This presentation was given by Stéphan Vincent-Lancrin at the Public Conference “Innovation in education : What has changed in the classroom in the past decade?”. Measuring innovation in education and understanding how it works is essential to improve the quality of the education sector. Monitoring systematically how pedagogical practices evolve would considerably increase the international education knowledge base. We need to examine whether, and how, practices are changing within classrooms and educational organisations and how students use learning resources. We should know much more about how teachers change their professional development practices, how schools change their ways to relate to parents, and, more generally, to what extent change and innovation are linked to better educational outcomes. This would help policy makers to better target interventions and resources, and get quick feedback on whether reforms do change educational practices as expected. This would enable us to better understand the role of innovation in education.

1. MEASURING INNOVATION IN
EDUCATION 2019
Stéphan Vincent-Lancrin, Joaquin Urgel,
Soumyajit Kar and Gwénaël Jacotin
OECD Centre for Educational Research
and Innovation

2. Towards innovation-friendly ecosystems in education?
• How do we know what is changing (or
staying stable)?
• How do we know if there is a lot of
innovation or none?
• How do we know whether innovation
has been good or not?
• How do we know that the right practices
are diffusing and scaling up?
• How do we improve innovation policies
in education?
Innovation
in
education
Technology
School
organisation
System
organisation
Research
and
Development

3. Oslo Manual 2018: “a new or improved product or process (or
combination thereof) that differs significantly from the unit’s previous
products or processes and that has been made available to potential users
(product) or brought into use by the unit (process)”.
Our operational definition: a significant change in students’ exposure
to selected key education practices (and in their mix) at the system level.
Our international data: PISA, TIMSS and PIRLS databases
• Pedagogical practices
What we mean by innovation

4. • How much has a specific educational practice spread or contracted over
the past decade?
• How much did the mix of educational practices change at the system
level?
• Has innovation mainly related to technology?
• Have all countries implemented similar innovations at the same time?
• How does aggregated innovation link with changes in other educational
outcomes?
Questions that the report answers

5. Measuring Innovation in Education 2019
What has changed in the classroom?
PART I: Innovation (and stability) in 150
educational practices
• Pedagogical practices in maths, science, reading
• Domain-specific technical skills
• Cross-disciplinary technical skills
• Domain-specific creative and critical thinking skills
• Personalised, collaborative and front-of-class teaching
and learning
• Homework
• Assessment
• Learning scaffolding
• Access to learning resources
• Various school practices
• Teacher professional development practices

6. Measuring Innovation in Education 2019
What has changed in the classroom?
• PART II: Innovation by level and category of
practice and educational performance
• Innovation by education level and broad category
of practice
• By level of education
• By discipline (maths, science, reading)
• By type of practice
• Innovation and educational outcomes
• PART III: Countries’ innovation dashboards
• ANNEXES

7. Coverage of education systems
• Country notes: 19
education systems
• Report covers about 45
education systems
• Additional online
tables for further
countries
Which countries are covered? The report covers innov
Report Highlights: Did you know?
Available in the report
Available in the online version

8. examples of practices covered
and of innovation in practices

9. 4th grade students practicing skills and procedures on
computers in maths lessons
Change in and share of students who frequently practice skills and procedures during
maths lessons, 2007-2015, teachers report
Notes: Darker tones correspond to statistically significant values. * refers to calculations based on other years, based on data
availability. The OECD average is based on OECD countries with available data in 2007, 2011 and 2015.
Source: Authors' calculations based on TIMSS Databases.
On average between
2007 and 2015, 42
more students in 100
frequently practised
skills and procedures
on computers in
maths lessons,
reaching a 51%
coverage
Korea*
Chile*
Belgium(Fl.)*
Portugal*
Spain*
NorthernIreland(UK)*
Japan
Ireland*
Turkey*
Poland*
Finland*
Germany
Slovenia
HongKong,China
Singapore
CzechRepublic
Austria*
England(UK)
Alberta(CAN)*
Sweden
Hungary
Italy
Denmark
Lithuania
OECDaverage
RussianFederation
SlovakRepublic
Quebec(CAN)
Norway
Netherlands
Ontario(CAN)
UnitedStates
Australia
NewZealand
2015 13 25 29 31 39 52 5 50 83 29 29 24 28 30 43 39 m 47 m 43 40 39 47 42 51 56 57 53 56 89 59 79 75 87
2011 28 40 43 43 48 58 2 46 76 20 15 31 29 40 39 37 35 31 40 44 31 42 22 31 41 41 31 31 51 84 25 61 59 81
2007 m m m m m m 1 m m m m 7 5 6 16 11 5 13 5 6 3 1 8 2 9 14 9 3 5 36 5 18 10 13
% of
students
-14 -14-15 -12 -9 -6 4
14 18
23 24 27 27
34 37 37 38 38 39 42 42
48 51 52 53 54
61 65
74
4 7 9
30
35
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
% point

10. 4th grade students practicing skills and procedures on
computers in maths lessons
Change in and share of students who frequently practice skills and procedures during
maths lessons, 2007-2015, teachers report
Notes: Darker tones correspond to statistically significant values. * refers to calculations based on other years, based on data
availability. The OECD average is based on OECD countries with available data in 2007, 2011 and 2015.
Source: Authors' calculations based on TIMSS Databases.
On average between
2007 and 2015, 42
more students in 100
frequently practised
skills and procedures
on computers in
maths lessons,
reaching a 51%
coverage
Korea*
Chile*
Belgium(Fl.)*
Portugal*
Spain*
NorthernIreland(UK)*
Japan
Ireland*
Turkey*
Poland*
Finland*
Germany
Slovenia
HongKong,China
Singapore
CzechRepublic
Austria*
England(UK)
Alberta(CAN)*
Sweden
Hungary
Italy
Denmark
Lithuania
OECDaverage
RussianFederation
SlovakRepublic
Quebec(CAN)
Norway
Netherlands
Ontario(CAN)
UnitedStates
Australia
NewZealand
2015 13 25 29 31 39 52 5 50 83 29 29 24 28 30 43 39 m 47 m 43 40 39 47 42 51 56 57 53 56 89 59 79 75 87
2011 28 40 43 43 48 58 2 46 76 20 15 31 29 40 39 37 35 31 40 44 31 42 22 31 41 41 31 31 51 84 25 61 59 81
2007 m m m m m m 1 m m m m 7 5 6 16 11 5 13 5 6 3 1 8 2 9 14 9 3 5 36 5 18 10 13
% of
students
-14 -14-15 -12 -9 -6 4
14 18
23 24 27 27
34 37 37 38 38 39 42 42
48 51 52 53 54
61 65
74
4 7 9
30
35
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
% point

11. 4th grade students with computers or tablets available during
reading lessons
Notes: Darker tones correspond to statistically significant values. * refers to calculations based on other years, based on data
availability. The OECD average is based on OECD countries with available data in 2006, 2011 and 2016.
Source: Authors' calculations based on PIRLS Databases.
Change in and share of students who have computers or tablets available during lessons,
2006-2016, teachers report
On average between
2006 and 2016, 32
less students in 100
had computers
(including tablets)
available for use
during reading
lessons, reaching a
51% coverage

12. 4th grade students with computers or tablets available during
reading lessons
Notes: Darker tones correspond to statistically significant values. * refers to calculations based on other years, based on data
availability. The OECD average is based on OECD countries with available data in 2006, 2011 and 2016.
Source: Authors' calculations based on PIRLS Databases.
Change in and share of students who have computers or tablets available during lessons,
2006-2016, teachers report
On average between
2006 and 2016, 32
less students in 100
had computers
(including tablets)
available for use
during reading
lessons, reaching a
51% coverage

13. 8th grade students discussing maths homework in class
Change in and share of students whose teachers systematically discuss the homework in
class, 2007-2015, teachers report
On average between
2007 and 2015, 36
more students in maths
systematically
discussed homework
in class, reaching a
58% coverage
Chile*
NewZealand*
SouthAfrica*
HongKong,China
Japan
Turkey
Sweden
Korea
UnitedStates
England(UK)
Australia
Massachusetts(USA)*
Italy
Norway
Ontario(CAN)
Indonesia*
OECDaverage
Minnesota(USA)*
Singapore
Israel
RussianFederation
Slovenia
Quebec(CAN)
Lithuania
Hungary
2015 72 26 89 27 10 28 38 25 80 44 47 m 85 44 82 m 58 m 68 72 64 78 79 80 97
2011 83 34 86 34 8 31 22 24 81 40 48 83 83 30 77 58 56 84 59 78 67 86 80 71 96
2007 m m m 24 5 11 18 6 54 13 15 50 51 9 47 23 22 46 30 32 7 19 19 10 8
% of
students
-10 -8 5
17 20 20
27 31 31 34 35 35 36 38 40
57 59 61
70
89
2 3
33 35 38
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
% point
Notes: Darker tones correspond to statistically significant values. * refers to calculations based on other years, based on data availability.
The OECD average is based on OECD countries with available data in 2007, 2011 and 2015.
Source: Authors' calculations based on TIMSS Databases.

14. 8th grade students observing and describing natural phenomena
in science lessons
Change in and share of students whose teachers ask them to observe and describe
natural phenomena in at least half the lessons, 2007-2015, teachers report
On average between
2007 and 2015, 26
more students in 100
frequently observed
and described natural
phenomena in
science lessons,
reaching a 55%
coverage
Notes: Darker tones correspond to statistically significant values. * refers to calculations based on other years, based on data
availability. The OECD average is based on OECD countries with available data in 2007, 2011 and 2015.
Source: Authors' calculations based on TIMSS Databases.

15. 4th grade teachers discussing how to teach a particular topic
On average between
2007 and 2015, 13
more students in 100
had their teachers
frequently discussing
how to teach a
particular topic ,
reaching a 66%
coverage
Change in and share of students whose teachers discuss with peers how to teach a
particular topic often or very often, 2007-2015, teachers report
Norway
Alberta(CAN)*
Austria*
Chile*
Turkey*
Japan
Sweden
Italy
Belgium(Fl.)*
Ontario(CAN)
Finland*
Denmark
NewZealand
Portugal*
UnitedStates
OECDaverage
CzechRepublic
Hungary
Spain*
Lithuania
Korea*
Germany
Australia
SlovakRepublic
NorthernIreland(UK)*
England(UK)
Singapore
Ireland*
Quebec(CAN)
Slovenia
RussianFederation
Poland*
HongKong,China
Netherlands
2015 48 m m 60 59 47 60 67 45 62 55 47 76 76 75 66 49 71 67 63 72 61 74 82 69 80 71 51 72 82 84 76 74 64
2011 60 53 33 62 60 55 52 49 41 51 51 32 67 67 66 52 35 59 50 58 54 46 61 60 46 62 57 26 46 61 40 46 35 27
2007 70 62 39 m m 46 58 65 m 59 m 40 67 m 65 53 33 55 m 45 m 42 53 59 m 56 47 m 47 56 56 m 39 24
% of
students
-22
-9 -6 -2 -2
9 9 11 13 15 16 17 18 18 19 21 23 23 23 24 25 26 26 28 31
35
40
0 2 2 3 3 3 6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
% point
Notes: Darker tones correspond to statistically significant values. * refers to calculations based on other years, based on data
availability. The OECD average is based on OECD countries with available data in 2007, 2011 and 2015.
Source: Authors' calculations based on TIMSS Databases.

16. 8th grade science teachers visiting a colleague’s classroom to
learn about teaching
On average between
2007 and 2015, 13
more students in 100
had their teachers
frequently visiting
another classroom to
learn more about
teaching, reaching a
18% coverage
Change in and share of students whose teachers visit another classroom often or
very often to learn more about teaching, 2007-2015, teachers report
Massachusetts(USA)*
Chile*
Norway
Minnesota(USA)*
Quebec(CAN)
Sweden
Italy
Slovenia
Ontario(CAN)
Indonesia*
UnitedStates
NewZealand*
Japan
Australia
OECDaverage
Lithuania
Hungary
HongKong,China
Singapore
Israel
England(UK)
SouthAfrica*
Turkey
Korea
RussianFederation
2015 m 9 9 m 4 8 6 8 11 m 14 17 22 16 18 19 19 20 20 22 25 33 40 39 52
2011 1 10 2 1 3 3 2 11 12 23 6 6 11 4 5 3 3 5 3 5 7 11 2 2 10
2007 4 m 11 2 3 5 2 2 5 12 4 m 11 4 4 3 1 2 2 3 5 m 3 1 13
% of
students
-3 -2 -1 -1 5 6 6
11 11 12 12 13 16 17 18 18 19 21 22
37 38 40
1 3
11
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
% point
Notes: Darker tones correspond to statistically significant values. * refers to calculations based on other years, based on data
availability. The OECD average is based on OECD countries with available data in 2007, 2011 and 2015.
Source: Authors' calculations based on TIMSS Databases.

17. Parental involvement in 8th grade school activities
On average between
2007 and 2015, 7
more students in 100
had their parents
highly or very highly
involved in school
activities, reaching a
30% coverage
Change in and share of students enrolled in schools with high or very high levels of
parental involvement in school activities, 2007-2015, school principals report
Notes: Darker tones correspond to statistically significant values. * refers to calculations based on other years, based on data
availability. The OECD average is based on OECD countries with available data in 2007, 2011 and 2015.
Source: Authors' calculations based on TIMSS Databases.
Ontario(CAN)
Hungary
Indonesia*
Australia
Chile*
NewZealand*
Turkey
Italy
UnitedStates
Israel
Minnesota(USA)*
SouthAfrica*
Lithuania
Slovenia
HongKong,China
OECDaverage
Massachusetts(USA)*
RussianFederation
Sweden
Japan
Norway
Singapore
Korea
England(UK)
Quebec(CAN)
2015 27 16 m 24 18 25 13 19 31 26 m 16 19 12 24 30 m 20 21 44 31 30 62 43 51
2011 27 18 29 24 21 27 16 21 33 26 42 12 15 12 23 23 42 13 10 37 23 21 43 23 14
2007 41 22 34 29 m m 15 21 31 22 39 m 13 7 17 23 33 9 10 31 18 15 37 17 15
% of
students
-13
-6 -6 -5
-3 -2 -2 -2
7
10 11 13 13
16
25 26
35
0
3 3 4 5 6 7 9
0
10
20
30
40
% point

18. synthesising innovation by category:
innovation indices

19. Education Innovation Indices for OECD countries
(2006-2016)
Innovation indices by level of education
Innovation indices by discipline
Note: The indices indicate innovation intensity from small (below 20) to large (over 40). Calculations based on the PIRLS, PISA and TIMSS databases.
Source: OECD, Measuring Innovation in Education 2019: What Has Changed in the Classroom?
• Overall, innovation in education
was moderate in OECD countries
• Innovation was on an average,
equally distributed between
primary and secondary education
• Changes in maths practices
trumped changes in science and
reading practices

20. Innovation in primary and secondary education (2007-15)
Notes: Calculations based on TIMSS, PIRLS and PISA databases.
Source: OECD, Measuring Innovation in Education 2019: What Has Changed in the Classroom?

21. Which kind of practices have expanded or contracted the
most across the OECD?
Areas/practices with the largest increases Areas/practices with the largest decreases

22. Innovation in teachers’ peer learning practices (2007-15)
Notes: The value on top is the composite index in teachers’ peer learning practices computed by summing the absolute values of increases and decreases. Calculations
based on TIMSS databases.
Source: OECD, Measuring Innovation in Education 2019: What Has Changed in the Classroom?

23. Innovation in independent knowledge acquisition (2006-16)
Notes: The value on top is the composite index in knowledge transmission and acquisition practices computed by summing the absolute values of increases and
decreases. Calculations based on PIRLS and TIMSS databases.
Source: OECD, Measuring Innovation in Education 2019: What Has Changed in the Classroom?

24. Innovation in homework practices (2006-16)
Notes: The value on top is the composite index in homework practices computed by summing the absolute values of increases and decreases. Calculations
based on the PIRLS, PISA and TIMSS databases.
Source: OECD, Measuring Innovation in Education 2019: What Has Changed in the Classroom?

25. Innovation in rote learning practices (2006-16)
Notes: The value on top is the composite index in rote learning practices computed by summing the absolute values of increases and decreases. Calculations
based on PIRLS and TIMSS databases.
Source: OECD, Measuring Innovation in Education 2019: What Has Changed in the Classroom?

26. Innovation in active learning practices in science (2006-16)
Notes: The value on top is the composite index in active learning practices in science computed by summing the absolute values of increases and decreases.
Calculations based on PIRLS, PISA and TIMSS databases.
Source: OECD, Measuring Innovation in Education 2019: What Has Changed in the Classroom?

27. Innovation in the availability of school learning resources
(2006-16)
Notes: The value on top is the composite index in the availability of school learning resources computed by summing the absolute values of increases and
decreases. Calculations based on the PIRLS, PISA and TIMSS databases.
Source: OECD, Measuring Innovation in Education 2019: What Has Changed in the Classroom?

28. ICT innovation

29. Innovation in computer availability in schools (2006-16)
Notes: The value on top is the composite index in computer availability in schools computed by summing the absolute values of increases and decreases.
Calculations based on the PIRLS, PISA and TIMSS databases.
Source: OECD, Measuring Innovation in Education 2019: What Has Changed in the Classroom?

30. Innovation in ICT use in schools (2006-16)
Notes: The value on top is the composite index in ICT use in schools computed by summing the absolute values of increases and decreases.
Calculations based on the PIRLS, PISA and TIMSS databases.
Source: OECD, Measuring Innovation in Education 2019: What Has Changed in the Classroom?

31. linking innovation and
educational outcomes

32. Innovation and change in academic outcomes in primary
education
Note: The correlation coefficient is equal to 0.47. Calculations based on the PIRLS and TIMSS databases
Source: OECD, Measuring Innovation in Education 2019: What Has Changed in the Classroom?

33. Innovation and change in academic outcomes in secondary
education
Note: The correlation coefficient is equal to 0.22. Calculations based on PISA and TIMSS databases
Source: OECD, Measuring Innovation in Education 2019: What Has Changed in the Classroom?

34. Innovation and change in student enjoyment in learning
science in primary
Note: The correlation coefficient is equal to 0.40. Calculations based on TIMSS databases
Source: OECD, Measuring Innovation in Education 2019: What Has Changed in the Classroom?

35. Innovation and change in equity of primary science scores
Note: The correlation coefficient is equal to -0.42. Calculations based on TIMSS databases
Source: OECD, Measuring Innovation in Education 2019: What Has Changed in the Classroom?

36. Innovation and change in teachers’ ambitions for student
achievement in primary education
Note: The correlation coefficient is equal to 0.30. The change in secondary teachers’ collective self-efficacy averages the answer of math and science teachers per country.
Calculations based on TIMSS databases
Source: OECD, Measuring Innovation in Education 2019: What Has Changed in the Classroom?

37. Innovation and change in teachers’ collective self-efficacy in
secondary education
Note: The correlation coefficient is equal to 0.27. The change in secondary teachers’ collective self-efficacy averages the answer of math and science teachers per country.
Calculations based on TIMSS databases
Source: OECD, Measuring Innovation in Education 2019: What Has Changed in the Classroom?

38. Countries’ innovation
dashboards

39. Educational innovation in England (2006 and 2016)
Innovation indices by level of education
Innovation indices by discipline
ICT related innovation

40. Educational innovation in England (2006 and 2016): some
highlights

41. Educational innovation in England (2006 and 2016): some
highlights
Where was the most innovation located?
Where was there the most difference with other OECD systems?

42. Educational innovation in Hungary (2006 and 2016)
Innovation indices by level of education
Innovation indices by discipline
ICT related innovation

43. Educational innovation in Hungary (2006 and 2016): some
highlights

44. Educational innovation in Hungary (2006 and 2016): some
highlights
Where was the most innovation located?
Where was there the most difference with other OECD systems?

45. Educational innovation in the United States (2006 and 2016)
Innovation indices by level of education
Innovation indices by discipline
ICT related innovation

46. Educational innovation in the United States (2006 and 2016):
some highlights

47. Educational innovation in the United States (2006 and 2016):
some highlights
Where was the most innovation located?
Where was there the most difference with other OECD systems?

48. a few questions

49. • Is innovation an end in itself, a means to an end, or both?
• Can innovation be good even if past innovation has not been effective?
• Shall all education systems innovate all the time?
• How can memorisation be considered an innovation?
• Are all changes considered an innovation?
• How do « innovative » practices relate to « alternative » practices?
A few questions

50. concluding remarks

51. • There is a moderate level of innovation in education, more than one often
acknowledges, but probably less than needed given the challenges faced by
countries
• There is no clear international convergence in innovation and in practices
• A large amount of the innovations between 2006 and 2016 have been
technology related
• While overall countries with more innovation seem to have had
improvements in other educational outcomes, we need much better
measures to understand the relationship between specific innovations and
outcomes
Concluding remarks

52. Stephan.Vincent-Lancrin@oecd.org
THANK YOU
https://oe.cd/educationceriinnovationstrategy