Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Measuring innovation in education 2019

1,070 views

Published on

This presentation was given by Stéphan Vincent-Lancrin at the Public Conference “Innovation in education : What has changed in the classroom in the past decade?”.

Measuring innovation in education and understanding how it works is essential to improve the quality of the education sector. Monitoring systematically how pedagogical practices evolve would considerably increase the international education knowledge base. We need to examine whether, and how, practices are changing within classrooms and educational organisations and how students use learning resources. We should know much more about how teachers change their professional development practices, how schools change their ways to relate to parents, and, more generally, to what extent change and innovation are linked to better educational outcomes. This would help policy makers to better target interventions and resources, and get quick feedback on whether reforms do change educational practices as expected. This would enable us to better understand the role of innovation in education.





Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

Measuring innovation in education 2019

  1. 1. MEASURING INNOVATION IN EDUCATION 2019 Stéphan Vincent-Lancrin, Joaquin Urgel, Soumyajit Kar and Gwénaël Jacotin OECD Centre for Educational Research and Innovation
  2. 2. Towards innovation-friendly ecosystems in education? • How do we know what is changing (or staying stable)? • How do we know if there is a lot of innovation or none? • How do we know whether innovation has been good or not? • How do we know that the right practices are diffusing and scaling up? • How do we improve innovation policies in education? Innovation in education Technology School organisation System organisation Research and Development
  3. 3. Oslo Manual 2018: “a new or improved product or process (or combination thereof) that differs significantly from the unit’s previous products or processes and that has been made available to potential users (product) or brought into use by the unit (process)”. Our operational definition: a significant change in students’ exposure to selected key education practices (and in their mix) at the system level. Our international data: PISA, TIMSS and PIRLS databases • Pedagogical practices What we mean by innovation
  4. 4. • How much has a specific educational practice spread or contracted over the past decade? • How much did the mix of educational practices change at the system level? • Has innovation mainly related to technology? • Have all countries implemented similar innovations at the same time? • How does aggregated innovation link with changes in other educational outcomes? Questions that the report answers
  5. 5. Measuring Innovation in Education 2019 What has changed in the classroom? PART I: Innovation (and stability) in 150 educational practices • Pedagogical practices in maths, science, reading • Domain-specific technical skills • Cross-disciplinary technical skills • Domain-specific creative and critical thinking skills • Personalised, collaborative and front-of-class teaching and learning • Homework • Assessment • Learning scaffolding • Access to learning resources • Various school practices • Teacher professional development practices
  6. 6. Measuring Innovation in Education 2019 What has changed in the classroom? • PART II: Innovation by level and category of practice and educational performance • Innovation by education level and broad category of practice • By level of education • By discipline (maths, science, reading) • By type of practice • Innovation and educational outcomes • PART III: Countries’ innovation dashboards • ANNEXES
  7. 7. Coverage of education systems • Country notes: 19 education systems • Report covers about 45 education systems • Additional online tables for further countries Which countries are covered? The report covers innov Report Highlights: Did you know? Available in the report Available in the online version
  8. 8. examples of practices covered and of innovation in practices
  9. 9. 4th grade students practicing skills and procedures on computers in maths lessons Change in and share of students who frequently practice skills and procedures during maths lessons, 2007-2015, teachers report Notes: Darker tones correspond to statistically significant values. * refers to calculations based on other years, based on data availability. The OECD average is based on OECD countries with available data in 2007, 2011 and 2015. Source: Authors' calculations based on TIMSS Databases. On average between 2007 and 2015, 42 more students in 100 frequently practised skills and procedures on computers in maths lessons, reaching a 51% coverage Korea* Chile* Belgium(Fl.)* Portugal* Spain* NorthernIreland(UK)* Japan Ireland* Turkey* Poland* Finland* Germany Slovenia HongKong,China Singapore CzechRepublic Austria* England(UK) Alberta(CAN)* Sweden Hungary Italy Denmark Lithuania OECDaverage RussianFederation SlovakRepublic Quebec(CAN) Norway Netherlands Ontario(CAN) UnitedStates Australia NewZealand 2015 13 25 29 31 39 52 5 50 83 29 29 24 28 30 43 39 m 47 m 43 40 39 47 42 51 56 57 53 56 89 59 79 75 87 2011 28 40 43 43 48 58 2 46 76 20 15 31 29 40 39 37 35 31 40 44 31 42 22 31 41 41 31 31 51 84 25 61 59 81 2007 m m m m m m 1 m m m m 7 5 6 16 11 5 13 5 6 3 1 8 2 9 14 9 3 5 36 5 18 10 13 % of students -14 -14-15 -12 -9 -6 4 14 18 23 24 27 27 34 37 37 38 38 39 42 42 48 51 52 53 54 61 65 74 4 7 9 30 35 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 % point
  10. 10. 4th grade students practicing skills and procedures on computers in maths lessons Change in and share of students who frequently practice skills and procedures during maths lessons, 2007-2015, teachers report Notes: Darker tones correspond to statistically significant values. * refers to calculations based on other years, based on data availability. The OECD average is based on OECD countries with available data in 2007, 2011 and 2015. Source: Authors' calculations based on TIMSS Databases. On average between 2007 and 2015, 42 more students in 100 frequently practised skills and procedures on computers in maths lessons, reaching a 51% coverage Korea* Chile* Belgium(Fl.)* Portugal* Spain* NorthernIreland(UK)* Japan Ireland* Turkey* Poland* Finland* Germany Slovenia HongKong,China Singapore CzechRepublic Austria* England(UK) Alberta(CAN)* Sweden Hungary Italy Denmark Lithuania OECDaverage RussianFederation SlovakRepublic Quebec(CAN) Norway Netherlands Ontario(CAN) UnitedStates Australia NewZealand 2015 13 25 29 31 39 52 5 50 83 29 29 24 28 30 43 39 m 47 m 43 40 39 47 42 51 56 57 53 56 89 59 79 75 87 2011 28 40 43 43 48 58 2 46 76 20 15 31 29 40 39 37 35 31 40 44 31 42 22 31 41 41 31 31 51 84 25 61 59 81 2007 m m m m m m 1 m m m m 7 5 6 16 11 5 13 5 6 3 1 8 2 9 14 9 3 5 36 5 18 10 13 % of students -14 -14-15 -12 -9 -6 4 14 18 23 24 27 27 34 37 37 38 38 39 42 42 48 51 52 53 54 61 65 74 4 7 9 30 35 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 % point
  11. 11. 4th grade students with computers or tablets available during reading lessons Notes: Darker tones correspond to statistically significant values. * refers to calculations based on other years, based on data availability. The OECD average is based on OECD countries with available data in 2006, 2011 and 2016. Source: Authors' calculations based on PIRLS Databases. Change in and share of students who have computers or tablets available during lessons, 2006-2016, teachers report On average between 2006 and 2016, 32 less students in 100 had computers (including tablets) available for use during reading lessons, reaching a 51% coverage
  12. 12. 4th grade students with computers or tablets available during reading lessons Notes: Darker tones correspond to statistically significant values. * refers to calculations based on other years, based on data availability. The OECD average is based on OECD countries with available data in 2006, 2011 and 2016. Source: Authors' calculations based on PIRLS Databases. Change in and share of students who have computers or tablets available during lessons, 2006-2016, teachers report On average between 2006 and 2016, 32 less students in 100 had computers (including tablets) available for use during reading lessons, reaching a 51% coverage
  13. 13. 8th grade students discussing maths homework in class Change in and share of students whose teachers systematically discuss the homework in class, 2007-2015, teachers report On average between 2007 and 2015, 36 more students in maths systematically discussed homework in class, reaching a 58% coverage Chile* NewZealand* SouthAfrica* HongKong,China Japan Turkey Sweden Korea UnitedStates England(UK) Australia Massachusetts(USA)* Italy Norway Ontario(CAN) Indonesia* OECDaverage Minnesota(USA)* Singapore Israel RussianFederation Slovenia Quebec(CAN) Lithuania Hungary 2015 72 26 89 27 10 28 38 25 80 44 47 m 85 44 82 m 58 m 68 72 64 78 79 80 97 2011 83 34 86 34 8 31 22 24 81 40 48 83 83 30 77 58 56 84 59 78 67 86 80 71 96 2007 m m m 24 5 11 18 6 54 13 15 50 51 9 47 23 22 46 30 32 7 19 19 10 8 % of students -10 -8 5 17 20 20 27 31 31 34 35 35 36 38 40 57 59 61 70 89 2 3 33 35 38 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 % point Notes: Darker tones correspond to statistically significant values. * refers to calculations based on other years, based on data availability. The OECD average is based on OECD countries with available data in 2007, 2011 and 2015. Source: Authors' calculations based on TIMSS Databases.
  14. 14. 8th grade students observing and describing natural phenomena in science lessons Change in and share of students whose teachers ask them to observe and describe natural phenomena in at least half the lessons, 2007-2015, teachers report On average between 2007 and 2015, 26 more students in 100 frequently observed and described natural phenomena in science lessons, reaching a 55% coverage Notes: Darker tones correspond to statistically significant values. * refers to calculations based on other years, based on data availability. The OECD average is based on OECD countries with available data in 2007, 2011 and 2015. Source: Authors' calculations based on TIMSS Databases.
  15. 15. 4th grade teachers discussing how to teach a particular topic On average between 2007 and 2015, 13 more students in 100 had their teachers frequently discussing how to teach a particular topic , reaching a 66% coverage Change in and share of students whose teachers discuss with peers how to teach a particular topic often or very often, 2007-2015, teachers report Norway Alberta(CAN)* Austria* Chile* Turkey* Japan Sweden Italy Belgium(Fl.)* Ontario(CAN) Finland* Denmark NewZealand Portugal* UnitedStates OECDaverage CzechRepublic Hungary Spain* Lithuania Korea* Germany Australia SlovakRepublic NorthernIreland(UK)* England(UK) Singapore Ireland* Quebec(CAN) Slovenia RussianFederation Poland* HongKong,China Netherlands 2015 48 m m 60 59 47 60 67 45 62 55 47 76 76 75 66 49 71 67 63 72 61 74 82 69 80 71 51 72 82 84 76 74 64 2011 60 53 33 62 60 55 52 49 41 51 51 32 67 67 66 52 35 59 50 58 54 46 61 60 46 62 57 26 46 61 40 46 35 27 2007 70 62 39 m m 46 58 65 m 59 m 40 67 m 65 53 33 55 m 45 m 42 53 59 m 56 47 m 47 56 56 m 39 24 % of students -22 -9 -6 -2 -2 9 9 11 13 15 16 17 18 18 19 21 23 23 23 24 25 26 26 28 31 35 40 0 2 2 3 3 3 6 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 % point Notes: Darker tones correspond to statistically significant values. * refers to calculations based on other years, based on data availability. The OECD average is based on OECD countries with available data in 2007, 2011 and 2015. Source: Authors' calculations based on TIMSS Databases.
  16. 16. 8th grade science teachers visiting a colleague’s classroom to learn about teaching On average between 2007 and 2015, 13 more students in 100 had their teachers frequently visiting another classroom to learn more about teaching, reaching a 18% coverage Change in and share of students whose teachers visit another classroom often or very often to learn more about teaching, 2007-2015, teachers report Massachusetts(USA)* Chile* Norway Minnesota(USA)* Quebec(CAN) Sweden Italy Slovenia Ontario(CAN) Indonesia* UnitedStates NewZealand* Japan Australia OECDaverage Lithuania Hungary HongKong,China Singapore Israel England(UK) SouthAfrica* Turkey Korea RussianFederation 2015 m 9 9 m 4 8 6 8 11 m 14 17 22 16 18 19 19 20 20 22 25 33 40 39 52 2011 1 10 2 1 3 3 2 11 12 23 6 6 11 4 5 3 3 5 3 5 7 11 2 2 10 2007 4 m 11 2 3 5 2 2 5 12 4 m 11 4 4 3 1 2 2 3 5 m 3 1 13 % of students -3 -2 -1 -1 5 6 6 11 11 12 12 13 16 17 18 18 19 21 22 37 38 40 1 3 11 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 % point Notes: Darker tones correspond to statistically significant values. * refers to calculations based on other years, based on data availability. The OECD average is based on OECD countries with available data in 2007, 2011 and 2015. Source: Authors' calculations based on TIMSS Databases.
  17. 17. Parental involvement in 8th grade school activities On average between 2007 and 2015, 7 more students in 100 had their parents highly or very highly involved in school activities, reaching a 30% coverage Change in and share of students enrolled in schools with high or very high levels of parental involvement in school activities, 2007-2015, school principals report Notes: Darker tones correspond to statistically significant values. * refers to calculations based on other years, based on data availability. The OECD average is based on OECD countries with available data in 2007, 2011 and 2015. Source: Authors' calculations based on TIMSS Databases. Ontario(CAN) Hungary Indonesia* Australia Chile* NewZealand* Turkey Italy UnitedStates Israel Minnesota(USA)* SouthAfrica* Lithuania Slovenia HongKong,China OECDaverage Massachusetts(USA)* RussianFederation Sweden Japan Norway Singapore Korea England(UK) Quebec(CAN) 2015 27 16 m 24 18 25 13 19 31 26 m 16 19 12 24 30 m 20 21 44 31 30 62 43 51 2011 27 18 29 24 21 27 16 21 33 26 42 12 15 12 23 23 42 13 10 37 23 21 43 23 14 2007 41 22 34 29 m m 15 21 31 22 39 m 13 7 17 23 33 9 10 31 18 15 37 17 15 % of students -13 -6 -6 -5 -3 -2 -2 -2 7 10 11 13 13 16 25 26 35 0 3 3 4 5 6 7 9 0 10 20 30 40 % point
  18. 18. synthesising innovation by category: innovation indices
  19. 19. Education Innovation Indices for OECD countries (2006-2016) Innovation indices by level of education Innovation indices by discipline Note: The indices indicate innovation intensity from small (below 20) to large (over 40). Calculations based on the PIRLS, PISA and TIMSS databases. Source: OECD, Measuring Innovation in Education 2019: What Has Changed in the Classroom? • Overall, innovation in education was moderate in OECD countries • Innovation was on an average, equally distributed between primary and secondary education • Changes in maths practices trumped changes in science and reading practices
  20. 20. Innovation in primary and secondary education (2007-15) Notes: Calculations based on TIMSS, PIRLS and PISA databases. Source: OECD, Measuring Innovation in Education 2019: What Has Changed in the Classroom?
  21. 21. Which kind of practices have expanded or contracted the most across the OECD? Areas/practices with the largest increases Areas/practices with the largest decreases
  22. 22. Innovation in teachers’ peer learning practices (2007-15) Notes: The value on top is the composite index in teachers’ peer learning practices computed by summing the absolute values of increases and decreases. Calculations based on TIMSS databases. Source: OECD, Measuring Innovation in Education 2019: What Has Changed in the Classroom?
  23. 23. Innovation in independent knowledge acquisition (2006-16) Notes: The value on top is the composite index in knowledge transmission and acquisition practices computed by summing the absolute values of increases and decreases. Calculations based on PIRLS and TIMSS databases. Source: OECD, Measuring Innovation in Education 2019: What Has Changed in the Classroom?
  24. 24. Innovation in homework practices (2006-16) Notes: The value on top is the composite index in homework practices computed by summing the absolute values of increases and decreases. Calculations based on the PIRLS, PISA and TIMSS databases. Source: OECD, Measuring Innovation in Education 2019: What Has Changed in the Classroom?
  25. 25. Innovation in rote learning practices (2006-16) Notes: The value on top is the composite index in rote learning practices computed by summing the absolute values of increases and decreases. Calculations based on PIRLS and TIMSS databases. Source: OECD, Measuring Innovation in Education 2019: What Has Changed in the Classroom?
  26. 26. Innovation in active learning practices in science (2006-16) Notes: The value on top is the composite index in active learning practices in science computed by summing the absolute values of increases and decreases. Calculations based on PIRLS, PISA and TIMSS databases. Source: OECD, Measuring Innovation in Education 2019: What Has Changed in the Classroom?
  27. 27. Innovation in the availability of school learning resources (2006-16) Notes: The value on top is the composite index in the availability of school learning resources computed by summing the absolute values of increases and decreases. Calculations based on the PIRLS, PISA and TIMSS databases. Source: OECD, Measuring Innovation in Education 2019: What Has Changed in the Classroom?
  28. 28. ICT innovation
  29. 29. Innovation in computer availability in schools (2006-16) Notes: The value on top is the composite index in computer availability in schools computed by summing the absolute values of increases and decreases. Calculations based on the PIRLS, PISA and TIMSS databases. Source: OECD, Measuring Innovation in Education 2019: What Has Changed in the Classroom?
  30. 30. Innovation in ICT use in schools (2006-16) Notes: The value on top is the composite index in ICT use in schools computed by summing the absolute values of increases and decreases. Calculations based on the PIRLS, PISA and TIMSS databases. Source: OECD, Measuring Innovation in Education 2019: What Has Changed in the Classroom?
  31. 31. linking innovation and educational outcomes
  32. 32. Innovation and change in academic outcomes in primary education Note: The correlation coefficient is equal to 0.47. Calculations based on the PIRLS and TIMSS databases Source: OECD, Measuring Innovation in Education 2019: What Has Changed in the Classroom?
  33. 33. Innovation and change in academic outcomes in secondary education Note: The correlation coefficient is equal to 0.22. Calculations based on PISA and TIMSS databases Source: OECD, Measuring Innovation in Education 2019: What Has Changed in the Classroom?
  34. 34. Innovation and change in student enjoyment in learning science in primary Note: The correlation coefficient is equal to 0.40. Calculations based on TIMSS databases Source: OECD, Measuring Innovation in Education 2019: What Has Changed in the Classroom?
  35. 35. Innovation and change in equity of primary science scores Note: The correlation coefficient is equal to -0.42. Calculations based on TIMSS databases Source: OECD, Measuring Innovation in Education 2019: What Has Changed in the Classroom?
  36. 36. Innovation and change in teachers’ ambitions for student achievement in primary education Note: The correlation coefficient is equal to 0.30. The change in secondary teachers’ collective self-efficacy averages the answer of math and science teachers per country. Calculations based on TIMSS databases Source: OECD, Measuring Innovation in Education 2019: What Has Changed in the Classroom?
  37. 37. Innovation and change in teachers’ collective self-efficacy in secondary education Note: The correlation coefficient is equal to 0.27. The change in secondary teachers’ collective self-efficacy averages the answer of math and science teachers per country. Calculations based on TIMSS databases Source: OECD, Measuring Innovation in Education 2019: What Has Changed in the Classroom?
  38. 38. Countries’ innovation dashboards
  39. 39. Educational innovation in England (2006 and 2016) Innovation indices by level of education Innovation indices by discipline ICT related innovation
  40. 40. Educational innovation in England (2006 and 2016): some highlights
  41. 41. Educational innovation in England (2006 and 2016): some highlights Where was the most innovation located? Where was there the most difference with other OECD systems?
  42. 42. Educational innovation in Hungary (2006 and 2016) Innovation indices by level of education Innovation indices by discipline ICT related innovation
  43. 43. Educational innovation in Hungary (2006 and 2016): some highlights
  44. 44. Educational innovation in Hungary (2006 and 2016): some highlights Where was the most innovation located? Where was there the most difference with other OECD systems?
  45. 45. Educational innovation in the United States (2006 and 2016) Innovation indices by level of education Innovation indices by discipline ICT related innovation
  46. 46. Educational innovation in the United States (2006 and 2016): some highlights
  47. 47. Educational innovation in the United States (2006 and 2016): some highlights Where was the most innovation located? Where was there the most difference with other OECD systems?
  48. 48. a few questions
  49. 49. • Is innovation an end in itself, a means to an end, or both? • Can innovation be good even if past innovation has not been effective? • Shall all education systems innovate all the time? • How can memorisation be considered an innovation? • Are all changes considered an innovation? • How do « innovative » practices relate to « alternative » practices? A few questions
  50. 50. concluding remarks
  51. 51. • There is a moderate level of innovation in education, more than one often acknowledges, but probably less than needed given the challenges faced by countries • There is no clear international convergence in innovation and in practices • A large amount of the innovations between 2006 and 2016 have been technology related • While overall countries with more innovation seem to have had improvements in other educational outcomes, we need much better measures to understand the relationship between specific innovations and outcomes Concluding remarks
  52. 52. Stephan.Vincent-Lancrin@oecd.org THANK YOU https://oe.cd/educationceriinnovationstrategy

×