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.
OECD EMPLOYER
BRAND
Playbook
1
PISA 2012
Creative Problem Solving
Students’ skills in tackling
real-life problems
1 April ...
2 PISA in brief
• Over half a million students…
– representing 28 million 15-year-olds in 65 countries/economies
– Schools...
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2006 2009
Routine manual
Nonroutine manual
Routine cognitive
Nonroutine a...
5
TRAFFIC
Problem Solving – Sample Question 1
Julio lives in Silver, Maria lives in Lincoln, and Don lives in Nobel.
They ...
6
TICKETS
You plan to take four trips
around the city on the
subway today. You are a
student, so you can use
concession fa...
7 77 Performance in problem-solving
How well do 15-year-olds engage creatively in
cognitive processing to understand and r...
SingaporeKorea
Japan
Macao-ChinaHong Kong-China
Shanghai-ChinaChinese Taipei
Canada
AustraliaFinland
England (U.K.)Estonia...
99 Excellence in education
Top-performers in problem-solving
1010 The rising demand for advanced skills
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
%
Evolution of employment in occupational groups...
OECD EMPLOYER
BRAND
Playbook
12
1414 Strengths and weaknesses in problem-solving
Which countries have particular
strengths in problem-solving ?
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Patterns of relative performance in problem solving
Problem solvin...
Australia
Brazil
Macao-China
England(U.K.)
Italy
UnitedStates
Serbia
Japan
Korea
Austria
SlovakRepublic
RussianFederation
...
Strengths and weaknesses:
interactive and static tasks
Fig V.3.10
Better performance
on static tasks
Better performance
on...
Strengths and weaknesses:
knowledge-generation and knowledge-utilisation
Fig V.3.10
United States
England
Germany
Czech Re...
Strengths and weaknesses Fig V.3.10
United States
Poland
England
Estonia
Finland
Slovak Rep.
Germany
Austria
Czech Rep.
Fr...
2020 Student resilience
The country where students go to class matters
more than what social class students come from
2121
PISA mathematics performance
by decile of social background
300325350375400425450475500525550575600625650675
Mexico
C...
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Macao-China
Canada
HongKong-China
Japan
Norway
Korea
Estonia
Italy
Sweden
Finland
UnitedArabEmirates
En...
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Macao-China
HongKong-China
Singapore
Korea
Japan
Shanghai-China
ChineseTaipei
Canada
Italy
Eston...
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Canada
Denmark
Netherlands
Estonia
Montenegro
Ireland
England(U.K.)
Korea
Ser...
2626 Country examples
Developing creative problem-solving skills
Country examples
• Involve employers and parents in developing
a vision for education
• Make problem-solving competence an...
2828Lessonsfromhighperformers
Strong performers and successful reformers
Low impact on outcomes
High impact on outcomes
Lo...
2929Lessonsfromhighperformers
Low impact on outcomes
High impact on outcomes
Low feasibility High feasibility
Money pits
M...
3030Lessonsfromhighperformers
Low impact on outcomes
High impact on outcomes
Low feasibility High feasibility
Money pits
M...
Students and perseverance
Percentage of students who reported that the following statements describe someone "very
much li...
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Finland
Korea
Norway
NewZealand
ChineseTaipei
Iceland
Sweden
Qatar
Australia
Denmark
Portug...
Openness to problem solving
Percentage of students who reported "agree" or "strongly agree" with the following statements:...
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Korea
NewZealand
Australia
UnitedKingdom
Finland
Canada
CzechRepublic
Sweden
Lithuania
Ireland
Den...
3535Lessonsfromhighperformers
Low impact on outcomes
High impact on outcomes
Low feasibility High feasibility
Money pits
M...
3636Lessonsfromhighperformers
Low impact on outcomes
High impact on outcomes
Low feasibility High feasibility
Money pits
M...
3737Lessonsfromhighperformers
Low impact on outcomes
High impact on outcomes
Low feasibility High feasibility
Money pits
M...
3838Lessonsfromhighperformers38 School autonomy
39
39
39
Hong Kong-China
Brazil
Uruguay
Albania
Croatia
Latvia
Lithuania
Chinese Taipei
ThailandBulgaria
Jordan
Macao-Chin...
No standardised
math policy
Standardised math
policy455
460
465
470
475
480
485
Less school autonomy
More school autonomy
...
Schools with more autonomy perform better than schools with
less autonomy in systems with more collaboration
Teachers don'...
Schools with more autonomy perform better than schools with
less autonomy in systems with more accountability arrangements...
0 20 40 60 80 100
Written specification of the school's curriculum and
educational goals
Written specification of student-...
4444Lessonsfromhighperformers
Low impact on outcomes
High impact on outcomes
Low feasibility High feasibility
Money pits
M...
4545 Align the resources with the challenges
Hong Kong-China
Brazil
Uruguay
Croatia
Latvia
Chinese Taipei
Thailand
Bulgari...
4646 Adequate resources to address disadvantage
Disadvantaged schools reported
more teacher shortage
Advantaged schools re...
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Shanghai-China
HongKong-China
France
SlovakRepublic
Macao-China
Italy
Switzerland
Qatar
Czec...
4848Lessonsfromhighperformers
Low impact on outcomes
High impact on outcomes
Low feasibility High feasibility
Money pits
M...
4949Lessonsfromhighperformers
Low impact on outcomes
High impact on outcomes
Low feasibility High feasibility
Money pits
M...
5050Lessonsfromhighperformers
Some students learn at high levels All students need to learn at high levels
Student inclusi...
Thank you !
Find out more about PISA at www.pisa.oecd.org
• All national and international publications
• The complete mic...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

PISA 2012 - Creative Problem Solving: Students’ skills in tackling real-life problems

326,177 views

Published on

The capacity to engage creatively in cognitive processing to understand and resolve problem situations where a method of solution is not immediately obvious (including motivational and affective aspects).

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

PISA 2012 - Creative Problem Solving: Students’ skills in tackling real-life problems

  1. 1. OECD EMPLOYER BRAND Playbook 1 PISA 2012 Creative Problem Solving Students’ skills in tackling real-life problems 1 April 2014 Andreas Schleicher
  2. 2. 2 PISA in brief • Over half a million students… – representing 28 million 15-year-olds in 65 countries/economies – Schools and students randomly selected by OECD … 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 – Mathematics, reading, science, problem-solving, financial literacy – Total of 390 minutes of assessment material … and responded to questions on… – their personal background, their schools and their engagement with learning and school • Parents, principals and system leaders provided data on… – school policies, practices, resources and institutional factors that help explain performance differences . …the capacity to engage creatively in cognitive processing to understand and resolve problem situations where a method of solution is not immediately obvious (including motivational and affective aspects). Problem Solving: 85 000 students in 44 countries/economies took an additional 40-min test
  3. 3. 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2006 2009 Routine manual Nonroutine manual Routine cognitive Nonroutine analytic Nonroutine interpersonal Mean task input in percentiles of 1960 task distribution 3 The case for creative problem-solving Trends in different tasks in occupations (United States) Source: Autor, David H. and Brendan M. Price. 2013. "The Changing Task Composition of the US Labor Market: An Update of Autor, Le vy, and Murnane (2003)." MIT Mimeograph, June.
  4. 4. 5 TRAFFIC Problem Solving – Sample Question 1 Julio lives in Silver, Maria lives in Lincoln, and Don lives in Nobel. They want to meet in a suburb on the map. No-one wants to travel for more than 15 minutes. Where could they meet? This is an easy item – Level 1 on the problem-solving scale (below baseline) All information required is given at the outset: it is a static problem An embedded calculator ensures the item measures problem solving – not arithmetics This item focuses on students’ ability to monitor and reflect on solutions.
  5. 5. 6 TICKETS You plan to take four trips around the city on the subway today. You are a student, so you can use concession fares. Use the ticketing machine to find the cheapest ticket and press BUY. Once you have pressed BUY, you cannot return to the question; Problem Solving – Sample Question 2 This is a harder item – Level 5 on the problem-solving scale Students must engage with the machine, and use the feedback and information uncovered to reach a solution: it is an interactive problem This main demand is exploring and understanding (knowledge acquisition) Sample items can be tried at cbasq.acer.edu.au and www.oecd.org/pisa
  6. 6. 7 77 Performance in problem-solving How well do 15-year-olds engage creatively in cognitive processing to understand and resolve problem situations? • Exploring and understanding the information provided with the problem. • Representing and formulating: constructing graphical, tabular, symbolic or verbal representations of the problem situation and formulating hypotheses about the relevant factors and relationships between them. • Planning and executing: devising a plan by setting goals and sub-goals, and executing the sequential steps identified in the plan. • Monitoring and reflecting: monitoring progress, reacting to feedback, and reflecting on the solution, the information provided with the problem, or the strategy adopted.
  7. 7. SingaporeKorea Japan Macao-ChinaHong Kong-China Shanghai-ChinaChinese Taipei Canada AustraliaFinland England (U.K.)Estonia France NetherlandsItalyCzech RepublicGermany United States BelgiumAustriaNorway IrelandDenmark Portugal SwedenRussian Fed. Slovak RepublicPoland SpainSlovenia Serbia Croatia Hungary TurkeyIsrael Chile Brazil Malaysia U.A.E Montenegro UruguayBulgaria Colombia 390 400 410 420 430 440 450 460 470 480 490 500 510 520 530 540 550 560 570 Mean score Strong performance in problem solving Low performance in problem solving Average performance of 15-year-olds in problem solving Fig V.2.3 8
  8. 8. 99 Excellence in education Top-performers in problem-solving
  9. 9. 1010 The rising demand for advanced skills -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 % Evolution of employment in occupational groups defined by PIAAC problem-solving skills Employment of workers with advanced problem-solving skills Employment of workers with poor problem-solving skillsEmployment of workers with medium-low problem-solving skills (PIAAC) Source:PIAAC 2011
  10. 10. OECD EMPLOYER BRAND Playbook 12
  11. 11. 1414 Strengths and weaknesses in problem-solving Which countries have particular strengths in problem-solving ?
  12. 12. 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Patterns of relative performance in problem solving Problem solving performance Mathematics performance Fig V.2.16 Fig V.2.17 Average relationship between problem solving and mathematics performance The United States and England (UK) perform better-than- expected in problem solving. The difference between observed and expected performance is larger among strong performers in mathematics Japan performs better-than-expected in problem solving. The difference between observed and expected performance is larger among low achievers in mathematics Poland’s performance is lower-than-expected in problem solving. The gap between observed and expected performance is similar at all levels of mathematics performance. 15 Spain’s performance is lower-than- expected in problem solving. The gap between observed and expected performance is wider among low achievers in mathematics. Singapore’s performance in problem solving is as high as expected at all levels of mathematics performance
  13. 13. Australia Brazil Macao-China England(U.K.) Italy UnitedStates Serbia Japan Korea Austria SlovakRepublic RussianFederation Portugal Sweden Canada CzechRepublic Chile Norway Singapore France Bulgaria Shanghai-China Poland UnitedArabEmirates Hungary Slovenia Israel Uruguay Montenegro Croatia Spain Ireland HongKong-China Netherlands Estonia Turkey Malaysia Germany Denmark Belgium ChineseTaipei Finland OECDaverage Colombia -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 % Relative performance in problem solving Fig V.2.15 Students' performance in problem solving is lower than their expected performance Students' performance in problem solving is higher than their expected performance 16
  14. 14. Strengths and weaknesses: interactive and static tasks Fig V.3.10 Better performance on static tasks Better performance on interactive tasks 17 United States Germany Austria France Japan Sweden Australia Israel Canada Ireland Belgium Norway Korea Italy Hong Kong-China Chinese Taipei Macao-China Singapore Shanghai-China Poland England Estonia Finland Slovak Rep. Czech Rep. Turkey Hungary Chile Netherlands Spain Denmark Slovenia Portugal Brazil Uruguay Croatia Bulgaria U.A.E. Montenegro Colombia Malaysia Serbia Russian Fed.
  15. 15. Strengths and weaknesses: knowledge-generation and knowledge-utilisation Fig V.3.10 United States England Germany Czech Rep. France Japan Australia Canada Ireland Chile Belgium Spain Portugal Korea Italy Brazil U.A.E. SingaporeColombia Poland Estonia Finland Slovak Rep. AustriaTurkey SwedenHungary Israel NetherlandsDenmark Slovenia Norway Hong Kong-ChinaUruguay Croatia Chinese Taipei Bulgaria Macao-China Montenegro Malaysia Serbia Russian Fed. Shanghai-China Better performance on knowledge- utilisation tasks Better performance on knowledge- generation tasks 18
  16. 16. Strengths and weaknesses Fig V.3.10 United States Poland England Estonia Finland Slovak Rep. Germany Austria Czech Rep. France Japan Turkey Sweden Hungary Australia Israel Canada Ireland Chile Belgium Netherlands Spain Denmark Slovenia Portugal Norway Korea Italy Hong Kong-China Brazil Uruguay Croatia Chinese Taipei Bulgaria Macao-China U.A.E. Montenegro Singapore Colombia Malaysia Serbia Russian Fed. Shanghai-China OECD average OECDaverage Better performance on interactive tasks Better performance on static tasks Better performance on knowledge- acquisition tasks Better performance on knowledge- generation tasks Stronger-than-expected performance on interactive items, weaker-than-expected performance on knowledge-acquisition tasks Stronger-than-expected performance on interactive items and on knowledge-acquisition tasks Weaker-than-expected performance on interactive items and on knowledge-acquisition tasks Weaker-than-expected performance on interactive items , stronger-than-expected performance on knowledge-acquisition tasks 19
  17. 17. 2020 Student resilience The country where students go to class matters more than what social class students come from
  18. 18. 2121 PISA mathematics performance by decile of social background 300325350375400425450475500525550575600625650675 Mexico Chile Greece Norway Sweden Iceland Israel Italy UnitedStates Spain Denmark Luxembourg Australia Ireland UnitedKingdom Hungary Canada Finland Austria Turkey Liechtenstein CzechRepublic Estonia Portugal Slovenia SlovakRepublic NewZealand Germany Netherlands France Switzerland Poland Belgium Japan Macao-China HongKong-China Korea Singapore ChineseTaipei Shanghai-China Source: PISA 2012
  19. 19. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Macao-China Canada HongKong-China Japan Norway Korea Estonia Italy Sweden Finland UnitedArabEmirates England(United… Spain Denmark Australia Croatia Netherlands ChineseTaipei Montenegro UnitedStates Ireland OECDaverage Austria Singapore Poland RussianFederation Slovenia Colombia France Germany Serbia Israel Belgium Shanghai-China Brazil CzechRepublic Malaysia Turkey Chile Portugal Uruguay Bulgaria Hungary SlovakRepublic Problem solving Mathematics Percentageofvariationinperformance explainedbysocio-economicstatus Relationship between socio-economic background and performance in problem solving and mathematics Fig V.4.9a 22
  20. 20. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Macao-China HongKong-China Singapore Korea Japan Shanghai-China ChineseTaipei Canada Italy Estonia Finland Australia England(UK) UnitedStates France Portugal Turkey Netherlands Belgium OECDaverage Spain CzechRepublic Austria Germany Norway Ireland Denmark Sweden Poland RussianFederation Serbia Croatia SlovakRepublic Brazil Slovenia Chile Hungary Colombia Israel Cyprus Malaysia Uruguay Montenegro U.A.E. Bulgaria % Percentage of ‘resilient’ students in problem solving Fig II.2.4 23 Socio-economically disadvantaged students not only score lower in problem solving, they also report lower levels of engagement, drive, motivation and self-beliefs. Resilient students break this link and share many characteristics of advantaged high-achievers. A resilient student is situated in the bottom quarter of the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS) in the country of assessment and performs in the top quarter of students among all countries, after accounting for socio-economic status.
  21. 21. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Finland Norway Sweden Canada Denmark Netherlands Estonia Montenegro Ireland England(U.K.) Korea Serbia Japan ChineseTaipei Australia Singapore Poland CzechRepublic Croatia OECDaverage Italy RussianFederation Spain Slovenia Israel U.A.E. UnitedStates Macao-China Germany Belgium Turkey Malaysia Austria Portugal HongKong-China Shanghai-China SlovakRepublic Colombia Hungary Brazil Uruguay Bulgaria Chile Problem solving Mathematics PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS) Proportionofvariationbetweenschools asapercentageoftheoverall(withinandbetweenschool)variation Between-school differences in problem- solving, mathematics and socio-economic status Fig V.2.12 24
  22. 22. 2626 Country examples Developing creative problem-solving skills
  23. 23. Country examples • Involve employers and parents in developing a vision for education • Make problem-solving competence an overarching goal of the curriculum • Give every student a chance to engage in deep learning through meaningful projects • Support teachers to ensure that project time is learning time Embed learning of 21st century competencies and attitudes such as inquiry-based authentic learning in curricular subjects and co-curricular activities Clear articulation of desired student outcomes to guide schools’ and teachers’ efforts and ensure coherence and alignment of curriculum, pedagogy and assessment. Alberta’s Curriculum Redesign Project Singapore’s 21st Century Competencies Framework Japan’s Zest for Life approach
  24. 24. 2828Lessonsfromhighperformers Strong performers and successful reformers Low impact on outcomes High impact on outcomes Low feasibility High feasibility Money pits Must haves Low hanging fruits Quick wins
  25. 25. 2929Lessonsfromhighperformers Low impact on outcomes High impact on outcomes Low feasibility High feasibility Money pits Must haves Low hanging fruits Quick wins Commitment to universal achievement Gateways, instructional systems Capacity at point of delivery Incentive structures and accountability Resources where they yield most A learning system Coherence
  26. 26. 3030Lessonsfromhighperformers Low impact on outcomes High impact on outcomes Low feasibility High feasibility Money pits Must haves Low hanging fruits Quick wins Commitment to universal achievement Gateways, instructional systems Capacity at point of delivery Incentive structures and accountability Resources where they yield most A learning system Coherence  A commitment to education and the belief that competencies can be learned and therefore all children can achieve  Universal educational standards and personalization as the approach to heterogeneity in the student body… … as opposed to a belief that students have different destinations to be met with different expectations, and selection/stratification as the approach to heterogeneity  Clear articulation who is responsible for ensuring student success and to whom
  27. 27. Students and perseverance Percentage of students who reported that the following statements describe someone "very much like me" or "mostly like me" (*) or "not much like me" or "not at all like me" (**) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Disagree: When confronted with a problem, I give up easily Disagree: I put off difficult problems Agree: I remain interested in the tasks that I start Agree: I continue working on tasks until everything is perfect Agree: When confronted with a problem, I do more than what is expected of me Singapore OECD average Fig III.3.2 31
  28. 28. -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Finland Korea Norway NewZealand ChineseTaipei Iceland Sweden Qatar Australia Denmark Portugal U.A.E. France Greece UnitedKingdom Poland Japan Thailand Jordan SlovakRepublic Macao-China Ireland Canada Spain OECDaverage Germany Latvia HongKong-China UnitedStates Liechtenstein Luxembourg Hungary Shanghai-China Lithuania Austria Montenegro Bulgaria Tunisia Malaysia Switzerland Mexico Uruguay Peru Belgium Turkey Italy Singapore Chile CzechRepublic Romania Argentina Brazil Serbia Kazakhstan Slovenia RussianFed. Indonesia VietNam Colombia CostaRica Netherlands Croatia Estonia Israel Albania Score-pointdifference Score-point difference in mathematics associated with one unit of the index of perseverance Average student Change in performance per one unit of the index among lowest-achieving students Change in performance per one unit of the index among highest-achieving students Perseverant students perform better (mathematics)32 Fig III.3.3
  29. 29. Openness to problem solving Percentage of students who reported "agree" or "strongly agree" with the following statements: 0 20 40 60 80 100 I can handle a lot of information I am quick to understand things I seek explanation for things I can easily link facts together I like to solve complex problems % Poland Singapore OECD average Fig III.3.4 33
  30. 30. -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Korea NewZealand Australia UnitedKingdom Finland Canada CzechRepublic Sweden Lithuania Ireland Denmark ChineseTaipei Norway France Austria Spain Estonia Portugal OECDaverage UnitedStates Latvia Macao-China Liechtenstein Shanghai-China Iceland HongKong-China Greece Slovenia Switzerland Hungary Japan Germany Luxembourg Chile Poland VietNam SlovakRepublic Singapore RussianFed. Italy Mexico Belgium Netherlands CostaRica Uruguay Croatia Turkey Israel Peru U.A.E. Serbia Tunisia Romania Jordan Argentina Bulgaria Malaysia Brazil Qatar Thailand Kazakhstan Indonesia Colombia Montenegro Albania Score-pointdifference Score-point difference in mathematics associated with one unit of the index of students' openness to problem solving Average student Change in performance per one unit of the index among lowest-achieving students Change in performance per one unit of the index among highest-achieving students Students open to problem solving perform better (math)34 Fig III.3.5
  31. 31. 3535Lessonsfromhighperformers Low impact on outcomes High impact on outcomes Low feasibility High feasibility Money pits Must haves Low hanging fruits Quick wins Commitment to universal achievement Gateways, instructional systems Capacity at point of delivery Incentive structures and accountability Resources where they yield most A learning system Coherence  Clear ambitious goals that are shared across the system and aligned with high stakes gateways and instructional systems  Well established delivery chain through which curricular goals translate into instructional systems, instructional practices and student learning (intended, implemented and achieved)  High level of metacognitive content of instruction …
  32. 32. 3636Lessonsfromhighperformers Low impact on outcomes High impact on outcomes Low feasibility High feasibility Money pits Must haves Low hanging fruits Quick wins Commitment to universal achievement Gateways, instructional systems Capacity at point of delivery Incentive structures and accountability Resources where they yield most A learning system Coherence  Capacity at the point of delivery  Attracting, developing and retaining high quality teachers and school leaders and a work organisation in which they can use their potential  Instructional leadership and human resource management in schools  Keeping teaching an attractive profession  System-wide career development …
  33. 33. 3737Lessonsfromhighperformers Low impact on outcomes High impact on outcomes Low feasibility High feasibility Money pits Must haves Low hanging fruits Quick wins Commitment to universal achievement Gateways, instructional systems Capacity at point of delivery Incentive structures and accountability Resources where they yield most A learning system Coherence  Incentives, accountability, knowledge management  Aligned incentive structures For students  How gateways affect the strength, direction, clarity and nature of the incentives operating on students at each stage of their education  Degree to which students have incentives to take tough courses and study hard  Opportunity costs for staying in school and performing well For teachers  Make innovations in pedagogy and/or organisation  Improve their own performance and the performance of their colleagues  Pursue professional development opportunities that lead to stronger pedagogical practices  A balance between vertical and lateral accountability  Effective instruments to manage and share knowledge and spread innovation – communication within the system and with stakeholders around it  A capable centre with authority and legitimacy to act
  34. 34. 3838Lessonsfromhighperformers38 School autonomy
  35. 35. 39 39 39 Hong Kong-China Brazil Uruguay Albania Croatia Latvia Lithuania Chinese Taipei ThailandBulgaria Jordan Macao-China UAE Argentina Indonesia Kazakhstan Peru Costa Rica Tunisia Qatar Singapore Colombia Malaysia Serbia Romania Viet Nam Shanghai-China USA Poland New Zealand Greece UK Estonia Finland Slovak Rep. Luxembourg Germany Austria Czech Rep. France Japan Turkey Sweden Hungary Australia Israel Canada Chile Belgium Netherlands Spain Denmark Switzerland Iceland Slovenia Portugal Norway Korea Italy R² = 0.13 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 Mathematicsperformance(scorepoints) Index of school responsibility for curriculum and assessment (index points) Countries that grant schools autonomy over curricula and assessments tend to perform better in mathematics Source: PISA 2012
  36. 36. No standardised math policy Standardised math policy455 460 465 470 475 480 485 Less school autonomy More school autonomy Schools with more autonomy perform better than schools with less autonomy in systems with standardised math policies Score points School autonomy for curriculum and assessment x system's extent of implementing a standardised math policy (e.g. curriculum and instructional materials) Fig IV.1.16
  37. 37. Schools with more autonomy perform better than schools with less autonomy in systems with more collaboration Teachers don't participate in management Teachers participate in management455 460 465 470 475 480 485 Less school autonomy More school autonomy Score points School autonomy for resource allocation x System's level of teachers participating in school management Across all participating countries and economies Fig IV.1.17
  38. 38. Schools with more autonomy perform better than schools with less autonomy in systems with more accountability arrangements School data not public School data public 464 466 468 470 472 474 476 478 Less school autonomy More school autonomy Score points School autonomy for curriculum and assessment x system's level of posting achievement data publicly Fig IV.1.16
  39. 39. 0 20 40 60 80 100 Written specification of the school's curriculum and educational goals Written specification of student-performance standards Systematic recording of data, including teacher and student attendance and graduation rates, test results… Internal evaluation/self-evaluation External evaluation Written feedback from students (e.g. regarding lessons, teachers or resources) Teacher mentoring Regular consultation with one or more experts over a period of at least six months with the aim of improving… Implementation of a standardised policy for mathematics % Percentage of students in schools whose principal reported that their schools have the following for quality assurance and improvement: Singapore OECD average Quality assurance and school improvement Fig IV.4.14 43
  40. 40. 4444Lessonsfromhighperformers Low impact on outcomes High impact on outcomes Low feasibility High feasibility Money pits Must haves Low hanging fruits Quick wins Commitment to universal achievement Gateways, instructional systems Capacity at point of delivery Incentive structures and accountability Resources where they yield most A learning system Coherence  Investing resources where they can make most of a difference  Alignment of resources with key challenges (e.g. attracting the most talented teachers to the most challenging classrooms)  Effective spending choices that prioritise high quality teachers over smaller classes
  41. 41. 4545 Align the resources with the challenges Hong Kong-China Brazil Uruguay Croatia Latvia Chinese Taipei Thailand Bulgaria Jordan Macao-China UAE Argentina Indonesia Kazakhstan Peru Costa Rica Montenegro Tunisia Qatar Singapore Colombia Malaysia Serbia Romania Viet Nam Shanghai-China USA Poland New Zealand Greece UK Estonia Finland Slovak Rep. Luxembourg Germany AustriaFrance Japan Turkey Sweden Hungary Australia Israel Canada Ireland Chile Belgium SpainDenmark Switzerland Iceland Slovenia Portugal Norway Mexico Korea Italy R² = 0.19 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 -0.500.511.5 Mathematicsperformance(scorepoints) Equity in resource allocation (index points) Greater equityLess equity Adjusted by per capita GDP Countries with better performance in mathematics tend to allocate educational resources more equitably Source: PISA 2012
  42. 42. 4646 Adequate resources to address disadvantage Disadvantaged schools reported more teacher shortage Advantaged schools reported more teacher shortage -0.5 -0.3 -0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 Korea Estonia Israel Latvia Slovenia Italy Poland Singapore Argentina Netherlands Portugal Colombia France Finland Tunisia Macao-China Spain Greece Switzerland Norway RussianFed. Japan Austria Montenegro Croatia Canada OECDaverage Germany Denmark Hungary UnitedKingdom Luxembourg HongKong-China Belgium Iceland VietNam Ireland UnitedStates Chile CzechRepublic Serbia Turkey Mexico Indonesia Uruguay Shanghai-China SlovakRepublic Sweden Brazil NewZealand Australia ChineseTaipei Meanindexdifference Difference between socio-economically disadvantaged and socio-economically advantaged schools A shortage of qualified teachers is more of concern in disadvantaged schools
  43. 43. -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Shanghai-China HongKong-China France SlovakRepublic Macao-China Italy Switzerland Qatar CzechRepublic Israel Thailand Argentina Denmark Belgium VietNam Germany U.A.E. UnitedKingdom Greece Indonesia Spain ChineseTaipei Singapore Japan Finland Uruguay Poland Sweden Australia NewZealand OECDaverage Netherlands Malaysia Austria Luxembourg Bulgaria Mexico Jordan Peru Iceland Portugal Brazil Turkey Romania Canada Norway Tunisia Lithuania Chile Serbia Korea UnitedStates RussianFed. CostaRica Kazakhstan Montenegro Colombia Croatia Slovenia Ireland Latvia Estonia Scorepointdifference before accounting for students' socio-economic status after accounting for students' socio-economic status Difference in mathematics performance, by attendance at pre- primary school Students who attended pre-primary school perform better Fig III.4.12 47
  44. 44. 4848Lessonsfromhighperformers Low impact on outcomes High impact on outcomes Low feasibility High feasibility Money pits Must haves Low hanging fruits Quick wins Commitment to universal achievement Gateways, instructional systems Capacity at point of delivery Incentive structures and accountability Resources where they yield most A learning system Coherence  Coherence of policies and practices  Alignment of policies across all aspects of the system  Coherence of policies over sustained periods of time  Consistency of implementation  Fidelity of implementation (without excessive control)
  45. 45. 4949Lessonsfromhighperformers Low impact on outcomes High impact on outcomes Low feasibility High feasibility Money pits Must haves Low hanging fruits Quick wins Commitment to universal achievement Gateways, instructional systems Capacity at point of delivery Incentive structures and accountability Resources where they yield most A learning system Coherence
  46. 46. 5050Lessonsfromhighperformers Some students learn at high levels All students need to learn at high levels Student inclusion Routine cognitive skills, rote learning Learning to learn, complex ways of thinking, ways of working Curriculum, instruction and assessment Few years more than secondary High-level professional knowledge workers Teacher quality ‘Tayloristic’, hierarchical Flat, collegial Work organisation Primarily to authorities Primarily to peers and stakeholders Accountability What it all means The old bureaucratic system The modern enabling system
  47. 47. Thank you ! Find out more about PISA at www.pisa.oecd.org • All national and international publications • The complete micro-level database Email: Andreas.Schleicher@OECD.org Twitter: SchleicherEDU and remember: Without data, you are just another person with an opinion

×