Innovation to improve 21st c education for all penn, 19 march 2012

  • 716 views
Uploaded on

 

More in: Education , Business
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
716
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
19
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • Country mean for the OECD countries for which information was available. Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovak Republic and the United States.In 2008, share of public investment to research and development in health sector (7.6%) was more than 6 times higher that the share of public investment in educational research and development (1.2%).From qualitative standpoint, educational research needs:More precise findings and evaluationsCapacity building in empirical researchBetter connection between research and practice

Transcript

  • 1. Innovation to improve 21st century education for all Prof. Dr. Dirk Van Damme Head of the Centre for Educational Research and Innovation - OECD
  • 2. 2
  • 3. 3
  • 4. 1.INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS 4
  • 5. “Education is only the image and reflectionof society. It imitates and reproduces thelatter…it does not create it”Emile Durkheim “Education is a social process. Education is growth. Education is not a preparation for life; education is life itself” John Dewey 5
  • 6. Time, continuity, change• Durkheim – and ‘reproduction theories’ after him – sees education as a kind of ‘condensation’ of a society’s history, social structure etc., thus following social change – ‘slowness’ in terms of time-lag between social change and educational change – ‘slowness’ in terms of individual biography and the prolonged impact of education on one’s life 6
  • 7. Time, continuity, change• John Dewey – and progressive educators in his footsteps (Paulo Freire) – see education as a potential driver of social change by stressing the transformative capacities of education – Enhancing the capacity of critical analysis and reflection to overcome historical legacies – Guiding individuals and communities to pockets of change in society (e.g. science) which drive transformative change 7
  • 8. Time, continuity, change• The transformative capacity of education has a lot to do with the capacity of educational systems themselves to change – So, analysing innovation in education helps to understand the capacity of education to drive innovation in society at large• This becomes extremely relevant today as change is accelerating and several ‘change agents’ perceive education as ‘out-of-tune’ with the pace, direction and contents of change 8
  • 9. 2.EDUCATION IN THE 21ST C:‘MORE OF THE SAME’? 9
  • 10. 20th century education: expansion• Following the emergence of popular education in the 18th and 19th C, modern institutionalised and professionalised education systems have consolidated and expanded in the 20th C – Connected to economic, political and social transformations: global capitalism, democracy, social mobility and meritocracy – From elitist to universalist ambitions – Globalisation and convergence – Standardisation 10
  • 11. % 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 40 45 50 35 Canada United States New Zealand Estonia Finland Australia Norway Sweden Netherlands Switzerland 2000sUnited Kingdom Denmark Japan Germany Iceland 1990s Belgium OECD average Luxembourg EU19 average Ireland 1980s France Spain Hungary Slovenia Greece 1970s Austria Poland Korea groups 25-34 years, 35-44 years, 45-54 years and 55-64 years (2007)Slovak RepublicCzech Republic Italy Growth in university-level qualifications Mexico Chile Brazil Approximated by the percentage of the population that has attained tertiary-type A education in the age Turkey Portugal
  • 12. Where are we now?• Enormous expansion and massification: the ‘educational revolution’ – In 55-64y olds population: 39 million tertiary qualified – In 25-34y olds population: 81 million tertiary qualified• Shifting balances in global talent pool – US: from 35.8% to 20.5% between two generations – China: from 6.9% to 18.3% 12
  • 13. Where are we now?• Universalist ambitions have not (yet) been fully fulfilled – Still huge gaps in access, participation and achievement – Equity: huge impact of social background on educational outcomes – Standardisation: huge quality variation in comparable levels of qualification – Lifelong learning: unproductive concentration of educational investment in early phase of life- course 13
  • 14. Where are we now?• While at the same time the impact of education on economic and social outcomes has reached unprecedented levels – Increasing impact on earnings distribution and labour market participation – Increasing impact on social risks and social outcomes• This tension between increasing social relevance and difficulties in delivering constitute a huge risk for educational systems – Alternatives already appearing 14
  • 15. % % 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Portugal Spain Iceland Italy Norway Luxembourg United Kingdom OECD average Greece Belgium Netherlands Estonia Born abroad France Germany Hungary Austria Ireland United States Israel Born in the country Canada Australia Finland Switzerland no upper secondary qualification (2007) Sweden Slovak Republic Slovenia Poland Czech Republic15 Proportion of 20-24 year-olds who are not in education and have
  • 16. 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 40 60 80 Brazil Hungary United States Czech Republic Portugal Slovak Republic Poland Below upper secondary education Luxembourg Israel Austria Canada France Italy Germany Finland Tertiary-type B education Korea OECD average Ireland Turkey Belgium United Kingdom Netherlands Switzerland Spain Index for males, upper secondary=100, 25-64y olds (2008) Sweden Australia Japan Denmark Relative earnings by qualification New Zealand Tertiary-type A and advanced research programmes Norway16
  • 17. Low skills and economic outcomesIncreased likelihood (16-65 year olds) Increased likelihood of failure (16-65 year olds)3.5 In lowest two quintiles of personal income3.0 Unemployed2.52.0 Received social assistance in last year1.5 Did not receive investment1.0 income in last year 0 1 2 3 4 Number of of skills domains with low performance Number skills domains with low performance Number of skills domains with low performance 17
  • 18. 150 200 250 300 350 Skill score Not completed school Upper secondary University Not completed school Upper secondary University Not completed school Upper secondary University The skills value of qualifications Interquartile range in skill distribution by educational qualification18
  • 19. Lifelong de-skillingSkill score305295 Factoring in population ageing285275265255245235225 15 25 35 45 55 65 No adjustment Age Adjusted for immigrant status and education Adjusted for immigrant status, education and reading engagement 19
  • 20. But also vast macro-efficiency problems • Despite huge increase in expenditure for education, very limited rise in outcomes over the past 10 to 15 years • Problems in quantity and quality of the teaching work force • Governance reform (school autonomy, decentralisation) have not fully produced expected results and have counterproductive effects 20
  • 21. Is expansion the only answer?• Most development goals in education (MDGs, European Commission 2020, etc.) are still purely quantitative targets, aiming at further expansion of education systems• But will ‘more of the same’ be a sufficient answer to address the needs and tackle the increasing challenges in delivering and efficiency? – “has the concern for equity and access driven progressive educators into conservatism?”• Or will innovation be truly part of the response? 21
  • 22. 3.INNOVATION DRIVER: NEWSKILLS DEMANDS 22
  • 23. CERI’s Innovation Strategy project• The main driver for innovation in education does not come from within education, but from the external changing skills demand• Research questions: – Do innovation-driven economies require more and better educated populations? – What qualifications do innovative businesses need? – What individual skills should education systems foster? 23
  • 24. Changing skill demand Economy-wide measures of routine and non-routine task input (US)Mean task input as percentiles of the 1960 task distribution Routine manual 65 60 Nonroutine manual 55 Routine cognitive 50 45 Nonroutine analytic 40 Nonroutine interactive 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Source: Levy and Murnane, 2005 24
  • 25. Working in creative jobsIncrease in creativity-oriented jobs (Canada, 1901-2006) 25
  • 26. Employment structure in selected countries in 1980 Source: Michael et al. 26
  • 27. Employment structure in selected countries in 2004 27 Source: Michael et al.
  • 28. Skills supply hampering innovation (odds ratios: innovative vs. non-innovative (ref)) Lack of finance from sources outside your enterprise 1.39 Lack of qualified personnel 1.37 Lack of funds within your enterprise or enterprise group 1.29 Innovation costs too high 1.18 Lack of information on markets 1.14 Difficulty in finding cooperation partners for innovation 1.05 Lack of information on technology 1.00 Markets dominated by established enterprises 0.98 Uncertain demand for innovative goods or services 0.97 No need to innovate due to prior innovations 0.44No need to innovate because no demand for innovations 0.35 0.3 0.6 1.2 28 Source: OECD, based on CIS data
  • 29. Which tertiary education studies lead to active participation in innovation? Innovator work in innov. comp. Not in innovative organisation100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 29 Source: OECD, based on REFLEX and HEGESCO data
  • 30. Critical skills for the most innovative jobs (tertiary-educated workers) Likelihood (odds ratios) of reporting the following job requirements: people in the most innovative jobs vs. least innovative jobs come with news ideas/solutions 2.97 acquire new knowledge 2.44 willingness to question ideas 2.34 alertness to opportunities 2.24 present ideas in audience 2.18 analytical thinking 2.15 master of your own field 2.11 coordinate activities 2.05write and speak a foreign language 2.02 use computers and internet 2.00 make your meaning clear 1.99 use time efficiently 1.98 mobilize capacities of others 1.97 work productively with others 1.95 write reports or documents 1.94 perform under pressure 1.81 knowledge of other fields 1.76 negociate 1.76 assert your authority 1.56 0.90 1.80 3.60 30 Source: OECD, based on REFLEX and HEGESCO data
  • 31. Skills for Innovation• Foundation skills (literacy, numeracy…) are key to access lifelong learning• Which individual skills for innovation are key? – Subject-based skills (know-what and know- how) – Skills in thinking and creativity (critical thinking, imagination, curiosity...) – Behavioural and social skills (self- confidence, energy, passion, leadership, collabora tion, communication...) 31
  • 32. Skills for InnovationWhat individual competences should people acquire to contribute to innovation as producers and users? Subject-based skills (know-what and know- how) Behavioural and Skills in thinking social skills and creativity (Self- (Critical thinking, abilityconfidence, energy, persev to makeerance, passion, leadership connections, imagination,, collaboration, communic curiosity,...) ation) 32
  • 33. 21st Century Skills •Creativity and innovationWays of thinking •Critical thinking, problem solving •Learning to learn, meta-cognition •CommunicationWays of working •Collaboration (teamwork) •Information literacyTools of working •ICT literacy •Citizenship – local and globalLiving in the world •Life and career •Personal, social responsibility Source: Microsoft-Intel-Cisco ATC21S project 33
  • 34. A challenging situation• Early 21st C education systems are especially good in delivering routine-based skills which can easily be taught in standardised ways but also easily digitised and automated• But are not yet well prepared to equip learners with the flexible, creative, innovative and collaborative skills sets which they will need in 21st C economies and societies 34
  • 35. 4.ARE EDUCATION SYSTEMSINNOVATION-FRIENDLY? 35
  • 36. Innovation in education• Education generally is a low innovation-intensive sector – Especially low in product/services and tools/instruments/methods innovation• Available evidence does not show a knowledge dynamics between ‘grey’ and ‘green’ knowledge typical for knowledge-intensive and innovative sectors – New teachers do not have different pedagogical beliefs than more experienced teachers• Innovation is not rewarded in professional appraisal systems – Three out of four teachers reporting not to be rewarded for innovation 36
  • 37. Product/service innovation 37 Source: Paul (2007)
  • 38. Process/tools/instruments innovation 38 Source: Paul (2007)
  • 39. Are new teachers innovators? Constructivist beliefs - Experienced teachers Constructivist beliefs - New teachers Direct transmission beliefs - Experienced teachers Direct transmission beliefs - New teachers 0.5Ipsative means 0.0 -0.5 Italy Hungary Denmark Estonia Austria* Turkey* Spain Portugal Malta Norway Poland* Ireland* Brazil Lithuania Iceland Slovenia Australia Korea Slovak Republic Bulgaria Mexico Malaysia Belgium (Fl.)* 39
  • 40. % 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Belgium (Fl.) Norway Ireland their teaching Australia Denmark Spain Korea Austria Malta Iceland Portugal Brazil Estonia TALIS Average Lithuania Turkey Slovenia Mexico Hungary Rewarding innovation Slovak… Italy Poland Bulgaria Teachers who would receive increased monetary or non-monetary rewards if they are more innovative in % Malaysia40
  • 41. Research as a motor for innovation? 41
  • 42. Research as a motor for innovation? 42
  • 43. 350 400 550 600 300 450 500 Finland Liechtenstein New Zealand Japan Canada Germany Korea Netherlands Hungary Ireland Switzerland Belgium Australia Austria Frequent use Sweden Greece Poland Spain Croatia Macao-China Lithuania Italy Slovenia Slovak Republic Moderate use Czech Republic Norway Latvia Iceland Portugal DenmarkRussian Federation Chile Turkey student performance on PISA science scale Frequency of use of computers at school and Uruguay Rare or no use Bulgaria Thailand Serbia Jordan Colombia43 Qatar Technology as a motor for innovation?
  • 44. 5.INNOVATIVE PEDAGOGIES 44
  • 45. Conceptual model 45
  • 46. Learning research 46
  • 47. Transversal conclusionsTo promote learning, environments should:• Make learning central, encourage engagement, and be where learners come to understand themselves as learners• Ensure that learning is social and often collaborative• Be highly attuned to learners’ motivations and the importance of emotions• Be acutely sensitive to individual differences including in prior knowledge• Be demanding for each learner but without excessive overload• Use assessments consistent with its aims, with strong emphasis on formative feedback• Promote horizontal connectedness across activities and subjects, in-and out-of-school 47
  • 48. Expressed in educational terms…These ‘principles’ mean that learning environments should be:• Learner-centred: highly focused on learning but not as an alternative to the key role for teachers• Structured and well-designed: needs careful design and high professionalism alongside inquiry & autonomous learning• Profoundly personalised: acutely sensitive to individual and group differences and offering tailored feedback• Inclusive: such sensitivity to individual and group differences means they are fundamentally inclusive• Social: learning is effective in group settings, when learners collaborate, and when there is a connection to community. 48
  • 49. Cognitive outcomes versus interest Science scores and interest in science are not always fostered simultaneously 640 LOW SCORE HIGH SCORE HIGH INTEREST HIGH INTEREST 620 IDN MEX 600 BRA CHL 580Interest in science score PRT 560 GRC 540 TUR RUS ESP HKG ITA FRA MAC 520 SVK DEU HUN ISR LUX AUT SVN JPN 500 POL BEL CHE EST CZE KOR 480 USA IRL NOR CAN ISL GBR AUS 460 DNK NZL LOW SCORE FIN HIGH SCORE SWE LOW INTEREST NLD LOW INTEREST 440 380 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560 580 600 620 PISA 2006 Science score 49
  • 50. More supportive teaching? PISA 2009 PISA 2000 Change 2000-2009 100 18 90 16 Percentage points change 2000-2009 80 14 70 12 60 10Percentage 50 8 40 6 30 4 20 2 10 0 0 -2 50
  • 51. Ipsative means 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 Denmark Norway Iceland Malaysia Turkey Poland Structuring teaching practices Mexico Brazil Austria Australia Korea Slovak Republic Estonia Spain Slovenia Student-oriented teaching practices Belgium (Fl.) Lithuania Portugal Italy Bulgaria Malta Hungary Ireland51 More innovative teaching practices? Enhanced teaching activities
  • 52. Pedagogies for innovation skills Science score Interest in Science Topics 0.3 0.30.25 0.25 20 0.2 0.2 0.15 0.15 0.1 0.10.05 8 3 6 4 0.05 1 0 0 0 -1 -2 -2 -2 -1 -1-0.05 -0.05 -0.1 -10 -0.1-0.15 -0.15 52
  • 53. Pedagogies for innovation skills Science Enjoyment Science Self-Efficacy 0.3 0.30.25 26 0.25 0.2 0.2 0.15 0.15 15 11 0.1 0.1 4 5 40.05 0.05 1 0 0 0 2 0 -1 -3-0.05 -0.05 -0.1 -0.1-0.15 -0.15 53
  • 54. 6.UNDERSTANDINGEDUCATIONAL INNOVATION 54
  • 55. Further work• CERI publications on skills for innovation and innovation in education in 2012-13• CERI publication on innovative learning environments: analysis of innovative cases• CERI/NSF publication on learning research and implications for innovation in education• Analytical work on innovative teaching practices in science and math• Etc. 55
  • 56. Innovation for 21st C education• Many of the emerging and developing countries focus exclusively on traditional cognitive learning outcomes• How to integrate 21st skills and innovative pedagogies into the educational development agenda?• An ecology of innovation will require visionary leadership, better research evidence, more knowledge-intensive professionalisation, strong communities of practice and open institutions 56
  • 57. Thank you !dirk.vandamme@oecd.org www.oecd.org/edu/ceri 57