Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Tendances (20)
En vedette
En vedette (20)
Similaire à PISA-Parliamentary-Days-2017
Similaire à PISA-Parliamentary-Days-2017 (20)
Plus de Holly Richards
Plus de Holly Richards (14)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
PISA-Parliamentary-Days-2017
- 1. Excellence and equity in education OECD Parliamentary Days 9 February 2017 Andreas Schleicher Director for Education and Skills
- 2. Trends in science performance (PISA) 2006 2009 2012 2015 OECD 450 470 490 510 530 550 570 OECD average Studentperformance
- 3. Trends in science performance (PISA) 450 470 490 510 530 550 570 2006 2009 2012 2015 OECD average
- 4. 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
- 5. Poverty is not destiny - Science performance 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
- 6. The global pool of top performers: A PISA perspective Figure I.2.18 United States (8.5%); 300k B-S-J-G (China) (13.6%); 181k Japan (15.3%); 174k Germany (10.6%); 79k Viet Nam (8.3%); 72k United Kingdom (10.9%); 68k Korea (10.6%); 60k France (8.0%); 59k Russia (3.7%); 42k Canada (12.4%); 41k Chinese Taipei (15.4%); 39k Australia (11.2%); Poland (7.3%); Netherlands (11.1%) Italy (4.1%) Spain (5.0%) Brazil (0.7%) Singapore (24.2%) Belgium (9.0%) Finland (14.3%) Switzerland (9.8%) Sweden (8.5%) Portugal (7.4%) New Zealand (12.8%) Israel (5.9%) Others Share of top performers among 15-year-old students: Less than 1% 1 to 2.5% 2.5 to 5% 5% to 7.5% 7.5% to 10% 10% to 12.5% 12.5% to 15% More than 15%
- 7. Students expecting a career in science Figure I.3.2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 DominicanRep.12 CostaRica11 Jordan6 UnitedArabEm.11 Mexico6 Colombia8 Lebanon15 Brazil19 Peru7 Qatar19 UnitedStates13 Chile18 Tunisia19 Canada21 Slovenia16 Turkey6 Australia15 UnitedKingdom17 Malaysia4 Kazakhstan14 Spain11 Norway21 Uruguay17 Singapore14 TrinidadandT.13 Israel25 CABA(Arg.)19 Portugal18 Bulgaria25 Ireland13 Kosovo7 Algeria12 Malta11 Greece12 NewZealand24 Albania29 Estonia15 OECDaverage19 Belgium16 Croatia17 FYROM20 Lithuania21 Iceland22 Russia19 HKG(China)20 Romania20 Italy17 Austria23 Moldova7 Latvia19 Montenegro18 France21 Luxembourg18 Poland13 Macao(China)10 ChineseTaipei21 Sweden21 Thailand27 VietNam13 Switzerland22 Korea7 Hungary22 SlovakRepublic24 Japan18 Finland24 Georgia27 CzechRepublic22 B-S-J-G(China)31 Netherlands19 Germany33 Indonesia19 Denmark48 % Percentage of students who expect to work in science-related professional and technical occupations when they are 30 Science-related technicians and associate professionals Information and communication technology professionals Health professionals Science and engineering professionals %ofstudentswithvag ueormissingexpectati ons
- 8. Singapore Canada Slovenia Australia United Kingdom Ireland Portugal Chinese Taipei Hong Kong (China) New Zealand Denmark Japan Estonia Finland Macao (China) Viet Nam B-S-J-G (China) Korea Germany Netherlands Switzerland Belgium Poland Sweden Lithuania Croatia Iceland Georgia Malta United States Spain Israel United Arab Emirates Brazil Bulgaria Chile Colombia Costa Rica Dominican Republic Jordan Kosovo Lebanon Mexico Peru Qatar Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Uruguay Above-average science performance Stronger than average beliefs in science Above-average percentage of students expecting to work in a science-related occupation Norway Multipleoutcomes
- 9. LessonsfromPISA Low impact on outcomes High impact on outcomes Low feasibility High feasibility Money pits Must haves Low hanging fruits Quick wins
- 10. LessonsfromPISA 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 systemCoherence
- 11. Learning time and science 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
- 12. Learning time and science 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
- 13. Money gets us only so far Spending per student and learning outcomes Figure II.6.2 Luxembourg Switzerland NorwayAustria Singapore United States United Kingdom Malta Sweden Belgium Iceland Denmark Finland Netherlands Canada Japan Slovenia Australia Germany Ireland FranceItaly Portugal New Zealand Korea Spain Poland Israel Estonia Czech Rep. LatviaSlovak Rep. Russia Croatia Lithuania Hungary Costa Rica Chinese Taipei Chile Brazil Turkey Uruguay Bulgaria Mexico Thailand Montenegro Colombia Dominican Republic Peru Georgia 11.7, 411 R² = 0.01 R² = 0.41 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Scienceperformance(scorepoints) Average spending per student from the age of 6 to 15 (in thousands USD, PPP)
- 14. Differences in educational resources 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
- 15. Student-teacher ratios and class 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
- 16. Teacher 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
- 17. Teacher 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)
- 18. Technology can amplify innovative teaching • As tools for inquiry- based pedagogies with learners as active participants • Make it faster and more granular • Collaborative platforms for teachers to share and enrich teaching materials • Well beyond textbooks, in multiple formats, with little time and space constraints Expand access to content Collaboration for knowledge creation Support new pedagogies Feedback
- 19. 450 460 470 480 490 500 510 520 -2 -1 0 1 2 Scorepoints Technology in schools and digital skills still don’t square Source: Figure 6.5 Relationship between students’ skills in reading and computer use at school (average across OECD countries) OECD average Digital reading skills of 15-year- olds Intensive technology useNo technology use
- 21. Routine cognitive skills Conceptual understanding, complex ways of thinking, ways of working Some students learn at high levels All students need to learn at high levels Student inclusion Curriculum, instruction and assessment Standardisation and compliance 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
- 22. Find out more about our work at www.oecd.org/pisa – All publications – The complete micro-level database Email: Andreas.Schleicher@OECD.org Twitter: SchleicherOECD Wechat: AndreasSchleicher Thank you
Notes de l'éditeur
- *