by Tarek Mostafa
Analyst, Directorate for Education and Skills
Teachers play a vital role in the lives of
Analyst, Directorate for Education and Skills
Teachers play a vital role in the lives of
Showing posts with label PISA in Focus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PISA in Focus. Show all posts
How PISA measures students’ ability to collaborate
collaborative learning PISA PISA in Focus problem solving skillsDirector, Directorate for Education and Skills
Late next month (21 November, to be exact) we’ll be releasing the results PISA’s first-ever assessment of students’ ability to solve problems collaboratively. Why has PISA focused on this particular set of skills? Because in today’s increasingly interconnected world, people are often required to collaborate in order to achieve their objectives, both in the workplace and in their personal lives. Working with others is not as easy as it sounds. One person might end up reproducing another’s work; poor communication and personal tensions between people might prevent a team from reaching its goal. So it’s worth finding out whether students today know what it takes to work (and play) well with others.
This month’s PISA in Focus describes what it means, according to PISA, to be competent in collaborative problem solving. Along with the skills needed to solve problems individually, a good team member also has to develop and maintain a shared understanding of the problem with his or her teammates, take the actions needed to solve the problem, and establish and maintain team organisation. These skills can help determine how students learn, teachers teach and how we judge the performance of schools.
PISA in Focus also explains how PISA is able to measure students’ collaboration skills – not, as you might expect, by observing students as they work with other students, but by following their interactions with team members who are actually computer simulations of humans (known as computer agents). Today’s technology allows us to assess students’ 21st century skills. Not only can the behaviour of these computer agents be controlled, but they can also be programmed so that some are more co-operative than others, and some may be more focused on solving the problem than others. Sound familiar? Yes: they’re programmed to be just like you and me.
Several “screen shots” from a part of the assessment that was released to the public are also presented so you can get a better idea of the kinds of tasks PISA students were asked to perform, and how the students’ responses express the skills they need to collaborate with others. In short, this month’s PISA in Focus gives you both a behind-the-scenes look at the thinking that went into the design of the assessment, and a front-row seat for when the results of the assessment are released next month.
Links
Advocating for equality among schools? Resources matter
disadvantaged students equality extracurricular Inequality PISA PISA in Focus resources school systems student performanceby Rose Bolognini
Communications and Publications Co-ordinator, Directorate for Education and Skills
Disadvantaged students don’t have as many resources at home as their advantaged peers so ideally schools would need to compensate by providing more support. However, often schools reinforce social disparities rather than moderate them. The latest PISA in Focus brief reveals that students in socio-economically disadvantaged schools are less exposed to learning environments and educational resources that matter most for science performance.
In fact, the latest round of PISA is telling. In 50 of the 72 countries and economies that participated, advantaged schools have more access to educational resources specific to science classes. And PISA finds that students perform better in science when schools have qualified science teachers, and high-quality laboratory and other materials for hands-on activities in science classes.
What's more, disadvantaged students benefit more from being exposed to extracurricular activities than advantaged students. But yet among the majority of countries that took the PISA test, the range of learning opportunities beyond regular classes is much narrower in disadvantaged schools. Disadvantaged students taking the PISA test reported that the schools they attend don’t offer options such as science competitions and clubs, sports, music and arts activities.
The latest PISA in Focus explores this topic in greater detail showing that allocating resources more equitably across schools is an indispensable first step if schools are to compensate for inequalities in family background. But there are other measures policy makers and school leaders can take to promote equity. Among others – ensuring access to various educational resources, and the capacity of school staff to make the best use of those resources, is one way for schools to help students. These measures are imperative because PISA continuously shows that school systems already combining high performance and equity demonstrate that it is possible to offer high-quality education opportunities to all students.
Communications and Publications Co-ordinator, Directorate for Education and Skills
Disadvantaged students don’t have as many resources at home as their advantaged peers so ideally schools would need to compensate by providing more support. However, often schools reinforce social disparities rather than moderate them. The latest PISA in Focus brief reveals that students in socio-economically disadvantaged schools are less exposed to learning environments and educational resources that matter most for science performance.
In fact, the latest round of PISA is telling. In 50 of the 72 countries and economies that participated, advantaged schools have more access to educational resources specific to science classes. And PISA finds that students perform better in science when schools have qualified science teachers, and high-quality laboratory and other materials for hands-on activities in science classes.
What's more, disadvantaged students benefit more from being exposed to extracurricular activities than advantaged students. But yet among the majority of countries that took the PISA test, the range of learning opportunities beyond regular classes is much narrower in disadvantaged schools. Disadvantaged students taking the PISA test reported that the schools they attend don’t offer options such as science competitions and clubs, sports, music and arts activities.
The latest PISA in Focus explores this topic in greater detail showing that allocating resources more equitably across schools is an indispensable first step if schools are to compensate for inequalities in family background. But there are other measures policy makers and school leaders can take to promote equity. Among others – ensuring access to various educational resources, and the capacity of school staff to make the best use of those resources, is one way for schools to help students. These measures are imperative because PISA continuously shows that school systems already combining high performance and equity demonstrate that it is possible to offer high-quality education opportunities to all students.
Links
PISA in Focus No.76: How do schools compensate for socio-economic disadvantage?
The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)
The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)
Follow the conversation on twitter: #OECDPISA
Join our OECD Teacher Community on Edmodo
Photo credit: @Shutterstock
Join our OECD Teacher Community on Edmodo
Photo credit: @Shutterstock
Do countries have to choose between more educated or better-educated children?
academic performance access education performance learning outcomes PISA PISA in Focus quality skills skills educationby Francesco Avvisati
Analyst, Directorate for Education and Skills
While Joana, a 15-year-old girl from Fortaleza in Brazil, was sitting the PISA test in 2015, her cousin, also 15 but living in the countryside, was busy working in the family business. In fact, by the time they turn 15, many adolescents in low- and middle-income countries are no longer enrolled in school (or have never been), particularly in sub-Saharan Africa and South and West Asia. But soon, those children may be able to sit a PISA test specifically designed for out-of-school youth.
Increasing the educational attainment of young adults has been the focus of much effort over recent decades. But we all know that having children spend more time in school does not guarantee that every student will learn. For this reason, the fourth Sustainable Development Goal (SDG4), which defines the new global agenda for education and was adopted by the United Nations in September 2015, emphasises improvements in the quality of education and learning outcomes, rather than increases in time spent at school.
This challenging goal urges countries not only to increase access to education, but also to improve the skills of students who are already in school. If you think it is impossible to do both at the same time, you probably have not yet read the latest PISA in Focus.
This month’s issue investigates what happened to the PISA results of countries, such as Albania, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Indonesia, Jordan, Mexico, Turkey and Uruguay, all of which expanded their education systems to include previously excluded – and mostly disadvantaged – populations. Perhaps surprisingly, for many of them, average performance improved.
PISA shows that the goals of more inclusive and better-quality education can go hand in hand in low- and middle-income countries when governments are committed to measuring the outcomes of schooling. In other words, it shows that countries do not have to choose between quality and quantity. While dismantling the barriers to schooling, countries can also help every student acquire the skills they need to thrive in increasingly knowledge-intensive economies.
Analyst, Directorate for Education and Skills
Increasing the educational attainment of young adults has been the focus of much effort over recent decades. But we all know that having children spend more time in school does not guarantee that every student will learn. For this reason, the fourth Sustainable Development Goal (SDG4), which defines the new global agenda for education and was adopted by the United Nations in September 2015, emphasises improvements in the quality of education and learning outcomes, rather than increases in time spent at school.
This challenging goal urges countries not only to increase access to education, but also to improve the skills of students who are already in school. If you think it is impossible to do both at the same time, you probably have not yet read the latest PISA in Focus.
This month’s issue investigates what happened to the PISA results of countries, such as Albania, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Indonesia, Jordan, Mexico, Turkey and Uruguay, all of which expanded their education systems to include previously excluded – and mostly disadvantaged – populations. Perhaps surprisingly, for many of them, average performance improved.
PISA shows that the goals of more inclusive and better-quality education can go hand in hand in low- and middle-income countries when governments are committed to measuring the outcomes of schooling. In other words, it shows that countries do not have to choose between quality and quantity. While dismantling the barriers to schooling, countries can also help every student acquire the skills they need to thrive in increasingly knowledge-intensive economies.
Links
Photo credit: @shutterstock
Can bullying be stopped?
academic performance bullying cyber bullying disciplinary climate in the classroom PISA PISA in Focusby Mario Piacentini
Analyst, Directorate for Education and Skills
The latest PISA in Focus tells some basic facts about bullying. First, bullying is widespread. Second, all types of students – boys and girls, rich and poor – face some risk of being bullied. Third, bullying is strongly associated with low performance and psychological distress. Fourth, the quality of the school climate is related to the incidence of bullying at school.
Reports of bullying are alarmingly high in almost every country. Some 4% of students across OECD countries reported that they are hit or pushed around by other students at least a few times per month. Another 8% of students reported they are hit or pushed a few times per year. Around 8% of students reported that they are frequently the object of nasty rumours in school. Physical bullying is less common among girls, but girls are more often victims of more subtle forms of harassment, such as nasty rumours, that can be just as harmful as more visible types of violence. Recently arrived immigrant students are often the target of bullies.
Bullied students are more likely to underperform at school, and schools where bullying is more frequent perform at much lower levels in PISA than schools where bullying is less frequent, even after accounting for other student characteristics, such as socio-economic status. As in general for analysis based on PISA data, we cannot really talk about a causal impact. However, results from PISA confirm a rich body of evidence showing that the stress experienced by victims of physical or relational bullying can lead to anxiety, and in some cases depression, and makes it very hard for victims to concentrate on school tasks and perform well at school.
The basic message is clear: we must do more to reduce bullying in schools. With cyberbullying on the rise, action is more urgent today than it has ever been. But can bullying be stopped? Evidence shows that it is possible to considerably reduce the incidence of bullying. PISA data suggest that environmental factors, such as the attitudes and behaviour of the teaching staff, can influence the extent to which bullying problems will manifest themselves in school. Schools where teachers can keep the class quiet when they teach, and where students perceive they are treated fairly by their teachers, have a lower incidence of bullying than schools with a poor disciplinary climate and negative teacher-student relations. Reducing the incidence of bullying is thus easier in a school environment characterised by warmth, attention and interest from adults; firm limits on unacceptable behavior; and adults who act as authorities and positive role models.
Creating a school culture that helps curb bullying requires a whole-school approach, with co-ordinated engagement among school staff, students and parents. Several of the anti-bullying programmes that have proved to be successful (such as the KiVA initiative in Finland or the School Learning Environment Plan in the Spanish province of Castilla y Leon) include training for teachers on how to handle bullying behaviour and its associated group processes, anonymous surveys of students to monitor the prevalence of bullying, and strategies to provide information to and engage with parents. Programmes also need to be long-term, and frequently monitored and evaluated to be effective.
Bullying will not disappear any time soon; but with a joint effort by schools, parents and students, going to school can become a healthier and happier experience. Public policy can support the implementation of anti-bullying programmes at schools and facilitate more research and evaluations to increase the effectiveness of these programmes.
Links
PISA in Focus No. 74: How much of a problem is bullying at school?
PISA 2015 Results (Volume III) - Students' Well-Being
The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)
Follow the conversation on twitter: #OECDPISA
Join our OECD Teacher Community on Edmodo
Photo credit: Bully symbol for download @shutterstock
Analyst, Directorate for Education and Skills
The latest PISA in Focus tells some basic facts about bullying. First, bullying is widespread. Second, all types of students – boys and girls, rich and poor – face some risk of being bullied. Third, bullying is strongly associated with low performance and psychological distress. Fourth, the quality of the school climate is related to the incidence of bullying at school.
Reports of bullying are alarmingly high in almost every country. Some 4% of students across OECD countries reported that they are hit or pushed around by other students at least a few times per month. Another 8% of students reported they are hit or pushed a few times per year. Around 8% of students reported that they are frequently the object of nasty rumours in school. Physical bullying is less common among girls, but girls are more often victims of more subtle forms of harassment, such as nasty rumours, that can be just as harmful as more visible types of violence. Recently arrived immigrant students are often the target of bullies.
Bullied students are more likely to underperform at school, and schools where bullying is more frequent perform at much lower levels in PISA than schools where bullying is less frequent, even after accounting for other student characteristics, such as socio-economic status. As in general for analysis based on PISA data, we cannot really talk about a causal impact. However, results from PISA confirm a rich body of evidence showing that the stress experienced by victims of physical or relational bullying can lead to anxiety, and in some cases depression, and makes it very hard for victims to concentrate on school tasks and perform well at school.
The basic message is clear: we must do more to reduce bullying in schools. With cyberbullying on the rise, action is more urgent today than it has ever been. But can bullying be stopped? Evidence shows that it is possible to considerably reduce the incidence of bullying. PISA data suggest that environmental factors, such as the attitudes and behaviour of the teaching staff, can influence the extent to which bullying problems will manifest themselves in school. Schools where teachers can keep the class quiet when they teach, and where students perceive they are treated fairly by their teachers, have a lower incidence of bullying than schools with a poor disciplinary climate and negative teacher-student relations. Reducing the incidence of bullying is thus easier in a school environment characterised by warmth, attention and interest from adults; firm limits on unacceptable behavior; and adults who act as authorities and positive role models.
Creating a school culture that helps curb bullying requires a whole-school approach, with co-ordinated engagement among school staff, students and parents. Several of the anti-bullying programmes that have proved to be successful (such as the KiVA initiative in Finland or the School Learning Environment Plan in the Spanish province of Castilla y Leon) include training for teachers on how to handle bullying behaviour and its associated group processes, anonymous surveys of students to monitor the prevalence of bullying, and strategies to provide information to and engage with parents. Programmes also need to be long-term, and frequently monitored and evaluated to be effective.
Bullying will not disappear any time soon; but with a joint effort by schools, parents and students, going to school can become a healthier and happier experience. Public policy can support the implementation of anti-bullying programmes at schools and facilitate more research and evaluations to increase the effectiveness of these programmes.
Links
PISA in Focus No. 74: How much of a problem is bullying at school?
PISA 2015 Results (Volume III) - Students' Well-Being
The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)
Follow the conversation on twitter: #OECDPISA
Join our OECD Teacher Community on Edmodo
Photo credit: Bully symbol for download @shutterstock
Studying more may not make you a top-performer
PISA PISA in Focus student learning Time spent on homeworkby Hélène Guillou
Consultant, OECD Directorate for Education and Skills
It’s 3pm in Finland. A bell rings, marking the end of classes in a middle school and time for students to go home. In a different part of the world, at the exact same time, other students are also just finishing up classes. Except for these students, it’s not the middle of the afternoon, but night time, and they have just spent several hours studying in a “cram-school”, after a normal school day.
Even if Finnish students study for a couple of hours after school, they will still have spent significantly less time cracking the books than some of their East Asian counterparts. Yet, when it comes to performance, Finland ranks among the top-performing countries in science.
As this month’s PISA in Focus reveals, students spend considerably more time learning in some countries than in others, but this does not necessarily translate into better learning outcomes.
Across OECD countries and economies, students reported spending 44 hours per week learning. This represents approximately 55% of students’ available time, excluding weekends and eight hours of sleep per day. In some countries and economies, such as Beijing-Shanghai-Jiangsu-Guangdong (China), Qatar, Thailand, Tunisia and the United Arab Emirates, students spend at least 65% of their available time learning; whereas in others, notably Finland, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland and Uruguay, students spend less than half of their available time learning. Most of these differences are explained by the variation in the time students spend studying after school, which includes homework, additional instruction and private study, rather than the time they spend in regular school lessons. For instance, students in the United Arab Emirates spend 17 hours more studying after school and 5 hours more in school compared to Finnish students.
When looking at the relationship between time spent studying and performance, the diversity among countries and economies is even more striking. Some manage to both score at or above the OECD average while still providing their students with free time to practice sports, or to discover their passion for other activities such as playing the guitar. And just as Finnish and East Asian students perform at equally high levels while experiencing completely different school routines, in other school systems, students perform below the OECD average despite long hours of studying. In these school systems, the ratio between PISA science scores and total learning time is relatively low. This not only calls into question the efficiency of their education systems but can also signal differences in learning time across education levels, with students compensating for the time spent learning in earlier stages of their education. The ratio might also reveal that, in order to succeed academically, students in some education systems need to spend more time in “planned” or “deliberate” learning because they have fewer opportunities to learn informally outside of school. What some students learn by discussing with their parents, others have to learn by spending more time studying at a desk.
But even if we just focus on planned learning time, not all of its components are associated the same way with science performance. In school systems where less time overall is spent learning science, an increase in the average time students spend learning in regular science lessons is associated with an increase in the average science score. But, for every additional hour spent studying after school, the average science score drops by about 20 points, revealing that learning time in school may be more effective than studying after school. However, students who are already low-performers may be those who need that extra time after school to learn.
It is difficult to say how many hours students should spend studying, if such an optimal time exists. One thing is certain though: being inspired by an enlightening science class sounds much more enjoyable than memorising a lesson far into the night.
Links
PISA in Focus No. 73: Do students spend enough time learning?
Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)
Follow the conversation on twitter: #OECDPISA
Join our OECD Teacher Community on Edmodo
Consultant, OECD Directorate for Education and Skills
It’s 3pm in Finland. A bell rings, marking the end of classes in a middle school and time for students to go home. In a different part of the world, at the exact same time, other students are also just finishing up classes. Except for these students, it’s not the middle of the afternoon, but night time, and they have just spent several hours studying in a “cram-school”, after a normal school day.
Even if Finnish students study for a couple of hours after school, they will still have spent significantly less time cracking the books than some of their East Asian counterparts. Yet, when it comes to performance, Finland ranks among the top-performing countries in science.
As this month’s PISA in Focus reveals, students spend considerably more time learning in some countries than in others, but this does not necessarily translate into better learning outcomes.
Across OECD countries and economies, students reported spending 44 hours per week learning. This represents approximately 55% of students’ available time, excluding weekends and eight hours of sleep per day. In some countries and economies, such as Beijing-Shanghai-Jiangsu-Guangdong (China), Qatar, Thailand, Tunisia and the United Arab Emirates, students spend at least 65% of their available time learning; whereas in others, notably Finland, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland and Uruguay, students spend less than half of their available time learning. Most of these differences are explained by the variation in the time students spend studying after school, which includes homework, additional instruction and private study, rather than the time they spend in regular school lessons. For instance, students in the United Arab Emirates spend 17 hours more studying after school and 5 hours more in school compared to Finnish students.
When looking at the relationship between time spent studying and performance, the diversity among countries and economies is even more striking. Some manage to both score at or above the OECD average while still providing their students with free time to practice sports, or to discover their passion for other activities such as playing the guitar. And just as Finnish and East Asian students perform at equally high levels while experiencing completely different school routines, in other school systems, students perform below the OECD average despite long hours of studying. In these school systems, the ratio between PISA science scores and total learning time is relatively low. This not only calls into question the efficiency of their education systems but can also signal differences in learning time across education levels, with students compensating for the time spent learning in earlier stages of their education. The ratio might also reveal that, in order to succeed academically, students in some education systems need to spend more time in “planned” or “deliberate” learning because they have fewer opportunities to learn informally outside of school. What some students learn by discussing with their parents, others have to learn by spending more time studying at a desk.
But even if we just focus on planned learning time, not all of its components are associated the same way with science performance. In school systems where less time overall is spent learning science, an increase in the average time students spend learning in regular science lessons is associated with an increase in the average science score. But, for every additional hour spent studying after school, the average science score drops by about 20 points, revealing that learning time in school may be more effective than studying after school. However, students who are already low-performers may be those who need that extra time after school to learn.
It is difficult to say how many hours students should spend studying, if such an optimal time exists. One thing is certain though: being inspired by an enlightening science class sounds much more enjoyable than memorising a lesson far into the night.
Links
PISA in Focus No. 73: Do students spend enough time learning?
Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)
Follow the conversation on twitter: #OECDPISA
Join our OECD Teacher Community on Edmodo
Photo credit: @shutterstock
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)