PISA 2015 vol V: Collaborative problem solving - Germany
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•4,182 views
Präsentation von Andreas Schleicher, Direktor für Bildung bei der OECD
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to PISA 2015 vol V: Collaborative problem solving - Germany
Similar to PISA 2015 vol V: Collaborative problem solving - Germany (20)
More from OECD Berlin Centre
More from OECD Berlin Centre (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
PISA 2015 vol V: Collaborative problem solving - Germany
- 1. Collaborative problem solving Key findings Andreas Schleicher Director for Education and Skills
- 2. Collaborative problem-solving skills vary across countries, and are not an automatic by product of disciplinary knowledge Individual skills explain less than two-thirds of the variation in student performance on the PISA collaborative problem-solving scale; and only three quarters of the performance differences among countries on this measure are explained by the relative standing of countries on the 2012 PISA assessment of individual problem-solving skills.
- 3. Singapore Japan Hong Kong (China)Korea EstoniaCanada FinlandMacao (China) New Zealand Australia Chinese Taipei Germany United StatesDenmark United Kingdom Netherlands Sweden Austria Norway Slovenia Belgium Czech RepublicIceland PortugalB-S-J-G (China) Spain France Luxembourg Latvia Italy CroatiaRussia Hungary Israel Lithuania Slovak Republic GreeceChile Bulgaria Uruguay Costa Rica Thailand United Arab Emirates Mexico Colombia Turkey Peru MontenegroBrazil Tunisia380 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560 Mean score Figure V.3.3 Mean performance on the PISA collaborative problem-solving scale PISA 2015 defines collaborative problem-solving competency as the capacity of an individual to effectively engage in a process whereby two or more agents attempt to solve a problem by sharing the understanding and effort required to come to a solution and pooling their knowledge, skills and efforts to reach that solution.
- 4. -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 Japan552 Australia531 UnitedStates520 NewZealand533 Korea538 Singapore561 Iceland499 HongKong(China)541 Denmark520 Germany525 Austria509 UnitedKingdom519 Macao(China)534 Canada535 Sweden510 Estonia535 Netherlands518 Finland534 ChineseTaipei527 CostaRica441 OECDaverage500 CzechRepublic499 Luxembourg491 Thailand436 Peru418 Mexico433 Spain496 Chile457 Belgium501 Colombia429 Norway502 Portugal498 Uruguay443 France494 SlovakRepublic463 Brazil412 Latvia485 Bulgaria444 Hungary472 Slovenia502 Greece459 Israel469 Italy478 Croatia473 UnitedArabEmirates435 Lithuania467 B-S-J-G(China)496 Tunisia382 Montenegro416 Turkey422 Russia473 Score-pointdifference Statistically significantly above the OECD average Not statistically significantly different from the OECD average Statistically significantly below the OECD average Performance in collaborative problem solving relative to performance in reading, mathematics and science Figure V.3.9
- 5. All countries can make headway The share of top performers is limited
- 6. Percentage of low-achieving students and top performers in collaborative problem solving Table V.3.1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Singapore NewZealand Canada Australia Finland Japan UnitedStates HongKong(China) Germany Estonia UnitedKingdom Macao(China) Korea Netherlands ChineseTaipei Sweden Austria Denmark OECDaverage Belgium Norway Luxembourg France Iceland B-S-J-G(China) Slovenia Israel CzechRepublic Portugal Spain Italy Latvia Russia Hungary SlovakRepublic Lithuania Croatia Bulgaria Greece UnitedArabEmirates Uruguay Chile Thailand Brazil Colombia CostaRica Peru Mexico Montenegro Turkey Tunisia Students at Level 4 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Students below Level 2 % % 12% of German students can solve problem-solving tasks with fairly high collaboration complexity, maintaining awareness of group dynamics and taking initiative to overcome obstacles and resolve disagreements and conflicts
- 7. Boys are lagging behind When individual problem-solving skills were at the centre of PISA in 2012, boys scored higher in most countries. In contrast, on the 2015 assessment of collaborative problem- solving girls outperformed boys in in every country
- 8. -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 Finland Sweden Australia NewZealand Latvia Canada Macao(China) UnitedArabEmirates Slovenia HongKong(China) Thailand UnitedKingdom Korea Bulgaria Greece Norway SlovakRepublic Germany OECDaverage France Lithuania ChineseTaipei Netherlands Iceland Croatia Estonia Japan Montenegro CzechRepublic UnitedStates Hungary Russia Luxembourg Belgium Austria Italy Turkey Spain Israel B-S-J-G(China) Denmark Singapore Portugal Brazil Uruguay Chile Mexico Tunisia Colombia CostaRica Peru Score-pointdifference Gender differences in collaborative problem-solving performance (boys minus girls) Figure V.4.3 Girls perform better in all countries and economies
- 9. Attitudes towards collaboration vary across countries too If schools foster boys’ appreciation of others and their interpersonal friendships and relationships, then they may also see better outcomes among boys in collaborative problem-solving
- 10. -0.60 -0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 Latvia SlovakRepublic CzechRepublic Japan Russia Poland Italy Netherlands Finland Montenegro Slovenia Belgium Croatia Peru France UnitedKingdom Macao(China) Bulgaria Hungary Ireland Estonia Iceland Turkey NewZealand OECDaverage Luxembourg Denmark HongKong(China) Norway Greece Colombia Brazil Sweden Korea Chile B-S-J-G(China) Australia Germany Switzerland Lithuania Canada Austria Tunisia Qatar Uruguay Mexico Thailand UnitedStates Israel Spain ChineseTaipei DominicanRepublic UnitedArabEmirates Portugal CostaRica Singapore Meanindex Boys Girls Index of valuing relationships, by gender Table V.5.4aValuerelationshipsmore Girls are more likely to value relationships
- 11. -0.40 -0.30 -0.20 -0.10 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 Netherlands Norway Finland Russia Iceland SlovakRepublic Montenegro Latvia Sweden Japan Estonia Israel Belgium Denmark Bulgaria Turkey Poland UnitedKingdom Macao(China) Hungary CzechRepublic Luxembourg Slovenia OECDaverage Ireland HongKong(China) Italy Australia Canada Peru France NewZealand UnitedStates Spain Germany Greece Qatar Austria Korea Brazil Uruguay Colombia Switzerland Chile Croatia Mexico Singapore Portugal Lithuania CostaRica B-S-J-G(China) ChineseTaipei Thailand Tunisia UnitedArabEmirates DominicanRepublic Meanindex Boys Girls Index of valuing teamwork, by gender Table V.5.4bValueteamworkmore Boys are more likely to value teamwork
- 12. Learning environments can shape attitudes and outcomes in collaboration PISA asked students about how often they engage in communication- intensive activities such as explaining one’s ideas in science class; spending time in the laboratory doing practical experiments; arguing about science questions; and taking part in class debates about investigations. The results show a clear relationship between these activities and positive attitudes towards collaboration
- 13. 0 1 2 3 I am a good listener I enjoy seeing my classmates be successful I take into account what others are interested in I enjoy considering different perspectives I prefer working as part of a team to working alone I find that teams make better decisions than individuals I find that teamwork raises my own efficiency I enjoy co- operating with peers Percentage-pointdifference After accounting for gender and students' and schools' socio-economic profile Before accounting for gender and students' and schools' socio-economic profile Student interaction in science class and attitudes towards collaboration Figure V.6.9 Items comprising the index of valuing relationships Items comprising the index of valuing teamwork Students who reported that more communication-intensive activities take place in science class have more positive attitudes towards collaboration
- 14. -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Luxembourg Greece Singapore UnitedStates Norway Macao(China) Spain Canada NewZealand Denmark ChineseTaipei HongKong(China) CzechRepublic Finland Estonia UnitedArabEmirates Australia Portugal B-S-J-G(China) Thailand Sweden OECDaverage Slovenia Peru Iceland Latvia Chile SlovakRepublic Brazil Montenegro Austria Colombia Croatia Japan Bulgaria Lithuania UnitedKingdom Uruguay Russia Belgium Netherlands Hungary Mexico Turkey Germany Tunisia France CostaRica Korea Score-pointdifference At the school level At the student level Students being threatened by other students and performance in collaborative problem solving Figure V.7.3 In most countries, students score higher when they reported not being threatened by other students Change in score after accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile
- 15. Looking beyond school walls Only a quarter of the performance variation in collaborative problem-solving skills lies between schools, much less than is the case in the school disciplines
- 16. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Macao(China) Iceland Norway Finland Canada HongKong(China) Denmark Spain Estonia Latvia Australia UnitedStates NewZealand UnitedKingdom Korea Sweden Russia Portugal Montenegro Japan UnitedArabEmirates CostaRica OECDaverage Singapore Greece Tunisia ChineseTaipei Lithuania Brazil Italy Mexico Thailand Chile Croatia Germany Uruguay Austria CzechRepublic SlovakRepublic Turkey Israel Colombia Luxembourg Netherlands Slovenia France Belgium B-S-J-G(China) Peru Bulgaria Hungary CPS Science Reading Mathematics Percentage of variation in performance explained by socio-economic status How well socio-economic status predicts performance in four PISA subjects Figure V.4.7
- 17. Looking beyond school walls Technology
- 18. 400 440 480 520 560 600 Mexico Brazil-24 Colombia-16 Peru-33 CostaRica-19 Thailand-29 Uruguay-47 Chile-36 SlovakRepublic-35 Bulgaria-65 Lithuania-53 Croatia-38 Greece-68 Hungary-48 Israel-60 Russia-40 Italy-40 Spain France-19 Belgium-12 Latvia-51 Iceland-25 Slovenia-28 Luxembourg-46 OECDaverage-29 B-S-J-G(China)-33 Portugal-50 Austria-30 Netherlands-24 CzechRepublic-46 ChineseTaipei Australia14 UnitedKingdom-14 Macao(China) Sweden-39 Denmark-21 Finland-29 Germany-22 Estonia-42 NewZealand-29 Korea-24 HongKong(China)-34 Japan14 Singapore-18 Mean score Top quarter Third quarter Second quarter Bottom quarter Index of ICT use at school: Using ICT and digital devices at school and performance in collaborative problem solving Figure V.3.12 Performance difference between top and bottom quarters of the index of ICT use at school
- 19. Looking beyond school walls Parents have a major role to play
- 20. -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 Qatar Austria Hungary Italy Korea B-S-J-G(China) Greece Macao(China) Spain Belgium Turkey Bulgaria UnitedStates Peru Poland Tunisia Colombia DominicanRepublic Australia Germany CzechRepublic Luxembourg ChineseTaipei Japan Slovenia Singapore Chile Croatia OECDaverage Lithuania Portugal Canada Brazil France Estonia Russia Iceland NewZealand Ireland Norway Denmark SlovakRepublic UnitedArabEmirates CostaRica Israel Sweden UnitedKingdom Montenegro Uruguay Switzerland HongKong(China) Thailand Latvia Mexico Netherlands Finland Percentage-point difference Percentage of parents who discussed their child’s progress with a teacher on their own initiative Percentage of parents who discussed their child’s progress on the initiative of one of their child’s teachers Percentage of parents who discuss their child's progress with teachers, by schools' socio-economic profile Figure V.7.13 More parents discuss their child's progress in disadvantaged schools Difference between schools in the top and bottom quartiles of the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status More parents discuss their child's progress in advantaged schools
- 21. -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Norway Iceland Sweden Luxembourg Portugal Japan Australia Latvia Finland Israel Greece UnitedStates Estonia Spain Lithuania Singapore Bulgaria Italy Canada OECDaverage NewZealand Croatia Turkey SlovakRepublic CzechRepublic Denmark Netherlands CostaRica ChineseTaipei Korea Macao(China) Germany UnitedArabEmirates Uruguay Montenegro Russia UnitedKingdom HongKong(China) Thailand Brazil Austria France Belgium Slovenia Mexico Hungary Chile Peru Colombia B-S-J-G(China) Tunisia Score-pointdifference At the school level At the student level Talking to parents after school and performance in collaborative problem solving Figure V.7.10 In most countries, students score higher when they reported talking to their parents after school Change in score after accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile
- 22. 22 22 Thank you Find out more about our work at www.oecd.org – All publications – The complete micro-level database Email: Andreas.Schleicher@OECD.org Twitter: SchleicherEDU and remember:
Editor's Notes
- Labels are performance in collaborative problem solving
- All differences are statistically significant
- All differences are statistically significant. The index of student interaction in science class is the sum of students' responses to questions about whether their science teachers use the following teaching practices in all lessons or in most lessons: students are given opportunities to explain their ideas; students spend time in the laboratory carrying out practical experiments; students are required to argue about science questions; there is a class debate about investigations. The index ranges from 0 to 4, with all responses weighted equally.
- At the school level, the change in collaborative problem-solving score is per 10 percentage-point increase in the number of schoolmates who reported the above.
- Note: UK includes only England, Northern Ireland and Wales
- Results based on school principals’ report.
- At the school level, the change in collaborative problem-solving score is per 10 percentage-point increase in the number of schoolmates who reported the above.