How to best shape effective learning and teaching?

1 Elige Educar How to best shape effective learning and teaching? 15 October 2014, Santiago Andreas Schleicher

2 Quantitative expansion is the easy part The dilemma for educators The kinds of things that are easy to teach and test are also easy to digitise, automate and outsource

3 Changes in the demand for skills Trends in different tasks in occupations (United States) Mean task input in percentiles of 1960 task distribution 70 65 60 55 50 Routine manual Nonroutine manual Routine cognitive Nonroutine analytic Nonroutine interpersonal 45 40 35 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2006 2009 Source: Autor, David H. and Brendan M. Price. 2013. "The Changing Task Composition of the US Labor Market: An Update of Autor, Levy, and Murna ne (2003)." MIT Mimeograph, June.

Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status 4 Most teachers value 21 st century pedagogies Fig II.3.3 Percentage of lower secondary teachers who "agree" or "strongly agree" that: Chile Average My role as a teacher is to facilitate students' own inquiry Students should be allowed to think of solutions to practical problems themselves before the teacher shows them how they are solved Thinking and reasoning processes are more important than specific curriculum content Students learn best by finding solutions to problems on their own 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after acc ounting for socio-economic status 5 but teaching practices do not always reflect that Fig II.3.3 Percentage of lower secondary teachers who report using the following teaching practices "frequently" or "in all or nearly all lessons" Chile Average Present a summary of recently learned content Check students' exercise books or homework Refer to a problem from everyday life or work to demonstrate why new knowledge is useful Let students practice similar tasks until teacher knows that every student has understood the subject matter Students work in small groups to come up with a joint solution to a problem or task Give different work to the students who have difficulties learning and/or to those who can advance faster Students use ICT for projects or class work Students work on projects that require at least one week to complete 0 20 40 60 80 100

6 Aligning priorities Combining equity and excellence

Mean score 580 570 560 550 High mathematics performance Shanghai-China performs above this line (613) Chinese Taipei Singapore Hong Kong-China Korea Average performance of 15-year-olds in Mathematics Fig I.2.13 540 530 520 510 500 490 480 470 460 450 No measurable 440 difference between 430 public and private 420 schools (after accounting for social background) 410 Poland Belgium Germany Austria Slovenia New Zealand Denmark Czech Republic France Luxembourg Latvia Portugal Spain Slovak Republic United States Hungary Israel Greece Romania Chile Macao-China Japan Liechtenstein Switzerland Netherlands Estonia Finland Canada Viet Nam Australia Ireland United Kingdom Iceland Norway Italy Russian Fed. Lithuania Sweden Croatia Serbia Turkey Low mathematics performance Bulgaria U.A.E. Kazakhstan Thailand Malaysia Mexico 12 countries perform below this line

High mathematics performance Chinese Taipei Singapore Hong Kong-China Korea Average performance of 15-year-olds in mathematics Strong socio-economic impact on student performance Poland Belgium Germany Austria Slovenia New Zealand Denmark Czech Republic France Luxembourg Latvia Portugal Spain Slovak Republic United States Hungary Israel Macao-China Japan Liechtenstein Switzerland Netherlands Estonia Finland Canada Viet Nam Australia Ireland United Kingdom Iceland Norway Italy Russian Fed. Lithuania Sweden Croatia Socially equitable distribution of learning opportunities Greece Romania Chile Serbia Turkey Bulgaria U.A.E. Kazakhstan Thailand Malaysia Mexico Low mathematics performance

2012 Singapore Chinese Taipei Korea Hong Kong-China Japan Macao-China Switzerland Liechtenstein Netherlands Estonia Poland Belgium Canada Finland Germany Viet Nam Strong socio-economic Denmark Austria Socially equitable New Zealand Australia impact on student Slovenia Ireland distribution of learning Czech Rep. Iceland performance 26 24 22France 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2opportunities 0 UK Luxembourg Latvia Norway Portugal Italy US Russian Fed. Spain Lithuania Slovak Rep. Sweden Hungary Croatia Israel Chile Bulgaria Romania Greece Turkey Serbia United Arab Emirates Malaysia Kazakhstan Thailand Mexico

Australia Austria Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Strong Israel socio-economic Italy impact on student Japan performance Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands Slovak Rep. New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Rep. Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey UK US Netherlands Estonia Poland Belgium Canada Finland Germany Denmark Austria Socially equitable New Zealand Australia Slovenia Ireland distribution of learning Czech Rep. Iceland France opportunities UK Luxembourg Norway Portugal Italy US Spain Sweden Hungary Chile Switzerland Israel Greece Turkey Korea Japan Mexico 2012

Australia Austria Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Rep. Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey UK US Australia Austria Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Rep. Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey UK US

Australia Austria Belgium Canada Chile Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands Slovak Rep. New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Rep. Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey UK US Shanghai Singapore Singapore Korea Japan Switzerland Netherlands Estonia Poland Belgium Canada Finland Germany Denmark Austria New Zealand Australia Slovenia Ireland Czech Rep. Iceland France UK Luxembourg Norway Portugal Italy US Spain Sweden Hungary Israel Chile Turkey 2003 Chile 2001 Greece Turkey Mexico 2003-2012

14 Strengthening resilience The country where students go to class matters more than what social class students come from

15 Resilience in education PISA performance by decile of social background Mexico Chile Greece Norway Sweden Iceland Israel Italy United States Spain Denmark Luxembourg Australia Ireland United Kingdom Hungary Canada Finland Austria Turkey Liechtenstein Czech Republic Estonia Portugal Slovenia Slovak Republic New Zealand Germany Netherlands France Switzerland Poland Belgium Japan Macao-China Hong Kong-China Korea Singapore Chinese Taipei Shanghai-China 300 325 350 375 400 425 450 475 500 525 550 575 600 625 650 675 Source: PISA 2012

Low impact on outcomes 16 Must haves High impact on outcomes Quick wins Lessons from high performers Low feasibility Catching up with the top-performers High feasibility Money pits Low hanging fruits

Low impact on outcomes 17 Must haves High impact on outcomes Commitment to universal achievement Quick wins Lessons from high performers Capacity at point of delivery Low feasibility Coherence Resources where they yield most A learning system Gateways, instructional systems High feasibility Incentive structures and accountability Money pits Low hanging fruits

Low impact on outcomes 18 Lessons from high performers Low feasibility High impact on outcomes A commitment Must haves to education and the belief that Quick wins Commitment to universal achievement competencies can be learned and therefore all children can achieve Capacity at Universal point of delivery educational standards and Resources personalization as the approach to heterogeneity where in the they student yield body most as opposed to a belief that students have different Gateways, instructional destinations to be met with different expectations, and systems selection/stratification as the approach to heterogeneity Coherence A learning system Clear articulation who is responsible for ensuring student success and to whom High feasibility Incentive structures and accountability Money pits Low hanging fruits

Countries where students have stronger beliefs Fig III.4.5 19 in their abilities perform better in mathematics Mean index of mathematics self-efficacy 650 Mean mathematics performance 600 550 500 450 400 350 OECD average Shanghai-China Singapore Hong Kong-China Korea Chinese Taipei Japan Macao-China Switzerland Netherlands Estonia Finland Canada Liechtenstein Belgium Poland Germany Viet Nam Denmark Slovenia New Zealand Latvia Italy Portugal Austria Australia Russian Fed. Hungary Croatia Luxembourg Greece Slovak Republic Spain Turkey Israel Sweden Norway Serbia Lithuania Czech Republic U.A.E. United Kingdom Thailand Malaysia Romania Iceland Chile Bulgaria Kazakhstan Ireland United States Montenegro France Costa Rica Brazil Uruguay Mexico Albania Argentina Tunisia Colombia Qatar Jordan Indonesia Peru R² = 0.36 300-0,60-0,40-0,20 0,00 0,20 0,40 0,60 0,80 1,00 1,20

23 Perceived self-responsibility for failure in mathematics Fig III.3.6 Percentage of students who reported "agree" or "strongly agree" with the following statements: Japan Chile OECD average Sometimes I am just unlucky The teacher did not get students interested in the material Sometimes the course material is too hard This week I made bad guesses on the quiz My teacher did not explain the concepts well this week I m not very good at solving mathematics problems 0 20 40 60 80 100 %

24 A continuum of support Make learning central, encourage engagement and responsibility Be acutely sensitive to individual differences Provide continual assessment with formative feedback Be demanding for every student Ensure that students feel valued and included and learning is collaborative 24

Low impact on outcomes 25 Lessons from high performers Low feasibility Must haves Capacity at point of delivery Coherence High impact on outcomes Commitment to universal achievement Quick wins Clear ambitious goals that are shared across the system and aligned with Resources high stakes gateways and instructional systems where they yield most Well established delivery chain Gateways, through instructional which curricular goals translate into instructional systems systems, instructional practices and student learning (intended, implemented and A learning achieved) system High level of metacognitive content of instruction High feasibility Incentive structures and accountability Money pits Low hanging fruits

Low impact on outcomes 26 26 Capacity at the point of delivery Lessons from high performers Low feasibility High impact on outcomes Must haves Quick wins Attracting, developing and retaining high quality teachers and school Commitment leaders and to a work universal organisation achievement in which they can use their potential Capacity Instructional leadership and human resource at point of delivery Resources management in schools where they yield most Keeping teaching an attractive profession System-wide career development Coherence A learning system Gateways, instructional systems High feasibility Incentive structures and accountability Money pits Low hanging fruits

Teacher shortage Fig IV.3.5 Mean index Top quarter of this index Bottom quarter of this index 3 2,5 2 1,5 Mean index 1 0,5 0-0,5-1 -1,5 Luxembourg Jordan Thailand Turkey Shanghai-China Israel Colombia Peru Chile Netherlands Mexico Germany Viet Nam Russian Fed. Uruguay Norway Kazakhstan Indonesia Belgium Italy Malaysia Australia Brazil Iceland U.A.E. Singapore New Zealand Korea Switzerland Estonia Macao-China Costa Rica OECD average Sweden Argentina Tunisia Austria Qatar Ireland Chinese Taipei France Denmark United Kingdom Hong Kong-China Albania Japan Canada Slovak Republic Latvia Greece United States Czech Republic Croatia Finland Montenegro Romania Hungary Lithuania Slovenia Spain Serbia Portugal Bulgaria Poland

28 Adequate resources to address disadvantage 1,5 A shortage of qualified teachers is more of concern in disadvantaged schools Difference between socio-economically disadvantaged and socio-economically advantaged schools 1,3 Mean index difference 1,1 0,9 0,7 0,5 0,3 Disadvantaged schools reported more teacher shortage 0,1-0,1-0,3 Advantaged schools reported more teacher shortage -0,5 Korea Estonia Israel Latvia Slovenia Italy Poland Singapore Argentina Netherlands Portugal Colombia France Finland Tunisia Macao-China Spain Greece Switzerland Norway Russian Fed. Japan Austria Montenegro Croatia Canada OECD average Germany Denmark Hungary United Kingdom Luxembourg Hong Kong-China Belgium Iceland Viet Nam Ireland United States Chile Czech Republic Serbia Turkey Mexico Indonesia Uruguay Shanghai-China Slovak Republic Sweden Brazil New Zealand Australia Chinese Taipei

29 Prepare for work in disadvantaged schools Prepare teachers for work in disadvantage Reinforce initial teacher training including curriculum content for disadvantage Strengthening diagnostic capacity Include practical field experience Career and financial incentives Preparation Provide mentoring in disadvantage Improve working conditions Both new and experienced teachers benefit Pedagogical and relational strategies 29

Mean mathematics performance, by school location, 30 Teachers' after accounting perceptions for socio-economic of the value status of teaching Fig II.3.3 Percentage of lower secondary teachers who "agree" or "strongly agree" that teaching profession is a valued profession in society 100 90 80 Percentage of teachers 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Malaysia Singapore Korea Abu Dhabi (UAE) Finland Mexico Alberta (Canada) Flanders (Belgium) Netherlands Australia England (UK) Romania Israel United States Chile Average Norway Japan Latvia Serbia Bulgaria Denmark Poland Iceland Estonia Brazil Italy Above-average performers in PISA Czech Republic Portugal Croatia Spain Sweden France Slovak Republic

31 Countries Mean mathematics where teachers performance, believe by school their profession location, is valued show after higher accounting levels of for student socio-economic achievement status Fig II.3.3 Relationship between lower secondary teachers' views on the value of their profession in society and the country s share of top mathematics performers in PISA 2012 45 40 Singapore Share of mathematics top performers 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Poland Estonia France Australia Czech Republic England (UK) Slovak Republic Italy Iceland Portugal Norway Israel Sweden Spain Denmark Latvia United States Croatia Serbia Bulgaria Romania Chile Brazil Korea Flanders (Belgium) Japan R 2 = 0.24 r= 0.49 Netherlands Alberta (Canada) Finland Mexico 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Percentage of teachers who agree that teaching is valued in society

Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after acc ounting for socio-economic status 32 Teachers and feedback Fig II.3.3 On average across TALIS countries, Just above half of the teachers report receiving feedback on their teaching from one or two sources...and only one in 5 receive feedback from three sources.

33 Teachers Mean mathematics feedback performance, : by school location, after accounting for socio-economic status direct classroom observations Fig II.3.3 Principals School Management Other teachers 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Bulgaria Poland United States Romania Alberta (Canada) Croatia Czech Republic Abu Dhabi (UAE) Flanders (Belgium) Serbia Slovak Republic Japan Israel Average Singapore Latvia Brazil Mexico Malaysia Sweden Estonia England (UK) Norway Finland Portugal Denmark Korea Chile Italy Netherlands France Spain Iceland Australia Percentage of teachers

Mean mathematics performance, by school location, 34 Feedback after accounting and change for socio-economic in behavior status Fig II.3.3 Percentage of lower secondary teachers who report a "moderate" or "large" positive change in the following issues after they received feedback on their work Average Chile 100 90 Personal Pedagogical Professional 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Confidence as a teacher Motivation Job satisfaction Knowledge and understanding of main subject field(s) Teaching practices Student assessments to improve student learning Classroom management practices Methods for teaching students with special needs Public recognition Job responsibilities Role in school development initiatives Amount of professional development Likelihood of career advancement Salary and/or financial bonus

Mean mathematics performance, by school location, 35 Consequences after accounting of for feedback socio-economic status Fig II.3.3 Percentage of lower secondary teachers who "agree" or "strongly agree" that: Average Average A development or training plan is established to improve their work as a teacher A mentor is appointed to help teachers improve his/her teaching Teacher appraisal and feedback have little impact upon the way teachers teach in the classroom The best performing teachers in this school receive the greatest recognition If a teacher is consistently underperforming, he/she would be dismissed 0 20 40 60 80

36 Math teaching math teaching PISA = reason mathematically and understand, formulate, employ and interpret mathematical concepts, facts and procedures

37 Focus on word problems Fig I.3.1a Index of exposure to word problems 2,50 2,00 1,50 1,00 Formal math situated in a word problem, where it is obvious to students what mathematical knowledge and skills are needed 0,50 0,00 Viet Nam Macao-China Shanghai-China Turkey Uruguay Greece Hong Kong-China Chinese Taipei Portugal Brazil Serbia Bulgaria Singapore Netherlands Japan Argentina Costa Rica Lithuania Tunisia New Zealand Czech Republic Israel Korea Latvia Qatar Italy United States Estonia Ireland Australia Mexico United Arab Emirates Norway Malaysia Kazakhstan United Kingdom Romania OECD average Albania Colombia Indonesia Sweden Belgium Peru Thailand Denmark Russian Federation Canada Slovak Republic Hungary Germany Croatia Luxembourg Montenegro Chile Poland Finland Austria Slovenia France Switzerland Jordan Liechtenstein Spain Iceland

38 Focus on conceptual understanding Fig I.3.1b Index of exposure to formal mathematics 2,50 2,00 1,50 1,00 0,50 0,00 Sweden Iceland Tunisia Argentina Switzerland Brazil Luxembourg Ireland Netherlands New Zealand Costa Rica Austria Liechtenstein Malaysia Indonesia Denmark United Kingdom Uruguay Lithuania Germany Australia Chile OECD average Slovak Republic Thailand Qatar Finland Portugal Colombia Mexico Peru Czech Republic Israel Italy Belgium Hong Kong-China Poland France Spain Montenegro Greece Turkey Slovenia Viet Nam Hungary Bulgaria Kazakhstan Chinese Taipei Canada United States Estonia Romania Latvia Serbia Japan Korea Croatia Albania Russian Federation United Arab Emirates Jordan Macao-China Singapore Shanghai-China Iceland

Low impact on outcomes 39 Lessons from high performers Must haves High impact on outcomes Commitment to universal achievement Aligned incentive structures Quick wins Incentives, accountability, knowledge management Capacity For students at point of How delivery gateways affect the strength, direction, Resources clarity and nature of the incentives operating on students where at each they stage yield of their most education Degree to which students have incentives to take tough courses and study hard Opportunity costs for staying in school and performing Gateways, well instructional For teachers systems Coherence Make innovations in pedagogy and/or organisation A learning system Improve their own performance and the performance of their colleagues Low feasibility High feasibility Pursue professional development opportunities that lead to stronger pedagogical practices Incentive structures and A balance between vertical and lateral accountability accountability Effective instruments to manage and share knowledge and spread innovation communication within the system and with stakeholders around it Money pits Low hanging fruits A capable centre with authority and legitimacy to act

40 40 Align autonomy with accountability Lessons from high performers The question is not how many charter schools you have but how you enable every teacher to assume charter-like autonomy 40

Schools with more autonomy perform better than schools with less autonomy in systems with standardised math policies Fig IV.1.16 School autonomy for curriculum and assessment x system's extent of implementing a standardised math policy (e.g. curriculum and instructional materials) Score points 485 480 475 470 465 460 455 Less school autonomy Standardised math policy No standardised math policy More school autonomy

Schools with more autonomy perform better than schools with less autonomy in systems with more collaboration Fig IV.1.17 School autonomy for resource allocation x System's level of teachers participating in school management Across all participating countries and economies 485 Score points 480 475 470 465 460 455 Less school autonomy Teachers participate in management Teachers don't participate in management More school autonomy

44 Quality assurance and school improvement Fig IV.4.14 ercentage of students in schools whose principal reported that their schools have the following for quality assurance and improvement: Chile Singapore OECD average Implementation of a standardised policy for mathematics Regular consultation with one or more experts over a period of at least six months with the aim of improving Teacher mentoring Written feedback from students (e.g. regarding lessons, teachers or resources) External evaluation Internal evaluation/self-evaluation Systematic recording of data, including teacher and student attendance and graduation rates, test results Written specification of student-performance standards Written specification of the school's curriculum and educational goals 0 20 40 60 80 100 %

Low impact on outcomes 45 Lessons from high performers Low feasibility Must haves High impact on outcomes Commitment to universal achievement Quick wins Investing resources where they can make most of a difference Capacity at point of delivery Alignment of resources Resources with key challenges (e.g. attracting the most where talented they yield teachers most to the most challenging classrooms) Gateways, instructional Effective spending choices that prioritise high quality systems teachers over smaller classes Coherence A learning system High feasibility Incentive structures and accountability Money pits Low hanging fruits

Mean mathematics performance, by school location, 46 What after teachers accounting do beyond for socio-economic teaching status Fig II.3.3 Average number of 60-minute hours teachers report spending on the following tasks in an average week Finland Malaysia School management Flanders (Belgium) Abu Dhabi (United Arab Emirates) Communication with parents Italy Israel Malaysia All other tasks Sweden Malaysia Japan Extracurricular activities Finland Korea Student counselling Finland Malaysia Team work Finland Korea Finland Malaysia Singapore Portugal Administrative work Marking Finland Japan Croatia 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Number of hours Planning

47 Align the resources with the challenges 700 650 Countries with better performance in mathematics tend to allocate educational resources more equitably Shanghai-China Mathematics performance (score points) 600 550 500 450 400 Costa Rica Peru Mexico Chinese Taipei Viet Nam Korea Singapore R² = 0,19 Hong Kong-China Estonia Japan Poland Switzerland Slovenia Canada Latvia Finland Belgium Macao-China Germany New Zealand Ireland Iceland France Slovak UK Rep. Austria Australia Denmark Spain Romania Croatia Sweden Israel Hungary USA Turkey Greece Bulgaria Portugal Italy Norway Thailand Serbia Chile Malaysia Uruguay Kazakhstan Brazil Jordan Indonesia UAE Montenegro Colombia Argentina Tunisia Luxembourg 350 300 1,5 1 Qatar 0,5 Adjusted by per capita GDP 0-0,5 Less equity Equity in resource allocation (index points) Greater equity Source: PISA 2012

48 Square school choice with equity Controlled choice Financial incentives for schools Use student and school assessments Financial incentives Assistance for disadvantaged parents Foster collaboration among teachers and schools Inform parents 48

Low impact on outcomes 49 Must haves High impact on outcomes Commitment to universal achievement Quick wins Lessons from high performers Capacity at point of delivery Coherence of policies and practices Alignment of policies across all aspects of the system Coherence Coherence of policies over sustained periods of time Low feasibility Consistency of implementation Fidelity of implementation (without excessive control) Resources where they yield most A learning system Gateways, instructional systems High feasibility Incentive structures and accountability Money pits Low hanging fruits

Low impact on outcomes 50 Must haves High impact on outcomes Commitment to universal achievement Quick wins Lessons from high performers Capacity at point of delivery Low feasibility Coherence Resources where they yield most A learning system Gateways, instructional systems High feasibility Incentive structures and accountability Money pits Low hanging fruits

51 What it all means The old bureaucratic system Student inclusion The modern enabling system Lessons from high performers Some students learn at high levels Routine cognitive skills, rote learning Few years more than secondary Tayloristic, hierarchical Curriculum, instruction and assessment Teacher quality Work organisation All students need to learn at high levels Learning to learn, complex ways of thinking, ways of working High-level professional knowledge workers Flat, collegial Accountability Primarily to authorities Primarily to peers and stakeholders

52 52 Thank you Lessons from high performers Find out more about our work at www.oecd.org All 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 52