pisa 2012 - creative problem solving: students’ skills in tackling real-life problems

OECD EMPLOYER BRANDPlaybook

1

PISA 2012Creative Problem SolvingStudents’ skills in tackling real-life problems

1 April 2014Andreas Schleicher

2 PISA in brief

• Over half a million students…– representing 28 million 15-year-olds in 65 countries/economies– Schools and students randomly selected by OECD

… 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– Mathematics, reading, science, problem-solving, financial literacy– Total of 390 minutes of assessment material

… and responded to questions on…– their personal background, their schools

and their engagement with learning and school• Parents, principals and system leaders provided data on…

– school policies, practices, resources and institutional factors that help explain performance differences .

…the capacity to engage creatively in cognitive processing to understand and

resolve problem situations where a method of solution is not immediately obvious

(including motivational and affective aspects).

Problem Solving: 85 000 students in 44 countries/economies took

an additional 40-min test

3

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2006 200935

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

Routine manualNonroutine manualRoutine cognitiveNonroutine analyticNonroutine interpersonal

Mean task input in percentiles of 1960 task distribution

The case for creative problem-solvingTrends in different tasks in occupations (United States)

Source: Autor, David H. and Brendan M. Price. 2013. "The Changing Task Composition of the US Labor Market: An Update of Autor, Levy, and Murnane (2003)." MIT Mimeograph, June.

5

TRAFFIC

Problem Solving – Sample Question 1

Julio lives in Silver, Maria lives in Lincoln, and Don lives in Nobel. They want to meet in a suburb on the map. No-one wants to travel for more than 15 minutes. Where could they meet?

This is an easy item – Level 1 on the problem-solving scale (below baseline)

All information required is given at the outset: it is a static problem

An embedded calculator ensures the item measures problem solving –

not arithmeticsThis item focuses on students’ ability to monitor and reflect on solutions.

6

TICKETSYou plan to take four trips around the city on the subway today. You are a student, so you can use concession fares. Use the ticketing machine to find the cheapest ticket and press BUY. Once you have pressed BUY, you cannot return to the question;

Problem Solving – Sample Question 2

This is a harder item – Level 5 on the problem-solving scale

Students must engage with the machine, and use the feedback and information uncovered to reach a

solution: it is an interactive problem

This main demand is exploring and understanding (knowledge acquisition)

Sample items can be tried at cbasq.acer.edu.au and www.oecd.org/pisa

7 77 Performance in problem-solving

How well do 15-year-olds engage creatively in cognitive processing to understand and resolve

problem situations?

• Exploring and understanding the information provided with the problem.

• Representing and formulating: constructing graphical, tabular, symbolic or verbal representations of the problem situation and formulating hypotheses about the relevant factors and relationships between them.

• Planning and executing: devising a plan by setting goals and sub-goals, and executing the sequential steps identified in the plan.

• Monitoring and reflecting: monitoring progress, reacting to feedback, and reflecting on the solution, the information provided with the problem, or the strategy adopted.

390

400

410

420

430

440

450

460

470

480

490

500

510

520

530

540

550

560

570SingaporeKorea

Japan

Macao-ChinaHong Kong-China Shanghai-ChinaChinese TaipeiCanadaAustraliaFinlandEngland (U.K.)Estonia France NetherlandsItalyCzech RepublicGermany

United States BelgiumAustriaNorwayIrelandDenmark

PortugalSwedenRussian Fed.Slovak RepublicPoland SpainSlovenia SerbiaCroatiaHungaryTurkeyIsraelChile

BrazilMalaysia

U.A.EMontenegro UruguayBulgaria Colombia

Chart TitleMean scoreStrong performance in

problem solving

Low performance in problem solving

Average performanceof 15-year-olds in

problem solvingFig V.2.3

8

99 Excellence in education

Top-performers in problem-solving

1010 The rising demand for advanced skills

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009*

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25%

Evolution of employment in occupational groups defined by PIAAC problem-solving skills

Employment of workers with advanced

problem-solving skills

Employment of workers with poor problem-solving skillsEmployment of workers with

medium-low problem-solving skills (PIAAC)

Source:PIAAC 2011

12

Singap

oreJa

pan

Chines

e Taip

ei

Canad

a

Macao

-Chin

a

Belgium

Netherl

ands

German

y

Czech

Rep

ublic

United

Stat

es

Austria

Irelan

d

Sweden

Slovak

Rep

ublic

Portug

al

Poland

Hunga

ry

Croatia

Turke

yBraz

il

Urugua

y

Malays

ia0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

%

Top performers in problem solving, by gender Tab V.4.6

Boys are more likely to be top performers than girls. In Italy, the Slovak Republic and Croatia, there are two top-performing boys for every girl performing at the top

Top performers attain proficiency Level 5 or 6 in problem solving, meaning that they can systematically explore a complexproblem scenario, devise multi-step solutions that take into account all constraints, and adjust their plans in light of thefeedback received.

1414 Strengths and weaknesses in problem-solving

Which countries have particular strengths in problem-solving ?

200 300 400 500 600 700 800200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Patterns of relative performance in problem solving

Problem solving performance

Mathematics performance

Fig V.2.16Fig V.2.17

Average relationship between problem

solving and mathematics performance

The United States and England (UK) perform better-than-expected in problem solving. The difference between

observed and expected performance is larger among strong performers in mathematics

Japan performs better-than-expected in problem solving. The difference between observed and expected performance is larger

among low achievers in mathematics Poland’s performance is lower-than-

expected in problem solving. The gap between observed and expected

performance is similar at all levels of mathematics performance.

15

Spain’s performance is lower-than-expected in problem solving. The

gap between observed and expected performance is wider

among low achievers in mathematics.

Singapore’s performance in problem solving is as high as

expected at all levels of mathematics performance

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

Bul

garia

Sha

ngha

i-Chi

na Pol

and

Uni

ted

Ara

b E

mira

tes Hun

gary

Slo

veni

a Isra

elU

rugu

ayM

onte

negr

oC

roat

iaS

pain

Irela

ndH

ong

Kon

g-C

hina

Net

herla

nds

Est

onia

Turk

eyM

alay

sia

Ger

man

yD

enm

ark

Bel

gium

Chi

nese

Tai

pei

Finl

and

OE

CD

ave

rage

Col

ombi

aA

ustri

aS

lova

k R

epub

licR

ussi

an F

eder

atio

nP

ortu

gal

Sw

eden

Can

ada

Cze

ch R

epub

licC

hile

Nor

way

Sin

gapo

reFr

ance

Aus

tralia

Bra

zil

Mac

ao-C

hina

Eng

land

(U.K

.)Ita

lyU

nite

d S

tate

sS

erbi

aJa

pan

Kor

ea

%

Relative performance in problem solving Fig V.2.15

Students' performance in problem solving is lower than their expected performance

Students' performance in problem solving is higher than their expected performance

16

Strengths and weaknesses:interactive and static tasks

Fig V.3.10

Better performance on static tasks

Better performance on interactive tasks

17

-0.04

0.03

-0.02

-0.09-0.08

0.02

-0.05-0.04

0.01

-0.07

0.05

-0.08

-0.11

0.07

0.12

-0.05-0.06

-0.23

0.01

-0.17

0.01

-0.04-0.06

-0.02

0.12

0.02

-0.07

0.060.04

-0.10

0.03

-0.04

0.06

0.16

0.03

-0.05

0.10

0.04

-0.01

-0.10

-0.07

0.05

-0.11

Strengths and weaknesses:knowledge-generation and knowledge-utilisation

Fig V.3.10

-0.04-0.02

-0.09-0.08

0.000.00

-0.10-0.04

0.00

-0.07 -0.08-0.11

-0.05

0.000.00

-0.06-0.10

-0.23

-0.07-0.17

0.00-0.06

0.00

-0.11

0.07

0.02885661401751490.02208824856682450

0.05973764032933910.03591911502528650

0.0562423276944717

0.159159543072608

0 0

0.04603303344194690.0709923378877416 0.02

0.0446300944948380.116200450695827

0 00

Better performance on knowledge-utilisation tasks

Better performance on knowledge-generation tasks

18

Strengths and weaknesses Fig V.3.10

0.120889317275453

-0.036300979726331

6

England

-0.020577267252252

9

-0.086093979745376

Slovak Rep.

0.0220882485668245

-0.069920444406873

4

Czech Rep.

0.0597376403293391

0.0359191150252865

-0.048054334958160

1 -0.099986094875926

9

-0.041963270528034

7

0.0300635292143855

-0.036533287518606

3

0.0562423276944717

0.159159543072608

0.00575540583173983

0.0302653486953077

-0.066219933920109

3

0.0460330334419469

-0.079882303872247

4-0.113958483588313

0.0709923378877416

-0.052595194122935

3

0.103124116781034

0.044630094494838

-0.014479321264834

3

0.116200450695827

-0.049554806433831-

0.0644115958595918 -0.102993319678348

-0.230282724675781

-0.070204676855154

2

U.A.E.

-0.170035342380878

0.0519337892269319

0.00765462843677577

-0.041373188066178

1 -0.059267106157907

3

Russian Fed.

-0.111913047794784

OEC

D a

v-

erag

e

OECD average

Better performance on interactive tasks

Better performance on static tasks

Better performance on knowledge-acquisition tasks

Better performance on knowledge-generation tasks

Stronger-than-expected performance on interactive items, weaker-than-expected performance on knowledge-acquisition tasks

Stronger-than-expected performance on interactive items and on knowledge-acquisition tasks

Weaker-than-expected performance on interactive items and on knowledge-acquisition tasks

Weaker-than-expected performance on interactive items , stronger-than-expected

performance on knowledge-acquisition tasks

19

2020 Student resilience

The country where students go to class matters more than what social class students come from

2121PISA mathematics performance by decile of social background

Mex

ico

Gre

ece

Swed

en

Isra

el

Unite

d St

ates

Denm

ark

Aust

ralia

Unite

d Ki

ngdo

m

Cana

da

Aust

ria

Liec

hten

stei

n

Esto

nia

Slov

enia

New

Zea

land

Net

herl

ands

Switz

erla

nd

Belg

ium

Mac

ao-C

hina

Kore

a

Chin

ese

Taip

ei300

325

350

375

400

425

450

475

500

525

550

575

600

625

650

675

Source: PISA 2012

22

Macao

-Chin

a

Hong K

ong-C

hina

Norway

Estonia

Sweden

United

Arab

Emira

tesSpa

in

Austra

lia

Netherl

ands

Monten

egro

Irelan

d

Austria

Poland

Sloven

ia

France

Serbia

Belgium Braz

il

Malays

iaChil

e

Urugua

y

Hunga

ry0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Problem solving Mathematics

Per

cent

age

of v

aria

tion

in p

erfo

rman

ce

expl

aine

d by

soc

io-e

cono

mic

sta

tus

Relationship between socio-economic background and performance in problem solving and mathematics

Fig V.4.9a

23

Mac

ao-C

hina

Hon

g K

ong-

Chi

naS

inga

pore

Kor

eaJa

pan

Sha

ngha

i-Chi

naC

hine

se T

aipe

iC

anad

aIta

lyE

ston

iaFi

nlan

dA

ustra

liaE

ngla

nd (U

K)

Uni

ted

Sta

tes

Fran

ceP

ortu

gal

Turk

eyN

ethe

rland

sB

elgi

umO

EC

D a

vera

geS

pain

Cze

ch R

epub

licA

ustri

aG

erm

any

Nor

way

Irela

ndD

enm

ark

Sw

eden

Pol

and

Rus

sian

Fed

erat

ion

Ser

bia

Cro

atia

Slo

vak

Rep

ublic

Bra

zil

Slo

veni

aC

hile

Hun

gary

Col

ombi

aIs

rael

Cyp

rus

Mal

aysi

aU

rugu

ayM

onte

negr

oU

.A.E

.B

ulga

ria

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

%

Percentage of ‘resilient’ students in problem solving Fig II.2.4

Socio-economically disadvantaged students not only score lower in problem solving, they also report lower levels of engagement, drive, motivation and self-beliefs. Resilient students break this link and share many characteristics of advantaged high-achievers.

A resilient student is situated in the bottom quarter of the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS) in the country of assessment and performs in the top quarter of students among all countries, after accounting for socio-economic status.

24

Finlan

d

Sweden

Denmark

Estonia

Irelan

dKore

aJa

pan

Austra

lia

Poland

Croatia Ita

lySpa

inIsr

ael

United

Stat

es

German

y

Turkey

Austria

Hong K

ong-C

hina

Slovak

Rep

ublic

Hunga

ry

Urugua

yChil

e0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Problem solving Mathematics PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS)

Pro

porti

on o

f var

iatio

n be

twee

n sc

hool

sas

a p

erce

ntag

e of

the

over

all (

with

in a

nd b

etw

een

scho

ol) v

aria

tion

Between-school differences in problem-solving, mathematics and socio-economic status

Fig V.2.12

2626 Country examples

Developing creative problem-solving skills

Country examples

• Involve employers and parents in developing a vision for education

• Make problem-solving competence an overarching goal of the curriculum

• Give every student a chance to engage in deep learning through meaningful projects

• Support teachers to ensure that project time is learning time

Embed learning of 21st century competencies and attitudes such as inquiry-based authentic learning in curricular subjects and co-curricular activitiesClear articulation of desired student outcomes to guide schools’ and teachers’ efforts and ensure coherence and alignment of curriculum, pedagogy and assessment.

Alberta’s Curriculum Redesign Project

Singapore’s 21st Century Competencies Framework

Japan’s Zest for Life approach

2828Le

sson

s fro

m h

igh

perfo

rmer

s

Strong performers and successful reformers

Low impact on outcomes

High impact on outcomes

Low feasibility High feasibility

Money pits

Must haves

Low hanging fruits

Quick wins

2929Le

sson

s fro

m h

igh

perfo

rmer

s




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

3030Le

sson

s fro

m h

igh

perfo

rmer

s




Money pits

Must haves

Low hanging fruits

Quick wins







A commitment to education and the belief that competencies can be learned and therefore all children can achieve

Universal educational standards and personalization as the approach to heterogeneity in the student body…

… as opposed to a belief that students have different destinations to be met with different expectations, and selection/stratification as the approach to heterogeneity

Clear articulation who is responsible for ensuring student success and to whom

31 Students and perseverance Percentage of students who reported that the following statements describe someone "very much like me" or "mostly like me" (*) or "not much like me" or "not at all like me" (**)

Disagree: When confronted with a problem, I give up easily

Disagree: I put off difficult problems

Agree: I remain interested in the tasks that I start

Agree: I continue working on tasks until everything is perfect

Agree: When confronted with a problem, I do more than what is expected of me

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Singapore OECD average

Fig III.3.2

32

Finlan

d

Norway

Chines

e Taip

ei

Sweden

Austra

lia

Portug

al

France

United

King

domJa

pan

Jorda

n

Macao

-Chin

a

Canad

a

OECD avera

geLa

tvia

United

Stat

es

Luxe

mbourg

Shang

hai-C

hina

Austria

Bulgari

a

Malays

ia

Mexico Peru

Turkey

Singap

ore

Czech

Rep

ublic

Argenti

na

Serbia

Sloven

ia

Indon

esia

Colombia

Netherl

ands

Estonia

Albania

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Score-point difference in mathematics associated with one unit of the index of perseverance

Average studentChange in performance per one unit of the index among lowest-achieving studentsChange in performance per one unit of the index among highest-achieving students

Scor

e-po

int d

iffer

ence

Perseverant students perform better (mathematics) Fig III.3.3

33 Openness to problem solvingPercentage of students who reported "agree" or "strongly agree" with the following statements:

I can handle a lot of information

I am quick to understand things

I seek explanation for things

I can easily link facts together

I like to solve complex problems

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Poland Singapore OECD average

%

Fig III.3.4

34

Korea

Austra

lia

Finlan

d

Czech

Rep

ublic

Lithu

ania

Denmark

Norway

Austria

Estonia

OECD avera

geLa

tvia

Liech

tenste

in

Icelan

d

Greece

Switzerl

andJa

pan

Luxe

mbourg

Poland

Slovak

Rep

ublic

Russia

n Fed

.

Mexico

Netherl

ands

Urugua

y

Turkey

Peru

Serbia

Roman

ia

Argenti

na

Malays

iaQata

r

Kazak

hstan

Colombia

Albania

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Score-point difference in mathematics associated withone unit of the index of students' openness to problem solving

Average studentChange in performance per one unit of the index among lowest-achieving students

Scor

e-po

int d

iffer

ence

Students open to problem solving perform better (math) Fig III.3.5

3535Le

sson

s fro

m h

igh

perfo

rmer

s




Money pits

Must haves

Low hanging fruits

Quick wins







Clear ambitious goals that are shared across the system and aligned with high stakes gateways and instructional systems

Well established delivery chain through which curricular goals translate into instructional systems, instructional practices and student learning (intended, implemented and achieved)

High level of metacognitive content of instruction …

3636Le

sson

s fro

m h

igh

perfo

rmer

s




Money pits

Must haves

Low hanging fruits

Quick wins







Capacity at the point of delivery Attracting, developing and retaining high quality

teachers and school leaders and a work organisation in which they can use their potential

Instructional leadership and human resource management in schools

Keeping teaching an attractive profession System-wide career development …

3737Le

sson

s fro

m h

igh

perfo

rmer

s




Money pits

Must haves

Low hanging fruits

Quick wins







Incentives, accountability, knowledge management Aligned incentive structures

For students How gateways affect the strength, direction, clarity and nature of the incentives

operating on students at each stage of their education Degree to which students have incentives to take tough courses and study hard Opportunity costs for staying in school and performing well

For teachers Make innovations in pedagogy and/or organisation Improve their own performance

and the performance of their colleagues Pursue professional development opportunities

that lead to stronger pedagogical practices A balance between vertical and lateral accountability Effective instruments to manage and share knowledge and spread

innovation – communication within the system and with stakeholders around it

A capable centre with authority and legitimacy to act

3838Le

sson

s fro

m h

igh

perfo

rmer

s38 School autonomy

39

39

39

-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

531.551979302783

414.947431329217

430.53288984921

423.795593172672

484.685067484024

507.375949559565

493.913526079401

557.719613495498

454.493852942216459.674291542381

419.468595641077

488.357558008343

404.86657067849406.81928697245

410.692469685374

455.967032005237

396.468122669645

431.953772561969416.098738598916

300.849653448456

527.668467891543

404.539944308878

440.111661967012

474.054187560775

464.989161819408

547.743708881437

626.566663790363

452.789179885987

529.511834268283

497.071637137884

453.49524309675

482.577394045123

532.465311188924

506.274697797594

488.818411796174

402.907104971934

498.55233132561486.358212456265

502.809277446549

485.011835724539

525.143096315803

466.514022482625

460.853234111852

488.150072840935484.3703865799

468.514073102546

499.317279833724

438.810335285436

499.440165643771501.844010272146

478.664970193416480.554307802789

498.658254792673

481.116171960251

503.011259906496490.67709912419

463.432481043829

552.313972933536

478.845972683071R² = 0.133981453407518

Index of school responsibility for curriculum and assessment (index points)

Mat

hem

atic

s pe

rform

ance

(sco

re p

oint

s)Countries that grant schools autonomy over curricula and assessments tend to perform better in mathematics

Source: PISA 2012

Less school autonomy

More school autonomy

455

460

465

470

475

480

485

No standardised math policy

Standardised math policy

Schools with more autonomy perform better than schools with less autonomy in systems with standardised math policies

Score points

School autonomy for curriculum and assessment x system's extent of implementing a standardised math policy (e.g. curriculum and instructional materials)

Fig IV.1.16

Schools with more autonomy perform better than schools with less autonomy in systems with more collaboration



455

460

465

470

475

480

485

Teachers don't participate in management

Teachers participate in management

Score points

School autonomy for resource allocation x System's level of teachers participating in school managementAcross all participating countries and economies

Fig IV.1.17

Schools with more autonomy perform better than schools with less autonomy in systems with more accountability arrangements



464

466

468

470

472

474

476

478

School data not public

School data public

Score points

School autonomy for curriculum and assessment x system's level of posting achievement data publicly

Fig IV.1.16

43

Written specification of the school's curriculum and educational goals

Written specification of student-performance standards

Systematic recording of data, including teacher and student attendance and graduation rates, test results and professional development of teachers

Internal evaluation/self-evaluation

External evaluation

Written feedback from students (e.g. regarding lessons, teachers or resources)

Teacher mentoring

Regular consultation with one or more experts over a period of at least six months with the aim of improving the school

Implementation of a standardised policy for mathematics

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percentage of students in schools whose principal reported that their schools have the following for quality assurance and improvement:

Singapore OECD average

%

Quality assurance and school improvement Fig IV.4.14

4444Le

sson

s fro

m h

igh

perfo

rmer

s




Money pits

Must haves

Low hanging fruits

Quick wins







Investing resources where they can make mostof a difference

Alignment of resources with key challenges (e.g. attracting the most talented teachers to the most challenging classrooms)

Effective spending choices that prioritise high quality teachers over smaller classes

4545 Align the resources with the challenges

-0.500.511.5300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700R² = 0

Equity in resource allocation (index points)

Mat

hem

atic

s pe

rform

ance

(sco

re p

oint

s)

Greater equityLess equity

Adjusted by per capita GDP

Countries with better performance in mathematics tend to allocate educational resources more equitably

Source: PISA 2012

4646 Adequate resources to address disadvantage

Disadvantaged schools reported more teacher shortage

Advantaged schools reported more teacher shortage

Kor

eaEs

toni

aIs

rael

Latv

iaSl

oven

iaIta

lyPo

land

Sing

apor

eA

rgen

tina

Net

herla

nds

Portu

gal

Col

ombi

aFr

ance

Finl

and

Tuni

sia

Mac

ao-C

hina

Spai

nG

reec

eSw

itzer

land

Nor

way

Rus

sian

Fed

.Ja

pan

Aus

tria

Mon

tene

gro

Cro

atia

Can

ada

OEC

D a

vera

geG

erm

any

Den

mar

kH

unga

ryU

nite

d K

ingd

omLu

xem

bour

gH

ong

Kon

g-C

hina

Bel

gium

Icel

and

Viet

Nam

Irela

ndU

nite

d St

ates

Chi

leC

zech

Rep

ublic

Serb

iaTu

rkey

Mex

ico

Indo

nesi

aU

rugu

aySh

angh

ai-C

hina

Slov

ak R

epub

licSw

eden

Bra

zil

New

Zea

land

Aus

tralia

Chi

nese

Tai

pei-0.5

-0.3

-0.1

0.1

0.3

0.5

0.7

0.9

1.1

1.3

1.5Difference between socio-economically disadvantaged and socio-economically advantaged schools

Mea

n in

dex

diffe

renc

e

A shortage of qualified teachers is more of concern in disadvantaged schools

47

Shang

hai-C

hina

Franc

e

Macao

-Chin

a

Switzerla

nd

Czech

Rep

ublic

Thail

and

Denmark

Viet N

amU.A

.E.

Greec

eSpa

in

Singapo

re

Finlan

d

Poland

Austra

lia

OECD averag

e

Malays

ia

Luxe

mbourg

Mexico Per

u

Portugal

Turke

y

Canada

Tunisi

aChile

Korea

Russian

Fed.

Kazakh

stan

Colombia

Sloven

iaLa

tvia

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

before accounting for students' socio-economic status after accounting for students' socio-economic status

Scor

e po

int d

iffer

ence

Difference in mathematics performance, by attendance at pre-primary school

Students who attended pre-primary school perform better

Fig III.4.12

4848Le

sson

s fro

m h

igh

perfo

rmer

s




Money pits

Must haves

Low hanging fruits

Quick wins







Coherence of policies and practices Alignment of policies

across all aspects of the system Coherence of policies

over sustained periods of time Consistency of implementation Fidelity of implementation

(without excessive control)

4949Le

sson

s fro

m h

igh

perfo

rmer

s




Money pits

Must haves

Low hanging fruits

Quick wins







5050Le

sson

s fro

m h

igh

perfo

rmer

s Some students learn at high levels

All students need to learn at high levels

Student inclusion

Routine cognitive skills, rote learning

Learning to learn, complex ways of thinking, ways

of workingCurriculum, instruction and assessment

Few years more than secondary

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

Thank you !

Find out more about PISA at www.pisa.oecd.org• All national and international publications• The complete micro-level database

Email: [email protected]: SchleicherEDU

and remember:Without data, you are just another person with an opinion

pisa 2012 - creative problem solving: students’ skills in tackling real-life problems

Education

universal

delivery incentive

outcomes high

china usa

instructional

achieving

resolve problem

acquisition