Teacher Policy and Practice - Insights from PISA

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





Procedural and epistemic knowledge, 558


480 490 500 510 520 530 540 550 560

Sin

ga

po

reC

hin

es

e T

aip

ei

Score points



Figure I.2.30










480 490 500 510 520 530 540 550 560

Sin

ga

po

reC

hin

es

eT

aip

ei

Au

str

ia

Score points



Figure I.2.30










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



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

Date post:	22-Jan-2018
Category:	Education
Upload:	eduskills-oecd
View:	2,349 times
Download:	0 times