8. Insights and interpretations

Anna Pons
Lawrence Houldsworth

Improving the quality of teaching is the key to ensuring that all students develop the knowledge and skills that help them reach their full potential. Observing the variation in teaching practices both within and across countries, and linking this to the outcomes achieved is the key to understanding quality in teaching. This is what the present Study is about. It offers a rare window into the classrooms of the world, through observing the intricate and complex nature of teaching, and documenting the observations within an internationally agreed framework. Its findings capture the broad trends of classroom teaching in different contexts and school systems and can provide insights on areas of strength in teachers’ practice, as well as highlighting potential opportunities for improvement and growth.

Figure 8.1 shows the mean score for each participating country/economy in the three domains of teaching based on classroom observation scores. Overall, teachers excelled at managing the classroom, gave students some social-emotional support and provided them with reasonable instructional quality.

Today, the long-standing image of a teacher at the front of a classroom providing instruction and maintaining order is still largely true. Whole class instruction (frontal teaching) was observed in over 88% of lesson segments across all countries/economies. In England (UK), Kumagaya, Shizuoka and Toda (Japan) (hereafter "K-S-T [Japan]"), and Shanghai (China), frontal teaching occurred in combination with individual seatwork activities in the majority of the observed lesson segments.

Other types of classroom structures less infrequent. For instance, student collaboration – whether in pairs or in small groups of three or more students – appeared in less than 22% of lesson segments across participating countries/economies.

Teachers’ classroom management practices seem to work well in long-standing structures. The average classroom observed had very well organised and efficient routines in place. Teachers sometimes or frequently engaged in monitoring student behaviours and when disruptions occurred virtually all teachers handled them quickly and effectively such that, while students’ focus on mathematics was momentarily interrupted, the learning time lost was very limited. When surveyed, both teachers and students agreed that classrooms were very well managed.

Ensuring a safe environment in which students are treated with respect and dignity and where they reciprocate this to their peers is an important condition for creating a classroom conducive to learning. High levels of respect were observed in interactions between teachers and students and in interactions between students in virtually all classrooms. Negative interactions, such as threats or degrading comments, were neither observed nor reported by teachers and students, suggesting that respectful environments are being nurtured in many classrooms.

Nine out of ten classrooms were neither very cold and distant nor very warm and encouraging environments. The important relationship between social-emotional support and student cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes discussed in Chapter 4 suggests that teachers could consider further ways to foster greater shared warmth (e.g. smiling, laughter) and to make encouragement more constructive, focused and meaningful (e.g. reassurance, constructive praise), to help students build the motivation, self-belief and interest that will allow them to become confident and resilient lifelong learners.

The Study captured different ways to go about delivering opportunities for social-emotional support in the classroom. For example, when students encountered errors, teachers responded in different ways. Most teachers in Germany*1 (92%), Mexico (84%) and Biobío, Metropolitana and Valparaíso (Chile) (hereafter “B-M-V [Chile]”) (76%) provided some support and encouragement to help students to persist in their efforts to try to overcome these errors. In other participating countries/economies, however, the majority of teachers’ immediate reaction to students’ errors was either to address them in a limited way or not address them at all.

The overall quality of instruction observed in classrooms was lower than that of classroom management and social-emotional support in all countries/economies. Instruction is a rich, multifaceted domain of teaching which is directly related to how much students learn. In the present Study, it was broken down into practices related to subject matter, the depth of students’ cognitive engagement, teachers’ assessments of and responses to students’ understanding, and students’ participation in the classroom’s discourse.

Students had some opportunities to explore the rich, interconnected nature of mathematics and develop a robust and deep understanding. They learnt different representations of quadratics and different methods for solving them. In the majority of classrooms, at least one loose connection was made between different aspects of quadratics or other aspects of mathematics, but connections to real world contexts were infrequent. Also, teachers tended to tell students what activities they would work on but it was rarer that teachers specified what students were expected to learn, which might further focus students’ efforts.

The level of cognitive challenge can be increased in most classrooms. Students had many opportunities to practise a particular skill or procedure repeatedly to help them to develop fluency. They were sometimes asked to take on cognitively demanding tasks in 53% of classrooms in K-S-T (Japan) and in a minority of classrooms in Germany* (12%), Mexico (9%) and England (UK) (8%). Students were seldom required to use more than one mathematical approach to complete a task or to compare and contrast different approaches, which Chapter 5 identified as important, and the majority of students were occasionally or never asked to engage in understanding the rationale behind using different procedures and processes.

Students’ thinking was superficially assessed and responded to. Teachers frequently elicited moderate levels of student thinking and, sometimes used that thinking instructionally to respond to students’ needs and levels of understanding. They regularly provided students with feedback, although a minority did so in a frequent and complete way. For example, few teachers in Germany* (18%), Madrid (Spain) (16%), England (UK) (8%), K-S-T (Japan) (8%), Mexico (7%) and Shanghai (China) (5%) provided feedback about why the mathematical procedures and processes were correct or incorrect.

Students more often engaged in classroom discussions to repeat previously learnt ideas or steps rather than to share their thoughts on different concepts, justifications or analysis. Classrooms contained few questions that encouraged analysis, synthesis and other more complex mathematical actions, again aspects that Chapter 5 identified as important. Students were engaged in lengthy explanations of deeper mathematics in about 55% of classrooms in Shanghai (China) and K-S-T (Japan), and in some classrooms in England (UK) (24%), Madrid (Spain) (19%), Germany* (18%), B-M-V (Chile) (13%), Colombia (8%) and Mexico (7%).

There was little use of research-based practices in the lessons observed. Few instances were observed of idea-based discussions where the teacher guides the conversation towards a learning goal; of metacognitive prompting to encourage students to think about their thinking; or of self-assessment to help them reflect on their understanding of the content or their learning. This raises the important question of how to help research findings reach the classroom, and vice versa.

Most teachers frequently used technology for communication purposes. For example, they used technology such as power point slides, overhead projectors or document visualisers, to convey information to the class. As for students, they did not use any technology in four out of five classrooms in all countries/economies but Germany* (56%).

Nevertheless, technology can also be used to teach differently, and the Covid-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of using technology innovatively to better support self-directed learning and deeper conceptual understanding. The digital learning space can be used to enhance and extend the learning environment in powerful ways. Only a small proportion of classrooms in the Study used technology to support students’ conceptual understanding: England (UK) (21%), Mexico (19%), Colombia (14%), K-S-T (Japan) (12%), Madrid (Spain) (11%), Germany* (10%), Shanghai (China) (8%), B-M-V Chile (5%). In these classrooms, teachers used technology to aid analysis, evaluation and creation of work or to focus on the underlying logic of procedures and processes.

Much like the findings from the observation of lessons, there were large differences between and within countries/economies in terms of the quality of the teaching materials evaluated by the Study. Teaching materials included lesson plans, visual aids, handouts, textbook pages and student assignments.

Some practices were widely documented across countries/economies. Teaching materials contained evidence of opportunities to practise and develop fluency with specific skills or procedures in all eight countries/economies. In seven countries/economies, half of the teachers typically provided more than five opportunities to practise. Similarly, in all countries/economies, with the exception of Shanghai (China), teachers tended to use teaching materials that made explicit connections among multiple representations.

Other practices varied considerably either between or within countries/economies. Only in Germany*, K-S-T (Japan), Mexico and Shanghai (China) was there evidence that the majority of teachers used teaching materials that asked students to explain their thinking in at least one lesson. Similarly, in England (UK), Germany*, K-S-T (Japan), Mexico and Shanghai (China), the majority of teachers used teaching materials that asked students to identify patterns or articulate generalisations in at least one lesson, but this was more uncommon in other participating countries/economies. Except for in Shanghai (China), teachers in all countries/economies also did not consistently specify learning goals in teaching materials.

The Study also found that some practices were primarily absent from teaching materials. It was rare that teaching materials contained evidence of connections to real world contexts in more than one lesson and there were few opportunities in teaching materials for students to engage in self-assessment. The use of technology as a tool to develop understanding of mathematical concepts and relationships was also largely limited in teaching materials.

The Study also sheds light on how practices are related to student cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes. It shows that the quality of instructional practices has a significant effect on student learning before accounting for students’ backgrounds.

However, higher levels of instructional quality were generally found among classes with higher levels of prior achievement. By the time that students encounter quadratic equations, teaching effects are confounded with those of students’ predispositions and backgrounds as well as their prior knowledge; when taking measures of the latter into consideration the impact of teaching on student cognitive growth weakens considerably.

With regard to non-cognitive outcomes, the findings of the Study suggest that what teachers do in the classroom is potentially a significant lever for affecting students’ beliefs and dispositions. Students were more likely to be interested in mathematics when they were in classrooms with higher levels of classroom management and social-emotional support in half of the countries/economies, even when controlling for background characteristics and prior interest. Moreover, higher exposure to these practices can lead to greater growth in student self-efficacy, with the Study finding a similar effect for instructional practices in some countries too.

Even the best prepared teacher will always have to keep on learning. Professional development opportunities are key to keeping teachers’ skills and knowledge up-to-date and continually refining and enhancing their practices. By looking into the quality of practices, the Study offers insights on where teachers’ greatest development needs may lie and what proportion of teachers could benefit the most from further refining their skills in those areas of teaching.

All teachers can further develop in almost every practice. Figure 8.2 show on a four-point scale the observed quality of practice in classrooms at three different levels: at the average, at the top 20% and at the bottom 20% of the distribution. Every teacher in all countries/economies – even those with the highest level of practice – has considerable scope to further refine their skills, particularly on social-emotional and instructional practices. Mastering practice requires teachers to continually hone their craft as technology, professional skills and knowledge advance (Lampert, 2003[1]; Ingersoll and Collins, 2018[2]) as well as when their classrooms present them with new challenges.

Teaching is complex and the Study suggests that teachers generally struggle with some practices more than others (Figure 8.1). For example, virtually all teachers have already mastered classroom management practices in long standing classrooms structures. Additional training on classroom management is likely to be of little relevance for the vast majority of teachers, unless it is focused on the specific needs of teachers who face particularly challenging classroom contexts or those who are interested in adopting non-traditional classroom structures.

In contrast, the present Study suggests that there is scope for improving instructional and social-emotional practices in many classrooms. In particular, further development opportunities specifically focused on how mathematical content is taught as well as how teachers cognitively engaging students may be of relevance. Teacher development programmes, therefore, should not focus equally on all aspects of teaching.

The Study suggests that every teacher has unique professional development needs. Figure 8.3 shows the distribution of the quality of teaching practice within countries/economies. A flat curve means that the quality of practice observed is very different across individual teachers and thus the support needed to refine them is likely to differ too. In contrast, a curve with a peak means that most teachers tend to have the same quality of practice and thus support can be less targeted.

Supporting teachers with the particular practices they are struggling to master would increase the likelihood that this support improves teaching and raises student outcomes.

The complexity of teaching and the time and sustained effort it takes to master make the initial years of teaching a particularly hard and testing period. However, the observed quality of classroom management, social-emotional practices and instructional practices for teachers with less than three years of experience was only slightly lower than that of more experienced teachers in all countries/economies. These differences were significant only in B-M-V (Chile) and Mexico for classroom management and in B-M-V (Chile) for social-emotional practices.

Teachers learn and develop many of the skills and practices that they will use throughout their careers in this initial period (OECD, 2019[3]). Providing novice teachers with a solid knowledge base, which is grounded in classroom pedagogy and practical skills linked to theoretical knowledge, is important for the quality of teaching that they will eventually deliver in the classroom (OECD, 2019[3]; Guerriero, 2017[4]).

The challenge for education systems is to move towards a more fine-grained approach to identify teachers’ development needs. To this end, the Study shows the importance of considering different sources of information to build a more accurate and detailed account of the quality of teaching. The Study measured the quality of instruction from four different perspectives: observations of lessons, analyses of lesson materials (including lesson plans, visual aids, handouts and student assignments), teacher questionnaires and student questionnaires.

The Study finds that teachers tend to report positive views about every aspect of their teaching. Notably, these are often more positive than those reported by their students, suggesting that tools which make teachers aware of their own practice, such as through lesson study, mutual classroom observation or collaborative professional development, are important. The Study also suggests that the views of an independent observer can be beneficial alongside those of the teacher or their students. For example, while teachers’ and students’ perceptions of classroom disruptions appeared to align with the views of the independent observer, independent observers perceived the quality of instruction or the level of warmth and encouragement often quite differently.

Among teachers participating in the Study, well-established forms of professional development (e.g. courses, conferences) were prevalent in all countries/economies. Yet, the variation in the quality of practices within countries/economies points to considerable opportunities for teachers themselves to share classroom expertise and know-how.

The study data suggests that teachers often varied in their performance across the three different domains of practice that the Study measures, as shows in Table 8.1. Teachers who excelled in one domain did not necessarily perform well in other domains.

A teacher might be very strong at explaining how to solve a quadratic equation by completing the square but struggle to provide students with the encouragement they need to persist through challenges and difficulties. These weak to moderate interrelations across domains of practice suggest that teachers have different strengths which they could collectively draw upon. Professional learning opportunities can help teachers come together to collaborate, co-design and dialogue around classroom practice for collective professional growth.

The potential of classroom observation to improve teaching practice seems largely untapped. When asked how often their instruction had been videotaped during their career as a teacher, the vast majority of teachers who participated in the Study reported three or fewer times: Madrid (Spain) (97%), Germany* (96%), Colombia (95%), Mexico (95%), B-M-V (Chile) (84%), England (UK) (83%), K-S-T (Japan) (73%) and Shanghai (China) (57%). Observing their own teaching can help teachers identify the specific areas of practice that need improvement grounded in concrete examples and evidence from their own classroom.

Meanwhile, observing other teachers can also hold a mirror up to a teacher’s own individual practice, helping them reflect and reason on what they do in the classroom and how it impacts their students. Yet, when asked how often their classes had been observed by others in a typical school year, less than one third of teachers who participated in the Study reported having been observed frequently: England (UK) (29%), K-S-T (Japan) (18%), Germany* (14%), B-M-V (Chile) (14%), Mexico (10%), Madrid (Spain) (7%) and Colombia (4%). The only exception was Shanghai (China) where 39% reported their classroom being observed by others frequently.

In particular, observation has the potential to bring the complex and creative nature of the job to life. Directly looking at practice can make the many small yet powerful things that teachers do, for example to capture students’ imagination, foster engagement or spur thinking, far more tangible. There were many examples from teachers who participated in the Study. A Colombian teacher immersed students in real world applications of quadratic equations by asking students to role-play a problem on economic yields in agriculture. A Spanish teacher brought in the rich history of mathematics to answer a demanding question. A Mexican teacher sang a hit song and adjusted the lyrics as a memory aide for students who had been struggling to remember the procedures of the quadratic formula. A Japanese teacher explained quadratics by exploring the cross-sectional area of a bundle of noodles to engage students and to reiterate the important role of mathematics in their daily lives. A Chinese teacher introduced how to apply quadratics to geometrical problems by discussing the hard work of the women’s volleyball team to become Olympic champions.

Despite examining only one particular topic of mathematics, the Study findings show considerable variation in the quality of teaching materials both within and between countries. One potential way to improve the quality of teaching materials could be for teachers to collaborate in exchanging and designing them.

Across the eight participating countries/economies of the Study, about two-thirds of teachers in England (UK) (73%), Shanghai (China) (71%), Madrid (Spain) (66%) and B-M-V (Chile) (64%) report that they frequently (“at least once a month ”) engage in this form of collaboration. In Germany*, just over half of teachers (54%) reported engaging in this type of collaboration at least once a month. However, in K-S-T (Japan) (39%), Mexico (33%) and Colombia (16%) a smaller proportion of teachers exchange teaching materials with colleagues at least once a month. Greater levels of collaboration and dialogue around teaching materials could be rich opportunities for exchange and learning.

How teachers feel is the foundation for a strong profession and building a world-class education system. Teachers who reported being more confident and motivated about their work tended to enact higher quality teaching practices in the Study. Similarly, teachers who reported higher levels of self-efficacy were significantly correlated with a higher level of social emotional support in Shanghai (China) (0.22), B-M-V (Chile) (0.24) and Germany* (0.36).

Teachers’ occupational well-being is also likely to influence the effectiveness of their classroom teaching. Teaching is an extremely demanding job that requires a great deal of emotional and physical energy. A teacher’s affective experiences, both positive and negative, shape the social and emotional climate of their classroom. Classes taught by teachers who reported higher level of anger scored significantly lower in social-emotional support in England (UK) (-0.31), Madrid (Spain) (-0.28), Shanghai (China) (-0.27) and B-M-V (Chile) (-0.20). In addition, classes taught by teacher who reported higher level of anxiety in Shanghai (-0.28) significantly lower scored in social-emotional support.. Thus, failing to adequately and properly cater to teachers’ occupational well-being may have impacts on classroom practice and students.

Despite their important work, teachers do not feel recognised and appreciated. The overwhelming majority of teachers in the Study reported that they do not feel valued by society: B-M-V (Chile) (87%), Colombia (75%), England (UK) (65%), K-S-T (Japan) (75%), Madrid (Spain) (90%) and Mexico (68%). These figures are similar to the findings in the OECD Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) and underline the importance of exploring ways to recognise teachers’ work in order to help keep them motivated and support efforts to retain and nurture teachers to become accomplished professionals.

The quality of the teaching and learning opportunities students experience is instrumental in ensuring that students have the knowledge and the skills that will allow them, their communities and society to all thrive in the future.

Despite the fact that quadratic equations is just one topic of the mathematics curriculum, there were large differences in how countries and teachers approached its content. The mapping of the intended curricula across the eight participating countries/economies showed wide variation in how much time teachers were expected to invest in teaching the quadratic equations, ranging from sixteen lessons in Colombia to six lessons in Madrid (Spain). In most cases, the actual time spent on teaching quadratic equations was lower than that expected in the curriculum of each country/economy.

Teachers themselves also approached the topic in different ways. For example, teachers in Germany*, K-S-T (Japan) and Shanghai (China) placed a considerable emphasis on completing the square, the most difficult solving method in quadratic equations, whilst in other countries/economies this method was rare. A further example is the variation that the Study found in the sequencing of subtopics. Teachers in K-S-T (Japan) typically transitioned from first introducing quadratic equations to moving to solving them with the quadratic formula and then to working with applications. In Mexico, on the other hand, both the quadratic formula and applications were typically introduced earlier in the topic.

The content that students have the opportunity to learn shapes the bodies of knowledge that they develop and their ways of thinking. Variation in these opportunities to learn can reflect differences in terms of the expected depth and understanding of a topic in different educations systems as well as differences in pedagogical approaches. Further investigating these differences is important for better understanding and designing the learning experiences students encounter in the classroom.

The amount of variation observed in the quality of teaching within each country suggests that considerable differences in teaching quality exist between classrooms, even within countries. An exception is Shanghai (China) where the variation in the quality of teaching practices is the lowest among participating countries/economies (Figure 8.1). Because there are few differences in teaching quality, students in Shanghai (China) are more likely to receive the same learning opportunities no matter what classroom they are in.

The case of Shanghai (China) shows that supporting all teachers to perform at similarly high levels, in any of the domains of teaching practice, is possible. By developing a shared vision for what a teacher should know and be able to do in the classroom, teaching standards can help align the efforts of all stakeholders in an education system around quality teaching for all, from how systems attract and retain teachers to how they train and develop them.

Much like in large-scale studies, the quality of classroom teaching and learning opportunities that students receive varies by socio-economic background in the Study. Students from an advantaged background are significantly more likely to be exposed to higher quality instructional practices in B-M-V (Chile) and Madrid (Spain) and to better social-emotional practices in Shanghai (China).

The findings also show that traditional measures of teaching quality – such as qualifications and experience – might not be strong grounds from which to devise recruitment or allocation mechanisms to the most disadvantaged schools. With the exception of those teachers in their very first years of practice, teachers who had five, fifteen or thirty years of experience showed no significant difference in the quality of the practices observed in all participating countries/economies. A similar picture emerges when considering teacher qualifications. If high quality learning opportunities are to be equitably available, the education community needs more refined and detailed measures of quality teaching and a more comprehensive understanding of what can best support students from diverse backgrounds in the classroom.

The findings of the Study show how much there is still to understand about teaching and learning, but the global outlook of the Study also points to promising avenues that may lead to a more robust and detailed understanding of the nuanced and intricate relationship between the two.

Teaching is complex and multidimensional and the Study finds that no country/economy excels at everything. Figure 8.1 shows that there was variation between countries, with some countries demonstrating higher average quality than others in certain teaching practices and simultaneously lower average quality in other practices. Looking outwards at different countries, systems and settings can provide valuable insights on what may work in different classrooms and present opportunities to reflect on practice.

The Study shows that there are many important differences across countries in how teachers approach a single curriculum topic. This finding is in alignment with previous international studies, whether they draw upon socio-cultural analysis, video sources or large datasets.

However, the education community has only scratched the surface of these differences. Practitioners and policy makers alike do not yet have a detailed understanding of the full scope of these differences, how they arise and their implications. Engaging in international learning between systems can allow for differences like these to be identified and better understood. Furthermore, it also has the potential to spur new ways of teaching, to question well-entrenched national pedagogies and to provide the inspiration that is needed to reimagine education for a future yet to come.

These large differences across countries are also a challenge for the global education community. A major achievement of the Study is that a large group of observers from different countries were able to observe teaching through the same lenses. When looking at the same evidence of teaching, they agreed on 89% of what was easy to observe and 53% of more complex teaching aspects. While teaching will always be contextual and culturally sensitive, the fact that a common framework can be developed to consistently analyse teaching is promising for greater cross-national dialogue.

In the digital age, teachers also have an unprecedented opportunity to collaborate, form communities of practice and share resources with peers from all over the world. The OECD Global Teaching InSights platform will provide classroom video examples, drawn from the Study, to illustrate teaching practices in a tangible and authentic way. It will provide a powerful resource for teachers and educators to discuss and collaborate at a global scale.

In recent decades, there has been a lot of research targeted towards building a strong evidence-base on “what works” in teaching. Teaching quality has been measured in several ways, such as through opportunities to learn (e.g. content coverage and time), the reported presence of “high leverage” practices (e.g. teacher and student questionnaires) and direct observation measures of teaching (e.g. lesson observations, video observations, teaching materials). Despite many advances, there is still a lot to understand, especially regarding how teaching impacts desired student outcomes.

In particular, understanding the more complex and nuanced aspects of instructional practices remains challenging. Even in the case of observational studies, most of the rubrics today still fail to sufficiently target important instructional aspects (Schoenfeld et al., 2018[5]). The Study has sought to break new methodological ground by observing teaching practices in greater depth and breadth, such as by measuring classroom discourse and analysing teaching materials for the first time at an international scale.

The data and lessons learnt from the Study can be of interest to researchers, policy makers and practitioners who are committed to furthering society’s understanding of teaching and learning. An example of potential further research is provided by the city of Toda in Japan. Researchers are combining data from students who participated in both the Study and a regional longitudinal assessment of students’ cognitive and non-cognitive skills. The preliminary findings show that when teachers showed more cognitive engagement practices, students reported being able to craft richer questions and to think more deeply about the topic at the end of the lesson than they could at the beginning (Toda City Educational Policy Think Tank, forthcoming[6]). In addition, students’ cognitive and non-cognitive skills were higher.

However difficult, furthering our understanding of teaching and learning needs to be a priority going forward as it will be the key to improving quality and equity in learning outcomes. In particular, it is in the domain of instructional practice that the Study observed the greatest scope for improvement. Continuing to enter the classroom and bring stakeholders and practitioners together around observation can support efforts to further the quality of instructional practices. Although challenging, the Study has shown that it is possible to observe and measure teaching in the classroom space and to unpack the innate complexity of teaching, even across borders.

Such evidence can help teachers and policy-makers to not just look forward but also outwards. This is not about copying and pasting solutions from other countries; it is about looking seriously and dispassionately at good practice in our own countries and elsewhere to become knowledgeable of what works in which contexts and applying it consciously. In a fast-changing world, this may become a key distinction between the countries that will make progress in education and those that will not. The distinction may be between those educators and education systems that feel threatened by alternative ways of thinking and those that are open to the world and ready to learn from and with the world’s education leaders.


[4] Guerriero, S. (ed.) (2017), Pedagogical Knowledge and the Changing Nature of the Teaching Profession, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264270695-en.

[2] Ingersoll, R. and G. Collins (2018), “The Status of Teaching as a Profession”, in Ballantine, J., J. Spade and J. Stuber (eds.), Schools and Society: A Sociological Approach to Education, Pine Forge Press/Sage Publications.

[1] Lampert, M. (2003), Teaching problems and the problems of teaching, Yale University Press.

[3] OECD (2019), A Flying Start: Improving Initial Teacher Preparation Systems, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/cf74e549-en.

[5] Schoenfeld, A. et al. (2018), “On Classroom Observations”, Journal for STEM Education Reserch, Vol. 1, pp. 34–59, https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-018-0001-7.

[6] Toda City Educational Policy Think Tank (forthcoming), Data analysis of the TALIS Video Study and Saitama’s longitudinal assessment.


← 1. Germany* refers to a convenience sample of volunteer schools.

Metadata, Legal and Rights

This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. Extracts from publications may be subject to additional disclaimers, which are set out in the complete version of the publication, available at the link provided.

© OECD 2020

The use of this work, whether digital or print, is governed by the Terms and Conditions to be found at http://www.oecd.org/termsandconditions.