Technology and Technology and educational educational performanceperformance

Comparative evidenceComparative evidence

Francesc PedróFrancesc Pedró

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100Broadband in primary and secondary schools of OECD countries, 2006 or latest available year, in per cent. Broadband in primary and secondary schools of OECD countries, 2006 or latest available year, in per cent. SourceSource: National : National

statistical office, Eurostat, US Department of Education (value for 2005).statistical office, Eurostat, US Department of Education (value for 2005).

The context: high investments, low use?The context: high investments, low use?

Teachers and pupils in compulsory education who have not used a computer in the classroom in the past 12 months Teachers and pupils in compulsory education who have not used a computer in the classroom in the past 12 months (2006). (2006). SourceSource: Empirica, 2007.: Empirica, 2007.

1. Technology use is connected to a 1. Technology use is connected to a significant increase in performancesignificant increase in performance

3

Frequency of use of computers at home and student performance on PISA science scale

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

Fin

lan

d

Jap

an

Ko

rea

Sw

ed

en

Ca

na

da

Ma

ca

o-

Ire

lan

d

Ne

w

Ne

the

rla

nd

s

Lie

ch

ten

ste

i

Slo

ve

nia

Ru

ssia

n

Po

lan

d

La

tvia

Ge

rma

ny

Sw

itze

rla

nd

Hu

ng

ary

Au

str

alia

Au

str

ia

Cze

ch

Cro

ati

a

Be

lgiu

m

Gre

ece

Slo

va

k

Lit

hu

an

ia

De

nm

ark

Sp

ain

Ice

lan

d

No

rw

ay

Ita

ly

Po

rtu

ga

l

Tu

rke

y

Ch

ile

Uru

gu

ay

Jord

an

Se

rb

ia

Bu

lga

ria

Th

aila

nd

Co

lom

bia

Qa

tar

Frequent use Moderate use Rare or no use

2. However, no matching evidence 2. However, no matching evidence regarding use in schoolsregarding use in schools

4

Frequency of use of computers at school and student performance on PISA science scale

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

Fin

land

Lie

chte

nste

in

New

Zeala

nd

Japan

Canada

Germ

any

Kore

a

Neth

erla

nds

Hungary

Irela

nd

Sw

itzerla

nd

Belg

ium

Austr

alia

Austr

ia

Sw

eden

Gre

ece

Pola

nd

Spain

Cro

atia

Macao-C

hin

a

Lithuania

Italy

Slo

venia

Slo

vak R

epublic

Czech R

epublic

Norw

ay

Latv

ia

Icela

nd

Portu

gal

Denm

ark

Russia

n F

ederation

Chile

Turkey

Uruguay

Bulg

aria

Thailand

Serbia

Jord

an

Colo

mbia

Qata

r

Frequent use Moderate use Rare or no use

3. Moreover, SES explains part of the variance3. Moreover, SES explains part of the variance

5-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Russian …Turkey

NetherlandsLatviaQatar

ColombiaNorwayCanada

ThailandMacao-China

SwedenJ ordanJ apan

SerbiaGreece

LithuaniaSlovenia

PolandHungary

DenmarkLiechtenstein

CroatiaI reland

Slovak RepublicI taly

FinlandGermany

SpainChile

UruguayBulgaria

Czech RepublicSwitzerland

PortugalI celand

BelgiumAustralia

KoreaAustria

New Zealand

Observed performance difference in science scale associated with years using a computer

More than five years Three to five years One to three years

0 50 100 150

TurkeyRussian Federation

ThailandLithuaniaSlovenia

SerbiaSlovak Republic

GreeceLatvia

NetherlandsColombiaBulgaria

J ordanHungary

PolandSweden

ChileCanadaNorway

UruguayDenmark

J apanGermany

CroatiaQatar

I relandMacao-China

I talyCzech Republic

FinlandSpain

PortugalAustraliaBelgium

SwitzerlandNew Zealand

I celandAustriaKorea

Liechtenstein

Performance difference after accounting for differences in socio-economic background (ESCS)

More than five years Three to five years One to three years

3. And not all pupils have the same approach 3. And not all pupils have the same approach to technology useto technology use

6

4. But, would the results be different if we 4. But, would the results be different if we could raise school use?could raise school use?

7

5. Is it worth raising school use?5. Is it worth raising school use?

8

1.1. Does it pay off financially?Does it pay off financially?

2.2. Does it pay off in terms of equity?Does it pay off in terms of equity?

Thank youThank you

Francesc.Pedro@OECD.org

Deputy Director General Øystein Johannessen

Norwegian Ministry of Education and ResearchLearning and Technology World Forum

London 13 January 2009

In Search of Evidence: The Unbearable Hunt for

Causality

11 Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research

My Agenda

• Barking up the right tree? • Multi-channeled knowledge base• The Road Ahead

12 Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research

Barking up the right tree?

• Quality of learning is a very wide and complex concept.

• Need for documentation and evidence, not anecdotes.

• The moving target– Technological dynamic and diversity– Methodological challenges– Emergence of new digital skills– Quality versus relevance

• Bottom line: The question is not if ICT improves learning, the question is HOW we can ensure that ICT adds value

13 Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research

Multi-channel knowledge base a necessity

• First order indicators: Monitor access development

• Second order indicators: Monitor actual use of ICT– Benchmarking of digital learning resources.

Looking to break new ground• Third order indicators: Innovation, creativity• Gender and SES differences should be object

of further studies

14 Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research

Challenges on the road ahead

• It is the quality of ICT usage, rather than necessarily the quantity, that will determine the contribution that these technologies make to students outcome. (OECD/PISA)

• Balancing Act: Need to know – manageable reporting and benchmarking systems

• How do we ensure a good mix of methods (quantitative/qualitative)?

• We need to facilitate Learner Voices

15 Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research

Our common challenge

To develop theeducational systemour childrendeserve and need