View
5
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Plenary Session #1
Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Science Educa5on: Lessons from the World
Andreas Schleicher
1:00pm–2:30pm,April22,2017Hya3TexasBallroomA,B,andC
SanAntonio,TX
Andreas Schleicher
• Director for Education and Skills and Special Advisor on Education Policy to the Secretary-General, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
• Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA),
OECD Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC), OECD Skills Strategy, OECD Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS)
Andreas Schleicher
Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in
Science Education: Lessons from the World
Strong performers and successful reformers in science education NARST 2017
Andreas SchleicherDirector for Education and Skills
PISA in brief - 2015
In2015,overhalfamillionstudents…- represenAng28million15-year-oldsin72countries/economies
…tookaninterna9onallyagreed2-hourtest…- GoesbeyondtesAngwhetherstudentscanreproducewhattheyweretaughttoassessstudents’capacityto
extrapolatefromwhattheyknowandcreaAvelyapplytheirknowledgeinnovelsituaAons- Totalof390minutesofassessmentmaterial
…andrespondedtoques9onson…- theirpersonalbackground,theirschools,theirwell-beingandtheirmoAvaAon
Parents,principals,teachersandsystemleadersprovideddataon:- schoolpolicies,pracAces,resourcesandinsAtuAonalfactorsthathelpexplainperformancedifferences- 89,000parents,93,000teachersand17,500principalsresponded
Map of PISA countries and economies
PISA 2015
OECD Partners
Trends in science performance (PISA)
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
2003 2006 2009
Score points
Bel
ow L
evel
1 Le
vel 1
Le
vel 3
Le
vel
4 Le
v 5 Le
vel 2
450
470
490
510
530
550
570
2006 2009 2012 2015
OECD
450
470
490
510
530
550
570
OECD average
Stud
ent p
erfo
rman
ce
Trends in science performance (PISA)
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
2003 2006 2009
Score points
Bel
ow L
evel
1 Le
vel 1
Le
vel 3
Le
vel
4 Le
v 5 Le
vel 2
450
470
490
510
530
550
570
450
470
490
510
530
550
570
2006 2009 2012 2015
OECD average
“the ability to engage with science-related issues, and with the ideas of science, as a reflective citizen”
Science in PISA
• Explain phenomena scientifically • Evaluate and design scientific enquiry • Interpret data and evidence scientifically
Competencies
Recognise, offer and evaluate explanations for a range of natural and technological phenomena.
Describe and appraise scientific investigations and propose ways of addressing questions scientifically.
Analyse and evaluate data, claims and arguments in a variety of representations and draw appropriate scientific conclusions.
• Explain phenomena scientifically • Evaluate and design scientific enquiry • Interpret data and evidence scientifically
Knowledge
• Content knowledge • Knowledge of methodological procedures used in science
• Knowledge of the epistemic reasons and ideas used by scientists to justify their claims
Competencies
Each of the scientific competencies requires content knowledge (knowledge of theories, explanatory ideas, information and facts), but also an understanding of how such knowledge has been derived (procedural knowledge) and of the nature of that knowledge (epistemic knowledge)
“Epistemic knowledge” reflects students’ capacity to think like a scientist and distinguish between observations, facts, hypotheses, models and theories
• Explain phenomena scientifically • Evaluate and design scientific enquiry • Interpret data and evidence scientifically
Knowledge
• Content knowledge • Knowledge of methodological procedures used in science
• Knowledge of the epistemic reasons and ideas used by scientists to justify their claims
Competencies
Peoples’ attitudes and beliefs play a significant role in their interest, attention and response to science and technology.
PISA distinguishes between attitudes towards science (e.g. interest in different content areas of science) and scientific attitudes (e.g. whether students value scientific approaches to enquiry) Attitudes
• Attitudes to science • Scientific attitudes
• Explain phenomena scientifically • Evaluate and design scientific enquiry • Interpret data and evidence scientifically
Knowledge
• Content knowledge • Knowledge of methodological procedures used in science
• Knowledge of the epistemic reasons and ideas used by scientists to justify their claims
Competencies
Personal, local/national and global issues, both current and historical, which demand some understanding of science and technology
Attitudes • Attitudes to science • Scientific attitudes
Context • Personal, local, global • Current and historical
Drag Ragworms and Common Sole into Tank 2 and Marsh Grass and Shellfish into Tank 3 This question requires students to understand a system and the role of several organisms within that system. In order to answer correctly, students must understand the goal of the fish farm, the function of each of the three tanks therein, and which organisms will best fulfill each function. Students must use information provided in the stimulus and the diagram, including a footnote under the diagram
Singapore
Japan Estonia Chinese Tapei Finland Macao (China) Canada Vietnam Hong Kong (China)
B-S-J-G (China) Korea New Zealand Slovenia Australia United Kingdom Germany Netherlands Switzerland Ireland Belgium Denmark Poland Portugal Norway United States Austria France Sweden Czech Rep. Spain Latvia Russia Luxembourg Italy Hungary Lithuania Croatia CABA (Argentina) Iceland
Israel Malta Slovak Rep. Greece
Chile Bulgaria United Arab Emirates Uruguay Romania
Moldova Albania Turkey Trinidad and Tobago Thailand Costa Rica Qatar Colombia Mexico Montenegro Jordan Indonesia Brazil Peru Lebanon Tunisia
FYROM Kosovo Algeria
Dominican Rep. (332) 350
400
450
500
550
0 5 10 15 20 25
Mea
n sc
ienc
e pe
rfor
man
ce
Hig
her p
erfo
man
ce
High performanceHigh equity
Low performanceLow equity
Low performanceHigh equity
High performanceLow equity
Science performance in PISA (2015)
More equity
Singapore Japan
Estonia Chinese Tapei Finland Macao (China) Canada Viet Nam
Hong Kong (China) B-S-J-G (China) Korea New Zealand Slovenia
Australia United Kingdom Germany Netherlands
Switzerland Ireland Belgium Denmark Poland Portugal Norway United States Austria France
Sweden Czech Rep. Spain Latvia Russia Luxembourg Italy Hungary Lithuania Croatia Iceland
Israel Malta Slovak Rep.
Greece Chile
Bulgaria
United Arab Emirates Uruguay Romania
Moldova Turkey Trinidad and Tobago Thailand Costa Rica Qatar Colombia Mexico Montenegro Jordan
Indonesia Brazil Peru Lebanon
Tunisia
FYROM Kosovo
Algeria
Dominican Rep. (332)
350
400
450
500
550
Mea
n sc
ienc
e pe
rfor
man
ce
Hig
her p
erfo
man
ce
Science performance and equity in PISA (2015)
Some countries combine excellence with equity
More equity More equity
Poverty is not destiny - Science performance by international deciles of the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS)
280
330
380
430
480
530
580
630 D
omin
ican
Rep
ublic
40
Alg
eria
52
Kos
ovo
10
Qat
ar 3
FY
RO
M 1
3 Tu
nisi
a 39
M
onte
negr
o 11
Jo
rdan
21
Uni
ted
Ara
b E
mira
tes
3 G
eorg
ia 1
9 Le
bano
n 27
In
done
sia
74
Mex
ico
53
Per
u 50
C
osta
Ric
a 38
B
razi
l 43
Turk
ey 5
9 M
oldo
va 2
8 Th
aila
nd 5
5 C
olom
bia
43
Icel
and
1 Tr
inid
ad a
nd T
obag
o 14
R
oman
ia 2
0 Is
rael
6
Bul
garia
13
Gre
ece
13
Rus
sia
5 U
rugu
ay 3
9 C
hile
27
Latv
ia 2
5 Li
thua
nia
12
Slo
vak
Rep
ublic
8
Italy
15
Nor
way
1
Spa
in 3
1 H
unga
ry 1
6 C
roat
ia 1
0 D
enm
ark
3 O
EC
D a
vera
ge 1
2 S
wed
en 3
M
alta
13
Uni
ted
Sta
tes
11
Mac
ao (C
hina
) 22
Irela
nd 5
A
ustri
a 5
Por
tuga
l 28
Luxe
mbo
urg
14
Hon
g K
ong
(Chi
na) 2
6 C
zech
Rep
ublic
9
Pol
and
16
Aus
tralia
4
Uni
ted
Kin
gdom
5
Can
ada
2 Fr
ance
9
Kor
ea 6
N
ew Z
eala
nd 5
S
witz
erla
nd 8
N
ethe
rland
s 4
Slo
veni
a 5
Bel
gium
7
Finl
and
2 E
ston
ia 5
Vi
et N
am 7
6 G
erm
any
7 Ja
pan
8 C
hine
se T
aipe
i 12
B-S
-J-G
(Chi
na) 5
2 S
inga
pore
11
Sco
re p
oint
s
Bottom decile Second decile Middle decile Ninth decile Top decile
Figure I.6.7
% of students in the bottom international
deciles of ESCS
OECD median student
Topperformers
Students who can develop and work with models for complex science situations, identifying constraints and specifying assumptions. They can select, compare and evaluate appropriate problem-solving strategies for
dealing with complex problems related to these models.
The global pool of top performers: A PISA perspective Figure I.2.18
United States (8.5%); 300k
B-S-J-G (China) (13.6%); 181k
Japan (15.3%); 174k
Germany (10.6%); 79k Viet Nam (8.3%); 72k
United Kingdom (10.9%); 68k
Korea (10.6%); 60k
France (8.0%); 59k
Russia (3.7%); 42k
Canada (12.4%); 41k
Chinese Taipei (15.4%); 39k
Australia (11.2%); Poland (7.3%);
Netherlands (11.1%) Italy (4.1%)
Spain (5.0%) Brazil (0.7%) Singapore (24.2%)
Belgium (9.0%)
Finland (14.3%)
Switzerland (9.8%) Sweden (8.5%)
Portugal (7.4%) New Zealand (12.8%)
Israel (5.9%) Others
Share of top performers among 15-year-old students:
Less than 1% 1 to 2.5% 2.5 to 5% 5% to 7.5% 7.5% to 10% 10% to 12.5% 12.5% to 15% More than 15%
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
Science Explaining phenomena scientifically
Evaluating and
designing scientific enquiry
Interpreting data and evidence
scientifically
Content knowledge
Procedural and
epistemic knowledge
Physical systems
Living systems
Earth and space
Boys' and girls' strengths and weaknesses in science Figure I.2.29
It is harder for boys, on average, to perform well on these types of tasks...
Sco
re-p
oint
diff
eren
ce (b
oys
- girl
s)
Knowledge types Science competencies Content areas
Boys do better
Girls do better
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
Science Explaining phenomena scientifically
Evaluating and
designing scientific enquiry
Interpreting data and evidence
scientifically
Content knowledge
Procedural and
epistemic knowledge
Physical systems
Living systems
Earth and space
Top-performing boys' and girls' strengths and weaknesses Figure I.2.29
...but the highest-achieving boys perform better than the highest-achieving girls on all types of tasks, including these
Sco
re-p
oint
diff
eren
ce (b
oys
- girl
s)
Knowledge types Science competencies Content areas
Boys do better
Girls do better
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
Science Explaining phenomena scientifically
Evaluating and
designing scientific enquiry
Interpreting data and evidence
scientifically
Content knowledge
Procedural and
epistemic knowledge
Physical systems
Living systems
Earth and space
Bottom-performing boys' and girls' strengths and weaknesses Figure I.2.29
... It is harder for girls to perform well on these types of tasks, even among low achievers
Sco
re-p
oint
diff
eren
ce (b
oys
- girl
s)
Knowledge types Science competencies Content areas
Boys do better
Girls do better
Scienceandcareers
Expectations of a science career by gender
Figure I.3.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 %
United States OECD average
Science-related technicians or associate
professionals2
Information and communication technology
(ICT) professionals
Health professionals
Science and engineering professionals
Boys
Girls
Boys
Girls
Boys
Girls
Boys
Girls
Students expecting a career in science Figure I.3.2
0 5
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Dom
inic
an R
ep.
12
Cos
ta R
ica
11
Jord
an
6
Uni
ted
Ara
b E
m.
11
Mex
ico
6
Col
ombi
a
8 Le
bano
n 1
5 B
razi
l 1
9 P
eru
7
Qat
ar
19
Uni
ted
Sta
tes
13
Chi
le
18
Tuni
sia
19
Can
ada
21
Slo
veni
a 1
6 Tu
rkey
6
A
ustra
lia
15
Uni
ted
Kin
gdom
17
M
alay
sia
4
Kaz
akhs
tan
14
Spa
in
11
Nor
way
21
U
rugu
ay
17
Sin
gapo
re
14
Trin
idad
and
T.
13
Isra
el
25
CA
BA
(Arg
.) 1
9 P
ortu
gal
18
Bul
garia
25
Ire
land
13
K
osov
o
7 A
lger
ia
12
Mal
ta
11
Gre
ece
12
New
Zea
land
24
A
lban
ia
29
Est
onia
15
O
EC
D a
vera
ge
19
Bel
gium
16
C
roat
ia
17
FYR
OM
20
Li
thua
nia
21
Icel
and
22
Rus
sia
19
HK
G (C
hina
) 2
0 R
oman
ia
20
Italy
17
A
ustri
a 2
3 M
oldo
va
7
Latv
ia
19
Mon
tene
gro
18
Fran
ce
21
Luxe
mbo
urg
18
Pol
and
13
Mac
ao (C
hina
) 1
0 C
hine
se T
aipe
i 2
1 S
wed
en
21
Thai
land
27
Vi
et N
am
13
Sw
itzer
land
22
K
orea
7
H
unga
ry
22
Slo
vak
Rep
ublic
24
Ja
pan
18
Finl
and
24
Geo
rgia
27
C
zech
Rep
ublic
22
B
-S-J
-G (C
hina
) 3
1 N
ethe
rland
s 1
9 G
erm
any
33
Indo
nesi
a 1
9 D
enm
ark
48
% Percentage of students who expect to work in science-related professional and technical occupations when they are 30
Science-related technicians and associate professionals Information and communication technology professionals Health professionals Science and engineering professionals
%ofstude
ntsw
ith
vagueorm
issing
expe
ctaA
ons
SingaporeCanadaSloveniaAustralia
UnitedKingdomIrelandPortugal
ChineseTaipeiHongKong(China)
NewZealandDenmark
JapanEstoniaFinland
Macao(China)VietNam
B-S-J-G(China)Korea
GermanyNetherlandsSwitzerlandBelgiumPoland
SwedenLithuaniaCroa9aIcelandGeorgiaMalta
UnitedStatesSpainIsrael
UnitedArabEmirates
BrazilBulgariaChile
ColombiaCostaRica
DominicanRepublicJordanKosovo
LebanonMexicoPeruQatar
TrinidadandTobagoTunisiaTurkeyUruguay
Above-averagescienceperformance
Strongerthanaverageepistemicbeliefs
Above-averagepercentageofstudentsexpecAngtoworkinascience-relatedoccupaAon
Norway
Mul
tiple
out
com
es
0
10
20
30
40
50
300 400 500 600 700
Perc
enta
ge o
f stu
dent
s ex
pect
ing
a ca
reer
in s
cien
ce
Score points in science
Low enjoyment of science
High enjoyment of science
Students expecting a career in science by performance and enjoyment of learning
Figure I.3.17
L
J
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Comparedtoother
departments,theschool‘ssciencedepartmentiswell-equipped
Scienceteachersareamongourbest-educatedstaffmembers
Schooloffersascienceclub
Schooloffersscience
compeAAons
LearningAmeinregularsciencelessons,inhours
Timeperweekstudyingscience
aWerschool,inhours
Teacher-directedinstrucAon
Perceivedfeedback
adapAveinstrucAon
Enquiry-basedinstrucAon
Teachersupport
z-scores
AWeraccounAngforscienceperformanceandthesocio-economicprofileofstudentsandschoolsBeforeaccounAngforscienceperformanceandthesocio-economicprofileofstudentsandschools
Explaining students' expectations of a career in science Figure II.2.22
Science-specificresources
Scienceac9vi9es Learning9me Teachingstrategiesinsciencelessons
Con
fiden
ce
No association
Less
ons
from
PIS
A
Lowimpactonoutcomes
Highimpactonoutcomes
Lowfeasibility Highfeasibility
Moneypits
Musthaves
Lowhangingfruits
Quickwins
Less
ons
from
PIS
A
Lowimpactonoutcomes
Highimpactonoutcomes
Lowfeasibility Highfeasibility
Moneypits
Musthaves
Lowhangingfruits
Quickwins
Commitmenttouniversalachievement
Gateways,instrucAonalsystems
Capacityatpointofdelivery
IncenAvestructuresandaccountability
Resourceswheretheyyieldmost
AlearningsystemCoherence
Less
ons
from
PIS
A
Lowimpactonoutcomes
Highimpactonoutcomes
Lowfeasibility Highfeasibility
Moneypits
Musthaves
Lowhangingfruits
Quickwins
Commitmenttouniversalachievement
Gateways,instrucAonalsystems
Capacityatpointofdelivery
IncenAvestructuresandaccountability
Resourceswheretheyyieldmost
AlearningsystemCoherence
AcommitmenttoeducaAonandthebeliefthatcompetenciescanbelearnedandthereforeallchildrencanachievel UniversaleducaAonalstandardsand
personalizaAonastheapproachtoengagewithdiversity…
… asopposedtoabeliefthatstudentshavedifferentdesAnaAonstobemetwithdifferentexpectaAons,andselecAon/straAficaAonastheapproachtoheterogeneity
l CleararAculaAonwhoisresponsibleforensuringstudentsuccessandtowhom
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Mal
ta
Sin
gapo
re
New
Zea
land
Ire
land
A
ustra
lia
Uni
ted
Kin
gdom
C
hine
se T
aipe
i G
erm
any
Finl
and
Nor
way
D
enm
ark
Slo
veni
a Vi
et N
am
Sw
eden
P
olan
d Fr
ance
K
orea
A
ustri
a C
AB
A (A
rgen
tina)
B
elgi
um
Can
ada
B-S
-J-G
(Chi
na)
Spa
in
Por
tuga
l Lu
xem
bour
g S
witz
erla
nd
OE
CD
ave
rage
Le
bano
n G
eorg
ia
Mac
ao (C
hina
) Ja
pan
Net
herla
nds
Uni
ted
Sta
tes
Mol
dova
La
tvia
C
zech
Rep
ublic
E
ston
ia
Lith
uani
a Ic
elan
d C
roat
ia
Gre
ece
Trin
idad
and
Tob
ago
Qat
ar
Uni
ted
Ara
b E
mira
tes
Italy
H
ong
Kon
g (C
hina
) M
alay
sia
FYR
OM
S
lova
k R
epub
lic
Bra
zil
Jord
an
Chi
le
Rus
sia
Isra
el
Uru
guay
M
onte
negr
o Tu
rkey
B
ulga
ria
Kaz
akhs
tan
Rom
ania
M
exic
o H
unga
ry
Per
u Tu
nisi
a In
done
sia
Cos
ta R
ica
Col
ombi
a A
lger
ia
Thai
land
K
osov
o D
omin
ican
Rep
ublic
Sco
re-p
oint
diff
eren
ce
Average students 10th percentile (lowest-achieving students) 90th percentile (highest-achieving students)
Students’ self-efficacy in science and science performance
Figure I.3.22
Score-point difference associated with one-unit increase in the index of self-efficacy
Less
ons
from
PIS
A
Lowimpactonoutcomes
Highimpactonoutcomes
Lowfeasibility Highfeasibility
Moneypits
Musthaves
Lowhangingfruits
Quickwins
Commitmenttouniversalachievement
Gateways,instrucAonalsystems
Capacityatpointofdelivery
IncenAvestructuresandaccountability
Resourceswheretheyyieldmost
AlearningsystemCoherence
InvesAngresourceswheretheycanmakemostofadifferencel Alignmentofresourceswithkeychallenges(e.g.a3racAngthemosttalentedteacherstothemostchallengingclassrooms)
l EffecAvespendingchoicesthatprioriAsehighqualityteachersoversmallerclasses
Inequityinopportunity
Resources
Spending per student from the age of 6 to 15 and science performance
Figure II.6.2
Luxembourg
Switzerland Norway Austria
Singapore
United States
United Kingdom
Malta
Sweden
Belgium
Iceland Denmark
Finland
Netherlands
Canada
Japan Slovenia
Australia Germany
Ireland France Italy
Portugal
New Zealand
Korea Spain
Poland Israel
Estonia
Czech Rep.
Latvia Slovak Rep.
Russia
Croatia Lithuania
Hungary Costa Rica
Chinese Taipei
Chile
Brazil
Turkey
Uruguay Bulgaria
Mexico
Thailand Montenegro Colombia
Dominican Republic
Peru
Georgia
11.7, 411
R² = 0.01
R² = 0.41
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Scie
nce
perf
orm
ance
(sco
re p
oint
s)
Average spending per student from the age of 6 to 15 (in thousands USD, PPP)
Differences in educational resources between advantaged and disadvantaged schools
Figure I.6.14
-3
-2
-2
-1
-1
0
1
1
CA
BA
(Arg
entin
a)
Mex
ico
Per
u M
acao
(Chi
na)
Uni
ted
Ara
b E
mira
tes
Leba
non
Jord
an
Col
ombi
a B
razi
l In
done
sia
Turk
ey
Spa
in
Dom
inic
an R
epub
lic
Geo
rgia
U
rugu
ay
Thai
land
B
-S-J
-G (C
hina
) A
ustra
lia
Japa
n C
hile
Lu
xem
bour
g R
ussi
a P
ortu
gal
Mal
ta
Mas
sach
uset
ts
Italy
N
ew Z
eala
nd
Cro
atia
Ire
land
A
lger
ia
Nor
way
Is
rael
D
enm
ark
Sw
eden
U
nite
d S
tate
s M
oldo
va
Bel
gium
S
love
nia
OE
CD
ave
rage
H
unga
ry
Chi
nese
Tai
pei
Viet
Nam
C
zech
Rep
ublic
S
inga
pore
Tu
nisi
a G
reec
e Tr
inid
ad a
nd T
obag
o C
anad
a R
oman
ia
Qat
ar
Mon
tene
gro
Kos
ovo
Net
herla
nds
Kor
ea
Finl
and
Sw
itzer
land
G
erm
any
Hon
g K
ong
(Chi
na)
Aus
tria
FYR
OM
P
olan
d A
lban
ia
Bul
garia
S
lova
k R
epub
lic
Lith
uani
a E
ston
ia
Icel
and
Cos
ta R
ica
Uni
ted
Kin
gdom
La
tvia
Mea
n in
dex
diffe
renc
e be
twee
n ad
vant
aged
an
d di
sadv
anta
ged
scho
ols
Index of shortage of educational material Index of shortage of educational staff
Disadvantaged schools have more resources than advantaged schools
Disadvantaged schools have fewer resources than advantaged schools
0
1
2
3
4
5
Swed
en
Estonia
Russia
Latvia
Bulgaria
Iceland
Norway
Hungary
Denm
ark
Finland
Singapore
Israel
Belgium
HongKon
g(China)
Spain
SlovakRep
ublic
Uruguay
France
Macao(C
hina)
Brazil
B-S-J-G
(China)
Japan
Germ
any
CzechRe
public
Lithuania
Sloven
ia
Thailand
Au
stria
CroaAa
Ita
ly
ChineseTaipei
OEC
Daverage
Poland
Pe
ru
Korea
Mexico
Luxembo
urg
Greece
Mon
tene
gro
DominicanRep
ublic
New
Zealand
UnitedKingdo
m
UnitedStates
Switzerland
Co
staRica
Qatar
UnitedArabEmira
tes
Colombia
Australia
Canada
Chile
Ireland
Massachuse3
sTunisia
Po
rtugal
Turkey
Years
Disadvantagedschools Advantagedschools
Numberofyearsinpre-primaryeducaAonamongstudentsa3endingsocio-economically…
Attendance at pre-primary school by schools’ socio-economic profile
Table II.6.51
OECD average
0
5
10
15
20
25
Thematerialforhands-onacAviAesinscienceisingoodshape
Comparedtoother
departments,ourschool‘sscience
departmentiswell-equipped
Comparedtosimilarschools,wehaveawell-
equippedlaboratory
Wehaveextralaboratorystaff
thathelpssupportscience
teaching
Wehaveenoughlaboratory
materialthatallcoursescan
regularlyuseit
Ifweeverhavesomeextrafunding,abigsharegoesintoimprovementofourscienceteaching
Ourschoolspendsextra
moneyonup-to-datescienceequipment
Scienceteachersareamongourbest-educatedstaffmembers
Score-po
intd
ifferen
ce
AWeraccounAngforstudents'andschools'socio-economicprofileBeforeaccounAngforstudents'andschools'socio-economicprofile
Science-specific resources at school and science performance
Figure II.2.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Sw
itzer
land
Ja
pan
Icel
and
Jord
an
Nor
way
A
ustri
a N
ethe
rland
s A
lger
ia
Uru
guay
R
oman
ia
Leba
non
Den
mar
k B
razi
l Vi
et N
am
Ger
man
y G
reec
e Tu
rkey
Ita
ly
Chi
le
Fran
ce
Tuni
sia
Luxe
mbo
urg
Isra
el
CA
BA
(Arg
entin
a)
Bel
gium
O
EC
D a
vera
ge
Thai
land
K
osov
o M
exic
o C
hine
se T
aipe
i S
wed
en
Per
u Ire
land
FY
RO
M
Col
ombi
a U
nite
d S
tate
s N
ew Z
eala
nd
Can
ada
Trin
idad
and
Tob
ago
Spa
in
Bul
garia
K
orea
M
alta
U
nite
d K
ingd
om
Cro
atia
S
love
nia
Slo
vak
Rep
ublic
G
eorg
ia
Indo
nesi
a C
zech
Rep
ublic
H
ong
Kon
g (C
hina
) Q
atar
La
tvia
S
inga
pore
D
omin
ican
Rep
ublic
Fi
nlan
d Li
thua
nia
Uni
ted
Ara
b E
mira
tes
Hun
gary
P
ortu
gal
Aus
tralia
M
onte
negr
o B
-S-J
-G (C
hina
) P
olan
d A
lban
ia
Cos
ta R
ica
Est
onia
R
ussi
a M
oldo
va
Mac
ao (C
hina
)
Disadvantaged schools Advantaged schools
Science competitions offered at school, by schools' socio-economic profile
Figure II.2.10
%
Inequityinopportunity
Behaviour
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
StaffresisAngchange
Teachersbeingtoostrictwithstudents
TeachersnotmeeAngindividualstudents’needs
Teacherabsenteeism
Teachersnotbeingwellpreparedfor
classes
Studentuseofalcoholorillegaldrugs
StudentsinAmidaAngorbullying
otherstudents
Studentsskippingclasses
Studenttruancy
Studentslacking
respectforteachers
Score-po
intd
ifferen
ce
AWeraccounAngforstudents'andschools'socio-economicprofileBeforeaccounAngforstudents'andschools'socio-economicprofile
Student and teacher behaviour hindering learning and science performance
Figure II.3.10
Less
ons
from
PIS
A
Lowimpactonoutcomes
Highimpactonoutcomes
Lowfeasibility Highfeasibility
Moneypits
Musthaves
Lowhangingfruits
Quickwins
Commitmenttouniversalachievement
Gateways,instrucAonalsystems
Capacityatpointofdelivery
IncenAvestructuresandaccountability
Resourceswheretheyyieldmost
AlearningsystemCoherence
❒ Capacityatthepointofdeliveryl A3racAng,developingandretaininghighquality
teachersandschoolleadersandaworkorganisaAoninwhichtheycanusetheirpotenAal
l InstrucAonalleadershipandhumanresourcemanagementinschools
l Keepingteachingana3racAveprofessionl System-widecareerdevelopment…
Student-teacher ratios and class size Figure II.6.14
CABA (Argentina)
Jordan Viet Nam
Poland
United States
Chile
Denmark
Hungary
B-S-G-J (China) Turkey
Georgia
Chinese Taipei
Mexico
Russia
Albania
Hong Kong (China)
Japan
Belgium
Algeria
Colombia
Peru
Macao (China)
Switzerland
Malta
Dominican Republic
Netherlands
Singapore
Brazil
Kosovo
Finland
Thailand
R² = 0.25
5
10
15
20
25
30
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Stud
ent-t
each
er ra
tio
Class size in language of instruction
High student-teacher ratios and small class sizes
Low student-teacher ratios and large class sizes
OECD average
OE
CD
ave
rage
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
100
Dis
cuss
indi
vidu
al
stud
ents
Sha
re re
sour
ces
Team
con
fere
nces
Col
labo
rate
for
com
mon
sta
ndar
ds
Team
teac
hing
Col
labo
rativ
e P
D
Join
t act
iviti
es
Cla
ssro
om
obse
rvat
ions
Perc
enta
ge o
f tea
cher
s
Average
Professional collaboration
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who report doing the following activities at least once per month
Professional collaboration among teachers
Exchange and co-ordination
(OECD countries)
Teachers Self-Efficacy and Professional Collaboration
11.40
11.60
11.80
12.00
12.20
12.40
12.60
12.80
13.00
13.20
13.40
Nev
er
Onc
e a
year
or l
ess
2-4
times
a y
ear
5-10
tim
es a
yea
r
1-3
times
a m
onth
Onc
e a
wee
k or
mor
e
Teac
her s
elf-e
ffica
cy (l
evel
) Teach jointly as a team in the same class
Observe other teachers’ classes and provide feedback
Engage in joint activities across different classes
Take part in collaborative professional learning
Less frequently
More frequently
External forces exerting pressure and influence inward on
an occupation Internal motivation and efforts of the members of the profession itself
46 Professionalism
ProfessionalismisthelevelofautonomyandinternalregulaAonexercisedbymembersofanoccupaAoninprovidingservicestosociety
Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 4
7 47
Policy levers to teacher professionalism
Knowledge base for teaching (initial education and incentives for professional development)
Autonomy: Teachers’ decision-making power over their work (teaching content, course offerings, discipline practices)
Peer networks: Opportunities for exchange and support needed to maintain high standards of teaching (participation in induction, mentoring, networks, feedback from direct observations)
Teacher professionalism
Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 4
8 48
Teacher professionalism
Knowledge base for teaching (initial education and incentives for professional development)
Autonomy: Teachers’ decision-making power over their work (teaching content, course offerings, discipline practices)
Peer networks: Opportunities for exchange and support needed to maintain high standards of teaching (participation in induction, mentoring, networks, feedback from direct observations)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 S
pain
Japa
n
Fran
ce
Bra
zil
Finl
and
Flan
ders
Nor
way
Alb
erta
(Can
ada)
Aus
tralia
Den
mar
k
Isra
el
Kor
ea
Cze
ch R
epub
lic
Sha
ngha
i (C
hina
)
Latv
ia
Net
herla
nds
Pol
and
Eng
land
New
Zea
land
Sin
gapo
re
Est
onia
Networks Autonomy Knowledge
Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 49 49 TALIS Teacher professionalism index
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Low professionalism
High professionalism
Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 50 50 Teacher professionalism index and teacher outcomes
Perceptions of teachers’ status
Satisfaction with the profession
Satisfaction with the work environment
Teachers’ self-efficacy
Predicted percentile
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Mal
ta
Qat
ar
Uni
ted
Sta
tes
Sin
gapo
re
Uni
ted
Kin
gdom
C
roat
ia
Aus
tralia
S
lova
k R
epub
lic
Gre
ece
Rom
ania
G
eorg
ia
Luxe
mbo
urg
Trin
idad
and
Tob
ago
Japa
n P
ortu
gal
Leba
non
Sw
itzer
land
U
nite
d A
rab
Em
irate
s Vi
et N
am
Bra
zil
Chi
le
Mon
tene
gro
B-S
-J-G
(Chi
na)
Can
ada
Net
herla
nds
Isra
el
Est
onia
Li
thua
nia
New
Zea
land
N
orw
ay
Mex
ico
Ger
man
y C
zech
Rep
ublic
O
EC
D a
vera
ge
Kos
ovo
Col
ombi
a R
ussi
a A
ustri
a FY
RO
M
Latv
ia
Finl
and
Bul
garia
S
pain
M
acao
(Chi
na)
Hon
g K
ong
(Chi
na)
Turk
ey
Dom
inic
an R
epub
lic
Thai
land
B
elgi
um
Pol
and
Indo
nesi
a Jo
rdan
H
unga
ry
Den
mar
k S
wed
en
Fran
ce
Uru
guay
Ire
land
M
oldo
va
Italy
P
eru
Slo
veni
a C
osta
Ric
a C
hine
se T
aipe
i Ic
elan
d A
lger
ia
Tuni
sia
Kor
ea
CA
BA
(Arg
entin
a)
Sco
re-p
oint
diff
eren
ce
After accounting for socio-economic status Before accounting for socio-economic status
Disciplinary climate and science performance Figure II.3.7
A more positive disciplinary climate is associated with better student performance in almost all countries/economies
Students who feel very anxious for a test even if they are well prepared
Figure III.4.1
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Cos
ta R
ica
Bra
zil
Dom
inic
an R
epub
lic
Col
ombi
a S
inga
pore
U
rugu
ay
New
Zea
land
U
nite
d K
ingd
om
Per
u Ita
ly
Por
tuga
l U
nite
d S
tate
s A
ustra
lia
Spa
in
Hon
g K
ong
(Chi
na)
Chi
nese
Tai
pei
Mac
ao (C
hina
) Q
atar
M
onte
negr
o D
enm
ark
Can
ada
Thai
land
Ire
land
Ja
pan
Slo
veni
a B
-S-J
-G (C
hina
) U
nite
d A
rab
Em
irate
s S
wed
en
Nor
way
M
exic
o Tu
nisi
a G
reec
e Tu
rkey
C
hile
Li
thua
nia
OE
CD
ave
rage
K
orea
B
ulga
ria
Hun
gary
E
ston
ia
Rus
sia
Icel
and
Aus
tria
Finl
and
Luxe
mbo
urg
Fran
ce
Slo
vak
Rep
ublic
C
roat
ia
Pol
and
Isra
el
Latv
ia
Bel
gium
G
erm
any
Cze
ch R
epub
lic
Net
herla
nds
Sw
itzer
land
Percentage of students
More teacher support and less anxiety Figure III.4.5
5% less likely 4% less likely
16% more likely
29% more likely
9% less likely 17% less likely
44% more likely
60% more likely
The teacher adapts the lesson to my class’s needs
and knowledge
The teacher provides individual help when a student has difficulties
understanding a topic or task
Teachers graded me harder than they graded other
students
Teachers gave me the impression that they think I am less smart than I really
am
Odd
s ra
tios
(loga
rithm
ic s
cale
)
Even if I am well prepared for a test I feel very anxious I get very tense when I study More likely
Less likely
As likely
Teacher support is higher in "happy" schools
-0.60
-0.40
-0.20
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
Aus
tria
Net
herla
nds
Slo
veni
a 0
.2
Cro
atia
Slo
vak
Rep
ublic
Ger
man
y
C
zech
Rep
ublic
0.
2 H
unga
ry
S
witz
erla
nd
P
olan
d 0
.3
Hon
g K
ong
(Chi
na)
Fran
ce
Ita
ly
0.3
Kor
ea
0.3
Est
onia
0.
3 O
EC
D a
vera
ge
0.2
Lith
uani
a
Ja
pan
0.4
S
pain
0.
3 B
ulga
ria
C
hine
se T
aipe
i 0
.3
Latv
ia
0.2
Tuni
sia
Uru
guay
Gre
ece
0.3
Q
atar
0.
1 Tu
rkey
Chi
le
M
onte
negr
o 0
.6
Col
ombi
a
U
nite
d K
ingd
om
R
ussi
a 0
.5
B-S
-J-G
(Chi
na)
0.5
Th
aila
nd
0.2
Bra
zil
Uni
ted
Sta
tes
Uni
ted
Ara
b E
mira
tes
0.3
C
osta
Ric
a 0
.3
Mex
ico
0.4
P
eru
0.3
P
ortu
gal
0.6
Mean index Relatively happy schools
Figure III.3.7
Relatively happy schools are schools where students' life satisfaction is significantly above the average
Less
ons
from
PIS
A
Lowimpactonoutcomes
Highimpactonoutcomes
Lowfeasibility Highfeasibility
Moneypits
Musthaves
Lowhangingfruits
Quickwins
Commitmenttouniversalachievement
Gateways,instruc9onalsystems
Capacityatpointofdelivery
IncenAvestructuresandaccountability
Resourceswheretheyyieldmost
AlearningsystemCoherence
❒ ClearambiAousgoalsthataresharedacrossthesystemandalignedwithhighstakesgatewaysandinstrucAonalsystems
l WellestablisheddeliverychainthroughwhichcurriculargoalstranslateintoinstrucAonalsystems,instrucAonalpracAcesandstudentlearning(intended,implementedandachieved)
l HighlevelofmetacogniAvecontentofinstrucAon
The‘producAvity’puzzle
MakinglearningAmeproducAvesothatstudentscanbuildtheiracademic,socialandemoAonal
skillsinabalancedway
Learning time and science performance Figure II.6.23
Finland
Germany Switzerland
Japan Estonia
Sweden
Netherlands New Zealand
Macao (China)
Iceland
Hong Kong (China) Chinese Taipei
Uruguay
Singapore
Poland United States
Israel
Bulgaria
Korea
Russia Italy
Greece
B-S-J-G (China)
Colombia
Chile
Mexico
Brazil
Costa Rica
Turkey Montenegro Peru
Qatar Thailand
United Arab
Emirates
Tunisia
Dominican Republic
R² = 0.21
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
35 40 45 50 55 60
PISA
sci
ence
sco
re
Total learning time in and outside of school
OECDaverage
OECD average
OE
CD
ave
rage
Learning time and science performance Figure II.6.23
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Finl
and
Ger
man
y S
witz
erla
nd
Japa
n E
ston
ia
Sw
eden
N
ethe
rland
s N
ew Z
eala
nd
Aus
tralia
C
zech
Rep
ublic
M
acao
(Chi
na)
Uni
ted
Kin
gdom
C
anad
a B
elgi
um
Fran
ce
Nor
way
S
love
nia
Icel
and
Luxe
mbo
urg
Irela
nd
Latv
ia
Hon
g K
ong
(Chi
na)
OE
CD
ave
rage
C
hine
se T
aipe
i A
ustri
a P
ortu
gal
Uru
guay
Li
thua
nia
Sin
gapo
re
Den
mar
k H
unga
ry
Pol
and
Slo
vak
Rep
ublic
M
assa
chus
ets
Spa
in
Cro
atia
U
nite
d S
tate
s Is
rael
B
ulga
ria
Kor
ea
Rus
sia
Italy
G
reec
e B
-S-J
-G (C
hina
) C
olom
bia
Chi
le
Mex
ico
Bra
zil
Cos
ta R
ica
Turk
ey
Mon
tene
gro
Per
u Q
atar
Th
aila
nd
Uni
ted
Ara
b E
mira
tes
Tuni
sia
Dom
inic
an R
epub
lic
Sco
re p
oint
s in
sci
ence
per
hou
r of t
otal
lear
ning
tim
e
Hours Intended learning time at school (hours) Study time after school (hours) Score points in science per hour of total learning time
EffecAveteaching
Awell-structured,clearandinformaAvelessononatopicincludingteachers’explanaAons,classroomdebatesandstudents’quesAonspays
off,asdoesadapAveinstrucAonInquiry-basedscienceinstrucAon(e.g.experimentaAonandhands-onacAviAes)tendstorelatenegaAvelytoperformancebutposiAvelyto
studentengagementandcareerexpectaAons
Uni
ted
Kin
gdom
Ita
ly
Aus
tralia
Is
rael
M
alta
Le
bano
n S
pain
Q
atar
S
inga
pore
U
nite
d S
tate
s Fi
nlan
d N
orw
ay
Uni
ted
Ara
b E
mira
tes
Gre
ece
Can
ada
Hon
g K
ong
(Chi
na)
Rus
sia
Jord
an
New
Zea
land
M
acao
(Chi
na)
Por
tuga
l C
AB
A (A
rgen
tina)
P
olan
d B
-S-J
-G (C
hina
) G
eorg
ia
Mol
dova
Lu
xem
bour
g Ire
land
O
EC
D a
vera
ge
Icel
and
Uru
guay
N
ethe
rland
s Th
aila
nd
Mex
ico
Chi
nese
Tai
pei
Ger
man
y Fr
ance
C
roat
ia
Sw
itzer
land
D
enm
ark
Bra
zil
Kos
ovo
Aus
tria
Chi
le
Rom
ania
C
olom
bia
Trin
idad
and
Tob
ago
Hun
gary
S
wed
en
Latv
ia
Dom
inic
an R
epub
lic
Bel
gium
Tu
nisi
a Vi
et N
am
Per
u Ja
pan
Alg
eria
FY
RO
M
Est
onia
C
zech
Rep
ublic
Tu
rkey
Li
thua
nia
Slo
vak
Rep
ublic
C
osta
Ric
a B
ulga
ria
Mon
tene
gro
Indo
nesi
a K
orea
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Sco
re-p
oint
diff
eren
ce
After accounting for socio-economic status Before accounting for socio-economic status
Teacher-directed instruction: demonstrating scientific ideas Table II.2.18
Students who reported that their science teacher explains scientific ideas in many lessons or every lesson perform better in science
Nor
way
N
ethe
rland
s U
nite
d A
rab
Em
irate
s Q
atar
D
enm
ark
Finl
and
Sin
gapo
re
Aus
tralia
S
wed
en
Uni
ted
Kin
gdom
Ic
elan
d G
erm
any
Bul
garia
P
ortu
gal
Latv
ia
Isra
el
Bra
zil
Rus
sia
B-S
-J-G
(Chi
na)
Hon
g K
ong
(Chi
na)
Chi
le
Can
ada
Turk
ey
OE
CD
ave
rage
C
zech
Rep
ublic
Ire
land
C
olom
bia
Pol
and
New
Zea
land
M
acao
(Chi
na)
Est
onia
Li
thua
nia
Sw
itzer
land
Th
aila
nd
Dom
inic
an R
epub
lic
Slo
vak
Rep
ublic
U
rugu
ay
Uni
ted
Sta
tes
Cos
ta R
ica
Kor
ea
Gre
ece
Mon
tene
gro
Hun
gary
M
exic
o C
roat
ia
Italy
Fr
ance
S
pain
B
elgi
um
Tuni
sia
Luxe
mbo
urg
Per
u Ja
pan
Aus
tria
Chi
nese
Tai
pei -2
0 2 4 6 8
10 12 14 16 18
Sco
re-p
oint
diff
eren
ce
Score-point difference associated with the index of adaptive instruction
Adaptive instruction and science performance Figure II.3.16
Students who reported that their science teacher adapts more frequently their lessons to students’ needs and knowledge perform better in science
Students’ use of memorisation strategies
Source: Figure 4.1
Mac
ao-C
hina
1
5 R
ussi
an F
eder
atio
n
16
Serb
ia
11
Slov
ak R
epub
lic
11
Alb
ania
1
2 Sw
itzer
land
1
3 M
exic
o
19
Pola
nd
9
M
alay
sia
1
2 Li
echt
enst
ein
1
7 Vi
et N
am
5
Li
thua
nia
1
4 K
azak
hsta
n
22
Chi
nese
Tai
pei
16
H
ong
Kon
g-C
hina
1
0 D
enm
ark
2
8 Ita
ly
10
Latv
ia
22
Col
ombi
a
26
Icel
and
2
3 G
erm
any
1
7 Ja
pan
1
2 Q
atar
1
3 K
orea
1
7 Sl
oven
ia
11
Tuni
sia
1
0 R
oman
ia
16
Peru
2
2 C
roat
ia
9
Fr
ance
1
9 M
onte
negr
o
13
Cos
ta R
ica
1
9 A
rgen
tina
2
1 Sw
eden
3
1 C
zech
Rep
ublic
2
5 Sh
angh
ai-C
hina
2
5 Es
toni
a
14
Bul
garia
1
1 O
ECD
ave
rage
2
1 Tu
rkey
1
3 B
razi
l
30
Can
ada
2
6 Si
ngap
ore
2
2 G
reec
e
20
Aus
tria
1
3 Po
rtug
al
27
Finl
and
3
2 U
nite
d St
ates
2
9 H
unga
ry
17
Luxe
mbo
urg
1
3 N
orw
ay
28
Bel
gium
2
4 Jo
rdan
1
4 Is
rael
1
4 Th
aila
nd
46
Uni
ted
Ara
b Em
irate
s
13
Aus
tral
ia
35
Chi
le
22
New
Zea
land
3
5 In
done
sia
2
3 Sp
ain
1
9 N
ethe
rland
s
22
Uni
ted
Kin
gdom
3
7 Ire
land
2
8 U
rugu
ay
23
Below the OECD average At the same level as the OECD average Above the OECD average
% of students who report they learn by heart
62
Mem
oris
atio
n
More
Less
Memorisa9onislessusefulasproblemsbecomemoredifficult(OECDaverage)
R²=0.81
0.70
1.00
300 400 500 600 700 800Difficultyofmathema9csitemonthePISAscale
Source: Figure 4.3
Difficult problem
Easy problem
Greater success
Less success
Odds ratio
There are large international differences in the use of control strategies
Source: Figure 5.1
Tuni
sia
4
6 Jo
rdan
4
3 Th
aila
nd
19
Spai
n
42
Uru
guay
5
5 Q
atar
5
3 U
nite
d A
rab
Emira
tes
5
5 Pe
ru
49
Indo
nesi
a
39
Mon
tene
gro
4
8 C
zech
Rep
ublic
3
5 C
hile
5
4 C
hine
se T
aipe
i
42
Cro
atia
4
3 Tu
rkey
5
9 H
unga
ry
46
Rom
ania
4
8 N
ethe
rland
s
54
Slov
enia
3
2 Sh
angh
ai-C
hina
4
0 Ire
land
4
9 G
reec
e
46
Italy
4
4 B
razi
l
45
Lith
uani
a
56
Esto
nia
4
8 K
orea
4
0 A
rgen
tina
4
4 N
orw
ay
48
Uni
ted
Stat
es
40
Latv
ia
46
Slov
ak R
epub
lic
49
Port
ugal
4
4 Fi
nlan
d
45
Mal
aysi
a
50
Col
ombi
a
40
Serb
ia
40
Uni
ted
Kin
gdom
4
3 Lu
xem
bour
g
55
Swed
en
44
Bul
garia
6
2 O
ECD
ave
rage
4
9 N
ew Z
eala
nd
46
Viet
Nam
5
4 B
elgi
um
53
Rus
sian
Fed
erat
ion
4
4 Po
land
6
5 A
ustr
alia
4
5 Is
rael
6
1 Si
ngap
ore
4
7 C
osta
Ric
a
48
Aus
tria
5
5 Li
echt
enst
ein
4
2 K
azak
hsta
n
49
Mex
ico
5
4 C
anad
a
48
Den
mar
k
48
Alb
ania
5
4 G
erm
any
5
0 H
ong
Kon
g-C
hina
6
0 Sw
itzer
land
5
5 Fr
ance
6
2 Ja
pan
5
9 M
acao
-Chi
na
53
Icel
and
5
9
Below the OECD average At the same level as the OECD average Above the OECD average
% of students who try to work out what the most
important parts to learn are
64
Con
trol
More
Less
Controlstrategiesarealwayshelpfulbutlesssoasproblemsbecomemoredifficult(OECDaverage)
R²=0.310.95
1.20
300 400 500 600 700 800Difficultyofmathema9csitemonthePISAscale
Using control strategies is associated with a lower chance of success as problems
become more difficult
Source: Figure 5.2 65
Difficult problem
Greater success
Less success
Easy problem
Odds ratio
Students’ use of elaboration strategies
Source: Figure 6.1
Uni
ted
Kin
gdom
2
0 Ic
elan
d
18
Aus
tral
ia
20
Irela
nd
23
Fran
ce
19
New
Zea
land
1
9 Is
rael
2
6 C
anad
a
26
Aus
tria
3
2 Ja
pan
2
9 B
elgi
um
22
Sing
apor
e
31
Uru
guay
2
2 G
erm
any
3
3 N
ethe
rland
s
24
HK
-Chi
na
30
Luxe
mbo
urg
3
3 C
osta
Ric
a
33
Nor
way
2
3 Fi
nlan
d
23
Uni
ted
Stat
es
30
Port
ugal
2
9 O
ECD
ave
rage
3
0 D
enm
ark
2
3 In
done
sia
3
8 Sw
itzer
land
3
2 B
ulga
ria
27
Mac
ao-C
hina
3
2 C
hile
2
4 A
lban
ia
33
Swed
en
24
Kaz
akhs
tan
2
9 G
reec
e
35
UA
E
32
Hun
gary
3
7 B
razi
l
25
Arg
entin
a
35
Liec
hten
stei
n
41
Esto
nia
3
8 M
exic
o
27
Spai
n
39
Turk
ey
28
Shan
ghai
-Chi
na
35
Pola
nd
27
Col
ombi
a
33
Kor
ea
43
Latv
ia
32
Cze
ch R
epub
lic
40
Viet
Nam
4
1 C
roat
ia
48
Slov
enia
5
6 R
oman
ia
36
Rus
sian
Fed
.
41
Mon
tene
gro
3
9 M
alay
sia
3
8 Pe
ru
30
Italy
4
6 Se
rbia
5
0 Sl
ovak
Rep
ublic
4
0 Li
thua
nia
3
0 Th
aila
nd
34
Qat
ar
34
Chi
nese
Tai
pei
42
Jo
rdan
4
4 Tu
nisi
a
44
Below the OECD average At the same level as the OECD average Above the OECD average
% of students who understand new
concepts by relating them to things they
already know
66
Ela
bora
tion
More
Less
Elabora9onstrategiesaremoreusefulasproblemsbecomemoredifficult(OECDaverage)
R²=0.82003
0.80
1.50
300 400 500 600 700 800
Difficultyofmathema9csitemonthePISAscale
Using elaboration
strategies is associated
with a greater chance
of success as problems
become more difficult
Source: Figure 6.2
Difficult problem
Greater success
Less success
Easy problem
Odds ratio
Teachingandlearningstrategiesinmathema9cs
R²=0.10
Moreteacher-directed
instruc0onTeaching
Morememorisa0on
Learning
OECDaverage
Moreelabora0on
Morestudent-oriented
instruc0on
Chinese Taipei Vietnam
Macao-China Korea
Hong-Kong China
Japan
Shanghai- China
Ireland
Hungary
France
Croatia
United Kingdom
Australia New Zealand
Approaches to teaching
Be3erEngagementand
careerexpectaAons Be3erLearningoutcomes
Student-oriented Teacher-directed
Less
ons
from
PIS
A
Lowimpactonoutcomes
Highimpactonoutcomes
Lowfeasibility Highfeasibility
Moneypits
Musthaves
Lowhangingfruits
Quickwins
Commitmenttouniversalachievement
Gateways,instrucAonalsystems
Capacityatpointofdelivery
Incen9vestructuresandaccountability
Resourceswheretheyyieldmost
AlearningsystemCoherence
Governance,incenAves,accountability,knowledgemanagementl AlignedincenAvestructures
Forstudentsl Howgatewaysaffectthestrength,direcAon,clarityandnatureoftheincenAves
operaAngonstudentsateachstageoftheireducaAonl DegreetowhichstudentshaveincenAvestotaketoughcoursesandstudyhardl Opportunitycostsforstayinginschoolandperformingwell
Forteachersl MakeinnovaAonsinpedagogyand/ororganisaAonl Improvetheirownperformance
andtheperformanceoftheircolleaguesl PursueprofessionaldevelopmentopportuniAes
thatleadtostrongerpedagogicalpracAces
l AbalancebetweenverAcalandlateralaccountabilityl EffecAveinstrumentstomanageandshareknowledgeandspread
innovaAon–communicaAonwithinthesystemandwithstakeholdersaroundit
l AcapablecentrewithauthorityandlegiAmacytoact
Publicandprivateschools
AcrossOECDcountries,84%ofstudentsa3endpublicschools,12%government-dependentprivateschoolsand4%independentprivate
schoolsPISAgenerallyobservesnosystemaAcnetperformancedifferences
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20
0 20 40 60
Turk
ey
Sin
gapo
re
Viet
Nam
Ja
pan
Tuni
sia
Italy
C
hine
se T
aipe
i Th
aila
nd
Gre
ece
Sw
itzer
land
C
zech
Rep
ublic
U
nite
d S
tate
s E
ston
ia
Uru
guay
Fr
ance
A
ustri
a C
AB
A (A
rgen
tina)
K
osov
o M
exic
o H
ong
Kon
g (C
hina
) In
done
sia
Luxe
mbo
urg
Sw
eden
H
unga
ry
Mal
ta
Dom
inic
an R
epub
lic
Latv
ia
OE
CD
ave
rage
B
-S-J
-G (C
hina
) P
ortu
gal
Slo
veni
a S
pain
U
nite
d K
ingd
om
Slo
vak
Rep
ublic
N
orw
ay
Aus
tralia
C
roat
ia
Den
mar
k P
eru
Jord
an
Cos
ta R
ica
Col
ombi
a C
hile
N
ethe
rland
s K
orea
N
ew Z
eala
nd
Can
ada
Lith
uani
a Ire
land
G
eorg
ia
Trin
idad
and
Tob
ago
FYR
OM
G
erm
any
Finl
and
Leba
non
Bel
gium
P
olan
d B
razi
l U
nite
d A
rab
Em
irate
s Q
atar
Sco
re-p
oint
diff
eren
ce
After accounting for socio-economic status Before accounting for socio-economic status
Science performance in public and private schools Figure II.4.14
Students in private schools perform better
Students in public schools perform better
Spend time just talking to my child
Eat <the main meal> with my child around a table
Discuss how well my child is doing at school
Attended a scheduled meeting or conferences for parents
Talked about how to support learning at home and homework with my child’s teachers
Discussed my child’s progress with a teacher on my own initiative
Exchanged ideas on parenting, family support, or the child’s development with my child’s teacher
Discussed my child's behaviour with a teacher on my own initiative Students' likelihood of being very satisfied with
their life when their parents reported having participated in these school-related activities in the previous academic year Students' likelihood of being very satisfied with their life when parents reported engaging in these activities "at least once a week"
Parents’ activities and students’ life satisfaction, Average-18 Figure III.9.4
20% more likely
60% more likely...
As likely
40% 30% 10% 50%
… To report high levels of life satisfaction
22(12)PISApointsadvantage19(10)PISA
pointsadvantage
Less
ons
from
PIS
A
Lowimpactonoutcomes
Highimpactonoutcomes
Lowfeasibility Highfeasibility
Moneypits
Musthaves
Lowhangingfruits
Quickwins
Commitmenttouniversalachievement
Gateways,instrucAonalsystems
Capacityatpointofdelivery
IncenAvestructuresandaccountability
Resourceswheretheyyieldmost
AlearningsystemCoherence
❒ CoherenceofpoliciesandpracAcesl Alignmentofpolicies
acrossallaspectsofthesysteml Coherenceofpolicies
oversustainedperiodsofAmel ConsistencyofimplementaAonl FidelityofimplementaAon
(withoutexcessivecontrol)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
TotalAmeperweekinregularlessonsIndexofteachersupportSchoolislocatedinacity
IndexofshortageofeducaAonalmaterialSchooloffersascienceclub
SchoolofferssciencecompeAAonsAcademicperformanceconsideredforschooladmission
Indexofscience-specificresourcesClasssize
Student'ssocio-economicprofile,squaredStudenthasnoimmigrantbackground
IndexofschooldisciplinaryclimateStudentisenrolledinageneralprogrammeStudentspeaksathomethetestlanguage
IndexofdisciplinaryclimateinsciencelessonsRequirementtoa3endatleastonesciencecourse
School'ssocio-economicprofileIndexofteacher-directedinstrucAon
IndexofadapAveinstrucAonStudent'ssocio-economicprofile
Levelofconfidencethatarela9onshipexists(z-scores)
AllcountriesandeconomiesOECDcountries
Factors associated with a higher science performance Figure II.7.2
PosiAveassociaAonwithscienceperformance
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0
Abilitygroupingwithinschools
Teachers'parAcipaAoninprofessionaldevelopment
IndexofeducaAonalleadership
Residenceconsideredforschooladmission
Studenta3endsaprivateschool
Indexofstudentbehaviourhinderinglearning
Studentskippedaschoolday
Studentarrivedlateforclasses
Indexofenquiry-basedinstrucAon
Studentisagirl
AWer-schoolstudyAme
Indexofperceivedfeedback
Studenthadrepeatedagradeatleastonce
Levelofconfidencethatarela9onshipexists(z-scores)
AllcountriesandeconomiesOECDcountries
Factors associated with a lower science performance Figure II.7.2
NegaAveassociaAonwithscienceperformance
RouAnecogniAveskills Complexwaysofthinking,complexwaysofdoing,collecAvecapacity
Somestudentslearnathighlevels(sorAng) AllstudentsneedtolearnathighlevelsStudentinclusion
Curriculum,instrucAonandassessment
StandardisaAonandcompliance High-levelprofessionalknowledgeworkersTeacherquality
‘TaylorisAc’,hierarchical Flat,collegialWorkorganisaAon
PrimarilytoauthoriAes PrimarilytopeersandstakeholdersAccountability
SystemtransformaAonsTheoldbureaucraAcsystem Themodernenablingsystem
Findoutmoreaboutourworkatwww.oecd.org/pisa– Allpublica9ons– Thecompletemicro-leveldatabase
Email:Andreas.Schleicher@OECD.orgTwi3er:SchleicherOECDWechat:AndreasSchleicher
andremember:Withoutdata,youarejustanotherpersonwithanopinion
Thank you
Recommended