PISA: Assessing 21st century life skills

Jakarta, 8 July 2019

Andreas Schleicher
 Increased likelihood of positive outcomes
among adults with higher literacy skills (age 16-65)
(scoring at Level 4/5 on PIAAC compared with those scoring at Level 1 or below)

3.0
Odds ratio

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0
Being Employed High wages Good to excellent Participation in High levels of High levels of trust
health volunteer activities political efficacy
PISA in brief - 2015
In 2015, over half a million students…
- representing 28 million 15-year-olds in 72 countries/economies
… took an internationally agreed 2-hour test…
- Goes beyond testing whether students can reproduce what they were taught…
… to assess students’ capacity to extrapolate from what they know and creatively apply
their knowledge in novel situations
- Total of 390 minutes of assessment material
… and responded to questions on…
- their personal background, their schools, their well-being and their motivation
Parents, principals, teachers and system leaders provided data on:
- school policies, practices, resources and institutional factors that help explain
performance differences
- 89,000 parents, 93,000 teachers and 17,500 principals responded
 Map of PISA countries and economies

PISA 2015
OECD
Partners
PISA in brief – key principles
• ‘Crowd sourcing’ and collaboration
- PISA draws together leading expertise and institutions from participating countries to
develop instruments and methodologies…
… guided by governments on the basis of shared policy interests
• Cross-national relevance and transferability of policy experiences
- Emphasis on validity across cultures, languages and systems
- Frameworks built on well-structured conceptual understanding of academic disciplines
and contextual factors
• Triangulation across different stakeholder perspectives
- Comprehensive insights from students, parents, school principals and system-leaders
• Advanced methods with different grain sizes
- A range of methods to adequately measure what young people know and can do:
different grain sizes to serve different decision-making needs
- Productive feedback to fuel improvement at every level of the system
 Science in PISA
“the ability to engage with science-
related issues, and with the ideas of
science, as a reflective citizen”

A scientifically literate person is

willing to engage in reasoned discourse
about science and technology
 Recognise, offer and
evaluate explanations for
a range of natural and
technological phenomena.
Competencies Describe and appraise
• Explain phenomena scientifically scientific investigations
• Evaluate and design scientific enquiry
and propose ways of
addressing questions
• Interpret data and evidence scientifically
scientifically.
Analyse and evaluate
data, claims and
arguments in a variety of
representations and draw
appropriate scientific
conclusions.
 Each of the scientific
competencies requires
content knowledge
(knowledge of theories,
explanatory ideas,
information and facts), but
Competencies also an understanding of
• Explain phenomena scientifically how such knowledge has
• Evaluate and design scientific enquiry been derived (procedural
knowledge) and of the
• Interpret data and evidence scientifically
nature of that knowledge
Knowledge (epistemic knowledge)

• Content knowledge “Epistemic knowledge”

• Knowledge of methodological reflects students’ capacity to
procedures used in science think like a scientist and
distinguish between
• Knowledge of the epistemic observations, facts,
reasons and ideas used by hypotheses, models and
scientists to justify their claims theories
 Peoples’ attitudes and
beliefs play a significant role
in their interest, attention
and response to science
and technology.

Competencies PISA distinguishes between

attitudes towards science
• Explain phenomena scientifically
(e.g. interest in different
• Evaluate and design scientific enquiry content areas of science)
• Interpret data and evidence scientifically and scientific attitudes (e.g.
whether students value
Knowledge scientific approaches to
• Content knowledge Attitudes enquiry)
• Knowledge of methodological • Attitudes to science
procedures used in science
• Scientific attitudes
• Knowledge of the epistemic
reasons and ideas used by
scientists to justify their claims
570
Trends in science performance (PISA)OECD
Student performance

550

530

510
OECD average
490

470

450

2006 2009 2012 2015

570
Trends in science performance (PISA)

550

530

510
OECD average
490

470

450

2006 2009 2012 2015

 PISA outcomes and coverage in Indonesia

500 80%

475 70%

450 60% Coverage

425 50%
Reading Score

400 40%
Math Score
375 30%
Reading Score (39%
350 20% covered in PISA 2000)
Math Score (39%
325 10% covered in PISA 2000)

300 0%
2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015
 Lessons from high-performers
Past Future
Student inclusion
Some students learn at high levels (sorting) All students need to learn at high levels

Routine cognitive skills Complex ways of thinking,

Curriculum, instruction and assessment

complex ways of doing, collective capacity

Teacher education
Standardisation and compliance High-level professional knowledge workers

Work organisation
‘Tayloristic’, hierarchical Flat, collegial

Accountability
Primarily to authorities Primarily to peers and stakeholders
Some learn at high levels
All learn at high levels
 %

60
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
Singapore 4
Finland 3
Japan 5
Estonia 7
Ireland 4
Macao (China) 12
Hong Kong (China) 11
Germany 4
Slovenia 7
Korea 8
Switzerland 4
Russia 5
Netherlands 5
CABA (Argentina) 0
Poland 9
Denmark 11
Australia 9
Chinese Taipei 15
Belgium 7
New Zealand 10
Canada 16
Spain 9
Norway 9
Czech Republic 6
Latvia 11
Sweden 6
Portugal 12
France 9
OECD average 11 Percentage of 15-year-olds not covered by the PISA sample
Iceland 7
United Kingdom 16
Croatia 9
Lithuania 10
United States 16
Hungary 10
Austria 17
Malta 2
Luxembourg 12
Israel 6
Slovak Republic 11
Italy 20
Greece 9
Romania 7
Moldova 7
B-S-J-G (China) 36
United Arab Emirates 9
Chile 20
Bulgaria 19
Albania 16
Qatar 7
Viet Nam 51
Montenegro 10
Jordan 14
Uruguay 28
Level 2
Level 4
Level 6

Trinidad and Tobago 24

Student performance (PISA, Science, 15-year-olds, 2015)

Level 1b

Turkey 30
Georgia 21
Colombia 25
Thailand 29
FYROM 5
Costa Rica 37
Mexico 38
Tunisia 7
Peru 26
Brazil 29
Level 3
Level 5

Indonesia 32
Level 1a

Lebanon 34
Algeria 21
Kosovo 29
Below Level 1b

Dominican Republic 32
 %
%

60
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
Singapore 4
Finland 3

402 bn$
86% GDP
Japan 5
Estonia 7
Ireland 4
Macao (China) 12
Hong Kong (China) 11
Germany 4
Slovenia 7
Korea 8
Switzerland 4
Russia 5
Netherlands 5
CABA (Argentina) 0
Poland 9
Denmark 11
Australia 9
Chinese Taipei 15
Belgium 7
New Zealand 10
Canada 16
Spain 9
Norway 9
Czech Republic 6
Latvia 11
Sweden 6
Portugal 12
France 9
OECD average 11 Percentage of 15-year-olds not covered by the PISA sample
Iceland 7
United Kingdom 16
Croatia 9
Lithuania 10
United States 16
every27,929
Long-term

Hungary 10
Austria 17
153% GDP

Malta 2
15-year-old

Luxembourg 12
Israel 6
Slovak Republic 11
Italy 20
Greece 9
Romania 7
Moldova 7
B-S-J-G (China) 36
United Arab Emirates 9
Chile 20
Bulgaria 19
Albania 16
Qatar 7
Viet Nam 51
Montenegro 10
Jordan 14
estimated economic gains from

Uruguay 28
Level 2
Level 4
Level 6

bn$ achieving at least basic skills

Trinidad and Tobago 24

Student performance (PISA, Science, 15-year-olds, 2015)

Level 1b

Turkey 30
Georgia 21
Colombia 25
Thailand 29
FYROM 5
Costa Rica 37
Mexico 38
Tunisia 7
551% GDP
12,448 bn$

Peru 26
Brazil 29
Level 3
Level 5

Level 1a

Indonesia 32
Lebanon 34
Algeria 21
24,409 bn$
889% GDP2

Kosovo 29
Below Level 1b

Dominican Republic 32
Poverty need not be destiny:
PISA math performance by decile of social background (2012)

High math performance

PISA mathematics performance

Mathematics performance
of the 10% most privileged
American 15-year-olds (~Japan)

Mathematics performance
of the 10% most disadvantaged
Low math performance American 15-year-olds (~Mexico)
 Brazil: School performance and schools’ socio-economic profile

Level Level Level Lev

Public schools

6
Score points

700 Private schools

5
600

3 4
500

Below Level Level Level

2
400

1b 1a
300

1b
200
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
PISA index of economic, social and cultural status
 Viet Nam: School performance and schools’ socio-economic profile

Level Level Level Lev

Public schools

6
Score points

700 Private schools

5
600

3 4
500

Below Level Level Level

2
400

1b 1a
300

1b
200
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
PISA index of economic, social and cultural status
 Brazil: School performance and schools’ socio-economic profile

Level Level Level Lev

Public schools

6
Score points

700 Private schools

5
600

3 4
500

Below Level Level Level

2
400

1b 1a
300

1b
200
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
PISA index of economic, social and cultural status
 Relationship between school performance and schools’ socio-economic profile:
Indonesia

Level Level Level Lev

Public schools

6
Score points

700 Private schools

5
Relationship between
600 student performance

4
and students' socio-
economic status

3
500 Relationship between

Below Level Level Level

student performance

2
and students' socio-
400 economic status

1a
between schools

1b
300 Relationship between
student performance
and students' socio-

1b
200 economic status
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 within schools
PISA index of economic, social and cultural status
 Aligning resources with needs
Average class size in <9th grade>, by quarter of school socio-economic profile

28
OECD average
27
Average class size

26

25

24

23

22
Highly disadvantaged Disadvantaged Advantaged Highly advantaged
Schools by social background
 Aligning resources with needs
Science teachers without a university major in science, by school socio-economic profile (OECD Average)
% science teachers without university major in science

35
OECD average
30

25

20

15

10

0
Highly disadvantaged Disadvantaged Advantaged Highly advantaged
Schools by social background
 Mean index difference between advantaged
and disadvantaged schools

0
1
1

-3
-2
-2
-1
-1
CABA (Argentina)
Mexico
Peru
Macao (China)
United Arab Emirates
Lebanon
Jordan
Colombia
Brazil
Indonesia
Turkey
Spain
Dominican Republic
Georgia
Uruguay
Thailand
B-S-J-G (China)
Australia
Japan
Chile
Disadvantaged schools have more

Disadvantaged schools have fewer

Luxembourg
resources than advantaged schools

resources than advantaged schools

Russia
Portugal
Malta
Italy
New Zealand
Croatia
Ireland
Algeria
Norway
Israel
Denmark
Sweden
United States
Moldova
between advantaged and disadvantaged schools

Belgium
Index of shortage of educational material

Slovenia
OECD average
Hungary
Chinese Taipei
Viet Nam
Czech Republic
Singapore
Tunisia
Greece
Trinidad and Tobago
Canada
Differences in educational resources

Romania
Qatar
Montenegro
Kosovo
Netherlands
Korea
Finland
Switzerland
Germany
Hong Kong (China)
Austria
FYROM
Poland
Index of shortage of educational staff

Albania
Bulgaria
Slovak Republic
Lithuania
Estonia
Iceland
Costa Rica
Figure I.6.14

United Kingdom
Latvia
Reproducing knowledge
 Creating knowledge
Think for yourself and work with others
The rise of the global middle class
Within the next decade the majority of the world population will consist of the middle class

Estimates of the size of the global middle class, percentage of the world population (left axis) and headcount (right axis)

World middle class share of world population

100 World middle class 9
90 8
World population
% of world population

80 7

Headcount (billions)
70 6
60
5
50
4
40
30 3
20 2
10 1
0 0
1951

1957

1963

1969

1975

1981

1987

1993

1999

2005

2011

2017

2023

2029
Source: Kharas, H. (2017), The unprecedented expansion of the global middle class, an update,
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/global_20170228_global-middle-class.pdf. Kharas, H.
(2010), The emerging middle class in developing countries, https://www.oecd.org/dev/44457738.pdf. Figure 1.2
Growing unequal
Income gaps continues to grow

Trends in real household incomes by percentile, OECD average, 1985-2015

Index 1985 = 1 Bottom 10% Mean Median Top 10%

1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1
1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015
Source: OECD (2018), A Broken Social Elevator? How to Promote Social Mobility,
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264301085-en.
Figure 2.1
Rising volatility
Household savings and debt

Household savings (% of disposable income, left axis) and household debt (% of disposable income, right axis),
OECD average, 1970-2016
Savings (left axis) Debt (right axis)
18 160
Savings as % of disposable income

Debt as % of disposable income

16 140
14 120
12
100
10
80
8
60
6
4 40

2 20
0 0
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
Source: OECD (2018), OECD National Accounts Statistics (database), https://stats.oecd.org/.
Figure 3.9
 The growth in AI technologies…
…pushes us to think harder about what makes us truly human

Number of patents in artificial intelligence technologies, 1991-2015

20 000

18 000

16 000

14 000
Number of patents

12 000

10 000

8 000

6 000

4 000

2 000

0
1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015
Source: OECD (2017), OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2017: The digital transformation, ht
tp://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264268821-en.
Figure 1.10
32
Digitalisation

Democratizing Particularizing Empowering

Concentrating Homogenizing Disempowering

 10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90

0
%
Chinese Taipei -2
Sweden -9
France -5
Portugal
Greece
Singapore -2
Thailand
Macao (China) -7
Brazil -2
Spain
United Kingdom
Bulgaria
Hong Kong (China)
Korea -7
Belgium -4
Denmark -4
Croatia -5
Israel -10
New Zealand -4
Netherlands -3
Boys

Uruguay
Hungary 4
Australia
OECD average -3
Dominican Republic
Ireland -7
Poland -3
Costa Rica 3
Girls

Lithuania
Japan -5
Mexico
Russia -8
Czech Republic
Italy
Peru
Colombia 4
Finland -6
Chile
Latvia
Slovak Republic
B-S-J-G (China) 11
Switzerland
Austria -3
Luxembourg
Iceland
Germany
Estonia
15-year-olds feeling bad if not connected to the Internet (PISA)

Slovenia
 Digitalisation
The post-truth world where reality becomes fungible
• Virality seems privileged over quality
in the distribution of information
• Truth and fact are losing currency
Democratizing Particularizing Empowering
Scarcity of attention and abundance of information
• Algorithms sort us into groups of like-minded
individuals create echo chambers that amplify our
views, leave us uninformed of opposing arguments,
Concentrating
and polarise Homogenizing
our societies Disempowering

34
Creating new value connotes
processes of creating, making,
bringing into being and formulating;
and outcomes that are innovative,
fresh and original, contributing
something of intrinsic positive worth.
The constructs that underpin the
competence are creativity/ creative
thinking/ inventive thinking, curiosity,
global mind-set, …
. evaluate their actions in the light of
In a structurally imbalanced world,
the imperative of reconciling diverse
perspectives and interests, in local
settings with sometimes global
implications, will require young
people to become adept in handling
tensions, dilemmas and trade-offs.
Underlying constructs are empathy,
resilience/stress resistance
trust, …
Dealing with novelty, change,
diversity and ambiguity assumes that
individuals can think for themselves
and work with others. This suggests
a sense of responsibility, and moral
and intellectual maturity, with which
a person can reflect upon and
their experiences and personal and
societal goals; what they have been
taught and told; and what is right or
wrong
Underlying constructs include critical
thinking skills, meta-learning skills
(including learning to learn skills),
mindfulness, problem solving skills,
responsibility, …
Anticipation mobilises
cognitive skills, such as
analytical or critical thinking,
to foresee what may be
needed in the future or how
actions taken today might
have consequences for the Both reflective practice and
future anticipation contribute to the
willingness to take responsible
Reflective practice is the actions
ability to take a critical stance
when deciding, choosing and
acting, by stepping back from
what is known or assumed
and looking at a situation
from other, different
perspectives
 Cr Number of mapped content items
iti
ca
C

Arts
Co o m l Th

10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80

0
op m ink
P
er ro un in
at b ic g
io le at
n / m io
Co So n
lla lvi
bo ng

Humanities
ra
Pe S ti
r s el f R e o n
ist -R sp
e n e g ec
ce ul t
/R ati
es o n
ilie

Mathematics
Em nce
Skills, Attitudes and Values

Cr pa
ea th
Co tiv y
nf e
lic Th
t R ink
Re eso ing
lu
St spo tio
ud ns n
en ibi

National Language/s
Framework

t A lity
Key concepts

ge
2030 Learning

nc
y
Current curricula and 2030 aspirations

Re
fle
ct
io
PE/Health

A
Cycle

An c n
tic tio
Gl ip n
ob at
Competency

io
Development

al
Co n
Science

Di m p
Preliminary findings of curriculum content mapping (lower secondary; Ontario, Canada)

g i et
Co t e
m Li al L ncy
pu te ite
ta ra ra
tio cy cy
En na for
tre l Th SD
Technologies
for 2030

pr in
Compound

en kin
competencies

eu g
rs
hi
p
 Cr Number of mapped content items
iti
ca
C

Arts
Co o m l Th

100
120
140
160

20
40
60
80

0
op m ink
P
er ro un in
at b ic g
io le at
n / m io
Co So n
lla lvi
bo ng

Humanities
ra
Pe S ti
r s el f R e o n
ist -R sp
e n e g ec
ce ul t
/R ati
es o n
ilie

Mathematics
Em nce
Skills, Attitudes and Values

Cr pa
ea th
Co tiv y
nf e
lic Th
t R ink
Re eso ing
lu
St spo tio
ud ns n
en ibi
rk
Key

National Language/s
t A lity
2030

ge
Learning
concepts

nc
Framewo

y
Current curricula and 2030 aspirations

Re
fle
ct
io
PE/Health

A
Cycle

An c n
Preliminary findings of curriculum content mapping (lower secondary; Japan)

tic tio
Gl ip n
ob at
Competency

io
Development

al
Co n
Science

Di m p
g i et
Co t e
m Li al L ncy
pu te ite
ta ra ra
tio cy cy
En na for
tre l Th SD
Technologies
for 2030

pr in
Compound

en kin
competencies

eu g
rs
hi
p
The kind of things that are
easy to teach are now easy
to automate, digitize or
outsource
Mean task input in percentiles of 1960 task distribution
70

65

60 Routine manual
Nonroutine manual
55 Routine cognitive
Nonroutine analytic
50
Nonroutine inte rpersonal

45

40

35
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2006 2009
 What teachers say
and what teachers do
96% of teachers: My role as a teacher
is to facilitate students own inquiry
 86%: Students learn best
by findings solutions on their own
74%: Thinking and reasoning is more
important than curriculum content
 Prevalence of memorisation Prevalence of elaboration
rehearsal, routine exercises, drill and reasoning, deep learning, intrinsic
practice and/or repetition motivation, critical thinking,
creativity, non-routine problems

United Kingdom
Netherlands
Spain
Norway
United States
Singapore
Canada
Shanghai-China
Sweden
France
Korea
Japan
Germany
Poland
Switzerland

-2.00High -1.50 -1.00 -0.50 Low0.00 0.00 Low 0.50 1.00 1.50 High2.00
47

Memorisation is less useful as problems become more

difficult (OECD average)
Greater Odds ratio
success
Easy problem
1.00

R² = 0.81

Difficult problem
Less 0.70
success 300 400 500 600 700 800
Complexity of of mathematics tasks on the PISA scale
Source: Figure 4.3
48

Elaboration strategies are more useful as problems

become more difficult (OECD average)
Greater Odds ratio
success 1.50

R² = 0.82

Difficult
problem

Easy problem
Less 0.80
success 300 400 500 600 700 800

Source: Figure 6.2

Complexity of mathematics tasks on the PISA scale
 49
Elaboration

Less
More
United Kingdom 20
Iceland 18
Australia 20
Ireland 23

Source: Figure 6.1

France 19
New Zeala nd 19
Israel 26
Canada 26
Austria 32
Japan 29
Belgium 22
Singapore 31
Uruguay 22
Germany 33
Netherlands 24
HK-China 30
Luxembourg 33
Costa Rica 33
Below the OECD average

Norway 23
Finland 23
United States 30
Portugal 29
OECD average 30
Denmark 23
Indonesia 38
Switzerland 32
Bulgaria 27
Macao-China 32
Chile 24
Albania 33
Sweden 24
Kazakhstan 29
Greece 35
UAE 32
Hungary 37
Brazil 25
Argentina 35
Liechtenst ein 41
Estonia 38
Mexico 27
Students’ use of elaboration strategies

Spain 39
At the same level as the OECD average

Turkey 28
Shanghai-China 35
Poland 27
Colombia 33
Korea 43
Latvia 32
Czech Republic 40
Viet Nam 41
Croatia 48
Slovenia 56
Romania 36
Russian Fe d. 41
Montenegro 39
Malaysia 38
Peru 30
Italy 46
Above the OECD average

Serbia 50
Slovak Re public 40
Lithuania 30
Thailand 34
Qatar 34
Chinese Ta ipei 42
Jordan 44
already know

Tunisia 44
understand new
% of students who

them to things they

concepts by relating
 CE
ACH IVA

AN
Selected skills

MO

IST
RES

IEV TION
T

RES

ISM
EM
PO
PER

RO AL
NSI

TIM
ENT

ESS
SEL

CO ION
L
SIS

BIL

STR

OP
F-C
SSES: 19 skills

OT
•

TEN

NT
ITY
ON

EM
CE
TRO
selected for the initial

L
testing TASK EMOTIONAL
PERFORMANCE REGULATION

• SSES: 15 skills will be

included in the main
study CRITICAL THINKING
THE
EMPATHY
COMPOUND
SKILLS META-COGNITION ‘BIG FIVE’ COLLABORATION TRUST
• PISA 2021: possible DOMAINS

skills for inclusion:

SELF-EFFICACY CO-OPERATION

– Self-control
– Persistence ENGAGING OPEN-
MINDEDNESS
– Curiosity WITH OTHERS

– Perspective taking
– Empathy ITY

TO
ESS
BIL

– Trust

LER
CU
EN
CIA

AN
RIO
TIV

CR
Emotional control
SO

– GY

CE
EA
SER

SIT
ER

TIV

Y
AS

EN

– Resilience

ITY
STRONGEST RELATIONS WITH GRADES IN MATH

Math
0.4
0.3
Correlation

0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
Persistence Curiosity Self-efficacy Optimism
STRONGEST RELATIONS WITH GRADES IN ART

Art
0.2
Correlation

0.1

0
Creativity Persistence Self-control
 RELATIONSHIP WITH CHILD’S HEALTH
General health
30

25
% of explained variance

20

15

10

0
Socio-demographics Parent education Income SE skills
 RELATIONSHIP OF SE SKILLS WITH HEALTH-
RELATED BEHAVIOURS
Sleep 8 hours or more
8
7
% of explained variance

6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Socio-demographics Parent education Income SE skills

§ Best predictors: Self-control, Optimism

Some lessons from high performers

• Rigor, focus and coherence

• Remain true to the disciplines
– but aim at interdisciplinary learning and the capacity of students to see
problems through multiple lenses
– Balance knowledge of disciplines and knowledge about disciplines
• Focus on areas with the highest transfer value
– Requiring a theory of action for how this transfer value occurs
• Authenticity
– Thematic, problem-based, project-based, co-creation in conversation
• Some things are caught not taught
– Immersive learning propositions
Prescription
Ownership of professional practice
Powerful learning environments are constantly creating synergies and
finding new ways to enhance professional, social and cultural capital with
others. They do that with families and communities, with higher education,
with other schools and learning environments, and with businesses.
 10
20
30
40
50
60
70

0
Hours
Finland
Germany
Switzerland
Japan
Estonia
Sweden
Netherlands
New Zealand
Australia
Czech Republic
Macao (China)

Productivity
United Kingdom
Canada
Belgium
France
Norway
Slovenia
Iceland
Luxembourg
Intended learning time at school (hours)

Time in school
Ireland
Latvia
Hong Kong (China)
OECD average
Chinese Taipei
Austria
Portugal
Uruguay
Lithuania
Singapore
Denmark
Hungary
Poland
Slovak Republic
Study time after school (hours)

Spain
Croatia
United States
Israel
Bulgaria
Korea
Russia
Italy
Greece
B-S-J-G (China)
Colombia
Chile
Mexico
Brazil
Costa Rica
Turkey
Montenegro
Peru
Qatar
Learning out of school

Thailand
United Arab Emirates
Tunisia
Learning time and science performance (PISA)

Dominican Republic
Score points in science per hour of total learning time

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Figure II.6.23

Score points in science per hour of learning time

Making teaching not just financially,
but intellectually more attractive

Public confidence in profession and professionals

Professional preparation and learning

Collective ownership of professional practice

Decisions made in accordance with the body of knowledge o the profession

Professional responsibility in the name of the profession and accountability towards the profession
 Policy levers to teacher professionalism
Policy levers to teacher professionalism
Autonomy: Teachers’ decision-
making power over their work
(teaching content, course offerings,
discipline practices)

Teacher
professionalism
Peer networks: Opportunities for
exchange and support needed Knowledge base for teaching
to maintain high standards of (initial education and incentives for
teaching (participation in induction, professional development)
mentoring, networks, feedback from direct
observations)
Teacher professional collaboration
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who report doing the following activities at least once per month

(OECD countries)
100
Exchange and co-ordination Professional collaboration
90
80
Percentage of teachers

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Collaborative PD
Team teaching
Collaborate for common

Joint activities
Team conferences
Share resources

Classroom observations
Discuss individual students

standards
Teachers’ self-efficacy and professional collaboration
13.40
13.20 Teach jointly as a team in
13.00 the same class
12.80
Observe other teachers’
Teacher self-efficacy (level)

12.60 classes and provide

12.40 feedback
12.20 Engage in joint activities
across different classes
12.00
11.80 Take part in collaborative
11.60 professional learning
11.40
Once a year or less

Once a week or more

Never

5-10 times a year

1-3 times a month

2-4 times a year

Less More
frequently frequently
 Figure II.6.14
Student-teacher ratios and class size
30 Dominican Republic

OECD average
Student-teacher ratio

Brazil
High student-teacher ratios Mexico
and small class sizes Colombia

25

R² = 0.25
Netherlands Chile
20 Thailand
Peru Kosovo

Algeria Jordan
United States Chinese
Russia Taipei Viet Nam
OECD B-S-G-J
15 Macao Turkey
(China)
average Denmark Hong Kong
(China) Georgia
Switzerland (China)
Singapore Japan
CABA (Argentina)
10 Finland Hungary
Belgium
Poland Albania
Malta Low student-teacher ratios
and large class sizes
5
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Class size in language of instruction
 Teachers’ job satisfaction and class size

13.00

12.50
Teachers' job satisfaction (level)

12.00

11.50

11.00

10.50

10.00
15 or less 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36 or more
Class size (number of students)
 Fig II.3.3
Teacher job satisfaction and professionalism
70

60

50

Low professionalism
40

30
High professionalism

20

10

0
Perceptions of Satisfaction with Satisfaction with the Teachers’
teachers’ status the profession work environment self-efficacy
 Percentage of teachers

10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90

0
100
Singapore

Korea

Finland

Alberta
(Canada)
Flanders
(Belgium)
Shanghai
(China)

New Zealand

Russia

Netherlands

Australia

England (UK)

United States

Average

Norway

Japan

Latvia

Denmark

Poland

Iceland

Estonia

Czech
Fig II.3.3

Republic

Portugal
Teachers perception of the value of teaching

Percentage of lower secondary teachers who "agree" or "strongly agree" that teaching profession is a valued profession in society

Sweden

France
 Countries
6 where teachers believe their profession is valued
7 higher levels of excellence in learning outcomes (PISA)
show
45
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
40 Singapore

35
Share of mathematics top performers

30 Korea

25 Flanders (Belgium)
Japan
20
Netherlands
Poland
Alberta (Canada)
15 Estonia Finland
France Australia
Czech Republic England (United Kingdom)
Slovak Republic Italy Iceland
10 Portugal Norway Israel
Sweden Denmark United States
Spain Latvia
Croatia
5 Serbia
Bulgaria Romania
Brazil Chile
0 Mexico
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Percentage of teachers who agree that teaching is valued in society
Standardisation and Conformity
Standardisation and compliance lead students to be e
ducated in batches of age, following the same standar
d curriculum, all assessed at the same time.
 Ingenious
Building instruction from student passions and capacities,
helping students personalise their learning and assessme
nt in ways that foster engagement and talents.
 Yes

No

If I am more innovative in my teaching

I will be rewarded (country average)
Ideosyncratic policy
Alignment of policies
Design choices and trade-offs

• Balancing breadth and depth of framework coverage

– Core assessments in reading, math and science every three years
• With focus (increased sample) rotating
– One innovative assessment area every three years
• Digital literacy (2009)
• Individual problem-solving (2012)
• Collaborative problem-solving (2015)
• Global competency (2018)
• Creative thinking (2021)
– Matrix sampling with adaptive assessment instruments
Creative thinking in the classroom
Individual enablers
Goal
Domain orientation Collaboration
readiness & beliefs with others

Cognitive
skills & Openness Motivation
approaches

Cultural
Creative
norms &
expression
expectations

Innovative
Educational Classroom Knowledge
solutions to
approaches climate creation
problems

Social Enablers Forms of engagement

47th meeting of the PISA Governing Board
Creative thinking in the classroom
Individual enablers
Goal
Domain orientation Collaboration
readiness & beliefs with others

Cognitive
skills & Openness Motivation
approaches

Cultural
Creative
norms &
expression
expectations

Innovative
Educational Classroom Knowledge
solutions to
approaches climate creation
problems

Social Enablers Forms of engagement

47th meeting of the PISA Governing Board
Competency model for PISA CT

Focuses on students’ capacities to

think flexibly across domains: for
example, providing different
Generate Generate
solutions for a problem, writing
different story ideas, or creating
Diverse Creative
different ways to visually represent
Ideas an idea.
Ideas

Evaluate
and Improve Ideas

47th meeting of the PISA Governing Board

 Competency model for PISA CT

focuses on students’ capacities to

search for original ideas across
domains: for example, an original
story idea, an original way to
Generate
communicate an idea in visual form, Generate
or an original solution to a social or
scientific problem.
Diverse Creative
Ideas Ideas

Evaluate
and Improve Ideas

47th meeting of the PISA Governing Board

 Competency model for PISA CT

focuses on students’ capacities to

evaluate limitations in given ideas
and find original ways to improve
them
Generate Generate
Diverse Creative
Ideas Ideas

Evaluate
and Improve Ideas

47th meeting of the PISA Governing Board

Competency model for PISA CT

Generate Generate
Diverse Creative
Ideas Ideas

Evaluate
and Improve Ideas

47th meeting of the PISA Governing Board

Thank you
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