Education Transformation and PISA - Andreas Schleicher, OECD Director for Education and Skills, Opening Presentation made at the Education Fast Forward 23 Debate
•
3 recomendaciones•1,058 vistas
600,000 students representing about 32 million 15-year-olds in the schools of the 79 participating countries and economies, sat the 2-hour PISA test in 2018.
Recomendados
Recomendados
Más contenido relacionado
La actualidad más candente
La actualidad más candente (20)
Similar a Education Transformation and PISA - Andreas Schleicher, OECD Director for Education and Skills, Opening Presentation made at the Education Fast Forward 23 Debate
Similar a Education Transformation and PISA - Andreas Schleicher, OECD Director for Education and Skills, Opening Presentation made at the Education Fast Forward 23 Debate (20)
Más de EduSkills OECD
Más de EduSkills OECD (20)
Último
Último (20)
Education Transformation and PISA - Andreas Schleicher, OECD Director for Education and Skills, Opening Presentation made at the Education Fast Forward 23 Debate
- 1. PISA 2018 Results Programme for International Student Assessment Education Transformation and PISA Andreas Schleicher
- 2. PISA 2018 but also responded to questions about their aspirations for their future careers, and from where they learn about the world of work
- 3. Participating countries 2018 – 79 participating
- 4. OECD average reading score 340 350 360 370 380 390 400 410 420 430 440 450 460 470 480 490 500 510 520 530 540 550 560 Reading literacy in PISAStudentperformance 2009 2012 20152006 20182000 2003 9%…can distinguish between fact and opinion, based on implicit cues pertaining to the content or source of the information 7% 2000
- 5. OECD average 340 350 360 370 380 390 400 410 420 430 440 450 460 470 480 490 500 510 520 530 540 550 560 Reading literacy in PISAStudentperformance 2009 2012 20152006 20182000 2003 36% enrolled 73% enrolled 55% enrolled 65% enrolled B-S-J-Z (China) Singapore Macao (China) Hong Kong (China)*Estonia Canada FinlandIreland KoreaPoland SwedenNew Zealand United States* United KingdomJapanAustralia Chinese TaipeDenmark NorwayGermany Slovenia BelgiumFrance Portugal*Czech Republic Netherlands* AustriaSwitzerland CroatiaLatviaRussia ItalyHungaryLithuania IcelandBelarus IsraelLuxembourg UkraineTurkey Slovak RepublicGreece Chile Malta Serbia United Arab Emirates Romania UruguayCosta Rica Moldova MontenegroMexico Bulgaria Jordan Malaysia BrazilColombia Brunei DarussalamQatarAlbania Bosnia and HerzegovinaArgentinaPeru Saudi Arabia ThailandNorth Macedonia Baku (Azerbaijan)Kazakhstan Georgia Panama Indonesia Morocco LebanonKosovo Dominican RepublicPhilippines
- 6. OECD average 340 350 360 370 380 390 400 410 420 430 440 450 460 470 480 490 500 510 520 530 540 550 560 2009 2012 20152006 20182000 2003 36% enrolled 73% enrolled Poverty need not be destinyStudentperformance B-S-J-Z (China) Singapore Macao (China) Hong Kong (China)*Estonia Canada FinlandIreland KoreaPoland SwedenNew Zealand United States* United KingdomJapanAustralia Chinese TaipeDenmark NorwayGermany Slovenia BelgiumFrance Portugal*Czech Republic Netherlands* AustriaSwitzerland CroatiaLatviaRussia ItalyHungaryLithuania IcelandBelarus IsraelLuxembourg UkraineTurkey Slovak RepublicGreece Chile Malta Serbia United Arab Emirates Romania UruguayCosta Rica Moldova MontenegroMexico Bulgaria Jordan Malaysia BrazilColombia Brunei DarussalamQatarAlbania Bosnia and HerzegovinaArgentinaPeru Saudi Arabia ThailandNorth Macedonia Baku (Azerbaijan)Kazakhstan Georgia Panama Indonesia Morocco LebanonKosovo Dominican RepublicPhilippines
- 7. 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 Finland Iceland Baku(Azerbaijan) Norway Ireland Denmark Canada Portugal NewZealand Estonia Poland Sweden UnitedKingdom Kosovo Latvia Albania Mexico Georgia UnitedStates BosniaandHerzegovina SaudiArabia Malaysia Australia Kazakhstan CostaRica Belarus Philippines Jordan Montenegro Morocco Chile Indonesia Macao(China) Moldova Russia Thailand DominicanRepublic Ukraine Greece Colombia France Korea ChineseTaipei Lithuania Panama Croatia B-S-J-Z(China) Uruguay Malta Brazil HongKong(China) Peru BruneiDarussalam NorthMacedonia Singapore Luxembourg Japan Switzerland Argentina Slovenia Romania Serbia Belgium Italy Qatar Turkey CzechRepublic Hungary SlovakRepublic Germany Bulgaria UnitedArabEmirates Netherlands Lebanon Israel Between-school variation Within-school variation PercentageofthetotalvariationinperformanceacrossOECDcountries Can the closest school be always the best school? Variation in reading performance between and within schools Fig II.4.1 Performance variation between schools Performance variation within schools
- 8. Learning time ≠ learning outcomes 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Finland Germany Switzerland Sweden Estonia NewZealand Japan CzechRepublic Macao(China) Netherlands Ireland France UnitedKingdom Australia Norway Iceland Canada Belgium Slovenia HongKong(China) Latvia OECDaverage Lithuania Uruguay Luxembourg Portugal SlovakRepublic Denmark Poland Hungary Singapore Austria UnitedStates ChineseTaipei Israel Croatia Korea Russia Bulgaria Greece Italy Turkey Chile Brazil Colombia Mexico CostaRica Montenegro Peru Qatar UnitedArabEmirates Thailand DominicanRepublic Scorepointsinreadingperhouroflearningtime Hours Time in school Learning out of school Productivity Note: Learning time is based on reports by 15-year-old students in the same country/economy in response to the PISA 2015 questionnaire, Productivity is measured by score points in reading per hour of total learning time
- 9. Beyond reading, math and science Growth mindset
- 10. Chile Montenegro Japan Mexico Kazakhstan Hungary France Canada Serbia Macao (China) Jordan United States Argentina Denmark Malaysia Lebanon Morocco Ireland Ukraine Brunei Darussalam Slovenia Israel Qatar Italy Australia Peru Croatia Germany Panama Malta Dominican Republic AustriaRussia Albania Czech Republic Iceland Bulgaria Estonia Sweden Latvia Switzerland Singapore Korea Moldova New Zealand Hong Kong (China) Colombia Turkey Netherlands Lithuania Georgia B-S-J-Z (China) Bosnia and Herzegovina Thailand Baku (Azerbaijan) Romania Finland Poland Kosovo Portugal Brazil Costa Rica United Arab Emirates Slovak Republic Uruguay Indonesia Chinese Taipei Saudi Arabia Greece Philippines Luxembourg Belarus United Kingdom R² = 0.47 330 380 430 480 530 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 Averagereadingscore Percentage of students who disagreed or strongly disagreed that their intelligence cannot change very much (%) OECDaverage OECD average Growth mindset and reading performance Fig II.14.3 More students holding a growth mindset Higherperformance Similar relationship within most countries (Figure III.14.2)
- 11. -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 Motivation to master tasks Self-efficacy Fear of failure Learning goals Value of school Changeintheindex Growth mindset and student attitudes Change in the following indices when students disagreed or strongly disagreed that "your intelligence is something about you that you can’t change very much“: Fig III.14.5 All linear regression models account for students' and schools' socio-economic profile
- 12. -5 0 5 10 15 20 Colombia Mexico Morocco NewZealand Malta Baku(Azerbaijan) Uruguay Kazakhstan BruneiDarussalam CostaRica Iceland Kosovo Lithuania Thailand Indonesia Brazil Argentina Chile Australia Ukraine UnitedStates Sweden Latvia BosniaandHerzegovina DominicanRepublic Denmark Romania Albania Russia Ireland Moldova Israel Slovenia Georgia UnitedArabEmirates Malaysia SaudiArabia Canada Qatar Belarus Finland UnitedKingdom OECDaverage Italy Greece Singapore Serbia Peru France Croatia Hungary Jordan Netherlands Turkey SlovakRepublic Montenegro Philippines Portugal Austria Poland Japan Bulgaria Luxembourg Belgium(Flemish) Switzerland Germany ChineseTaipei Lebanon Estonia Korea Macao(China) NorthMacedonia CzechRepublic Panama HongKong(China) B-S-J-Z(China) Percentage-pointdifference Difference in the share of academically resilient between those who exhibited a growth mindset and those who did not Against the odds: Growth mindset and student resilience Fig II.3.5
- 13. What school life means for students’ life
- 14. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 It was clear to me that the teacher liked teaching us The enthusiasm of the teacher inspired me It was clear that the teacher likes to deal with the topic of the lesson The teacher showed enjoyment in teaching Score-pointdifferenceinreading compared to students who reported “strongly disagree” Disagree Agree Strongly agree Teacher enthusiasm and reading performance Fig III.5.3
- 15. -0.60 -0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 Index of disciplinary climate Index of exposure to bullying Index of sense of belonging at school Index of teacher support Index of teacher feedback Index of student co-operation Index of student competition Changeinstudents’averagelifesatisfactionassociatedwith aone-unitincreaseintheschool-levelindices After accounting for student and school characteristics Before accounting for student and school characteristics Students' life satisfaction and school climate Change in the school-level index associated with a one-point change on the student life-satisfaction scale Fig III.11.7 GreaterLifeSatisfaction
- 16. -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Netherlands Denmark Japan Germany Georgia Austria Croatia CzechRepublic Switzerland Kazakhstan Ukraine Belgium Indonesia Iceland VietNam Kosovo Belarus Norway Estonia NorthMacedonia Israel Slovenia Lithuania Malaysia Luxembourg Russia Hungary Greece Moldova Albania B-S-J-Z(China) OECDaverage Finland Uruguay Romania Thailand Mexico ChineseTaipei Philippines Spain UnitedArabEmirates Italy Serbia Macao(China) SlovakRepublic Panama Latvia Chile Sweden Argentina Montenegro Poland Lebanon France Baku(Azerbaijan) BosniaandHerzegovina CostaRica Peru DominicanRepublic Qatar Colombia Portugal Australia Bulgaria HongKong(China) Turkey BruneiDarussalam Jordan NewZealand Korea SaudiArabia Ireland Singapore Morocco UnitedKingdom Brazil Malta UnitedStates Index of student co-operation Index of student competition Meanindex Student co-operation and competition Fig III.8.1 Student competition is relatively higher than student co-operation Student co-operation is relatively higher than student competition
- 17. Inclusion The right to be equal The right to be different Social background GenderLocation Immigration
- 18. Students with disadvantaged social background Students with advantaged social background Growth mindset Positive feeling Life satisfaction Sense of belonging Bullying Discipline Teacher enthusiasm Teacher support Co-operation Compounding disadvantage
- 19. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Thailand UnitedStates Mexico Korea Turkey Singapore Greece Serbia Ireland Canada BosniaandHerzegovina UnitedArabEmirates Qatar Chile Romania Portugal Lithuania Montenegro Brazil B-S-J-Z(China) Argentina Belarus ChineseTaipei Albania NorthMacedonia CzechRepublic SlovakRepublic HongKong(China) Sweden Jordan Belgium Australia Malaysia Spain Norway Japan Bulgaria Kazakhstan France Hungary Macao(China) OECDaverage Estonia UnitedKingdom BruneiDarussalam Slovenia Poland Malta Latvia Netherlands Israel Russia Baku(Azerbaijan) Moldova Uruguay Ukraine Italy NewZealand Denmark Croatia Finland Luxembourg Iceland Switzerland Austria Germany % Percentage of students amongst those who have attained at least minimum proficiency (Level 2) in the three core PISA subjects and are high performers (Level 4) in at least one subject High performers among all students Disadvantaged students Advantaged students High performers who do not expect to complete higher education Fig II.6.5
- 20. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Argentina Lebanon Greece Albania Chile Qatar Turkey Sweden Brazil UnitedKingdom NorthMacedonia Australia BruneiDarussalam Montenegro Serbia France Denmark Ireland Hungary Croatia Belgium UnitedArabEmirates Israel Estonia Portugal Malaysia Malta Luxembourg Slovenia Thailand NewZealand OECDaverage-36 Kazakhstan Iceland Canada Lithuania Baku(Azerbaijan) Italy Germany Russia Latvia Singapore Poland Norway Bulgaria Romania Switzerland Jordan Moldova Belarus SlovakRepublic UnitedStates B-S-J-Z(China) Finland Austria ChineseTaipei Netherlands CzechRepublic Macao(China) Korea HongKong(China) Ukraine Indonesia Japan Percentageoftopperformerswhoexpectacareerinthefield Expect to work as science or engineering professionals Top performers among all students Girls Boys Gender gap in career expectations amongst top performers High performers in mathematics and/or science who aspire to science and engineering professionals Fig II.8.8
- 21. -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 Peru Uruguay UnitedArabEmirates Thailand Australia HongKong(China) Turkey Luxembourg Brazil SaudiArabia Colombia Panama Philippines Argentina B-S-J-Z(China) Israel UnitedStates NewZealand Slovenia Malta DominicanRepublic Macao(China) Indonesia Jordan Morocco Canada UnitedKingdom Belgium Switzerland Ireland Spain Denmark Germany Lebanon BruneiDarussalam Sweden Korea Baku(Azerbaijan) OECDaverage SlovakRepublic Greece Mexico Russia Norway VietNam Japan Chile Malaysia Hungary Qatar Kazakhstan Estonia Serbia CzechRepublic ChineseTaipei BosniaandHerzegovina Iceland France Albania Netherlands Belarus Singapore Montenegro Georgia Italy CostaRica Portugal Ukraine Poland Kosovo Croatia Latvia Finland Bulgaria Moldova Lithuania Romania NorthMacedonia Meanindexdifferencebetweenadvantagedand disadvantagedschools Index of shortage of education staff Index of shortage of educational material Few systems align resources with needs Fig II.5.5 Disadvantaged schools have more resources than advantaged schools Disadvantaged schools have fewer resources than advantaged schools Based on principals’ reports
- 22. Looking forward The future of PISA
- 23. The policies that PISA shaped, and the policies that shaped PISA • Seeing what is possible in education –Helping policy-makers and educators to look outwards • Placing national standards in a broader perspective • Exposing ‘grade inflation’ • Contextualising curricular choices • Lowering the political cost of action • Raising the political cost of inaction • Generating hypotheses
- 24. The policies that PISA shaped, and the policies that shaped PISA • Embracing a wider range of cognitive, social and emotional skills – The kinds of things that are easy to teach and test have become easy to digitise and automate • Assessing how students engage with the digital world – Providing real-time access to the digital world • Bridging the gap between summative and formative assessments – Create multi-layered assessment systems that extend from students to classrooms to schools to regional to national and even international levels – Provide a window into students’ thinking and understanding, and reveal the strategies a student uses to solve a problem • Enhancing relevance – Provide productive feedback, at appropriate levels of detail, to fuel improvement decisions.
- 25. Find out more about our work at www.oecd.org/pisa PISA 2018: Insights and Implications PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do PISA 2018 Results (Volume II): Where All Students Can Succeed PISA 2018 Results (Volume III): What School Life Means for Students’ Lives Take the test: www.oecd.org/pisa/test FAQs: www.oecd.org/pisa/pisafaq PISA indicators on Education GPS: http://gpseducation.oecd.org PISA Data Explorer: www.oecd.org/pisa/data Email: Andreas.Schleicher@OECD.org Thank you