ing
dom
Ita
lyA
ustr
alia
Isra
el
Ma
lta
Le
ban
on
Spain
Qata
rS
ing
apo
reU
nite
d S
tate
sF
inla
nd
No
rwa
yU
nite
d A
rab E
mira
tes
Gre
ece
Ca
nad
aH
ong K
on
g (
Chin
a)
Ru
ssia
Jord
an
Ne
w Z
eala
nd
Ma
ca
o (
Ch
ina
)P
ort
ug
al
CA
BA
(A
rgentina
)P
ola
nd
B-S
-J-G
(C
hin
a)
Geo
rgia
Mo
ldova
Lu
xe
mbo
urg
Irela
nd
OE
CD
avera
ge
Icela
nd
Uru
guay
Ne
therl
and
sT
ha
iland
Me
xic
oC
hin
ese
Taip
ei
Germ
any
Fra
nce
Cro
atia
Sw
itzerl
and
De
nm
ark
Bra
zil
Kosovo
Austr
iaC
hile
Ro
man
iaC
olo
mbia
Trin
ida
d a
nd T
obag
oH
unga
ryS
wede
nLa
tvia
Do
min
ican
Rep
ublic
Belg
ium
Tun
isia
Vie
t N
am
Peru
Japa
nA
lge
ria
FY
RO
ME
sto
nia
Czech R
epu
blic
Turk
ey
Lithu
ania
Slo
vak R
epub
licC
osta
Ric
aB
ulg
aria
Mo
nte
neg
roIn
don
esia
Kore
a
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Score
-poin
t diffe
rence
After accounting for socio-economic status Before accounting for socio-economic status
Teacher-directed instruction: demonstrating scientific ideasTable II.2.18
Students who reported that their science teacher explains scientific
ideas in many lessons or every lesson perform better in science
No
rwa
yN
eth
erl
and
sU
nite
d A
rab E
mira
tes
Qata
rD
enm
ark
Fin
land
Sin
gapo
reA
ustr
alia
Sw
ede
nU
nite
d K
ing
dom
Icela
nd
Germ
any
Bulg
aria
Port
ug
al
La
tvia
Isra
el
Bra
zil
Ru
ssia
B-S
-J-G
(C
hin
a)
Ho
ng K
on
g (
Chin
a)
Ch
ileC
anad
aT
urk
ey
OE
CD
avera
ge
Czech R
epu
blic
Irela
nd
Co
lom
bia
Pola
nd
Ne
w Z
eala
nd
Ma
ca
o (
Ch
ina
)E
sto
nia
Lithu
ania
Sw
itzerl
and
Tha
iland
Do
min
ican
Rep
ublic
Slo
vak R
epub
licU
rug
uay
Un
ite
d S
tate
sC
osta
Ric
aK
ore
aG
reece
Mo
nte
neg
roH
unga
ryM
exic
oC
roa
tia
Ita
lyF
rance
Spain
Belg
ium
Tun
isia
Lu
xe
mbo
urg
Peru
Japa
nA
ustr
iaC
hin
ese
Taip
ei
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Score
-poin
t diffe
rence
Score-point difference associated with the index of adaptive instruction
Adaptive instruction and science performanceFigure II.3.16
Students who reported that their science teacher adapts more frequently
their lessons to students’ needs and knowledge perform better in science
Enquiry-based teaching practices and science performanceFigure II.2.20
-65
-55
-45
-35
-25
-15
-5
5
15
25T
he t
each
er
exp
lain
s h
ow
a s
cie
nce
ide
a c
an
be
ap
plie
d to
a n
um
be
r o
fd
iffe
ren
t p
he
nom
ena
Th
e t
each
er
cle
arly e
xp
lain
s th
ere
levan
ce
of scie
nce
co
nce
pts
to
our
live
s
Stu
de
nts
are
giv
en o
ppo
rtu
nitie
s to
exp
lain
th
eir id
ea
s
Stu
de
nts
are
aske
d t
o d
raw
con
clu
sio
ns f
rom
an
exp
eri
me
nt
they h
ave c
on
ducte
d
Stu
de
nts
are
re
qu
ire
d t
o a
rgu
ea
bo
ut
scie
nce
qu
estion
s
Th
ere
is a
cla
ss d
eb
ate
ab
ou
tin
ve
stiga
tion
s
Stu
de
nts
sp
en
d t
ime
in
the
lab
ora
tory
do
ing
pra
ctical
exp
erim
en
ts
Stu
de
nts
are
aske
d t
o d
o a
nin
ve
stiga
tion
to t
est
ide
as
Stu
de
nts
are
allo
wed t
o d
esig
n th
eir
ow
n e
xpe
rim
en
ts
Score
-poin
t diffe
rence After accounting for
students' andschools' socio-economic profile
Before accounting forstudents' andschools' socio-economic profile
The following
happen in
"most" or "all"
science
lessons“
Teacher policies
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Cze
ch R
epu
blic
Slo
ven
ia
Slo
vak
Rep
ub
lic
Swit
zerl
and
Ch
ile
Au
stra
lia
Can
ada
Mex
ico
Bel
giu
m
Do
min
ican
Rep
.
OEC
D a
vera
ge
Alg
eria
Turk
ey
Thai
lan
d
FYR
OM
Jord
an
Bra
zil
Tun
isia
Per
u
Ch
ines
e Ta
ipei
Lith
uan
ia
Uru
guay
Co
sta
Ric
a
Ind
on
esia
Cro
atia
Jap
an
Ko
rea
Isra
el
Gre
ece
Fran
ce
Spai
n
Ital
y
Trin
idad
& T
ob
ago
Esto
nia
Latv
ia
Co
lom
bia
Leb
ano
n
Net
her
lan
ds
After accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile
Before accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile
Score-point difference in science when principals reported that school teachers cooperate by exchanging ideas or material
Teacher collaboration and science performanceTable II.6.21
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100D
iscu
ss indiv
idual
students
Share
reso
urc
es
Team
confe
rence
s
Colla
bora
te for
com
mon
standard
s
Team
teach
ing
Colla
bora
tive
PD
Join
t act
ivitie
s
Cla
ssro
om
obse
rvations
Perc
enta
ge o
f te
ach
ers
Average Shanghai (China)
Professional collaboration
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who report doing the following activities at least once per month
Teacher co-operation
Exchange and co-ordination
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
Never
Once
a y
ear
or
less
2-4
tim
es
a y
ear
5-1
0 t
imes
a y
ear
1-3
tim
es
a m
onth
Once
a w
eek o
r m
ore
Teach
er
self-e
ffic
acy
(le
vel)
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
Morefrequently
External forces
exerting pressure and
influence inward on
an occupation
Internal motivation and
efforts of the members
of the profession itself
25 Professionalism
Professionalism is the level of autonomy and internal regulation exercised by members of an
occupation in providing services to society
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
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
10S
pain
Ja
pa
n
Fra
nce
Bra
zil
Fin
land
Fla
nd
ers
No
rwa
y
Alb
ert
a (
Ca
na
da
)
Au
str
alia
De
nm
ark
Isra
el
Ko
rea
Un
ite
d S
tate
s
Cze
ch R
epu
blic
Sh
an
gh
ai (C
hin
a)
Latv
ia
Ne
the
rla
nd
s
Po
land
En
gla
nd
Ne
w Z
ea
land
Sin
ga
po
re
Esto
nia
Networks Autonomy Knowledge
Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.32828 TALIS Teacher professionalism index
Status of the
profession
Teachers’ perception of the extent to
which teaching is valued as a
profession
Satisfaction with
the profession
Teachers’ report on the extent
to which teachers are happy with
their decision to become a
teacher.
Satisfaction with
work
environment
Teachers’ report on the extent
to which teachers are happy with their current
schools.
Self-efficacy
Teachers’ perception of
their capabilities (e.g.
controlling disruptive
behaviour, use a variety of assessment
strategies, etc.).
29
2929 Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.32929 Teacher outcomes
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.3.33030 Teacher professionalism index and teacher outcomes
Perceptions of
teachers’ statusSatisfaction with
the profession
Satisfaction with the
work environment
Teachers’
self-efficacy
Predicted percentile
Find out more about our work at www.oecd.org/pisa
– All publications
– The complete micro-level database
Email: [email protected]
Twitter: SchleicherOECD
Wechat: AndreasSchleicher
Thank you