Teacher policy and

practice
Insights from PISA

Andreas Schleicher
Director for Education and Skills
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
PISA 2015
OECD
Partners
 Poverty is not destiny - Science performance
by international deciles of the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status Figure I.6.7
(ESCS)
630

Bottom decile Second decile Middle decile Ninth decile Top decile
580

530

OECD median
student
Score480
points

430

380

330

280
Dominican
Algeria
Kosovo
Republic
Qatar
FYROM
52
Montenegro
United
Tunisia
1040
3Jordan
13Arab
39
Georgia
Lebanon
Indonesia
21
11
Emirates
Mexico
19
Costa
Peru
27 74
3
Brazil
5350
Turkey
Rica
Moldova
Thailand
Trinidad
43
Colombia
3859Iceland
28
Romania
and
5543
Israel
Bulgaria
1
Tobago
Greece
20
Russia
6
Uruguay
14
13
Chile
13
Latvia
Slovak
Lithuania
5 39
2725
Republic
Italy
Norway
12
Spain
Hungary
15Croatia
OECD
Denmark
8
131 16
Sweden
average
United
10
Macao
Malta
3 States
313
Ireland
12
(China)
Hong
Austria
Portugal
Luxembourg
11
Czech
5Kong
22
5 28
Poland
United
Republic
(China)
Australia
14 Canada
16
Kingdom
France
26
New
94Korea
Switzerland
Netherlands
Zealand
2 956Slovenia
Belgium
Finland
58Estonia
Viet
4
5Germany
7
Chinese
Nam
2B-S-J-G
Japan
5 76
Singapore
7
Taipei
(China)
8 1252
11

% of students
in the bottom
international
deciles of
ESCS
 The productivity puzzle

Making learning time productive so that

students can build their academic,
social and emotional skills in a balanced
way
 Figure
Learning time and science performance II.6.23

600 OECD average

PISA science score
555.6
550 538.4 534.2
530.7 528.5 532.3
523.3 517.8
513.3 515.8
509.1
501.4 496.2
R 505.5
= 0.21 508.6
493.4
500
473.2 486.6
480.5 OECD average
466.6
447.0
450 454.8
445.8
435.4 425.5 421.3 436.7
415.7 419.6
411.3
415.7 400.7 417.6
400 396.7 386.4
OECD average

350 331.6

300
35 40 45 50 55 60
Total learning time in and outside of school
 Figure
Learning time and science performance II.6.23

Hours Study time after school (hours) Intended learning time at school (hours) Score points in science per hour of total learning time

70 16 Score points in science per hour of total learning time

15
60
14
50 13

40 12
11
30 10
20 9
8
10
7
0 6
Finland
Germany
Switzerland
Japan
Estonia
Sweden
Netherlands
NewCzech
Australia
Zealand
Macao
United
Republic
(China)
Canada
Kingdom
Belgium
France
Norway
Slovenia
Luxembourg
Iceland
Hong
Ireland
Latvia
OECD
Kong
Chinese
average
(China)
Austria
Portugal
Taipei
Uruguay
Lithuania
Singapore
Denmark
Hungary
Slovak
Poland
Republic
Spain
United
Croatia
Israel
States
Bulgaria
Korea
Russia
B-S-J-G
Italy
Greece
Colombia
(China)
Chile
Mexico
Costa
Brazil
Montenegro
Turkey
Rica
United
Peru
Qatar
Thailand
Dominican
Arab
Tunisia
Emirates
Republic
Teaching resources
 Figure I.6.11
Variation in science performance between and within
schools
%
80
60 Between-school variation Within-school variation
40
OECD average 30%
20
0
20
40
60
80
OECD average
100
69%
120
Netherlands
B-S-J-G
Trinidad
Bulgaria
Hungary
(China)
Belgium
and
Slovenia
114
Slovak
United
Germany
115
119
Tobago
104Malta
Republic
112
Arab
101
Austria
98
110
Czech
Israel
Emirates
Lebanon
154109
Qatar
Republic
106
Switzerland
126
Japan
Singapore
110
91
Chinese
109
Luxembourg
Italy
97
101 110
Taipei
urkey
93
120
Brazil
Croatia
Greece
OECD
111
70
112
Lithuania
Chile
89
CABA
89
Uruguay
average
94
83
(Argentina)
Romania
Viet
92
United
Korea
Australia
Nam
84
10070
Kingdom
Hong
Colombia
Peru
101
65
82Thailand
117
Dominican
Kong
66
FYROM
Portugal
111
(China)
72
Indonesia
69Georgia
New
80
Republic
United
Jordan
94
72
Zealand
Montenegro
52
92
States
T
79
unisia
Sweden
59 Mexico
121
Albania
Macao
108
Kosovo
47
81
117
Algeria
57
(China)
Estonia
69
Moldova
Costa
57 Russia
54
Canada
74
Rica
88Poland
Denmark
83 76
Latvia
55Ireland
95
92
Spain
Norway
Finland
91
75Iceland
8886103
10393

Total variation as a
proportion of the
OECD average
 Figure I.6.14
Differences in educational resources
between advantaged and disadvantaged schools

Mean index difference between advantaged andIndex of shortage

disadvantaged of educational material
schools
1
Disadvantaged schools have
1 more resources than
advantaged schools
0
-1
-1
-2
Disadvantaged schools have fewer
-2
resources than advantaged schools
-3
CABA United
(Argentina)
Mexico
Macao
Peru
Arab
Lebanon
(China)
Jordan
Colombia
Emirates
Indonesia
Brazil
Dominican
Turkey
Spain
Georgia
Uruguay
B-S-J-G
Republic
Thailand
Australia
(China)
Japan
Luxembourg
Chile
Russia
Portugal
Malta
NewItaly
Zealand
Croatia
Ireland
Algeria
Norway
Israel
Denmark
United
Sweden
Moldova
Belgium
States
OECD
Slovenia
Chinese
Hungary
average
Czech
VietSingapore
T
Nam
Taipei
rinidad
Republic
Tunisia
Greece
Canada
and
Romania
Montenegro
TQatar
obago
Netherlands
Kosovo
Korea
Switzerland
Finland
Hong
Germany
Kong
Austria
FYROM
(China)
Poland
Slovak
Albania
Bulgaria
Lithuania
Republic
Estonia
United
Iceland
Costa Latvia
Kingdom
Rica
 Figure
Student-teacher ratios and class size II.6.14

30 29.7
28.5
Student-teacher ratio

OECD average
High student-teacher 29.1
28.5
ratios and small class
sizes
25

R = 0.25 20.4 19.1 20.7

20 18.6 19.8
17.3 17.0
16.0
14.9 16.4 16.2
15 OECD 13.8 15.2
13.5 14.7
average 12.7 14.0
12.1
12.2
11.5 10.3
9.9
10 10.3 8.7
9.1
8.3
7.2 Low student-teacher
ratios and large class
5 sizes
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Class size in language of instruction
 Figure
Class size and student-teacher ratio, II.6.15
and science performance
Student-teacher ratio

10 Students in schools with

more students per
8
teacher or larger classes
6 score higher in science

4
2
Score-point difference
0
Students in schools with more
-2
students per teacher or larger
-4 classes score lower in science
Different approaches
 Figure I.2.30
Comparing countries and economies on the
different science knowledge subscales

532

Chinese Taipei 538

528

480 490 500 510 520 530 540 550 560

Score points
 Figure I.2.30
Comparing countries and economies on the
different science knowledge subscales

556

Singapore 553

558

532

Chinese Taipei 538

528

480 490 500 510 520 530 540 550 560

Score points
 Figure I.2.30
Comparing countries and economies on the
different science knowledge subscales

556

Singapore 553

558

532

Chinese Taipei 538

528

495

Austria 501

490

480 490 500 510 520 530 540 550 560

Score points
 Figure I.2.30
Comparing countries and economies on the
different science knowledge subscales

556

Singapore 553

558

532

Chinese Taipei 538

528

496

United States 490

501

480 490 500 510 520 530 540 550 560

Score points
 Table II.2.18
Teacher-directed instruction: demonstrating scientific
ideas
After accounting for socio-economic status Before accounting for socio-economic status
70
Students who reported that their science teacher explains
60 scientific ideas in many lessons or every lesson perform
better in science
Score-point
50 difference

40

30

20

10

-10
United Kingdom
Australia
ItalyIsrael
Malta
Lebanon
Spain
Singapore
United
Qatar
United
Finland
Norway
States
Arab
Hong
Greece
Canada
Emirates
Kong
Russia
New
Macao
Jordan
(China)
CABA
Zealand
Portugal
(China)
B-S-J-G
(Argentina)
Poland
Georgia
Moldova
Luxembourg
(China)
OECD
Ireland
Iceland
average
Uruguay
Netherlands
Thailand
Chinese
Mexico
Germany
France
TSwitzerland
aipei
Croatia
Denmark
Brazil
Kosovo
Austria
Trinidad
Chile
Romania
Colombia
Hungary
Dominican
and
Sweden
T
Latvia
obago
Belgium
TViet
unisia
Republic
Nam
Peru
Japan
Algeria
Czech
FYROM
Estonia
Slovak
TRepublic
Lithuania
urkey
Costa
Republic
Bulgaria
Montenegro
Indonesia
RicaKorea
 Figure
Adaptive instruction and science performance II.3.16

Score-point difference associated with the index of adaptive instruction

18
Students who reported that their science teacher adapts more
16
frequently their lessons to students needs and knowledge
14 perform better in science
Score-point difference
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
United
Netherlands
Norway
Arab
Qatar
Denmark
Emirates
Finland
Singapore
Australia
United
SwedenIceland
Kingdom
Germany
Bulgaria
Portugal
Latvia
Israel
Brazil
B-S-J-G
Hong
Russia
Kong
(China)
Chile
Canada
(China)
OECD
TCzech
urkey
average
Ireland
Republic
Colombia
New
Poland
Macao
Zealand
Estonia
(China)
Lithuania
Switzerland
Dominican
Thailand
SlovakUnited
Uruguay
Republic
Republic
Costa
States
Korea
Rica
Montenegro
Greece
Hungary
Mexico
Croatia
Italy
France
Spain
Belgium
Luxembourg
TunisiaPeru
Japan
Chinese
Austria Taipei
 Figure
Enquiry-based teaching practices and science II.2.20
performance

25 difference
Score-point After accounting for
15 students' and
5 schools' socio-
economic profile
-5
-15 Before accounting
-25 for students' and
schools' socio-
-35
economic profile
-45
-55
-65
The teacher explains how
The teacher
a The
science clearly
idea can
following explains
Students
Students
be applied
theare
are
relevance
asked
to
given
a number
to
opportunities
ofdraw
science
Students
ofconclusions
different
concepts
are
to explain
phenomena
required
from
to
There
Students
their
our
antoexperiment
lives
isargue
ideas
a class
spend
about
debate
they
time
Students
science
have
inabout
theconducted
questions
are
laboratory
investigations
Students
asked todoing
are
do an
allowed
practical
investigation
toexperiments
design
to their
test ideas
own experiments
happen in
"most" or "all"
science
lessons
Teacher policies
 Table II.6.21
Teacher collaboration and science performance

60 Score-point difference in science when principals reported that school teachers cooperate by
exchanging ideas or material
50
After accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile
40 Before accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile
30

20
10

0
-10

-20

-30
 Teacher co-operation
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who report doing the following activities at least once per month

Average Shanghai (China)

100
Exchange and co-ordination Professional collaboration
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
Percentage
20 of teachers
10
0
 Teachers Self-Efficacy and Professional Collaboration

13.40

13.20
Teach jointly as a team
in the same class
13.00
Observe other
12.80
Teacher self-efficacy (level)
teachers classes and
provide feedback
12.60
Engage in joint
12.40 activities across
different classes
12.20
Take part in
12.00 collaborative
11.80
professional learning

11.60

11.40

Less More
frequently frequently
25 Professionalism

Professionalism is the level of autonomy

and internal regulation exercised by
members of an occupation in providing
services to society
 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 to Knowledge base for teaching
maintain high standards of (initial education and incentives for
teaching (participation in induction, professional development)
mentoring, networks, feedback from direct
observations)
 Teacher professionalism

Autonomy: Teachers decision-

making power over their work
(teaching content, course offerings,
discipline practices)

Peer networks: Opportunities for

exchange and support needed to Knowledge base for teaching
maintain high standards of (initial education and incentives for
teaching (participation in induction, professional development)
mentoring, networks, feedback from direct
observations)
 Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting
28 TALIS Teacher professionalism index
for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3

10

9 Networks Autonomy Knowledge

8

0
 Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting
2929 Teacher outcomes
for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3

2
 Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after accounting
30 Teacher professionalism index and teacher outcomes
for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3

Predicted percentile
70

60

50

Low professionalism
40

High professionalism
30

20

10

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