Downloaded 86 times
Uploaded byEduSkills OECD
Empowering and Enabling Teachers
The document discusses the need for educational transformation amid the rise of automation and digitization, emphasizing the importance of engagement, individual differences, and continual assessment in teaching strategies. It presents data on student performance and socioeconomic factors, highlighting the disparity in educational resources between advantaged and disadvantaged schools. Furthermore, it advocates for a collaborative and integrated approach to education that prioritizes professional development and community involvement in learning.
More Related Content
Similar to Empowering and Enabling Teachers
![2011 c-oslo [english] - rev 1.1](https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/2011-c-osloenglish-rev1-1-110330055917-phpapp02-thumbnail.jpg?width=640&height=640&fit=bounds)
Empowering and Enabling Teachers
- 1. Making education everybody’sbusiness Empowering and enabling teachers Andreas Schleicher 30 March 2017
- 2. The kind ofthings that are easy to teach are now easy to automate, digitize or outsource 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.
- 4. 4 Digitalisation Democratizing Concentrating Particularizing Homogenizing Empowering Disempowering 1m $ /employee 120 k$ / employee Scale without mass
- 5. Trends in scienceperformance (PISA) 2006 2009 2012 2015 OECD 450 470 490 510 530 550 570 Country average science performance Studentperformance
- 6. Trends in scienceperformance 450 470 490 510 530 550 570 2006 2009 2012 2015 Country average science performance
- 7. Spending per studentand learning outcomes Slovak Republic Czech Republic Estonia Israel Poland Korea Portugal New Zealand Canada Germany Spain France Italy Singapore Finland Japan Slovenia Ireland Iceland Netherlands Sweden Belgium UK Australia Denmark United States Austria Norway Switzerland Luxembourg Viet Nam Jordan Peru Thailand Malaysia Uruguay Turkey Colombia Tunisia Mexico Montenegro Brazil Bulgaria Chile Croatia Lithuania Latvia Hungary Shanghai-China 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 0 20 000 40 000 60 000 80 000 100 000 120 000 140 000 160 000 180 000 200 000 Average spending per student from the age of 6 to 15 (USD, PPPs) Low spending High spending PISAMathPerformance
- 8. Learning time andstudent performance Figure II.6.23 Finland Germany Switzerland Japan Estonia Sweden Netherlands New Zealand Macao (China) Iceland Hong Kong (China) Chinese Taipei Uruguay Singapore Poland United States Israel Bulgaria Korea Russia Italy Greece B-S-J-G (China) Colombia Chile Mexico Brazil Costa Rica Turkey Montenegro Peru Qatar Thailand United Arab Emirates Tunisia Dominican Republic R² = 0.21 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 35 40 45 50 55 60 PISAsciencescore Total learning time in and outside of school OECD average OECD average OECDaverage
- 9. Learning time andscience performance Figure II.6.23 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Finland Germany Switzerland Japan Estonia Sweden Netherlands NewZealand Australia CzechRepublic Macao(China) UnitedKingdom Canada Belgium France Norway Slovenia Iceland Luxembourg Ireland Latvia HongKong(China) OECDaverage ChineseTaipei Austria Portugal Uruguay Lithuania Singapore Denmark Hungary Poland SlovakRepublic Spain Croatia UnitedStates Israel Bulgaria Korea Russia Italy Greece B-S-J-G(China) Colombia Chile Mexico Brazil CostaRica Turkey Montenegro Peru Qatar Thailand UnitedArabEmirates Tunisia DominicanRepublic Scorepointsinscienceperhouroftotallearningtime Hours Intended learning time at school (hours) Study time after school (hours) Score points in science per hour of total learning time
- 10. What PISA saysabout effective teaching
- 11. Memorisation is lessuseful as problems become more difficult (OECD average) R² = 0.81 0.70 1.00 300 400 500 600 700 800 Difficulty of mathematics item on the PISA scale Source: Figure 4.3 2 Difficult problem Easy problem Greater success Less success Odds ratio
- 12. Control strategies arealways helpful but less so as problems become more difficult (OECD average) R² = 0.31 0.95 1.20 300 400 500 600 700 800 Difficulty of mathematics item on the PISA scale Source: Figure 5.2 13 Difficult problem Greater success Less success Easy problem Odds ratio
- 13. Elaboration strategies aremore useful as problems become more difficult (OECD average) R² = 0.82 0.80 1.50 300 400 500 600 700 800 Difficulty of mathematics item on the PISA scaleSource: Figure 6.2 4 Difficult problem Greater success Less success Easy problem Odds ratio
- 14. Teaching and learningstrategies in mathematics 5 R² = 0.10 More teacher- directed instructionTeaching More memorisation Learning OECD average More elaboration More student-oriented instruction Chinese Taipei Vietnam Macao-China Korea Hong-Kong China Singapore Japan Shanghai- China Ireland Hungary France Croatia United Kingdom Australia New Zealand Uruguay Israel
- 15. Approaches to teaching Engagement andcareer expectations Learning outcomes Student-oriented Teacher-directed
- 17. Some students learnat high levels
- 18. All students learnat high levels
- 19. Singapore Japan EstoniaChinese Tapei Finland Macao(China) CanadaViet Nam Hong Kong (China)B-S-J-G (China) KoreaNew ZealandSlovenia Australia United KingdomGermany Netherlands Switzerland Ireland Belgium DenmarkPolandPortugal NorwayUnited StatesAustriaFrance Sweden Czech Rep. Spain Latvia Russia Luxembourg Italy Hungary LithuaniaCroatia Iceland IsraelMalta Slovak Rep. Greece Chile Bulgaria United Arab EmiratesUruguay Romania Moldova Turkey Trinidad and Tobago ThailandCosta Rica QatarColombia Mexico MontenegroJordan Indonesia Brazil Peru Lebanon Tunisia FYROM Kosovo Algeria Dominican Rep. (332) 350 400 450 500 550 Meanscienceperformance Higherperfomance Science performance and equity in PISA (2015) Some countries combine excellence with equity High performance High equity Low performance Low equity Low performance High equity High performance Low equity More equity
- 20. Poverty is notdestiny – Learning outcomes and social background by international deciles of the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS) 280 330 380 430 480 530 580 630 DominicanRepublic40 Algeria52 Kosovo10 Qatar3 FYROM13 Tunisia39 Montenegro11 Jordan21 UnitedArabEmirates3 Georgia19 Lebanon27 Indonesia74 Mexico53 Peru50 CostaRica38 Brazil43 Turkey59 Moldova28 Thailand55 Colombia43 Iceland1 TrinidadandTobago14 Romania20 Israel6 Bulgaria13 Greece13 Russia5 Uruguay39 Chile27 Latvia25 Lithuania12 SlovakRepublic8 Italy15 Norway1 Spain31 Hungary16 Croatia10 Denmark3 OECDaverage12 Sweden3 Malta13 UnitedStates11 Macao(China)22 Ireland5 Austria5 Portugal28 Luxembourg14 HongKong(China)26 CzechRepublic9 Poland16 Australia4 UnitedKingdom5 Canada2 France9 Korea6 NewZealand5 Switzerland8 Netherlands4 Slovenia5 Belgium7 Finland2 Estonia5 VietNam76 Germany7 Japan8 ChineseTaipei12 B-S-J-G(China)52 Singapore11 Scorepoints Bottom decile Second decile Middle decile Ninth decile Top decile Figure I.6.7 % of students in the bottom international deciles of ESCS OECD median student
- 21. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Sweden Estonia Russia Latvia Bulgaria Iceland Norway Hungary Denmark Finland Singapore Israel Belgium HongKong(China) Spain SlovakRepublic Uruguay France Macao(China) Brazil B-S-J-G(China) Japan Germany CzechRepublic Lithuania Slovenia Thailand Austria Croatia Italy ChineseTaipei OECDaverage Poland Peru Korea Mexico Luxembourg Greece Montenegro DominicanRepublic NewZealand UnitedKingdom UnitedStates Switzerland CostaRica Qatar UnitedArabEmirates Colombia Australia Canada Chile Ireland Tunisia Portugal Turkey Years Disadvantaged schools Advantagedschools Number of years in pre-primary education among students attending socio-economically … Attendance at pre-primary school by schools’ socio-economic profile Table II.6.51 OECD average
- 22. Differences in educationalresources between advantaged and disadvantaged schools Figure I.6.14 -3 -2 -2 -1 -1 0 1 1 CABA(Argentina) Mexico Peru Macao(China) UnitedArabEmirates Lebanon Jordan Colombia Brazil Indonesia Turkey Spain DominicanRepublic Georgia Uruguay Thailand B-S-J-G(China) Australia Japan Chile Luxembourg Russia Portugal Malta Italy NewZealand Croatia Ireland Algeria Norway Israel Denmark Sweden UnitedStates Moldova Belgium Slovenia OECDaverage Hungary ChineseTaipei VietNam CzechRepublic Singapore Tunisia Greece TrinidadandTobago Canada Romania Qatar Montenegro Kosovo Netherlands Korea Finland Switzerland Germany HongKong(China) Austria FYROM Poland Albania Bulgaria SlovakRepublic Lithuania Estonia Iceland CostaRica UnitedKingdom Latvia Meanindexdifferencebetweenadvantaged anddisadvantagedschools Index of shortage of educational material Index of shortage of educational staff Disadvantaged schools have more resources than advantaged schools Disadvantaged schools have fewer resources than advantaged schools
- 23. -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 Staff resisting change Teachers being too strict with students Teachers notmeeting individual students’ needs Teacher absenteeism Teachers not being well prepared for classes Student use of alcohol or illegal drugs Students intimidating or bullying other students Students skipping classes Student truancy Students lacking respect for teachers Score-pointdifference After accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile Before accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile Student and teacher behaviour hindering learning and science performance Figure II.3.10
- 24. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Croatia Austria Slovenia Italy Montenegro FYROM Bulgaria Belgium Netherlands ChineseTaipei Japan Hungary Greece Korea France Kosovo Turkey CzechRepublic OECDaverage Australia Portugal CABA(Argentina) Luxembourg Thailand SlovakRepublic Colombia Mexico Russia Switzerland Indonesia Albania CostaRica Germany Lithuania Georgia Macao(China) Ireland Uruguay Algeria Spain Chile Latvia B-S-J-G(China) UnitedKingdom Brazil Estonia UnitedArabEmirates Poland DominicanRepublic Sweden Disadvantaged schools Advantagedschools Enrolment in pre-vocational or vocational programmes, by schools’ socio-economic profile %
- 25. 3 0 30 Make learning central,encourage engagement and responsibility Be acutely sensitive to individual differences Provide continual assessment with formative feedback Be demanding for every student with a high level of cognitive activation Ensure that students feel valued and included and learning is collaborative A continuum of support
- 26.
- 27.
- 28. Professionalism External forces exerting pressureand influence inward on an occupation Internal motivation and efforts of the members of the profession itself Professionalism is the level of autonomy and internal regulation exercised by members of an occupation in providing services to society
- 29. Professionalism Public confidence inprofession and professionals Professional preparation and learning Collective ownership of professional practice Decisions made in accordance with the body of knowledge o the profession Acceptance of professional responsibility in the name of the profession and accountability towards the profession
- 30. Student-teacher ratios andclass size Figure II.6.14 CABA (Argentina) Jordan Viet Nam Poland United States Chile Denmark Hungary B-S-G-J (China) Turkey Georgia Chinese Taipei Mexico Russia Albania Hong Kong (China) Japan Belgium Algeria Colombia Peru Macao (China) Switzerland Malta Dominican Republic Netherlands Singapore Brazil Kosovo Finland Thailand R² = 0.25 5 10 15 20 25 30 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Student-teacherratio Class size in language of instruction High student-teacher ratios and small class sizes Low student-teacher ratios and large class sizes OECD average OECDaverage
- 31. The power ofreputationational metrics
- 32.
- 33. User-generated wisdom Recognising bothstudents and adults as resources for the co-creation of communities, for the design of learning and for the success of students
- 34. The past wasdivided Teachers and content divided by subjects and student destinations Schools designed to keep students inside, and the rest of the world outside
- 35. The future isintegrated Integrated: Emphasising integration of subjects, integration of students and integration of learning contexts Connected: with real-world contexts, and permeable to the rich resources in the community Less subject-based, more project-based
- 36.
- 37. Diversity Embracing diversity withdifferentiated pedagogical practices
- 38. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 HongKong(China) Macao(China) Estonia Singapore Spain Portugal Canada Switzerland UnitedKingdom Germany Slovenia Australia Netherlands NewZealand Austria Belgium OECDaverage Denmark Norway UnitedStates Ireland Sweden France Italy Russia Croatia Luxembourg Greece CABA(Argentina) Israel CostaRica Jordan UnitedArabEmirates Qatar % Non-immigrant studentsImmigrant students Percentage of resilient students by immigrant background Figure I.7.8 Resilient students come from the bottom 25% of the ESCS index within their country/economy and perform among the top 25% across all countries/economies, after taking socio-economic status into account
- 39. Standardisation and Conformity Standardisationand compliance lead students to be educated in batches of age, following the same standard curriculum, all assessed at the same time.
- 40. Ingenious Building instruction fromstudent passions and capacities, helping students personalise their learning and assessment in ways that foster engagement and talents.
- 41. Learning a place Schoolsas technological islands, that is technology was deployed mostly to support existing practices for efficiency gains
- 42. Learning an activity Technologiesliberating learning from past conventions and connect learners in new and powerful ways. The past was interactive, the future is participative
- 43.
- 44.
- 45. Policy levers toteacher professionalism Knowledge base for teaching (initial education and incentives for professional development) Autonomy: Teachers’ decision- making power over their work (teaching content, course offerings, discipline practices) Peer networks: Opportunities for exchange and support needed to maintain high standards of teaching (participation in induction, mentoring, networks, feedback from direct observations) Teacher professionalism
- 46. Teacher professionalism Autonomy: Teachers’decision- making power over their work (teaching content, course offerings, discipline practices) Knowledge base for teaching (initial education and incentives for professional development) Peer networks: Opportunities for exchange and support needed to maintain high standards of teaching (participation in induction, mentoring, networks, feedback from direct observations)
- 47. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Discussindividual students Shareresources Teamconferences Collaboratefor commonstandards Teamteaching CollaborativePD Jointactivities Classroom observations Percentageofteachers Average Professional collaboration Percentage oflower secondary teachers who report doing the following activities at least once per month Professional collaboration among teachers Exchange and co-ordination (OECD countries)
- 48. Teachers Self-Efficacy andProfessional Collaboration 11.40 11.60 11.80 12.00 12.20 12.40 12.60 12.80 13.00 13.20 13.40 Never Onceayearorless 2-4timesayear 5-10timesayear 1-3timesamonth Onceaweekormore Teacherself-efficacy(level) Teach jointly as a team in the same class Observe other teachers’ classes and provide feedback Engage in joint activities across different classes Take part in collaborative professional learning Less frequently More frequently
- 49. Administrative control andaccountability
- 50. Professional forms ofwork organisation
- 51. Resources Curriculum Disciplinarypolicies Assessmentpolicies Admissionspolicies Resources Curriculum Disciplinarypolicies Assessmentpolicies Admissionspolicies Resources Curriculum Disciplinarypolicies Assessmentpolicies Admissionspolicies Resources Curriculum Disciplinarypolicies Assessmentpolicies Admissionspolicies Resources Curriculum Disciplinarypolicies Assessmentpolicies Admissionspolicies -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 Correlations between theresponsibilities for school governance and science performance Figure II.4.8 Lower science performance Higher science performance Students score lower in science when the school governing board holds more responsibility for admissions policies School principal Teachers School governing board Local or regional education authority National education authority
- 52. Effective governance… 58 Focuses onprocesses, not structures • Number of levels and power at each are not what make or break a good system, but rather the strength of the alignment across the system, the involvement of actors and the processes underlying governance and reform. Is flexible and able to adapt to change and unexpected events • Strengthening a system’s ability to learn from feedback is fundamental Works through building capacity, stakeholder involvement and open dialogue • Involvement of more stakeholders only works when there is a strategic vision and a set of processes to harness their ideas and input Requires a whole-of-system approach • Aligning policies, roles and responsibilities to improve efficiency and reduce potential overlap Harnesses evidence and research to inform policy and reform • A strong knowledge system combines data, research findings and expert practitioner knowledge. The key is knowing what to use, when, why and how.
- 53.
- 54.
- 55. 61 Making educational reformhappen • Clear and consistent priorities (across governments and across time), ambition and urgency, and the capacity to learn rapidly. Shared vision • Appropriate targets, real-time data, monitoring, incentives aligned to targets, accountability, and the capacity to intervene where necessary. Performance management • Building professional capabilities, sharing best practice and innovation, flexible management, and frontline ethos aligned with system objectives. Frontline capacity • Strong leadership at every level, including teacher leadership, adequate process design and consistency of focus across agencies. Delivery architecture
- 56. Find out moreabout our work at www.oecd.org/pisa – All publications – The complete micro-level database Email: [email protected] Twitter: SchleicherOECD Wechat: AndreasSchleicher Thank you