Chapter 2. Teaching and learning for the future

Reviewing and analysing a rich set of subjective and more fact-based indicators, this chapter describes what teachers do in their classrooms and how teaching has changed over the past five to ten years. It also examines the extent to which teachers and school leaders engage in related activities to support student learning. Finally, it describes the extent to which teachers and schools are able to innovate in their methods of teaching and working together.

    

A note regarding Israel

The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.

Highlights
  • Among the wide range of instructional practices used by teachers in class, those aimed at enhancing classroom management and clarity of instruction are widely applied across the OECD countries and economies participating in the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS), with at least two-thirds of teachers using them frequently. Practices involving student cognitive activation are less widespread, with about half of teachers using these methods.

  • In many countries and economies participating in TALIS, more teachers frequently provide written feedback on student work in addition to a mark in 2018 than they did in 2013, while there is a mixed global trend regarding actively involving students in their own self-assessment or providing immediate feedback to them.

  • On average across OECD countries and economies participating in TALIS, more than 80% of teachers feel confident in their capacity to teach and manage their classroom, while over 30% of teachers report difficulties in motivating student learning, particularly when it comes to turning around a situation where a student shows low interest in school work.

  • During a typical lesson, teachers spend only 78% of their classroom time on actual teaching and learning, on average across OECD countries and economies participating in TALIS. This share is even lower in schools with a high concentration of students from socio-economically disadvantaged homes and in classrooms taught by young and beginning teachers. In the past five to ten years, classroom time spent on actual teaching and learning has decreased in about half of the countries and economies participating in TALIS.

  • In almost half of the countries and economies participating in TALIS, during a typical workweek, teachers teach a higher number of hours than five years ago, while the total number of hours spent on planning and preparing lessons as well as general administrative work has decreased.

  • Overall, a vast majority of teachers and school leaders view their colleagues as open to change and their schools as places that have the capacity to adopt innovative practices. However, this viewpoint is less common in European countries than in other parts of the globe.

Introduction

As the recent OECD report, Teaching for the Future: Effective Classroom Practices To Transform Education (OECD, 2018[1]) states in its foreword: “Teaching now is more dynamic, challenging and demanding than ever before. Teachers and school leaders are expected to continuously innovate, adapt, and develop their teaching practices to equip all students with the skills and knowledge they will need to succeed in life and work.” (p. 3). Teachers are the most important school-related influence on student learning. They inspire students to innovate, think and reflect deeply, and work in collaboration with others. It is, therefore, very important to understand how teachers achieve these objectives in their classrooms and how school leaders support and guide them with these tasks.

The goal of this chapter is to consider teachers and school leaders as experts and specialists of education. Given the importance of these notions – expertise and specialisation – to professions (Ingersoll and Collins, 2018[2]), TALIS has aimed to measure whether and how teachers and school leaders make use of specialised knowledge, skills and practices in their jobs, based on their own opinions, and whether they see room for further development and improvement.

What teachers do in their classroom and how they feel about it

Available research evidence points to teacher quality as the most important school variable in determining the success of an educational system (Hattie, 2009[3]; OECD, 2005[4]). As stated in the recent OECD report, Teaching for the Future: Effective Classroom Practices To Transform Education, an education system is effective when its teachers use teaching practices that improve student performance and develop the full potential of all students, regardless of their socio-economic background, native language or migrant status. However, it has proven difficult to understand what makes teaching “good” or “effective”. While most people can clearly remember the joy of learning from a good teacher and the occasional frustration with poor teaching, it would be hard for many to pinpoint the precise factors that make good teaching good and poor teaching less so. But while teaching quality is a difficult concept to measure, it can be inferred, based on observable indicators, such as the demonstration of improved motivation or learning gains by students, the implementation of quality processes or teachers’ perception of self-efficacy (OECD, 2018, p. 54[1]).

Using teachers’ self-reports to measure instructional quality is particularly challenging, because these reports frequently reflect responses that the teachers consider socially desirable (Little, Goe and Bell, 2009[5]; van de Vijver and He, 2014[6]). This measurement issue often occurs when respondents are asked to report their level of agreement or disagreement on the importance they attribute to each instructional practice. Also, teachers find it very difficult to talk about their pedagogies, methods and practices (Pollard, 2010[7]). Indeed, many teachers act both consciously and unconsciously in their classroom as a response to the community of practice they are immersed in, making it complicated to recall their practices as their own practices. And, past analyses of the TALIS-PISA link data showed that teachers from the same school tend to share a more similar approach to teaching than two teachers working in two different schools. This suggests that teaching strategies are part of a “teaching culture” within the school (Le Donné, Fraser and Bousquet, 2016[8]).

Faced with these challenges, TALIS has developed a rich set of complementary indicators aiming to measure what teachers do in their classrooms. TALIS asks teachers to identify a particular class chosen at random from their teaching schedule1 (hereafter, “the target class”) and then respond to a series of questions about this target class and how they teach the students. TALIS then uses fact-based questions about the frequency with which teachers use various practices and how much time they spend on different activities in their classroom. To complement these factual indicators, TALIS also asks teachers their opinions on how well they feel they are able to implement certain practices and achieve certain goals.2

Effective teaching strategies

Teachers’ classroom practices are central to any study of teaching and learning, because what teachers do is the strongest direct school-based influence on student learning outcomes (Hattie, 2009[3]). Most other school factors influence student learning mainly because they influence teachers’ practices and, thereby, have a transmitted influence on student learning. Teachers’ classroom practices embrace a number of aspects, some of which are highly important for students’ learning outcomes, such as motivation to learn and achievement in subject areas (i.e. mathematics and first-language learning) (Baumert et al., 2010[9]; Creemers and Kyriakides, 2008[10]; Hattie, 2009[3]; Isac et al., 2015[11]; Kunter et al., 2013[12]; Nilsen and Gustafsson, 2016[13]; O’Dwyer, Wang and Shields, 2015[14]).

While this chapter deliberately adopts a teacher-oriented perspective on student learning, it also acknowledges that students bring their own family values, personal ability, motivation, well-being and school trajectory to the classroom. These all have a powerful influence on the way students acquire new skills, knowledge, values and attitudes, which may also influence the way teachers teach them. This chapter adopts a positive concept of humankind, considering that all students, regardless of their social or cultural background or gender, are able to learn, provided their learning is supported by appropriate teaching approaches.

Instructional quality is understood differently across the field of education, but there is a consensus that the concept is multidimensional (Fauth et al., 2014[15]; Kane and Cantrell, 2010[16]; Kunter and Voss, 2013[17]; Wagner et al., 2013[18]). A considerable body of research exists on the impact of teaching practices on students’ learning outcomes (Lavy, 2016[19]; Rjosk et al., 2014[20]). More specifically, TALIS asks teachers about the use of effective instructional practices (i.e. practices that have proven to be positively associated with students’ learning outcomes). These effective practices can be grouped into four strategies: classroom management; clarity of instruction; cognitive activation; and enhanced activities (Figure I.2.1). TALIS inquires about the frequency with which teachers use each practice in their target class, asking them to mark one choice among four options: “never or almost never”; “occasionally”; “frequently”; or “always”.

Classroom management is often described as the actions teachers take to ensure an orderly environment and effective use of time during lessons (van Tartwijk and Hammerness, 2011[21]). Numerous studies have identified classroom management as an important contributor to student learning and a strong predictor of student achievement – see, for instance, Baumert et al., (2010[9]); Klusmann et al., (2008[22]); van Tartwijk and Hammerness, (2011[21]). Large-scale international assessments of student achievement have found a positive relationship in several countries between an orderly environment (as reported by teachers) and student achievement (Le Donné, Fraser and Bousquet, 2016[8]; Martin et al., 2013[23]; Wang and Degol, 2016[24]).

TALIS provides insights on the things teachers do to maintain order that may already exist in the classroom or to re-establish order. In 2018, on average across OECD countries and economies that participate in TALIS,3 more than 60% of teachers report that they frequently or always engage in practices that aim to maintain an orderly classroom, such as telling students to follow classroom rules (71%) and listening to what they say (70%). Slightly fewer teachers report that they frequently or always take measures to react to disruptions from students in the classroom, such as calming students who are disruptive (65%), as well as asking students to quieten down quickly (61%) (Figure I.2.1, Table I.2.1). If quite a few teachers rarely engage in these classroom management practices, it may be because they do not need to, either because their students take care to create a pleasant learning atmosphere or because the teachers have succeeded in establishing a classroom environment where it is not necessary to keep repeating classroom rules to students.

Researchers have also identified clarity of instruction as an important influence on student learning (Kyriakides, Campbell and Gagatsis, 2000[25]; Scherer and Gustafsson, 2015[26]; Seidel, Rimmele and Prenzel, 2005[27]). In 2018, on average across OECD countries and economies, almost all teachers frequently use practices pertaining to clarity of instruction: 90% of teachers report that they frequently or always explain to students what they expect them to learn; 84% explain how new and old topics are related; 81% set goals at the beginning of instruction; 74% refer to a problem from everyday life or work to demonstrate why new knowledge is useful or present a summary of recently learned content; and 68% let students practice similar tasks until they know that every student has understood the subject matter (Figure I.2.1, Table I.2.1).

Cognitive activation practices seem to be less widespread than practices pertaining to clarity of instruction. Cognitive activation consists of instructional activities that require students to evaluate, integrate and apply knowledge within the context of problem solving (Lipowsky et al., 2009[28]). These activities are commonly associated with group work on complicated problems. In 2018, on average across OECD countries and economies: 58% of teachers report that they frequently or always give tasks that require students to think critically; 50% have students work in small groups to come up with a joint solution to a problem or task; 45% ask students to decide on their own procedures for solving complex tasks; and only 34% present tasks for which there is no obvious solution (Figure I.2.1, Table I.2.1). Cognitive activation practices are perhaps the most demanding and complex of the teaching strategies, possibly because they are more closely connected to subject domain than the other three strategies4 (Baumert et al., 2010[9]; Hiebert and Grouws, 2007[29]; Klieme, Pauli and Reusser, 2009[30]). Box I.2.4 discusses the example of a nationwide curriculum reform in Mexico that prioritises the use of cognitive activation practices for achieving holistic student learning outcomes.

Figure I.2.1. Teaching practices
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who “frequently” or “always” use the following practices in their class1 (OECD average-31)
Figure I.2.1. Teaching practices

1. These data are reported by teachers and refer to a randomly chosen class they currently teach from their weekly timetable.

Note: ICT: Information and communication technology.

Values are grouped by teaching strategy and ranked in descending order of the use of teaching practices within the respective teaching strategy.

Source: OECD, TALIS 2018 Database, Table I.2.1.

 StatLink http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933931905

Finally, TALIS also asks teachers about the frequency with which they use what can be referred to as “enhanced activities”, which encompass practices that give students the chance to work independently, using some specific tools, such as information and communication technology (ICT), or over a longer period of time (Vieluf et al., 2012[31]). On average across the OECD, about 53% of teachers report that they frequently or always let students use ICT for projects or class work, while only 29% give students projects that require at least one week to complete (Figure I.2.1, Table I.2.1). Enhanced activities are not as widespread as other teaching strategies, potentially because they require additional resources and command of them (access to and skills to use ICT) and/or more sophisticated planning. They also require that students be ready for such activity, as it demands higher responsibility and planning skills from them.

Of the 16 teaching practices on which teachers were questioned in 2018, 6 were also included in the teacher questionnaire in 2013, 3 pertaining to clarity of instruction, 1 to cognitive activation and 2 to enhanced activities. It is, therefore, possible to compare teachers’ responses over time (Table I.2.4). Between 2013 and 2018, there seems to be an increase in the reported use of the three practices pertaining to clarity of instruction (presenting a summary of recently learned content; referring to a problem from everyday life or work to demonstrate why new knowledge is useful; and letting students practice similar tasks until the teacher knows that every student has understood the subject matter) (Figure I.2.2, Table I.2.5).

Figure I.2.2. Change in the use of teaching practices pertaining to clarity of instruction from 2013 to 2018
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who “frequently” or “always” use teaching practices pertaining to clarity of instruction in a typical class1, 2
Figure I.2.2. Change in the use of teaching practices pertaining to clarity of instruction from 2013 to 2018

1. This percentage is calculated based on the average frequency with which teachers report using practices pertaining to clarity of instruction, which are “Presenting a summary of recently learned content”, “Refering to a problem from everyday life or work to demonstrate why new knowledge is useful” and “Letting students practise similar tasks until I know that every student has understood the subject matter” (see Annex B).

2. These data are reported by teachers and refer to a randomly chosen class they currently teach from their weekly timetable.

Notes: Only countries and economies with available data for 2013 and 2018 are shown.

Statistically significant changes between 2013 and 2018 (TALIS 2018 –TALIS 2013) are found next to the category and the country/ economy name (see Annex B).

Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the percentage of teaching practices pertaining to clarity of instruction in 2018.

Source: OECD, TALIS 2013 and 2018 Database, Table I.2.5.

 StatLink http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933931924

A rise in the reported use of the three “clarity-of-instruction” practices is also observed in 14 of these 31 countries and economies. Notable examples of sharper increases in clarity of instruction practices are in Korea (+23 percentage points), Portugal (+14 percentage points) and Romania (+11 percentage points). PISA data show that teacher-directed instruction that aims at providing a well-structured, clear and informative lesson on a topic, is more frequently used than other types of instructional practices, by both mathematics and science teachers. These strategies are typically less time-consuming (i.e. more efficient) and easier to implement (more convenient) than other teaching strategies (OECD, 2016, p. 65[32]). It is possible that teachers now use them more often because they face increasing demands to cover a long (er) curriculum or to teach (more) diverse classrooms (OECD, 2018[1]).

As expected, given the digitalisation of many activities in the recent decades, there is a significant increase in the use of ICT for projects or class work observed in 28 of the 31 countries and economies with comparable data (Table I.2.4). The largest changes are observed in Finland, Israel, Romania and Sweden, where the percentage of teachers reporting that they frequently or always let students use ICT for projects or class work has increased by 30 percentage points or more.

International surveys and studies conducted in international and national contexts highlight the importance of how ICT is used in the classroom to be effective (Fraillon et al., 2014[33]; OECD, 2015[34]). An OECD report based on PISA 2012 data showed that, in countries where mathematics lessons focus on formulating and solving real-world problems (in engineering, biology, finance or any problem that arises in everyday life and work), students report that their teachers use computers to a greater extent in instruction (OECD, 2015[34]). As stated in this report, “… among all teachers, those who are more inclined and better prepared for student-oriented teaching practices, such as group work, individualised learning, and project work, are more likely to use digital resources, according to students.” (p.16). The report also states that PISA results suggest that while “… limited use of computers at school may be better than not using computers at all, using them more intensively than the current OECD average tends to be associated with significantly poorer student performance.” (p.16). Another PISA-based report showed that using ICT in mathematics lessons and exposing students to applied mathematics problems, for example, were positively associated with students’ self-reported use of elaboration strategies (i.e. strategies consisting of making connections between the task at hand, prior knowledge, other topics and real-life experience) (Echazarra et al., 2016[35]).

In Italy, Comi et al. (2017[36]) find that the effectiveness of ICT at school depends on the actual practice that teachers make of it and on their ability to integrate ICT into their teaching process. A study conducted on the TALIS 2013 dataset of Spain also showed that teachers’ use of ICT in the classroom is mainly dependent on teacher training in ICT, teachers’ collaboration with other teachers and teachers’ perceived self-efficacy and beliefs about teaching, as well as (although to a lesser extent) the availability of educational software or school infrastructure (Gil-Flores, Rodríguez-Santero and Torres-Gordillo, 2017[37]). Box I.2.1 sheds light on how Chile and Israel have been building capacity and readiness among teachers to integrate the use of ICT in their teaching practices.

Box I.2.1. Integrating ICT in classrooms: Examples from Chile and Israel

Chile

Enlaces began as a division of the Chilean Ministry of Education, evolving out of a nationwide programme to connect schools to the Internet in the early 1990s. The goal of Enlaces was twofold: to develop skills in ICT for teachers and to build attitudes conducive to the use of ICT in classrooms. The programme starts with more in-person training opportunities and gradually moves on to distance learning tools making use of ICT, so that teachers are also able to see and experience the potential of the use of ICT in learning processes. Enlaces identifies the use of ICT in learning environments as a “professional, pedagogical and organisational” advance for teachers and provides teachers with concrete examples of ICT use in different stages suited to the attitude of teachers and their openness to technology.

Enlaces also contains a special component to facilitate technology-enhanced learning for rural schools in Chile. The Rural Enlaces strategy recognises that the use of ICT needs to be specially tailored for rural schools, as they offer a distinct context and need, and training teachers in rural areas could be particularly expensive. The programme provides for training that is more concentrated at certain times of the year.

Recognising that the next stage of educational innovation has to go beyond the provision of infrastructure and basic training, Enlaces gave way in 2018 to a new Innovation Center at the Ministry of Education. Building on the mission of Enlaces, the Innovation Center broadens it to include educational innovations where technology is only part of the answer, helping explore new teaching methodologies, practices and school processes. At the moment, its flagship programmes are expanding the teaching of computer science in schools; developing an ecosystem that continuously learns from promising innovations developed by teachers and schools throughout the country; and advancing personalised learning opportunities in K12 made possible by the use of technology.

The ICT programme for education in Chile has grown from a pilot public-policy intervention to being integrated into traditional teaching and learning structures in Chile’s education system. The Chilean approach has made its mark in two critical ways: expanding the digital infrastructure in schools and opening up attitudes to the use of technology in education.

Israel

The digital education policy is identified under the national Israeli programme, Adapting the Educational System for the 21st Century, which was first initiated in 2007. Curricular changes were made to reflect a close link between competency-based learning goals, innovative pedagogies to be used to build these competencies and the use of ICT in classrooms. A central element in this programme is the implementation of the SAMR (Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition) Model for integrating technology in order to guide more meaningful uses of technology in teaching. The resources provided to teachers include a classroom-mapping sheet to allow teachers to plan their use of ICT in the classroom. Training under the programme takes 28 to 56 hours. Upon successful completion, teachers earn credits that lead to wage improvement.

Another key component of the digital education policy is Educational Cloud, a nationally run website offering extensive digital content for both educators and students. The Educational Cloud allows teachers to create and upload digital content and collaborate with other teachers on teaching in their classrooms. Furthermore, the guidelines for establishing an ICT Competent School provide schools with concrete directions on how to use the resource material effectively and collaboratively. The topics covered in these guidelines include infographics as a tool for information structuring, technologies for cultivating higher-order thinking skills and guidance on how to lead pedagogical processes that are adequate for the 21st century.

Sources: Severin, E. (2016[38]), Building and Sustaining National ICT/Education Agencies: Lessons from Chile, https://openknowledge. worldbank.org/handle/10986/26264 and information provided by the Ministry of Education, Chile; Winer, D. (2018[39]), Israel: Country Report on ICT in Education, www.eun.org/documents/411753/839549/Israel_2018.pdf/c01cb526-a5d7-469b-b8b1-b67a494d294b.

Teachers’ assessment practices

In addition to effectively employing the four teaching strategies mentioned above, teachers need to provide feedback to students about their learning progress in the form of both formative and summative assessment (Hattie and Timperley, 2007[40]; Kyriakides and Creemers, 2008[41]; Scheerens, 2016[42]). Formative assessment consists of providing feedback and information during the teaching process, while learning is taking place. Summative assessment typically takes place after the teaching process has been completed and provides information and feedback about learning outcomes. Research shows that effective teaching includes providing constructive feedback and that this type of feedback has positive implications for teaching and learning (Muijs and Reynolds, 2001[43]). TALIS asks teachers to report the frequency with which they use a set of four practices for assessing student learning in their target class. Among the four assessment practices, two are widespread: on average across the OECD, 79% of teachers report that they frequently or always observe students and provide immediate feedback; and 77% of teachers report that they frequently or always administer their own assessment to students. Fewer teachers (58% on average across the OECD) report that they provide written feedback on student work in addition to a mark. Less than half of teachers across the OECD (41%) report that they let students evaluate their own progress, suggesting a smaller prevalence of formative assessment practices (Figure I.2.3) (See Box I.2.2 for an example of how teachers in Australia are guided to use different types of formative assessment methods in their practice). However, there are large cross-country variations in the frequency with which teachers assess student learning. Regardless of the assessment practice used, a greater proportion of teachers in Latin American and English-speaking countries generally report assessing students frequently, compared to teachers in other areas of the globe (Table I.2.6).

Overall, more teachers tend to report frequently using student assessment practices in 2018 than in 2013 (Table I.2.9). In particular, teachers resort more frequently to the assessment practice consisting of providing written feedback on student work in addition to a mark (Figure I.2.4). This holds true for 19 of the 32 countries and economies with comparable TALIS data in 2013 and 2018. The largest increases (more than 10 percentage points) in the share of teachers frequently using this assessment practice are observed in Brazil, Finland, Iceland, Korea and Spain. Portugal is the only country showing a decline in the share of teachers who frequently provide written feedback on student work in addition to a mark. TALIS data also suggest that, in 21 out of 32 countries and economies with comparable data, more teachers report administering their own assessment in 2018 than they did in 2013. But these changes need to be interpreted with caution as, in 2013, teachers were asked about the frequency with which they “develop and administer their own assessment, which suggests more engagement in the assessment practice from the teacher than what was asked in 2018 (how often they “administer” their own assessment). Despite the more lenient wording used in 2018, two countries actually show a significant decline in the administration of teachers’ own assessments: Chile and the Czech Republic. However, in 2018 in Chile, 89% of teachers report administering their own assessment often, which is still a much higher share than the OECD average of 77%.

Figure I.2.3. Teachers’ assessment practices
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who “frequently” or “always” use the following assessment methods in their class1 (OECD average-31)
Figure I.2.3. Teachers’ assessment practices

1. These data refer to a randomly chosen class teachers currently teach from their weekly timetable.

Values are ranked in descending order of the use of teachers’ assessment practices.

Source: OECD, TALIS 2018 Database, Table I.2.6.

 StatLink http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933931943

Box I.2.2. Teachers’ Guide to Assessment in Australia

The Teachers’ Guide to Assessment is a best-practice reference handbook for teachers in the Australian Capital Territory that focuses on the idea of learning-oriented assessments. The guide stands out because of its relevance, alignment to the Australian curriculum and evidence-based grounding. According to the Australian National Frameworks for Schools and Teachers, assessments are inherently linked to a teacher’s responsibility to provide feedback in addition to reporting on student learning. In addition, the Australian curriculum requires teachers to assess their students based on a variety of tasks that are completed over a specific period of time. The latest version of the guide (2016) reflects the contemporary focus in Australian education. It stresses new methods of assessment that have emerged as a response to the need to develop ways to assess 21st century competencies.

Thus, the guide advocates three tenets of assessment: thinking, metrics and technologies. For thinking, the document underlines the purpose and perspective of assessments to enhance student learning and improve students’ selfawareness about their areas of growth. The term metrics refers here to assessing a broader set of skills and competencies of students beyond traditional subject knowledge. Finally, technologies refer to the potential of conducting personalised, interactive and intelligent ways of assessing and providing feedback using ICT. As an example, the guide suggests that teachers think of their students’ progress and learning as a whole by conducting collaborative assessments (i.e. by discussing and comparing student work with other teachers). Including sections such as the principles of quality and useful feedback or of self-assessment, the document outlines different types of formative assessments, examples of what each assessment could look like and the rationale for using each of these formats. The wide range of assessment formats also allows teachers to assess the learning processes of students with diverse learning styles and areas of strength.

Source: ACT Government: Education (2016[44]), Teachers’ Guide to Assessment, www.education.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/297182/ Teachers-Guide-To-Assessment.pdf.

Simultaneously, there is mixed evidence regarding a global trend for the two other assessment practices that can be considered, in essence, more formative. With regard to observing students when they work on particular tasks and providing immediate feedback, eight countries and economies show a decline in this practice, and seven countries show a rise (particularly sharp in Korea) (Figure I.2.4). Concerning actively involving students in their self-assessment (“ let students evaluate their own progress”), seven countries and economies show a decline in this practice (particularly sharp in Chile), while ten others show a rise (particularly sharp in Australia, Finland, Korea, the Netherlands and Norway) (Table I.2.9).

TALIS findings on changes in teachers’ assessment practices complement those established from four cycles of the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) of the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). TIMSS data from 1995 to 2007 revealed a slight tendency towards increased use of assessment practices, such as using a quiz or a test, in the 8th grade on an international scale, comprising 18 education systems (Rožman and Klieme, 2017[45]). TALIS results from 2013 and 2018 also support the notion of a continued slight tendency towards increased use of some kind of assessment, especially of written assessment, but does not support the notion of an increased use of immediate feedback or student self-assessment.

Figure I.2.4. Change in teachers’ assessment practices from 2013 to 2018
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who report that they “frequently” or “always” use the following methods of assessing student learning in their class1
Figure I.2.4. Change in teachers’ assessment practices from 2013 to 2018

1. These data are reported by teachers and refer to a randomly chosen class they currently teach from their weekly timetable.

Note: Only countries and economies with available data for 2013 and 2018 are shown.

Statistically significant changes between 2013 and 2018 (TALIS 2018 - TALIS 2013) are found next to the category and the country/economy name (see Annex B).

Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the percentage of lower secondary teachers reporting having provided written feedback on student work in addition to a mark in 2018.

Source: OECD, TALIS 2018 Database, Table I.2.9.

 StatLink http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933931962

Teachers’ use of classroom time

All around the world, students enrolled in compulsory lower secondary education spend a considerable amount of time in the classroom – 913 hours per year on average in the OECD countries – see Table D1.1 in OECD (2018[46]). TALIS data makes it possible to know, based on teachers’ reports, how much of actual teaching and learning takes place during these lessons. More specifically, TALIS asks teachers to report how much time they spend during a lesson with their target class on three types of activities: actual teaching and learning; administrative tasks (e.g. recording attendance, handing out school information or forms); and keeping order in the classroom (maintaining discipline). On average across the OECD, teachers report spending 78% of classroom time on actual teaching and learning, with the remaining classroom time spent on keeping order (13%) and administrative tasks (8%). Teachers report that they spend at least 85% of classroom time on actual teaching and learning in Estonia, the Russian Federation, Shanghai (China) and Viet Nam, but only 65% to 70% in Brazil, Chile, Saudi Arabia and South Africa (Figure I.2.5, Table I.2.10).

The time teachers spend on actual teaching and learning during a lesson is positively related to teacher experience and age (Figure I.2.5, Table I.2.13). On average across OECD countries and economies and in almost all countries and economies participating in TALIS, teachers with more than five years of teaching experience spend more time on actual teaching and learning (the equivalent of 3 additional minutes per 60-minute lesson on average across OECD countries and economies) than teachers with five years of teaching experience or less. A significant difference in favour of more experienced teachers is found in almost all countries and economies participating in TALIS, with the exception of Portugal, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Viet Nam. Similarly, teachers aged 50 or above, often with more than 20 years of teaching experience, spend the equivalent of almost 5 more minutes on actual teaching and learning per 60-minute lesson than teachers aged 30 or below. These differences likely result from the fact that teaching experience but also, potentially, maturity and/or other work experiences lead more senior teachers to adopt efficient classroom routines that reduce the amount of time they need to spend on administrative tasks or on keeping order in the classroom. But these gaps also partly stem from the fact that senior teachers tend to work in less challenging schools, where it is easier to teach – see Chapter 4 and Table I.4.32, as well as Chapter 3 of Effective Teacher Policies (OECD, 2018[47]).

There are also important variations across schools in actual time spent on teaching and learning. On average across the OECD, teachers working in privately managed schools report spending significantly more time on actual teaching and learning than their counterparts in publicly managed schools. Classroom time spent on actual teaching and learning is also significantly lower in schools with high concentrations of students from socio-economically disadvantaged homes, students with special needs and immigrant students (Figure I.2.5, Table I.2.14). Differences in teaching time between schools with low and high concentrations of students from socio-economically disadvantaged homes are particularly pronounced in Alberta (Canada), Australia, Austria, England (United Kingdom), the Flemish Community of Belgium, France, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and the United States, where they exceed 5 percentage points, the equivalent of 3 minutes of actual teaching and learning per 60-minute hour.

To examine the assumption that experienced teachers spend more time on actual teaching and learning partly because they teach less challenging classrooms, regression analyses were conducted. The proportion of class time spent on actual teaching and learning is regressed on teachers’ years of teaching experience, controlling for other teachers’ characteristics (gender, age, employment status). As expected, a significant positive relationship between teachers’ experience and time spent on actual teaching and learning is found in many countries and economies (26 in total) (Table I.2.15). In a second step, classroom characteristics (class size, concentrations of academically gifted students, low achievers and special needs students) are introduced in the regression model (Table I.2.16). Results of this second regression show that the relation between teaching experience and time spent on actual learning and teaching is still significantly positive in 25 countries (as well as on average cross-nationally) but that the strength of the relationship diminishes in almost all countries (the size of the regression coefficient is lower) (Table I.2.16). This suggests that part of the positive relationship between teaching experience and time spent on actual teaching and learning is attributable to the characteristics of the students teachers teach in their classroom.

TALIS asked teachers about the distribution of their classroom time in the first two cycles of TALIS, allowing trends comparison since 2008. Classroom time that teachers report spending on actual teaching and learning during a typical lesson has decreased in 12 of the 20 countries and economies with comparable data from 2008 to 2018, with the largest reductions (3 percentage points or more or the equivalent of 2 minutes or more per 60-minute hour) observed for Bulgaria, the Flemish Community of Belgium, Hungary and Turkey. A significant increase is found in only 5 countries: Australia, Italy, Lithuania, Mexico and Norway. For these countries, the change seems to be concentrated during the period from 2008 to 2013, as no significant change is observed between 2013 and 2018 (Figure I.2.6, Table I.2.17).

The most substantial decline in actual teaching time since 2013 is observed in New Zealand (4 percentage points, or the equivalent of 3 minutes or more per 60-minute hour). The loss in reported actual teaching time is directly concurrent with an increase in classroom time spent on both keeping order in the classroom (Table I.2.18) and carrying out administrative tasks (Table I.2.19).

Figure I.2.5. Time spent on actual teaching and learning, by teacher and school characteristics
Results based on responses of lower secondary teachers and principals
Figure I.2.5. Time spent on actual teaching and learning, by teacher and school characteristics

* For this country, estimates for sub-groups and estimated differences between sub-groups need to be interpreted with great care. See Annex A for more information.

1. High concentration of disadvantaged students refer to schools with more than 30% of students from socio-economically disadvantaged homes.

2. Experienced teachers are teachers with more than 5 years of teaching experience.

Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the average proportion of time teachers report on spending on actual learning and teaching.

Source: OECD, TALIS 2018 Database, Tables I.2.13 and I.2.14.

 StatLink http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933931981

Figure I.2.6. Change in the use of class time from 2008 to 2018
Percentage of time spent on various activities in a typical lesson as reported by lower secondary teachers1, 2
Figure I.2.6. Change in the use of class time from 2008 to 2018

1. These data refer to a randomly chosen class teachers currently teach from their weekly timetable.

2. The sum of time spent in an average lesson may not add up to 100% for each TALIS cycle because some answers that did not add up to 100% were accepted.

Notes: Only countries and economies with available data for 2008 and 2018 are shown.

Statistically significant changes between 2008 and 2018 (TALIS 2018 - TALIS 2013) are found next to the category and the country/economy name (see Annex B).

Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the percentage of time teachers spent on actual teaching and learning in 2018.

Source: OECD, TALIS 2018 Database, Tables I.2.17 and I.2.18.

 StatLink http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933932000

Box I.2.3. Teachers’ use of classroom time and classroom practices from primary to upper secondary education

Teachers’ time use during a typical lesson

Teachers spend more and more classroom time on actual teaching and learning as the level of education they teach increases (Tables I.2.10, I.2.11 and I.2.12). In most of the 13 countries and economies with available data for ISCED 1 and 2, the typical primary teacher spends less than 80% of classroom time on actual teaching and learning. In 6 countries and economies, teachers at the primary level spend less time on actual teaching and learning than teachers at the lower secondary level. In the other countries, actual teaching and learning time is similar across both education levels, except in the Flemish Community of Belgium (1.9 percentage points) (Table I.2.11). A further increase in time spent on actual teaching and learning is observed when moving to the upper secondary level in 7 out of 11 countries and economies with available data for ISCED 2 and 3 (Table I.2.12).

The increase in teaching time by level of education is concurrent to the decrease in time for keeping order in the classroom. In 8 countries and economies, primary teachers spend more time on keeping order in the classroom than lower secondary teachers (Table I.2.11), with the largest difference in Denmark (6.6 percentage points). The same tendency is observed when comparing teachers’ use of classroom time at the upper secondary level with that at the lower secondary level, which is marked by a significant decrease in 9 out of 11 countries and economies with available data for ISCED 2 and 3 (Table I.2.12). The decrease in time for keeping order in the classroom as the level of education rises may stem from the fact that the attention span of children and adolescents increases with age, saving time on keeping order in the classroom that can then be spent on actual teaching and learning (Case, 1985[48]).

The time teachers spend on administrative tasks is less than 10% of classroom time in most of the 13 countries and economies with available data for ISCED 1 and 2 and most of the 11 countries and economies with available data for ISCED 2 and 3 and within a country tends to be similar across all three levels of education (Tables I.2.10, I.2.11 and I.2.12). Primary teachers spend slightly less time on administrative tasks than lower secondary teachers (at most 1.4 percentage points in France and Korea), and the differences between upper secondary and lower secondary teachers are even smaller. In the few countries where differences between the time spent on administrative tasks by upper and lower secondary teachers are significant, they go in different directions (Tables I.2.11 and I.2.12).

Teaching practices

As the level of education increases (i.e. moving from primary up to upper secondary education), teachers tend to use classroom management practices less and less often, and this tendency is concurrent to a decrease in time spent on keeping order in the classroom. For instance, in 13 countries and economies with available data for ISCED 1 and 2, the percentage of teachers reporting that they frequently or always tell students to follow classroom rules is higher among primary teachers (in most countries above 80%) than among lower secondary teachers (in most countries below 80%), with the largest differences in Denmark (20 percentage points) and Japan (13 percentage points) (Table I.2.2). When moving on to the upper secondary level, in all countries and economies with available data for ISCED 2 and 3, teachers use classroom management practices less often than their peers at the lower secondary level. The largest differences are found in Denmark and Sweden, with a difference of more than 15 percentage points for most of the classroom management practices (Table I.2.3).

Teaching practices pertaining to clarity of instruction are the most commonly used across levels of education, but no unique pattern arises in the use of different practices across levels of education. For example, in 9 out of 13 countries with available data for ISCED 1 and 2, teachers tend to present a summary of recently learned content as frequently at the primary level as at the lower secondary level, while primary teachers in four countries tend to set goals more often at the beginning of instruction than lower secondary teachers (Table I.2.2). In the 11 countries with available data for ISCED 2 and 3, upper secondary teachers tend to implement strategies for delivering clear instruction similar to those implemented by lower secondary teachers (Table I.2.3).

Primary teachers tend to use cognitive activation techniques more often than lower secondary teachers. In 8 to 9 countries of the 13 countries and economies with available data for ISCED 1 and 2 (depending on the practice considered), primary teachers tend to use the following practices more often: having students work in small groups to come up with a joint solution to a problem or task; and asking students to decide on their own procedures for solving complex tasks (Table I.2.2). With regard to upper secondary teachers, in the 11 countries and economies with available data for ISCED 2 and 3, they tend to use cognitive activation practices as frequently as lower secondary teachers (Table I.2.3).

Teaching practices pertaining to “enhanced activities”, such as giving students projects that require at least one week to complete or letting students use ICT for projects or class work, are less commonly used than other teaching practices (with only 29% of teachers frequently giving week-long projects and 53% of teachers frequently letting students use ICT for projects or class work at the lower secondary level, on average in the OECD) (Table I.2.1). Primary teachers implement enhanced activities even less in 8 to 10 out of 13 countries and economies with available data for ISCED 1 and 2, depending on the practice considered (Table I.2.2). The largest difference (32 percentage points) in the use of ICT for projects or class work is found in Denmark, where 58% of primary teachers and 90% of lower secondary teachers let students use ICT, but these are both among the highest shares across countries. At upper secondary level, the use of ICT increases further in 8 out of 11 countries and economies with available data for ISCED 2 and 3, while differences in the frequency of giving students long-term projects between education levels vary greatly across countries (Table I.2.3).

Teacher self-efficacy

Today, the fields of teacher education and educational effectiveness are giving greater credence to the importance of teachers’ self-confidence (Klassen et al., 2011[49]; Klassen and Tze, 2014[50]; Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, 2001[51]). Several factors may account for this increased attention. First, teacher self-efficacy is strongly associated with teachers’ pedagogical practices and the quality of teachers’ instruction (Holzberger, Philipp and Kunter, 2013[52]). Second, these teaching practices correlate, in turn, with student achievement and motivation, both of which are essential educational outcomes (Caprara et al., 2006[53]; Muijs and Reynolds, 2002[54]; Woolfolk Hoy and Davis, 2006[55]). Third, teachers with high self-efficacy show higher job satisfaction and commitment and are less likely to be affected by burnout, indicating the importance of the construct for their well-being (Avanzi et al., 2013[56]; Chesnut and Burley, 2015[57]; Klusmann et al., 2008[22]; Mostafa and Pál, 2018[58]; Skaalvik and Skaalvik, 2010[59]). Therefore, in addition to the factual indicators of teachers’ classroom practice presented above (i.e. frequency of use of certain practices and time spent on various activities), TALIS also collects more subjective measures of teachers’ perception of the quality of their own teaching.

In line with the assumption that teaching practices consist of several aspects, TALIS also considers teacher self-efficacy as multidimensional. TALIS inquires about the extent to which teachers can do a series of goal-oriented actions, asking them to mark one choice among four options: “not at all”; “to some extent”; “quite a bit”; “a lot”. More specifically, TALIS distinguishes three core aspects of teacher self-efficacy: classroom management; instruction; and student engagement.

Teacher self-efficacy in classroom management refers to teachers’ beliefs about their ability to establish an orderly learning environment and, therefore, effectively manage disruptive student behaviour (Brouwers and Tomic, 2000[60]). On average across the OECD, 83% to 91% of teachers report high levels of self-efficacy in classroom management: calming a student who is disruptive (83%); controlling disruptive behaviour in the classroom (85%); getting students to follow classroom rules (89%); and making their expectations about student behaviour clear (91%) (Figure I.2.7, Table I.2.20). However, in some countries and economies participating in TALIS, teachers report lower levels of efficacy in 2018 than in 2013 in at least two of the four different classroom management practices (Table I.2.23). These are Chile, the Flemish Community of Belgium, Finland, France, New Zealand, Norway, Romania, the Slovak Republic and Sweden. This trend, observed in some of the countries and economies participating in TALIS, is to be compared with the upward trend observed in the time spent on managing the classroom and, concomitantly, the downward trend in the time spent on actual teaching and learning in some of these countries. Teachers spend more time on classroom management, but they also feel less capable of doing this efficiently. Indeed, there are small but negative system-level correlations between the change in classroom management time and the change in self-efficacy in teaching (the linear correlation coefficient ranges from -0.27 to -0.40, depending on the aspect of self-efficacy in classroom management examined). In contrast, some other countries and economies show a positive change in the reported self-efficacy of teachers in classroom management between 2013 and 2018. These include the Czech Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, Portugal and Singapore. For four of these countries – Estonia, Georgia, Korea and Portugal – this may be a consequence of demographic changes in the teacher workforce, as these countries have seen an ageing of their teacher population since 2013 (see Chapter 3 for more information) and experienced teachers tend to feel more confident in their classroom management skills.

Figure I.2.7. Teachers’ self-efficacy
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who feel they can do the following “quite a bit” or “a lot” (OECD average-31)
Figure I.2.7. Teachers’ self-efficacy

Values are ranked in descending order of teachers’ self-efficacy.

Source: OECD, TALIS 2018 Database, Table I.2.20.

 StatLink http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933932019

Teacher self-efficacy in instruction refers to teachers’ beliefs about whether they feel confident in using a wide range of teaching practices and assessment strategies (OECD, 2014, pp. 182-185[61]). On average across the OECD, around 90% of teachers report that they feel able to provide an alternative explanation (e.g. when students are confused) and that they can craft good questions for their students. Fewer teachers (85%) feel that they can vary instructional strategies in their classroom, and even fewer (80%) feel that they can use a variety of assessment strategies (Table I.2.20). It seems that teachers have gained confidence in instruction, as there is an increase between 2013 and 2018 in the percentage of teachers who feel they can provide an alternative explanation in the event of confusion among students, in about a third of the countries and economies with comparable data (Table I.2.23). But a worrying decline is also seen in France5 and the Slovak Republic (10 percentage points).

Teacher self-efficacy in student engagement addresses teachers’ beliefs about the emotional and cognitive support they can give their students and about their ability to motivate student learning (OECD, 2014, pp. 182-185[61]). Among the three core factors of self-efficacy, teachers feel least confident in motivating student learning. On average across the OECD, only 68% of teachers report that they can motivate students who show low interest in school work, suggesting that teachers particularly struggle when they want to turn around a given situation. However, 81% of teachers feel that they can help students think critically and help students to value learning, and 86% feel that they can get students to believe they can do well in their school work (Table I.2.20).

On average, teachers report high levels of self-efficacy in the different domains of teaching, but novice teachers (those with five years of experience or less) are less likely to feel confident in their teaching skills than their more experienced colleagues. The practices for which the differences in self-efficacy between experienced and novice teachers are most pronounced pertain to classroom management and the use of a variety of practices.6 On average across the OECD, 78% of novice teachers feel that they can control disruptive behaviour in their classroom, while 87% of experienced teachers report that they can do so.

Figure I.2.8. Controlling disruptive behaviour, by teachers’ teaching experience
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who feel “quite a bit” or “a lot” that they can control disruptive behaviour in the classroom
Figure I.2.8. Controlling disruptive behaviour, by teachers’ teaching experience

Note: Statistically significant differences between experienced teachers (with more than 5 years of experience) and novice teachers (with less than or equal to 5 years of experience) is shown next to the country/economy name (see Annex B).

Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the percentage of teachers who feel they can control disruptive behaviour in the classroom “quite a bit” or “a lot”.

Source: OECD, TALIS 2018 Database, Table I.2.20.

 StatLink http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933932038

The largest differences (15 or more percentage points) between novice and more experienced teachers in this self-reported capacity are found in the Czech Republic, France, Japan, Norway and Spain (Figure I.2.8, Table I.2.20). More experienced teachers also feel more confident in their ability to vary their assessment strategies. This holds true for the majority of countries and economies participating in TALIS and, in particular, in Austria, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands and Viet Nam, where the difference between experienced and novice teachers is greater than 10 percentage points. In accordance with previous research, this supports the finding that experience more specifically helps teachers to develop skills and routines to manage their classroom better and to try out various strategies of teaching and assessing students (Chetty, Friedman and Rockoff, 2014[62]; Kane, Rockoff and Staiger, 2008[63]).

The one aspect of teaching in which novice teachers globally feel slightly more confident than their more experienced peers is supporting student learning using digital technology. This is likely related to a stronger command of ICT among novice teachers. Differences to the advantage of novice teachers are particularly marked in the Czech Republic, Israel, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Norway (greater than 5 percentage points). The opposite pattern, with experienced teachers reporting higher levels of self-efficacy than novice teachers, is found in England (United Kingdom), Shanghai (China), Turkey, the United States and Viet Nam (Table I.2.20).

Relationship between teaching, classroom and teacher characteristics

Teachers tend to adapt their teaching to the students they teach (Le Donné, Fraser and Bousquet, 2016[8]). TALIS data make it possible to investigate how teachers modify their strategies depending on the characteristics of the class they teach. This section now seeks to analyse which classroom factors can enable the implementation of effective teaching processes by teachers in their classroom. This is a crucial policy endeavour, since it can guide the investment into those areas that are more likely to affect teaching practices. To this end, three indicators of quality teaching processes – the frequency with which teachers report using cognitive activation practices, the total class time teachers report spending on actual teaching and learning and teachers’ reported level of self-efficacy – are analysed in relation to classroom size and composition, through the means of linear regressions.

Analyses show that, on average across OECD countries and economies, when teachers teach larger classes, they tend to spend less classroom time on actual teaching and learning (Figure I.2.9, Table I.2.16). This also holds true for about half of the countries and economies participating in TALIS, with the strongest negative relationships found in Alberta (Canada), Bulgaria, Italy and Slovenia.

Figure I.2.9. Relationship between class time spent on actual teaching and learning and class size
Change in the average proportion of time spent on teaching and learning associated with the number of students in the target class1, 2
Figure I.2.9. Relationship between class time spent on actual teaching and learning and class size

1. Results of linear regression based on responses of lower secondary teachers.

2. Controlling for the following classroom characteristics: share of academically gifted students, share of low academic achievers and share of students with special needs; and for the following teacher characteristics: gender, age, years of experience as a teacher and working full-time.

Note: Statistically significant coefficients are marked in a darker tone (see Annex B).

Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the change in the average proportion of time spent on teaching and learning associated with the number of students in the target class.

Source: OECD, TALIS 2018 Database, Table I.2.16.

 StatLink http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933932057

All other classroom and teacher characteristics being equal, teachers teaching larger classes may need to spend more time on recording attendance or handing out school forms (as a simple result of a higher number of attendees) but also on keeping order in the classroom. Yet, the negative relationship that is found in many countries between class size and actual teaching and learning time does not hold for other indicators of teaching processes and quality, such as for the use of cognitive activation practices (Table I.2.24) and teachers’ reported self-efficacy in teaching (Table I.2.25).

Teachers’ teaching practices also differ depending on the composition of the classroom they teach. In most countries and economies, when the share of gifted students in a classroom is larger and/or the proportion of low achievers is smaller, all three quality indicators of teaching processes examined (the use of cognitive activation practices; self-efficacy; and the time spent on actual teaching) tend to be more prevalent (Tables I.2.24, I.2.25 and I.2.16). In other words, when teachers view their students as “easy-to-teach”, they also report spending more class time on actual teaching and learning, using cognitive activation practices more frequently and being more confident in their ability to teach.

Teachers working in a class with a higher share of special needs students tend to spend less time on actual teaching but do not feel less confident in their teaching nor do they use cognitive activation practices less frequently (Tables I.2.16, I.2.25 and I.2.26). This suggests that catering for students with special needs requires teachers to spend more time setting up the classroom for actual learning to happen, but it may also encourage teachers to use a wider range of activities and practices to stimulate every student’s learning.

Box I.2.4. Providing 21st century learning to all students through curriculum reform in Mexico

The manner in which national curricula include and define 21st century skills and competencies is the first step towards systemically enabling teaching and learning practices that actually build these skills among students in classrooms. Mexico’s New Education Model (Nuevo Modelo Educativo, NME) was introduced in 2016 as a major curriculum reform to foster a skills and competency-based learning experience for all students in primary and secondary education. The reform stands out as a product of the massive three-year public consultation process with key stakeholders in education. A local survey of school communities in Mexico showed that the concept of 21st century skills is still unknown among many educators. However, respondents showed a positive attitude and openness towards the inclusion of the new content encompassing 21st century competencies. The goal of the NME is to prepare holistic student graduates who are confident and self-aware critical thinkers, problem solvers, team players and leaders. Therefore, this curriculum reform is characterised by three aspects of learning: academic knowledge, social and personal development and curricular autonomy for schools. Each of the components is defined in great detail under the implementation plan. It outlines domain-wise and grade-specific key learning outcomes and assessment practices and suggests pedagogical methods to guide teachers and schools. The curriculum was piloted in almost 1 000 schools in Mexico during the 2017/18 academic year.

The Mexican government also identified the need to effectively support teachers and schools in order to make the NME goals actionable. Therefore, it identified the “Schools at the Centre” strategy to give coherence at the school level with the priorities of the NME reform. This includes providing pedagogical support in the form of grade and subject-aligned learning outcomes based on the new curriculum, increasing instructional time for specific activities and strengthening the role of School Technical Councils.

The implementation of the NME reflects a large-scale reform emerging from building a collective consensus with key stakeholders in education and its coherence with a clearly defined vision and objectives for education.

Source: Gobierno de México (n.d.[64]), Nuevo Modelo Educativo [New Educational Model], www.gob.mx/nuevomodeloeducativo, (accessed 25 February 2019); Cárdenas, S. (2016[65]), Curriculum reform and twenty-first century skills in Mexico: Are standards and teacher training materials aligned?

Actually, the regression analyses presented above also shed light on the fact that the three examined indicators – time spent on actual teaching and learning, use of cognitive activation practices and self-efficacy – provide complementary information on the teaching and learning process that takes place in the classrooms. Analyses show that these measures are not related by a simple relationship but by a complex one. Yet, other investigations regarding indicators of teachers’ approaches to classroom management, particularly the indicators of time spent on keeping order in the classroom and self-efficacy in this domain, are connected in a more simple manner. Indeed, in most countries and economies that participate in TALIS, there is a significant inverse relationship between self-efficacy in classroom management and class time spent on keeping order. In other words, the more teachers believe in their classroom management capabilities, the less class time they spend on keeping order (Table I.2.26).

Teachers also tend to teach differently depending on their personal characteristics and experience. Past teaching experience is actually the teacher characteristic that matters most when it comes to teaching strategies. After controlling for classroom composition, more experienced teachers tend to report higher self-efficacy (Table I.2.25) and more time spent on teaching in most countries and economies participating in TALIS (Table I.2.16). Except in Japan, female teachers also tend to report higher overall self-efficacy than male teachers. Interestingly, Japan is also the only TALIS country where the teaching profession is more male than female. Moreover, in around half of the countries and economies participating in TALIS, being a full-time teacher is associated with higher self-efficacy compared to those teaching part-time.

What teachers and school leaders do outside the classroom to get ready for teaching

Given the amount of time available, the work of teachers and school leaders is composed of a multitude of often competing tasks. The way they use their working time is crucial for the quality of the teaching delivered in their classroom and school and for student learning. Indeed, teachers and school leaders always have to set priorities to balance their most important goals with the resources available to achieve them. The quality of teachers’ teaching in their classroom is likely to depend on the quality of the planning and preparation of their lessons (Hargreaves, 1992[66]). Similarly, the quality of teachers’ teaching hinges on the measures taken by school leaders to support teaching and learning in their school (OECD, 2016[67]; Orphanos and Orr, 2014[68]). Although indicators of such aspects of quality are relatively complex to build, it is possible to examine how much time teachers and school principals devote to these activities.

Planning, preparing and marking

TALIS asks teachers how many 60-minute hours they spend working in total and on various tasks during the most recent complete calendar week prior to the survey (including tasks that took place during weekends, evenings or other out-of-class hours. On average across the OECD, teachers (including full-time and part-time teachers) spend 38.8 hours per week on all the tasks related to their job in their surveyed school, of which 20.6 hours are devoted to teaching (Table I.2.27)7. In other words, teachers spend slightly more than half (53%) of their working time teaching classes and this share is very similar for teachers working full-time and for those working part-time hours.8 But the share of teaching hours varies greatly across countries. The lowest shares (between 31% and 40% of total teacher working hours) are mainly observed in Eastern countries (Japan, Kazakhstan, Singapore and Viet Nam), but also in Norway, while the highest shares (between 72% and 78%) are found in Brazil, Chile,9 Georgia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Turkey. These differences result from the way teachers’ hours are regulated, which varies among countries as well as from the country-specific school culture among other factors – see Indicator D4 in Education at a Glance (OECD, 2018[46]). In Japan, while teachers spend a low share of their working time on teaching (32%), they are also highly engaged in extracurricular activities (13% of their working time, compared to 4% on average in the OECD), which actually involves teaching extra lessons in “school clubs” for the teachers. Similarly, yet to a lesser extent, teachers in Singapore engage in what is referred to as “co-curricular activities” (2.7 hours per week on average or the equivalent of 6% of their total working hours) and teach students important social-emotional competencies and other 21st century competencies through these activities.

The next two most time-consuming activities in teachers’ work are planning and lesson preparation (either at school or out of school) and marking and correcting student work. On average across the OECD, teachers spend 6.5 hours a week on planning and lesson preparation (the equivalent of 17% of their total working time) and 4.2 hours a week on marking and correcting (the equivalent of 11% of their total working time). The way teachers distribute their time across these two tasks also varies substantially across countries. For example, teachers in Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires (hereafter CABA) (Argentina), Finland, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden and Turkey dedicate the equivalent of 11% to 15% of their total time to preparing for classes, while teachers in Austria, Brazil, Bulgaria, Colombia, Croatia, Georgia, Malta, the Russian Federation, Slovenia and Viet Nam spend the equivalent of 20% to 23% of their total working time on preparation (Table I.2.27).

The way teachers distribute their time across teaching-related tasks has changed significantly over the past five years. Overall, teachers tend to report more teaching hours and less preparation time. In addition, teachers also report spending less time on general administrative work in 2018 than in 2013. Increases in teaching hours are observed in 16 of the 31 countries and economies with comparable data over time. However, five countries and economies show a small decline in the reported number of teaching hours: the Flemish Community of Belgium, France, Italy, Korea and Portugal, while Brazil shows the sharpest decrease in teaching time, three hours a week (Figure I.2.10, Table I.2.30).

Simultaneously, teachers tend to spend less time on planning and preparing for their lessons in 2018 than in 2013. A significant decline is found in 16 of the 32 countries and economies with comparable data. In contrast, a significant increase in preparation time is observed in Chile10 and Shanghai (China). In Brazil, Croatia, Estonia, Georgia, Korea, Portugal, Romania and Singapore, teachers spend at least one hour less on planning and preparing their lessons in 2018 than they used to do in 2013. This is not a negligible shift given that, on average in the OECD, teachers spend six and a half hours on planning and preparing their lessons (Table I.2.27).11

Figure I.2.10. Change in teachers’ working hours from 2013 to 2018
Average number of working hours (i.e. 60-minute hours) that lower secondary teachers spent on teaching and individual planning or preparation of lessons
Figure I.2.10. Change in teachers’ working hours from 2013 to 2018

Notes: Only countries and economies with available data for 2013 and 2018 are shown.

Statistically significant changes between 2013 and 2018 (TALIS 2018 - TALIS 2013) are found next to the category and the country/economy name (see Annex B).

Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the average number of working hours teachers spent on teaching in 2018.

Source: OECD, TALIS 2018 Database, Table I.2.30.

 StatLink http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933932076

This global reduction is worrisome, as past research has emphasised the importance of teacher preparation time for the quality of teaching and student learning. A study based on teacher interviews, conducted in Ontario (Canada), found that increases in preparation time had conferred important benefits on the quality of teachers’ work in general and their instruction in particular (Hargreaves, 1992[66]). Preparation time can be seen as a way of providing teachers with working conditions designed to help them catch up with the diverse and changing requirements of their jobs. Preparation time is a promising lever to help teachers cope more effectively with these changes.

Some factors could make this downward tendency in preparation time less worrisome, for example, if teacher preparation has become more effective through the use of technology. More and more courses are prepared on computers and can more easily be updated, and there are more and more opportunities for sharing course materials and artefacts with other teachers through the Internet and social media. The declining trend may be less of a concern if the teacher population is ageing, as preparation time is typically longer for novice teachers than for more experienced teachers, or if more teachers are required to teach the same lesson several times to different classes. With regard to the role of the first factor, the seniorisation of the teacher population, Brazil and Portugal are the two countries that experience both one of the sharpest declines in lesson planning time and an increase in the share of teachers with more than 20 years of experience (see Table I.3.12 presented in Chapter 3). The role of the second factor – class duplication – is difficult to assess using TALIS data. Changes in class size and in student-teacher ratio could provide an indication of class reduction and potentially of class duplication for teachers, assuming that the size of the teacher workforce has remained stable. Among the countries that experienced the sharpest decline in teachers’ preparation time, Croatia, Korea and Singapore also experienced a decline in both class size and student-teacher ratio (see Tables I.3.77 and I.3.79 presented in Chapter 3), which could, possibly, further explain the trend of reduced preparation time.

Time spent by school leaders on curriculum and teaching-related tasks

How do principals support their teachers in the core substance of their teaching tasks? TALIS asks school principals about the proportion of time they spend on various activities throughout the school year in their role as principal. Among the seven activities listed in the principal questionnaire, one is closely related to supporting teaching in their school: “curriculum and teaching-related tasks and meetings” (Figure I.2.11, Table I.2.31). This activity typically encompasses developing a school curriculum, teaching, observing their teachers’ classes, mentoring teachers, designing and organising professional development activities for teachers or being involved in student evaluation. It has been identified as a key component of instructional leadership of school principals (OECD, 2016[67]). On average across the OECD, principals report spending 16% of their working time on this type of activity. This makes it the third most time-consuming task of principals, after administrative tasks and meetings12 (30% of principals’ working time) and leadership tasks and meetings13 (21%).

Figure I.2.11. Time spent by principals on curriculum and teaching
Average proportion of time lower secondary principals report spending on curriculum and teaching-related tasks and meetings1
Figure I.2.11. Time spent by principals on curriculum and teaching

1. Including developing curriculum, teaching, classroom observations, student evaluation, mentoring teachers, teacher professional development.

Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the average proportion of time lower secondary principals report spending on curriculum and teaching-related tasks and meetings in 2018.

Source: OECD, TALIS 2018 Database, Table I.2.31.

 StatLink http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933932095

Box I.2.5. Working time of teachers and principals from primary to upper secondary education

Teachers’ use of time during a typical working week

The total working time teachers actually spend on teaching during a typical working week decreases gradually with the level of education they teach. In 12 out of 13 countries and economies with available data for ISCED 1 and 2, teachers at the primary level spend more hours a week on teaching than their peers at the lower secondary level, with the largest differences in CABA (Argentina), France and Japan (more than 5 hours per week) (Table I.2.28). A further decrease in teaching hours is observed moving to the upper secondary level in 10 out of 11 countries and economies with available data for ISCED 2 and 3, with the most pronounced difference in Denmark (3.7 hours) (Table I.2.29). The difference in the number of hours spent on teaching reflects the differences in statutory teaching time across levels of education. In most OECD countries and economies, statutory teaching time at the primary level is longer than at the lower secondary level and even longer than at the upper secondary level (OECD, 2018[46]).

While teachers tend to teach fewer hours at higher levels of education, their total working hours across different levels of education show mixed patterns in the countries with available data for ISCED 1 and 3 (Tables I.2.28 and I.2.29). The most notable gaps are observed in CABA (Argentina), where primary teachers work 7.9 hours (or 21%) more than their counterparts at the lower secondary level and the Flemish Community of Belgium, where primary teachers work 4.6 hours (or 11%) more than lower secondary teachers.

Outside of teaching hours, teachers use their remaining working time slightly differently across levels of education. Starting with the most time-consuming activity after teaching, in 7 out of 13 countries with available data for ISCED 1 and 2, primary teachers tend to spend less time than lower secondary teachers on planning and preparing their lessons, while the opposite pattern is observed in another three countries. Depending on the activity, in 8 to 12 countries and economies, teachers at the primary level spend less time engaging in extracurricular activities, counselling students and marking and correcting student work than their peers at the lower secondary level (Table I.2.28). Japan has a notable shift, with lower secondary teachers spending almost seven hours more than primary teachers engaging in extracurricular activities.

School leaders’ use of time throughout the school year

On average in the OECD, lower secondary school leaders spend half of their time on administrative tasks, leadership tasks and meetings, one-third of their time on interactions with students, parents, the local and regional community or business and industry, and less than one-fifth of their time on curriculum and teaching-related tasks (Table I.2.31). The proportion of time principals spend on these activities tends to be similar across all three levels of education in the 11 countries with available data for ISCED 1 and 2 and the 13 countries and economies with available data for ISCED 2 and 3. The most substantial differences are found between the lower and upper secondary level: in 8 countries and economies with available data, upper secondary principals spend less time than lower secondary principals on interactions with parents or guardians (Tables I.2.32 and I.2.33).

In 2018, there are also substantial cross-country differences in the way school leaders use their time. School leaders spend a higher share of their time on curriculum and teaching-related tasks (more than 20% of their total working time) in Eastern countries (Georgia, Israel, Japan, Kazakhstan, Korea, Saudi Arabia, Shanghai [China], the United Arab Emirates and Viet Nam) and in South Africa and a lower share (less than 15%) in Europe (Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the Russian Federation, Sweden and Turkey) (Table I.2.31). These differences are partly related to the way principals’ responsibilities are defined and regulated, which varies among countries.

To what extent can teachers and schools innovate?

Rapidly changing societies, economies, and technologies have led to frequent calls for innovation in education. Meetings of the International Summit on the Teaching Profession held in the past few years stress the importance of encouraging innovation to create 21st century learning environments and conditions for the success of education systems. The 2014 OECD report Measuring Innovation in Education: A New Perspective states that educational innovation can add value in four main areas: 1) improving learning outcomes and the quality of education; 2) enhancing equity in access to and use of education, as well as equality; 3) improving efficiency, minimising costs and maximising the “bang for the buck”; and 4) introducing the changes necessary to adapt to rapid changes in society (OECD, 2014, p. 21[69]).

However, it is not entirely clear how to define innovation. An OECD TALIS report, published in 2012, defined innovation as “… a new idea or a further development of an existing product, process or method that is applied in a specific context with the intention to create a value added.” (Vieluf et al., 2012, p. 39[31]). The report pointed out that incremental adaptations of existing characteristics are a feature more commonly seen in relation to innovation than to radical change. A more recent OECD report defines innovation in teaching as “… a problem-solving process rooted in teachers’ professionalism, a normal response to addressing the daily changes of constantly changing classrooms.” (Paniagua and Istance, 2018, p. 13[70]).

The literature on innovation in education discusses several perspectives on this matter. The first perspective concerns innovative teaching practices that support students’ acquisition of cross-curricular skills (OECD, 2014[69]). In addition to acquiring well-established literacies, such as reading and mathematics, students today need broader and more complex skills to have a fair chance of succeeding in complex modern societies and rapidly changing global labour markets. These skills encompass or refer to ways of thinking and working, mastering tools for working, and aspects of living in the 21st century (Binkley et al., 2012[71]; Bohle Carbonell et al., 2014[72]). Creativity and innovation, problem solving, critical thinking and digital literacy are the skills mentioned most often in this context, but there are others (OECD, 2015[73]).

A second perspective of interest with regard to innovation concerns the general uptake of innovative practices by teachers, as core actors in educational processes. Innovative practices typically encompass blended learning, gamification, computational thinking, experiential learning or embodied learning14 (Paniagua and Istance, 2018[70]). On average across the OECD, 79% of teachers agree or strongly agree with the statement that “most teachers in [their] school strive to develop new ideas for teaching and learning”, showing a general orientation of teachers towards innovative teaching. Fewer teachers agree with this in many European countries (particularly in Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands and Portugal) than in other regions of the globe (Table I.2.35). As discussed by Paniagua and Istance (2018[70]), there is a mismatch between how innovation is understood and theorised and how it occurs in practice: “… the innovation landscape today is populated by hundreds of very local experiences, and different frameworks and recommendations that conflate new learning goals, content, skills, organisation factors and different variables of pedagogical knowledge.” (Paniagua and Sánchez-Marti, 2018, p. 24[74]). On average across the OECD, 74% of teachers agree or strongly agree that most teachers in their school are open to change (Figure I.2.12), and 77% of teachers agree or strongly agree that most teachers in their school search for new ways to solve problems. Openness to innovation seems to be lower in many European countries than in other parts of the world (Figure I.2.12, Table I.2.35). It may be the case that teachers in the European countries showing the lowest levels of innovation – such as Belgium and Portugal – rely more heavily on the curriculum. However, this cannot be the explanation for all European countries – especially in some Scandinavian countries, which allow teachers a lot of autonomy in their teaching or focus on evidence-based practice. It is unlikely that the cross-country differences for these indicators result more from cultural differences in the understanding of the concept than for other questions, as the TALIS measures on innovation proved to be the most comparable ones across countries (for more details, see the TALIS 2018 Technical Report).

Box I.2.6. Encouraging schools to be autonomous and innovative in Portugal

The Portuguese government introduced the Project for Autonomy and Curriculum Flexibility (PACF), a pilot programme for schools to build 21st century competencies for all their students. The foundations of the PACF are based on student outcomes that Portugal aims to achieve, as aligned to the National Skills Strategy of Portugal (2015) and described in detail in Student’s Profile by the End of Compulsory Schooling. The PACF implementation plan is both holistic and action-oriented. First, the programme allows schools to make several curricular decisions. It includes citizenship education in its strategy to foster students’ knowledge, skills and values in democratic institutions, the environment, sustainability, human rights and health, so that students graduate to be socially and culturally responsive individuals. Another key component of the PACF is the shift to formative and all-round assessments in Grades 4 and 6, including projects, art activities, presentations and group tasks to monitor student learning.

Implementation of the PACF thrives on school-level ownership, especially of educators, in order to drive local and context-specific innovation in an incremental manner. Because of this aspect, the PACF has the potential to develop students’ skills based on their local context and need. Furthermore, the programme creates opportunities for teachers and principals to collaborate professionally to initiate new pedagogical approaches in their school, such as interdisciplinary and cross-classroom activities. One of the biggest strengths of the Portuguese project is that it allows a bottom-up approach to change in teaching and learning and focuses on the need of national-level bodies to adapt their monitoring processes accordingly. During the 2017/18 school year, 200 schools participated in this pilot programme on a voluntary basis. The Portuguese government is now attempting to expand implementation of this programme at the national level, with an appropriate balance of autonomy, capacity and accountability.

Education reform in Portugal has come at an opportune moment, with increased competitiveness of the national economy and improvements in students outcomes, indicating a strong grounding in basic education.

Source: OECD (2018[77]), Curriculum Flexibility and Autonomy in Portugal: An OECD Review, www.oecd.org/education/2030/Curriculum-Flexibility-and-Autonomy-in-Portugal-an-OECD-Review.pdf.

Teachers’ opinions about their peers’ openness to change also vary depending on their own characteristics (Table I.2.38). On average across the OECD, teachers age 50 or above are more likely to report that their colleagues are open to change than teachers under age 30 (a difference of 14 percentage points). This also holds true for 36 countries and economies. There is no country where the opposite pattern occurs, with younger teachers reporting higher levels of openness among their colleagues than older teachers. Except for Portugal, results are similar when comparing novice teachers with more experienced teachers. This is not surprising, as age groups and experience groups partly overlap. One plausible explanation is that this is related to the generation gap, with younger teachers more likely to be open to change. As teaching is, by definition, new to them, they can only suggest new ways of doing things. This may result in older teachers reporting higher levels of openness to innovation among their peers (who are most likely younger15) and younger teachers reporting lower levels of openness to innovation among their peers (who are most likely older16). Indeed, past research found that teachers’ willingness to implement innovative practices or reforms tends to decline with age and experience (Goodson, Moore and Hargreaves, 2006[75]). However, older teachers may just rely on their experience and well-proven teaching methods and may, therefore, be more reluctant to change their approaches. There is an exception to this pattern – Portugal – where novice teachers are more likely to report that most teachers in their school are open to change. Box I.2.6. sheds light on Portugal’s pilot programme on fostering innovation in schools and among teachers to build 21st century competencies among its students.

The third literature-based perspective on innovation concerns school contexts that are open to innovation. On average across the OECD, 78% of teachers report that “most teachers in [their] school provide practical support to each other for the application of new ideas.” This reinforces the idea that innovation also has an organisational component that reflects the perceptions of a group’s innovativeness that are shared by the teachers of the school (Anderson and West, 1998[76]). This organisational component seems to be more pronounced in Georgia, Kazakhstan, Shanghai (China) and Viet Nam (where more than 90% of teachers so reported) and less prominent in Belgium and Portugal (where less than 70% of teachers so reported) (Table I.2.35).

Figure I.2.12. Teachers’ views on their colleagues’ attitudes towards innovation
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who “agree” or “strongly agree” that most teachers in the school are open to change (OECD average-31)
Figure I.2.12. Teachers’ views on their colleagues’ attitudes towards innovation

Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of lower secondary teachers’ views on their colleagues’ openness to change.

Source: OECD, TALIS 2018 Database, Table I.2.35.

 StatLink http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933932114

Box I.2.7. Innovation in primary, lower and upper secondary education

Teachers’ views on their colleagues’ attitudes towards innovation

Across countries and economies with available data, more than two-thirds of teachers have a positive view of their colleagues’ attitudes towards innovation, although this view tends to be less and less positive as the level of education they teach rises (Tables I.2.35, I.2.36 and I.2.37). Depending on the statement concerned, in 7 to 8 of the 13 countries and economies with available data for ISCED 1 and 2, teachers at the primary level are more likely than their peers at the lower secondary level to report that most teachers in their school strive to develop new ideas for teaching and learning, are open to change, search for new ways to solve problems and provide practical support to each other for the application of new ideas (Table I.2.36). The differences are particularly pronounced in the Flemish Community of Belgium where the percentage of teachers who agree or strongly agree with the different statements is 7 to 17 percentage points higher among primary teachers than among lower secondary teachers, and in Japan where the percentage is 8 to 12 percentage points higher. A further decrease in teachers’ views on their colleagues’ educational innovativeness is observed at the upper secondary level across the 11 countries and economies with available data for ISCED 2 and 3, with a significant difference in the percentage of teachers who agree or strongly agree with the different statements in 5 to 7 countries, depending on the statement concerned (Table I.2.37).

School principals also report high levels of innovationfriendliness in their schools (Table I.2.39). On average across the OECD, 85% to 89% of school principals agree or strongly agree with the following statements about their school: “makes assistance readily available for the development of new ideas” (89%); “quickly identifies the need to do things differently” (89%); “quickly responds to changes when needed” (88%); and “readily accepts new ideas” (85%). In addition to an innovation-friendly school climate, certain system characteristics are important preconditions for innovation, because their presence makes it easier for schools to adapt to rapid developments. One such characteristic is documented in several OECD reports (Kools and Stoll, 2016[78]; Vieluf et al., 2012[31]), which pointed out the value that professional learning communities offer by constantly providing feedback to teachers, thus supporting incremental change and positively affecting instructional quality and student achievement (Bolam et al., 2005[79]; Louis and Marks, 1998[80]). Professional learning communities will be discussed in detail in Volume II of this report (forthcoming).

References

[44] ACT Government: Education (2016), Teachers’ Guide to Assessment, ACT Government: Education, www.education.act.gov.au/__data/ assets/pdf_file/0011/297182/Teachers-Guide-To-Assessment.pdf.

[76] Anderson, N. and M. West (1998), “Measuring climate for work group innovation: Development and validation of the team climate inventory”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 19/3, pp. 235-258, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/%28SICI%2910991379%28199805%2919%3A3%3C235%3A%3AAID-JOB837%3E3.0.CO%3B2-C.

[56] Avanzi, L. et al. (2013), “Cross-validation of the Norwegian Teacher’s Self-Efficacy Scale (NTSES)”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 31, pp. 69-78, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.TATE.2013.01.002.

[9] Baumert, J. et al. (2010), “Teachers’ mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress”, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 47/1, pp. 133-180, http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002831209345157.

[71] Binkley, M. et al. (2012), “Defining twenty-first century skills”, in Griffin, P., B. McGaw and E. Care (eds.), Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills, Springer, Dordrecht, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2324-5_2.

[72] Bohle Carbonell, K. et al. (2014), “How experts deal with novel situations: A review of adaptive expertise”, Educational Research Review, Vol. 12, pp. 14-29, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.EDUREV.2014.03.001.

[79] Bolam, R. et al. (2005), “Creating and Sustaining Effective Professional Learning Communities”, DfES Research Report, No. 637, University of Bristol, Bristol, http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/5622/1/RR637.pdf.

[60] Brouwers, A. and W. Tomic (2000), “A longitudinal study of teacher burnout and perceived self-efficacy in classroom management”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 16/2, pp. 239-253, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X (99) 00057-8.

[53] Caprara, G. et al. (2006), “Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs as determinants of job satisfaction and students’ academic achievement: A study at the school level”, Journal of School Psychology, Vol. 44/6, pp. 473-490, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.09.001.

[65] Cárdenas, S. (2016), “Curriculum reform and twenty-first century skills in Mexico: Are standards and teacher training materials aligned?”, in Reimers, F. and C. Chung (eds.), Teaching and Learning for the Twenty-First Century: Educational Goals, Policies and Curricula from Six Nations, Harvard Education Press, Cambridge, MA.

[48] Case, R. (1985), Intellectual Development: Birth to Adulthood, Academic Press, London.

[57] Chesnut, S. and H. Burley (2015), “Self-efficacy as a predictor of commitment to the teaching profession: A meta-analysis”, Educational Research Review, Vol. 15, pp. 1-16, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.001.

[62] Chetty, R., J. Friedman and J. Rockoff (2014), “Measuring the impacts of teachers II: Teacher value-added and student outcomes in adulthood”, American Economic Review, Vol. 104/9, pp. 2633-79.

[36] Comi, S. et al. (2017), “Is it the way they use it? Teachers, ICT and student achievement”, Economics of Education Review, Vol. 56, pp. 24-39, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2016.11.007.

[10] Creemers, B. and L. Kyriakides (2008), The Dynamics of Educational Effectiveness: A Contribution to Policy, Practice and Theory in Contemporary Schools, Routledge, Abingdon, https://lib.ugent.be/nl/catalog/rug01:001240853.

[35] Echazarra, A. et al. (2016), “How teachers teach and students learn: Successful strategies for school”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 130, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jm29kpt0xxx-en.

[15] Fauth, B. et al. (2014), “Student ratings of teaching quality in primary school: Dimensions and prediction of student outcomes”, Learning and Instruction, Vol. 29, pp. 1-9, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.07.001.

[33] Fraillon, J. et al. (2014), Preparing for Life in a Digital Age: The IEA International Computer and Information Literacy Study International Report, Springer International Publishing, Heidelberg, www.iea.nl/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/Electronic_versions/ICILS_2013_ International_Report.pdf.

[37] Gil-Flores, J., J. Rodríguez-Santero and J. Torres-Gordillo (2017), “Factors that explain the use of ICT in secondary-education classrooms: The role of teacher characteristics and school infrastructure”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 68, pp. 441-449, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.CHB.2016.11.057.

[64] Gobierno de México (n.d.), Nuevo Modelo Educativo [New Educational Model], www.gob.mx/nuevomodeloeducativo (accessed on 25 February 2019).

[75] Goodson, I., S. Moore and A. Hargreaves (2006), “Teacher nostalgia and the sustainability of reform: The generation and degeneration of teachers’ missions, memory, and meaning”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 42/1, pp. 42-61, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013161X05278180.

[66] Hargreaves, A. (1992), “Time and teachers’ work: An analysis of the intensification thesis”, Teachers College Record, Vol. 94/1, pp. 87-108, www.tcrecord.org/content.asp?contentid=179.

[3] Hattie, J. (2009), Visible Learning: A Synthesis of over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement, Routledge, London.

[40] Hattie, J. and H. Timperley (2007), “The power of feedback”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 77/1, pp. 81-112, http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487.

[29] Hiebert, J. and D. Grouws (2007), “The effect of classroom mathematics teaching on students’ learning”, in Lester, F. (ed.), Second Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning, Information Age Publishing Inc., Charlotte, NC.

[52] Holzberger, D., A. Philipp and M. Kunter (2013), “How teachers’ self-efficacy is related to instructional quality: A longitudinal analysis”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 105/3, pp. 774-786, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032198.

[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, Thousand Oaks, CA, https://repository.upenn.edu/ gse_pubs/221.

[11] Isac, M. et al. (2015), Teaching Practices in Primary and Secondary Schools in Europe: Insights from Large-Scale Assessments in Education, JRC Science and Policy Report, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, http://dx.doi.org/10.2788/383588.

[16] Kane, T. and S. Cantrell (2010), Learning about Teaching: Initial Findings from the Measures of Effective Teaching Project About the Measures of Effective Teaching Project, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, WA, https://docs.gatesfoundation.org/Documents/preliminary-findings-research-paper.pdf.

[63] Kane, T., J. Rockoff and D. Staiger (2008), “What does certification tell us about teacher effectiveness? Evidence from New York City”, Economics of Education Review, Vol. 27/6, pp. 615-631.

[50] Klassen, R. and V. Tze (2014), “Teachers’ self-efficacy, personality, and teaching effectiveness: A meta-analysis”, Educational Research Review, Vol. 12, pp. 59-76, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.06.001.

[49] Klassen, R. et al. (2011), “Teacher efficacy research 1998-2009: Signs of progress or unfulfilled promise?”, Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 23/1, pp. 21-43, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9141-8.

[30] Klieme, E., C. Pauli and K. Reusser (2009), “The Pythagoras study: Investigating effects of teaching and learning in Swiss and German mathematics classrooms”, in Janík, T. and T. Seidel (eds.), The Power of Video Studies in Investigating Teaching and Learning in the Classroom, Waxmann, Münster.

[22] Klusmann, U. et al. (2008), “Teachers’ occupational well-being and quality of instruction: The important role of self-regulatory patterns”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 100/3, pp. 702-715, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.702.

[78] Kools, M. and L. Stoll (2016), “What Makes a School a Learning Organisation?”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 137, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jlwm62b3bvh-en.

[12] Kunter, M. et al. (2013), “Professional competence of teachers: Effects on instructional quality and student development”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 105/3, pp. 805-820, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032583.

[17] Kunter, M. and T. Voss (2013), “The model of instructional quality in COACTIV: A multicriteria analysis”, in Kunter, M. et al. (eds.), Cognitive Activation in the Mathematics Classroom and Professional Competence of Teachers, Springer, New York, NY, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5149-5_6.

[25] Kyriakides, L., R. Campbell and A. Gagatsis (2000), “The significance of the classroom effect in primary schools: An application of Creemers’ comprehensive model of educational effectiveness”, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Vol. 11/4, pp. 501-529, http://dx.doi.org/10.1076/sesi.11.4.501.3560.

[41] Kyriakides, L. and B. Creemers (2008), “Using a multidimensional approach to measure the impact of classroom-level factors upon student achievement: a study testing the validity of the dynamic model”, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Vol. 19/2, pp. 183-205, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09243450802047873.

[19] Lavy, V. (2016), “What Makes an Effective Teacher? Quasi-Experimental Evidence”, CESifo Economic Studies, Vol. 62/1, pp. 88-125, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cesifo/ifv001.

[8] Le Donné, N., P. Fraser and G. Bousquet (2016), “Teaching Strategies for Instructional Quality: Insights from the TALIS-PISA Link Data”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 148, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jln1hlsr0lr-en.

[28] Lipowsky, F. et al. (2009), “Quality of geometry instruction and its short-term impact on students’ understanding of the Pythagorean Theorem”, Learning and Instruction, Vol. 19/6, pp. 527-537, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.11.001.

[5] Little, O., L. Goe and C. Bell (2009), A Practical Guide to Evaluating Teacher Effectiveness, National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality, Washington, DC.

[80] Louis, K. and H. Marks (1998), “Does professional community affect the classroom? Teachers’ work and student experiences in restructuring schools”, American Journal of Education, Vol. 106/4, pp. 532-575, https://doi.org/10.1086/444197.

[23] Martin, M. et al. (2013), “Effective schools in reading, mathematics, and science at the fourth grade”, in Martin, M. and I. Mullis (eds.), TIMSS and PIRLS 2011: Relationships Among Reading, Mathematics, and Science Achievement at the Fourth Grade - Implications for Early Learning, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College and International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), Chestnut Hill, MA, https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timsspirls2011/downloads/TP11_Chapter_3.pdf.

[58] Mostafa, T. and J. Pál (2018), “Science teachers’ satisfaction: Evidence from the PISA 2015 teacher survey”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 168, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/1ecdb4e3-en.

[54] Muijs, D. and D. Reynolds (2002), “Teachers’ beliefs and behaviors: What really matters?”, The Journal of Classroom Interaction, Vol. 37/2, pp. 3-15, www.jstor.org/stable/23870407.

[43] Muijs, D. and D. Reynolds (2001), Effective Teaching: Evidence and Practice, Sage Publications, London.

[13] Nilsen, T. and J. Gustafsson (eds.) (2016), Teacher Quality, Instructional Quality and Student Outcomes: Relationships Across Countries, Cohorts and Time, IEA Research for Education, Springer Open/International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41252-8.

[14] O’Dwyer, L., Y. Wang and K. Shields (2015), “Teaching for conceptual understanding: A cross-national comparison of the relationship between teachers’ instructional practices and student achievement in mathematics”, Large-scale Assessments in Education, Vol. 3/1, pp. 3-30, http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40536-014-0011-6.

[77] OECD (2018), Curriculum Flexibility and Autonomy in Portugal: an OECD Review, OECD, Paris, www.oecd.org/education/2030/Curriculum-Flexibility-and-Autonomy-in-Portugal-an-OECD-Review.pdf.

[46] OECD (2018), Education at a Glance 2018: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-en.

[47] OECD (2018), Effective Teacher Policies: Insights from PISA, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264301603-en.

[1] OECD (2018), Teaching for the Future: Effective Classroom Practices To Transform Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264293243-en.

[32] OECD (2016), PISA 2015 Results (Volume II): Policies and Practices for Successful Schools, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264267510-en.

[67] OECD (2016), School Leadership for Learning: Insights from TALIS 2013, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264258341-en.

[73] OECD (2015), OECD Skills Outlook 2015: Youth, Skills and Employability, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264234178-en.

[34] OECD (2015), Students, Computers and Learning: Making the Connection, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264239555-en.

[69] OECD (2014), Measuring Innovation in Education: A New Perspective, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264215696-en.

[61] OECD (2014), TALIS 2013 Results: An International Perspective on Teaching and Learning, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264196261-en.

[4] OECD (2005), Teachers Matter: Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers, Education and Training Policy, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264018044-en.

[68] Orphanos, S. and M. Orr (2014), “Learning leadership matters”, Educational Management Administration & Leadership, Vol. 42/5, pp. 680-700, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1741143213502187.

[70] Paniagua, A. and D. Istance (2018), Teachers as Designers of Learning Environments: The Importance of Innovative Pedagogies, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264085374-en.

[74] Paniagua, A. and A. Sánchez-Martí (2018), “Early Career Teachers: Pioneers Triggering Innovation or Compliant Professionals?”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 190, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/4a7043f9-en.

[81] Philipp, A. and M. Kunter (2013), “How do teachers spend their time? A study on teachers’ strategies of selection, optimisation, and compensation over their career cycle”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 35, pp. 1-12, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.04.014.

[7] Pollard, A. (2010), Professionalism and Pedagogy: A Contemporary Opportunity: A Commentary by the Teaching and Learning Research Programme and the General Teaching Council for England, TLRP/Institute of Education/University of London, London, https://dera.ioe. ac.uk//11320/.

[20] Rjosk, C. et al. (2014), “Socioeconomic and language minority classroom composition and individual reading achievement: The mediating role of instructional quality”, Learning and Instruction, Vol. 32, pp. 63-72, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.01.007.

[45] Rožman, M. and E. Klieme (2017), “Exploring cross-national changes in instructional practices: evidence from four cycles of TIMSS”, IEA Policy brief, No. 13, IEA, Amsterdam, http://pub.iea.nl/fileadmin/user_upload/Policy_Briefs/IEA_Policy_Brief_Feb2017.pdf.

[82] Santiago, P. et al. (2017), OECD Reviews of School Resources: Chile 2017, OECD Reviews of School Resources, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264285637-en.

[42] Scheerens, J. (2016), Educational Effectiveness and Ineffectiveness: A Critical Review of the Knowledge Base, Springer, Dordrecht.

[26] Scherer, R. and J. Gustafsson (2015), “Student assessment of teaching as a source of information about aspects of teaching quality in multiple subject domains: An application of multilevel bifactor structural equation modeling”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 6, pp. 1-15, http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01550.

[27] Seidel, T., R. Rimmele and M. Prenzel (2005), “Clarity and coherence of lesson goals as a scaffold for student learning”, Learning and Instruction, Vol. 15/6, pp. 539-556,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.08.004.

[38] Severin, E. (2016), “Building and Sustaining National ICT/Education Agencies: Lessons from Chile (Enlaces)”, SABER-ICT Technical Paper Series, No. 7, World Bank, Washington, DC, https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/26264.

[59] Skaalvik, E. and S. Skaalvik (2010), “Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study of relations”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 26/4, pp. 1059-1069, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.11.001.

[51] Tschannen-Moran, M. and A. Hoy (2001), “Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 17/7, pp. 783-805, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X (01) 00036-1.

[6] van de Vijver, F. and J. He (2014), “Report on Social Desirability, Midpoint and Extreme Responding in TALIS 2013”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 107, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jxswcfwt76h-en.

[21] van Tartwijk, J. and K. Hammerness (2011), “The neglected role of classroom management in teacher education”, Teaching Education, Vol. 22/2, pp. 109-112,http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2011.567836.

[31] Vieluf, S. et al. (2012), Teaching Practices and Pedagogical Innovations: Evidence from TALIS, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264123540-en.

[18] Wagner, W. et al. (2013), “Construct validity of student perceptions of instructional quality is high, but not perfect: Dimensionality and generalizability of domain-independent assessments”, Learning and Instruction, Vol. 28, pp. 1-11, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. learninstruc.2013.03.003.

[24] Wang, M. and J. Degol (2016), “School climate: A review of the construct, measurement, and impact on student outcomes”, Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 28/2, pp. 315-352, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9319-1.

[39] Winer, D. (2018), Israel: Country Report on ICT in Education, European Schoolnet (EUN), Brussels, www.eun.org/documents/411753/839549/ Israel_2018.pdf/c01cb526-a5d7-469b-b8b1-b67a494d294b.

[55] Woolfolk Hoy, A. and H. Davis (2006), “Teacher self-efficacy and its influence on the achievement of adolescents”, in Urdan, T. and F. Pajares (eds.), Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents, Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT.

Notes

← 1. The class that lower secondary teachers base their responses on is the first lower secondary education class they taught in the surveyed school after 11 a.m. on the Tuesday prior to the day they participated in the survey.

← 2. Another TALIS-related project, the TALIS Video Study, also aims to capture what teaching looks like, through video observation in several countries. It will usefully complement teachers’ self-reports on their classroom practices and self-efficacy collected by TALIS.

← 3. The OECD average corresponds to the arithmetic mean of the estimates of the OECD countries and economies that participate in TALIS, with adjudicated data.

← 4. TALIS data could be explored further to address this question in future research.

← 5. The response options for this question were not exactly the same in the French version of the teacher questionnaires of 2013 and 2018. However, additional analysis conducted on French data for 2013 and 2018 confirms a decline in the share of teachers who feel that they are able to provide alternative explanations when students are confused.

← 6. TALIS 2018 data also show that novice teachers report higher needs in professional development on student behaviour and classroom management (see Chapter 5 and Table I.5.18).

← 7. On average across the OECD, full-time teachers work a total of 40.8 hours and teach 21.6 hours a week, while part-time teachers (i.e. teachers working up to 90% of full-time hours, all teaching employments together) work a total of 31.9 hours and teach 17.2 hours a week (OECD TALIS 2018 database).

← 8. The sum of hours spent on different tasks may not be equal to the number of total working hours, because teachers were asked about these elements separately. Therefore, the share of total working time teachers spend on each of the reported activities should be interpreted with great care. These percentages have been included in the text to ease the reading of the results. It is also important to note that the data represent the averages from all the teachers surveyed, including part-time teachers. Yet, on average across the OECD, the share of total work hours spent on teaching for full-time (53%) and part-time teachers (54%) is very similar (OECD TALIS 2018 database).

← 9. Results for Chile should be interpreted with care, as a lesson typically lasts 45, rather than 60, minutes.

← 10. In Chile, the regulation of non-teaching time as part of contract hours was reformed in April 2016 by the law that creates the System for Teacher Professional Development (Sistema de Desarrollo Profesional Docente). The 2016 Law provides for a lower proportion of teaching time as of 2017 (70% of the workload) and 2019 (65% of the workload) (Santiago et al., 2017, p. 273[82]).

← 11. Some evidence of a downward trend also started to emerge in Germany (Philipp and Kunter, 2013[81]).

← 12. This task includes regulations, reports, school budget, preparing timetables and class composition, and responding to requests from district, regional, state or national education officials.

← 13. This task includes strategic planning, leadership and management activities (such as developing school improvement plans) and human resource and personnel issues (such as hiring staff). It can also be considered a teacher-centred task.

← 14. Blended learning seeks to use the potential of new technology to offer more individualised teaching and direct instruction. Gamification includes the pedagogical core of gaming and the benefits of playful environments for student engagement and well-being. Computational thinking intersects mathematics, ICTs and digital literacy. It aims to address mathematics as a language for coding and looks at ICTs as a platform for developing problem-solving reasoning in students. Experiential learning refers to approaches where learners are brought directly into contact with the realities being studied. Embodied learning refers to pedagogical approaches that focus on the non-mental factors involved in learning and that signal the importance of the body and feelings (Paniagua and Istance, 2018[70]).

← 15. Years of experience of teachers working in the same school vary greatly. On average across the OECD and across all countries and economies participating in TALIS, the between-school variation in teacher experience represents only 8% of the total variation in teacher experience.

← 16. See endnote 15.

End of the section – Back to iLibrary publication page