How teachers learn - An OECD perspective

How Teachers Learn An OECD Perspective

How Teachers Learn An OECD Perspective

PUBE

2

This work is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of the member countries of the OECD. This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.

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.

In the figures, CABA (Argentina) refers to Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires (Argentina).

© OECD 2019

Photo credits cover: © Hill Street Studios /Gettyimages; © Shutterstock/Rawpixel.com You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from OECD publications, databases and multimedia products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided that suitable acknowledgment of OECD as source and copyright owner is given. All requests for commercial use and translation rights should be submitted to rights@oecd.org.

HOW TEACHERS LEARN © OECD 2019

|3

This publication was prepared by the OECD Directorate for Education and Skills to inform the discussion of the G7 ministerial meeting on education, which takes place on 4 July 2019 in Sèvres, France, under the leadership of the G7 French presidency.

The brochure highlights findings from the recently published TALIS 2018 survey that relate to the G7 ministerial meeting themes. More specifically, it summarises TALIS 2018 findings on teachers’ initial and continuous professional development for the G7 countries and economies with available data, and for three countries invited to the ministerial meeting (Argentina, Estonia and Singapore). It aims to provide the latest evidence based on teachers’ attitudes, views and reports on their professional learning and practices.

This brochure was authored by Karine Tremblay, TALIS senior analyst, based on TALIS 2018 Results (Volume I): Teachers and School Leaders as Lifelong Learners. Marilyn Achiron, Alison Burke and Sophie Limoges provided editing and production support.

HOW TEACHERS LEARN © OECD 2019

4|

How Teachers Learn: An OECD Perspective These days, education is no longer just about teaching students something, but about helping them develop a reliable compass and the tools to navigate with confidence through an increasingly complex, volatile and uncertain world. We live in a world in which the kind of things that are easy to teach and test have also become easy to digitise and automate, and where society no longer rewards students just for what they know but for what they can do with what they know. Today’s teachers need to help students think for themselves and work with others, and to develop identity, agency and purpose.

That’s why we demand a lot from our teachers. We expect them to have deep and broad knowledge about a discipline, knowledge about the curriculum of that discipline, knowledge about how students learn in that discipline, and professional practice so teachers can create the kind of environment that leads to good learning outcomes. We also expect them to be passionate, compassionate and thoughtful; to encourage students’ engagement and responsibility; to respond to students from different backgrounds with different needs, and to promote tolerance and social cohesion; to provide continual assessments of students and feedback; to ensure that students feel valued and included; and to encourage collaborative learning. And we expect teachers themselves to collaborate and work in teams, and with other schools and parents, to set common goals, and plan and monitor the attainment of those goals.

How do we educate teachers so that they can meet these demands? How can school systems support teachers throughout their career? Highlights from recent OECD work presented in this publication provide some insights into these important policy questions. Data and analysis contained in this publication are drawn from the OECD Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS), the OECD international comparative study of initial teacher preparation (ITP) and other sources.

What attracts teachers to the profession?

Exploring individuals’ motivations to become teachers sheds light on the aspects of the job that make the teaching profession attractive. For the first time, TALIS 2018 asked teachers how important certain factors were in their decision to become a teacher. The answers offer a window into the self-selective process through which teachers choose their profession.

TALIS asked teachers how important seven factors were in their decision to become a teacher. The teachers could choose one of four responses: “not important at all”; “of low importance”; “of moderate importance”; or “of high importance”. The most important motivations reported by teachers pertain to a sense of self-fulfilment through public service. Across OECD countries, around 90% of in-service teachers considered the opportunity to influence children’s development and contribute to society a major motivation to join the profession (Figure 1). There is little variation across countries in the most frequently reported motivating factors to join the teaching profession; however, teachers in Canada (Alberta), the United

HOW TEACHERS LEARN © OECD 2019

|5 Kingdom (England) and the United States reported stronger motivation related to social utility than their peers in France, Italy and Japan did.

Figure 1. Motivation to become a teacher Percentage of lower secondary teachers who report that the following elements were of "moderate" or "high" importance in becoming a teacher (OECD average-31) 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100 %

Teaching allowed me to influence the development of children and young people Teaching allowed me to provide a contribution to society

Teaching allowed me to benefit the socially disadvantaged

Teaching was a secure job

Teaching provided a reliable income The teaching schedule fit with responsibilities in my personal life Teaching offered a steady career path

Values are ranked in descending order of the importance of the motivation for becoming a teacher.

Source: OECD (2019[1]), TALIS 2018 Database, Table I.4.1.

Research suggests that motivation to join a profession matters. People expressing high levels of motivation to engage in public service are willing to make extra efforts to improve the quality of their work, as they perceive that the outcomes have implications for helping others, and society as a whole (Perry and Wise, 1990[2]). In the context of the teaching profession, Scribner (1999[3]) argues that participation in continuous professional development is driven by a genuine desire among teachers to get better skills to help and support their students. Motivation to serve the public can improve individual performance in the workplace as it increases teachers’ commitment to and engagement with their tasks (Andersen, Heinesen and Pedersen, 2014[4]).

TALIS 2018 findings confirm that teacher motivation matters. This is good news, as in nearly all countries and economies that participated in TALIS, 1 teachers with higher values on the social utility index – i.e. those attracted to public service – seem more committed to and tend to participate in more professional development activities, after controlling for teachers’ characteristics. These results highlight the importance of social motivation in prompting teachers’ participation in further training.

HOW TEACHERS LEARN © OECD 2019

6|

Box 1. Policy pointers – Attracting quality teachers and monitoring workforce dynamics •

•

•

One of the key messages that emerged from the OECD Initial Teacher Preparation (ITP) study is that establishing a high-quality teaching workforce involves using diversified ITP data to forecast workforce needs, and raising the status of teaching and teacher education. o

The link between ITP and a balance between teacher supply and demand requires using longitudinal ITP data to forecast teaching workforce needs.

o

While diversified ITP pathways, such as alternative routes into teaching, can temporarily resolve supply-and-demand issues, they also risk reducing the value of teacher education, and can work against sustainable solutions. To build a high-quality teaching workforce, entry, selection, certification and hiring criteria need to take into account the many dimensions of professional competence, including motivation and affective competencies.

Policy makers need to anticipate the renewal of the teaching workforce. o

Education systems need to consider how to attract and prepare large cohorts of new teachers and school leaders. They also need to determine how best to support them in service, as teacher shortages may also result if teachers leave the profession early.

o

Raising the status and prestige of the profession is an overarching goal to attract candidates and ensure the continuous renewal of the teaching profession as teachers retire, but also to retain teachers already in the profession.

Recruitment campaigns should encourage both men and women to become teachers. o

Recruitment campaigns should portray teachers and school leaders as key contributors to society and to the development of future generations of citizens. Such campaigns can also emphasise the rewarding aspects of teaching: intellectual and social fulfilment, the possibility to learn continuously on the job, job security, and the ability to balance personal and professional life.

o

Countries and economies should also examine why men may be reluctant to enter the profession, and why progression towards leadership roles may differ between male and female teachers.

o

Whenever the limited progression of female teachers to leadership roles is due to a lack of interest by female teachers in such positions, education systems may consider further differentiating teaching careers to offer promotion tracks within teaching roles as a way to strengthen the professional attributes of teaching careers.

How do teachers prepare for their job?

Once selected into the teaching profession, future teachers need to be trained to deliver quality teaching to their future students. The knowledge acquired through teacher education has an effect on the teaching strategies teachers adopt and on the quality of instruction. Both, in turn, are strongly related to student achievement (Baumert et al., 2010[5]; Hill, Rowan and Ball, 2005[6]).

TALIS has developed a varied set of indicators to describe the type and content of teachers’ initial training.

Figure 2 provides a snapshot of lifelong training for teachers and school leaders that includes key indicators on initial training.

HOW TEACHERS LEARN © OECD 2019

|7

Figure 2. Initial and continuous training

Source: OECD (2019[1]), TALIS 2018 Database, Table I.4.14, Table I.4.28, Table I.4.39, Table I.4.64, Table I.5.2 and Table I.5.10.

Box 2. Features of quality initial teacher preparation: Insights from a recent OECD study Although evidence on effective teacher education is growing, it is far from conclusive. This makes it challenging for governments to make evidence-based decisions about policy reform in this field. To address this knowledge gap, the OECD conducted an international comparative study of initial teacher preparation (ITP) between 2016 and 2018. The study reviewed the ITP systems in Australia, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Norway, the United Kindgom (Wales) and the United States. It aimed to identify and explore key challenges, strengths and innovations in ITP, and to support countries in improving their ITP systems.

The study’s detailed findings are compiled in a comparative report, Flying Start: Improving Initial Teacher Preparation Systems. The study identifies four elements as vital for ITP systems to prepare high-quality teachers: •

coherence between ITP and teachers’ continuous professional development

•

systematic production, mediation and use of data and evidence

•

building capacity in all levels of the ITP system to support and promote a culture of selfimprovement

•

a whole-system perspective, involving stakeholders and institutions, to enable multi-level feedback loops and collaborative networking.

Source: (OECD, 2019[7])

TALIS 2018 asked teachers about the highest level of formal education they had completed, using the 2011 International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED-2011). The typical level of education attained by teachers varies only slightly across countries. On average across OECD countries and economies, 50% of teachers reported a bachelor’s degree or equivalent as their highest educational

HOW TEACHERS LEARN © OECD 2019

8| attainment (ISCED level 6) 2 (Figure 3). Among G7 countries, that is the highest education level completed by more than 75% of teachers in Canada (Alberta) and Japan. Another, smaller share of teachers (44%) reported a master’s degree or equivalent (ISCED level 7) as their highest level of education. More than 75% of teachers in Italy completed a master’s degree as their highest level of education. 3 Across OECD countries and economies, 1.3% of teachers reported holding a doctoral degree or equivalent (ISCED level 8), with the largest shares of teachers with doctoral degrees observed in France and Italy, among G7 countries.

Figure 3. Highest educational attainment of teachers Percentage of lower secondary teachers, by highest level of formal education completed1,2

Notes 1. Education categories are based on the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED-2011). ISCED levels 6 and 7 programmes are generally longer and more theory-based, while ISCED level 5 programmes are typically shorter and more practical and skills-oriented.

2. ISCED level 5 includes bachelor’s degrees in some countries.

Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the percentage of lower secondary teachers whose highest level of formal education is either ISCED level 7 or ISCED level 8.

Source: OECD (2019[1]), TALIS 2018 Database, Tables I.4.8 and I.4.24.

TALIS also asked teachers about the elements included in their formal education or training. Across OECD countries, almost all teachers (92%) reported that their formal education or training included content of some or all the subjects they teach. Knowing the content provides only a foundation for teaching. Student achievement is higher when a strong content background is combined with pedagogical and practical training (Clotfelter, Ladd and Vigdor, 2007[8]). Across OECD countries and in all countries and economies that participated in TALIS, almost all teachers received training in general pedagogy and in the pedagogy of the subjects they teach. However, among G7 countries, 12% of teachers in Canada (Alberta) did not receive training in subject content, and training in general and content-specific pedagogy is less prevalent in France and Italy.

Research highlights the importance of having opportunities to participate in a teaching practicum that requires planning lessons or analysing student work, rather than just listening to lectures (Boyd et al., 2009[9]). On average across OECD countries and economies, the formal education and training of around 90% of teachers included classroom practice in some or all subjects they teach. But while more than 95% of teachers in the United Kingdom (England) completed such a teaching practicum, less than 75% in France did so (Figure 4).

HOW TEACHERS LEARN © OECD 2019

|9

Figure 4. Teacher training in classroom practice Percentage of lower secondary teachers for whom classroom practice in some or all subject(s) taught was included in their formal education or training, by year of completion

Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the percentage of teachers who felt "well" or "very well" prepared for classroom practice in some or all subject(s) taught.

Source: OECD (2019[1]), TALIS 2018 Database, Table I.4.13.

An important consideration when examining the quality of teachers’ credentials is the comprehensiveness of teacher education and training programmes. To this end, TALIS determines the percentage of teachers trained in all three core elements of quality teaching preparation: content, pedagogy and classroom practice of some or all subject(s) taught. On average across OECD countries, 79% of all teachers reported that they were trained in all three core elements. However, in France and Italy, less than 70% of teachers so reported. However, the system of formal education and training for teachers in France has become more comprehensive over time, as Figure 4 suggests in relation to training in classroom practice.

Another way to gauge the quality of initial teacher education and training is to ask teachers how well prepared they felt for various aspects of their job by the time they completed their education or training.

With this in mind, TALIS asked teachers the extent to which (“not at all”; “somewhat”; “well”; “very well”) they felt prepared for various elements of teaching. Among G7 countries, more than 50% of teachers in France, Italy and Japan felt underprepared for general pedagogy, and, in France and Japan, classroom practice. The other aspects of teaching that G7 teachers struggled with were teaching in a multicultural or multilingual setting (more than 50% of teachers in all G7 countries with data report that they felt unprepared by the time they completed their teacher education or training) and teaching in a mixed ability setting (teachers in Canada [Alberta], France, Italy and Japan so reported).

HOW TEACHERS LEARN © OECD 2019

10 |

Box 3. Policy pointers – Provide high-quality initial education or training •

All teachers, no matter what path they took to become teachers, need to start their teaching career with adequate and quality training.

•

The recent OECD review of initial teacher preparation (ITP) identified a series of system-level policies and initiatives to ensure the quality of initial training across the board, including: o

accreditation institutions monitoring the work of teacher-education providers (possibly including “fast track” providers)

o

conducting teacher evaluations at some point during the teachers’ initial training

o •

establishing teaching standards that define precisely what is required and expected of teachers when they enter training and when they are ready to start teaching

The ITP study also considered the content of initial education and training, and concluded: o

a coherent and comprehensive initial teacher-education curriculum covers both content and pedagogical knowledge, and develops practical skills linked to theoretical knowledge

o

ensuring that emerging evidence and new models of teaching and learning are regularly integrated into initial teacher education requires continuous reflection on teachers’ knowledge, and strong partnerships between schools and teacher-education institutions

o

university- and school-based teacher educators should be provided with opportunities to extend their knowledge and participate in communities of collaborative enquiry, since they play a central role in developing teachers.

What support do teachers receive when starting their teaching career?

Along with initial teacher training and certification, teachers’ work experience helps shape their skills and competencies. Some evidence shows that each additional year of experience is related to higher student achievement, with especially large gains observed during a teacher’s first five years in the profession (Harris and Sass, 2011[10]). The working conditions, support and early professional development that novice teachers receive in their first years make a difference in teachers’ decision to remain in the teaching profession (Paniagua and Sánchez-Martí, 2018[11]). Thus education systems and schools need to provide strong support to teachers in their first years of teaching.

Novice teachers are, in general, less likely to feel confident in their teaching skills than their more experienced peers (teachers with more than five years of experience), particularly in their ability to manage their classroom and to use of a variety of practices. In this context, it is unfortunate that novice teachers tend to work in more challenging schools that have higher concentrations of students from socio-economically disadvantaged homes and immigrant students (Figure 5). On average across OECD countries, novice teachers represent 19% of the teacher population; but in schools with high concentrations of students from disadvantaged homes, 22% of teachers are novice teachers, and in schools with high concentrations of immigrant students, 23% of teachers are new to teaching. Among G7 countries, in France and the United Kingdom (England), similarly large proportions of teachers in schools with high concentrations of disadvantaged students are novice teachers; and in the United Kingdom (England), schools with high concentrations of immigrant students also have a higher proportion of teachers new to the profession.

HOW TEACHERS LEARN © OECD 2019

| 11

Figure 5. Novice teachers, by school characteristics Percentage of novice1 lower secondary teachers

1. Novice teachers are teachers with up to five years of teaching experience.

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

3. High concentration of immigrant students refers to schools with more than 10% of immigrant students.

4. High concentration of students with special needs refers to schools with more than 10% of students with special needs.

Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the average proportion of novice teachers.

Source: OECD (2019[1]), TALIS 2018 Database, Table I.4.32.

Reducing the workload of new teachers can help them cope. Novice teachers can use this spare time to plan and prepare their lessons or analyse their students’ work, resulting in better teaching.

On average across OECD countries, novice teachers work one hour less per week than teachers with more than five years of experience. However, after taking into account teachers’ full-time or part-time status, there is no longer any difference between the two groups of teachers. This is because novice teachers tend to work part-time more often than experienced teachers do. Among G7 countries, France and Italy are the only countries where novice teachers report working fewer hours – nearly four hours less – per week than experienced teachers do. By contrast, in Canada (Alberta) and the United States, novice teachers work five hours more per week than experienced teachers – both before and after accounting for teachers’ full-time or part-time status.

Novice teachers report teaching about the same number of hours as more experienced teachers, on average across OECD countries and economies (Figure 6). But there are significant differences between HOW TEACHERS LEARN © OECD 2019

12 | countries. Novice teachers in France report spending two hours less per week teaching than experienced teachers; those in Italy report spending one hour less. By contrast, novice teachers in Canada (Alberta), the United Kingdom (England) and the United States report teaching at least two hours per week more than experienced teachers.

Figure 6. Teachers' workload, by experience Average number of 60-minute hours lower secondary teachers spend on working, in total, and on teaching1

1. Refers to activities during the most recent complete calendar week. Also includes tasks that took place during weekends, evenings or other out-of-classroom hours.

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

Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of lower secondary teachers' average number of teaching hours during the most recent complete calendar week.

Source: OECD (2019[1]), TALIS 2018 Database, Table I.4.57.

No matter how good initial teacher education is, it cannot be expected to prepare teachers for all the challenges they face during their first regular employment as a teacher. Empirical evidence shows that students taught by teachers who receive comprehensive support during induction enjoy larger learning gains than students taught by teachers who do not receive such support (see, for instance, Glazerman et al. (2010[12]) and Helms-Lorenz, Slof and van de Grift (2013[13])). A recent OECD report on effective teacher policies identified a mandatory and extended period of classroom practice – whether as part of initial teacher education or intensive induction or mentoring programmes when starting teaching – as an element common to all high-performing and equitable education systems (OECD, 2018, p. 45[14]).

TALIS data show that access to informal induction activities is more common than access to formal activities. On average across OECD countries, 54% of school leaders report that new teachers have access to formal induction activities, while 74% of school leaders report that new teachers have access to informal induction activities. But TALIS also asks teachers whether they had participated in induction activities during their first employment and at their current school, and these results show that participation HOW TEACHERS LEARN © OECD 2019

| 13 in induction programmes is far from universal. About 62% of teachers, on average across OECD countries and economies, report that they had not participated in any induction activities, formal or informal, during their first employment. Among G7 countries, induction during first employment is least common in Italy (57% of teachers did not participate in any), and most widespread in Japan (Box 4) and the United Kingdom (England) where the proportion of teachers who report having not participated in induction is below 30%.

Box 4. Mandatory one-year induction for new teachers in Japan Japan has a long history of providing legislatively mandated induction programmes for beginning teachers with tenure-track positions.* The OECD Initial Teacher Preparation (ITP) study identifies two particular strengths in Japan’s induction programmes. First, there is a legislative framework to mandate boards of education to provide induction training with the flexibility to adapt to local needs. Second, there is a structure to promote a culture of (co-ordinated) teacher collaboration within schools. With these features, the programmes can create a culture of teacher collaboration and establish collaborative on-site continuing professional development activities, such as lesson-study practice. * In Japan, new teachers with a tenure-track position must have minimum 300 hours of training, including 120 hours of in-school training and a minimum 25 days of off-site training. The legislation also mandates local boards of education to assign a guidance teacher for general support and a subject specialist for subject-specific training to all new teachers with a tenure-track position.

Source: OECD (2019[15]), Mandatory 1-year Induction for New Teachers in Japan, on the Teacher Ready! platform.

TALIS also underlines the value of induction in general, to promote teaching quality and job satisfaction, and of particular approaches to induction more specifically. Analysis of TALIS data shows that teachers who took part in some kind of induction activity, formal or informal, tend to report higher self-efficacy and job satisfaction, on average across OECD countries and economies (Figure 7). Among G7 countries, the positive association with self-efficacy is even stronger than the OECD average in France, Italy and the United Kingdom (England). An analysis of the data also finds that team teaching with experienced teachers seems to be especially promising. In most countries and economies that participated in TALIS, teachers for whom team teaching with experienced teachers was part of their induction activities at their current school also tend to report greater self-efficacy and job satisfaction.

HOW TEACHERS LEARN Š OECD 2019

14 |

Figure 7. Relationship between self-efficacy and participation in induction at current school Change in the index of self-efficacy1 associated with having participated in induction activities at current school2,3,4

1. The index of self-efficacy measures teacher self-efficacy in classroom management, instruction and student engagement.

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

3. The predictor is a dummy variable; the reference category is not having taken part in any induction activities (formal or informal) at the current school.

4. Controlling for gender and years of experience as a teacher.

Note: Statistically significant coefficients are marked in a darker tone.

Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the change in the index of self-efficacy associated with having taken part in an induction activity (formal or informal) at the current school.

Source: OECD (2019[1]), TALIS 2018 Database, Table I.4.47.

TALIS asks teachers who participated in induction at their current school 4 about what was included in their induction (Figure 8). According to teachers, induction typically included planned meetings with the school principal and/or with experienced teachers (79% of teachers across OECD countries so report); supervision by the school principal and/or with experienced teachers (71%); courses or seminars attended in person (64%); a general or administrative introduction (63%); and networking or collaboration with other new teachers (61%). On average across OECD countries, induction programmes more rarely included team teaching with experienced teachers (45% of teachers across OECD countries so report), or the existence or use of portfolios, diaries or journals (36%).

HOW TEACHERS LEARN Š OECD 2019

| 15

Figure 8. Induction activities for teachers Percentage of lower secondary teachers reporting that the following provisions were included in their teacher induction at their current school1 (OECD average-30) 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80 %

Planned meetings with principal and/or experienced teachers Supervision by principal and/or experienced teachers Courses/seminars attended in person General/administrative introduction Networking/collaboration with other new teachers Team teaching with experienced teachers Portfolios/diaries/journals Online courses/seminars Reduced teaching load Online activities

1. The sample is restricted to teachers who took part in induction activities at the current school (based on teachers' responses) and also have access to induction activities (based on principals' responses).

Values are ranked in descending order of the percentage of lower secondary teachers reporting that the above activities were included in their teacher induction at their current school.

Source: OECD (2019[1]), TALIS 2018 Database, Table I.4.42.

Despite its positive association with self-efficacy and job satisfaction, team teaching with experienced teachers during teacher induction is particularly rare in France and the United Kingdom (England), with less than 30% of teachers in those two countries reporting that it was included in teacher induction at their school. Team teaching with experienced teachers is more commonly included in induction in Canada (Alberta), Italy, Japan and the United States, according to teachers, with 40% to 50% of teachers reporting so, but those percentages are still well below the more than 90% of teachers in Shanghai and Viet Nam who so report.

Box 5. Beginning teacher induction in the United States In the United States, the number of beginning teachers participating in induction or mentoring programmes has increased considerably over the past three decades: from 50% in 1990 to 91% in 2008. One of the most prominent advantages of induction programmes for beginning teachers is early career retention. Evidence from the United States, based on nationally representative data from the Schools and Staffing Survey, shows that this advantage depends on specific components of the induction in which a teacher participated. Having a mentor or participating in collaborative activities with other teachers as a part of induction has strong positive effects on the retention of beginner teachers.

There is also evidence that the most comprehensive induction programmes, which combine a variety of activities (such as communication structures with principals and department heads, common planning time with teachers, participation in seminars, reduced teaching load, and having a mentor), have the greatest positive effects on teacher retention.

The Initial Teacher Preparation (ITP) study identified the teacher residency programmes in the United States as a promising practice. These programmes usually involve a full year of practical training, guided by an expert mentor teacher in the field, in addition to coursework, offered by a partner university,

HOW TEACHERS LEARN Š OECD 2019

16 | that is closely linked to practice. Graduates of the programmes tend to remain in the profession. In 2013-14, for example, 82% of teachers trained in programmes listed in the National Center for Teacher Residencies were still teaching after five years.

Sources: Ingersoll, R. and T. Smith (2004[16]), “Do teacher induction and mentoring matter?”, NASSP Bulletin, Vol. 88/638, pp. 28-40, https://doi.org/10.1177/019263650408863803; Ingersoll, R. (2012[17]), “Beginning teacher induction: What the data tell us”, Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 93/8, pp. 47-51 https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171209300811; OECD (2019[18]), Teacher residencies featuring the Centre for Inspired Teaching, on the Teacher Ready! platform; De Monte. (2017[19]).

Mentors can also provide invaluable assistance to new teachers early in their career. TALIS defines mentoring as a school-based support structure through which more experienced teachers support less experienced teachers. In OECD countries, about two-thirds of schools offer a mentoring programme, whether to all of their teachers, only to teachers new to the school or only to teachers new to teaching.

Among G7 countries, the prevalence of mentoring programmes is close to universal in the United Kingdom (England) and the United States, with less than 5% of schools reporting that they have no mentoring programme. Mentoring is least common in France, Italy and Japan, where 20-30% of principals reported the absence of a mentoring programme at their school.

This may be a lost opportunity, especially since 77% of principals whose schools offer a mentoring programme consider the programme to be very important for supporting new teachers (Figure 9). In France, 23% of school principals report that there is no access to a mentoring programme for teachers in their school, but 89% of school principals whose schools offer such a programme see it as highly important.

Figure 9. Importance of mentoring Percentage of lower secondary principals reporting that the following outcomes of mentoring are of "high" importance1 (OECD average-30) 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80 %

To support less experienced teachers in their teaching

To improve teachers' pedagogical competence

To improve teachers' collaboration with colleagues

To strengthen teachers' professional identity

To improve students' general performance

To expand teachers' main subject(s) knowledge

1. The sample is restricted to principals reporting that teachers have access to a mentoring programme at the school.

Values are ranked in descending order of the percentage of lower secondary principals reporting that the above outcomes of mentoring are of "high" importance.

Source: OECD (2019[1]), TALIS 2018 Database, Table I.4.63.

While a majority of school principals consider mentoring to be highly important for teachers’ work and students’ performance, only 22% of teachers with less than five years of teaching experience have an assigned mentor, on average across OECD countries (Figure 10). Among G7 countries, even smaller percentages of novice teachers in Italy (5%) and France (17%) report having a mentor, and in no G7

HOW TEACHERS LEARN © OECD 2019

| 17 country do more than 40% of novice teachers report having an assigned mentor as part of a formal programme at the school.

Figure 10. Peer mentoring, by teachers' teaching experience Percentage of lower secondary teachers who have an assigned mentor as part of a formal arrangement at the school1

1. Mentoring is defined as a support structure in schools where more experienced teachers support less experienced teachers.

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

Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the percentage of lower secondary teachers who have an assigned mentor.

Source: OECD (2019[1]), TALIS 2018 Database, Table I.4.64.

Box 6. Policy pointers – Provide novice teachers with tailored support TALIS findings suggest a number of ways novice teachers can be assisted: •

Review how novice teachers are allocated to schools. Attrition in the early years of teaching is one factor leading to teacher shortage. One solution to this problem is to review how novice teachers are distributed across schools, with the aim of assigning them to less-challenging working environments in their first placements, and encouraging more-experienced teachers to work in disadvantaged schools.

•

When assigning novice teachers to a challenging school is unavoidable, school leaders can provide induction and coaching, assign novice teachers to less-challenging classes, give them teaching assignments that help them learn how to prepare lessons efficiently, or pair them with more experienced teachers.

•

Reduce new teachers’ workload, so that they can balance their working time between preparing lessons and teaching, and so they can participate in induction activities.

•

Give school leaders a role in developing and promoting induction and mentoring opportunities so that induction support is tailored to the school’s context and composition of the student body.

HOW TEACHERS LEARN © OECD 2019

18 |

How do teachers stay up-to-date in their profession?

Teaching has always been challenging, but it is particularly so in a rapidly changing world. Teachers must continuously validate and update their skills to help students become competent, competitive and socially integrated adults (OECD, 2005[20]). Participation in some kind of in-service training is commonplace among teachers in the OECD countries and economies that participated in TALIS. On average across OECD countries, 94% of teachers attended at least one continuous professional development activity during the year prior to the survey. Among G7 countries, participation in these types of activities is least widespread in France (83%) and Japan (89%), but nearly universal in Canada (Alberta), the United Kingdom (England) and the United States, with participation rates of over 95% (Figure 11).

Figure 11. Participation in professional development activities, by teacher characteristics Percentage of lower secondary teachers who participated in professional development activities1

1. Refers to professional development activities in which teachers participated in the 12 months prior to the survey.

Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the percentage of teachers who participated in professional development activities in the 12 months prior to the survey.

Source: OECD (2019[1]), TALIS 2018 Database, Table I.5.1.

Professional development formats range from formally structured activities (e.g. conferences, workshops, participating in a formal qualification programme) to informal activities (e.g. networking, within-school peer collaboration, reading professional literature) (Avalos, 2011[21]).

TALIS data show that the type of training teachers and principals attended during the 12 months prior to the survey varies across the countries and economies that participated in TALIS. On average across OECD countries, the most popular forms of professional development are “courses/seminars attended in person” (76%); “reading professional literature” (72%); and “education conferences where teachers, principals and/or researchers present their research or discuss educational issues” (49%). Only about 40% of teachers participate in training based on peer learning and networking, which is relatively modest compared to participation rates for courses or seminars (Figure 12). Among G7 countries, training based on networking is more widespread in Canada (Alberta) and the United States, and in Japan, the United Kingdom (England) and the United States when it comes to training based on peer learning.

HOW TEACHERS LEARN © OECD 2019

| 19

Figure 12. Type of professional development attended by teachers and principals Results based on responses of lower secondary teachers and principals (OECD average)1,2 Percentage of teachers who participated in the following professional development activities Percentage of principals who participated in the following professional development activities 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100 %

Courses and/or seminars attended in person

Reading professional literature

Education conferences Peer and/or self-observation and coaching as part of a formal arrangement Participation in a professional network

Online courses and/or seminars

Other types of professional development activities

Formal qualification programme

1. OECD average covers 31 countries for teachers and 30 countries for principals.

2. Refers to professional development activities in which teachers participated in the 12 months prior to the survey.

Note: The figure only includes those items that were common to both the teacher and the school leader questionnaire.

Values are ranked in descending order of the percentage of teachers who participated in the above professional development activities.

Source: OECD (2019[1]), TALIS 2018 Database, Tables I.5.7 and I.5.10.

Some 36% of teachers take advantage of online opportunities for their professional development, on average across OECD countries; in Canada (Alberta), Italy, the United Kingdom (England) and the United States, 40-55% of teachers do so. These findings highlight the relevance and potential of online tools to support teachers’ professional learning at scale (Box 7).

TALIS results show that 82% of teachers across OECD countries perceive that their professional development activities have a positive impact on their teaching practice – and that perception is strongly associated with higher levels of reported self-efficacy and job satisfaction among teachers, on average.

Among G7 countries, the positive relationship between job satisfaction and teachers’ participation in impactful professional development is particularly strong in Canada (Alberta), Japan, the United Kingdom (England) and the United States. The association between teachers’ reports of greater self-efficacy and participation in impactful professional development is observed only in France and Japan, among G7 countries.

HOW TEACHERS LEARN © OECD 2019

20 |

Figure 13. Teachers’ job satisfaction and self-efficacy, and participation in impactful professional development Change in the index of self-efficacy1 and the index of job satisfaction2 associated with having participated in impactful professional development3,4,5

1. The index of self-efficacy measures teacher self-efficacy in classroom management, instruction and student engagement.

2. The index of job satisfaction measures teachers’ satisfaction with their current work environment and satisfaction with the profession.

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

4. The predictor is a dummy variable; the reference category is "professional development activities in the 12 months prior to the survey did not have a positive impact on teaching practice".

5. Controlling for the following teacher characteristics: gender, working full time, years of experience as a teacher; and for the following classroom characteristics: share of low academic achievers, share of students with behavioural problems and class size.

Note: Statistically significant coefficients are marked in a darker tone.

Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the change in the index of job satisfaction associated with having participated in professional development.

Source: OECD (2019[1]), TALIS 2018 Database, Tables I.5.13 and I.5.14.

Box 7. Global Teaching InSights: A new online initiative to make quality teaching practice from around the globe visible to improve teaching and student learning The past decade has seen a proliferation of digital initiatives that enable teachers to improve their teaching through videos. These include the classroom videos used in some Japanese teachereducation programmes that bridge the gap between theory and practice; dissemination of videos of teaching ideas by the CANOPE Network in France; and the collection of videos showing professional mastery developed by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards in the United States.

What is it that teachers do in the classroom that makes a difference? The new OECD Global Teaching InSights initiative, to be launched on 2-3 September 2019, aims to leverage and support all these

HOW TEACHERS LEARN © OECD 2019

| 21 initiatives to take the profession to new heights. It aims to build a crowd-sourced and curated global video library of quality teaching practices to stimulate an international discussion about pedagogy to improve student outcomes.

The ambition of Global Teaching InSights is to make quality teaching practices visible and available to every teacher. To do so, the initiative will showcase the plethora of teaching strategies used in real classrooms around the world and disseminate pedagogical practices backed by research in a more powerful way. Global Teaching InSights will help teachers, school leaders and trainers methodically study teaching, refine their practice and be inspired to aim higher. GTI aspires to provide the global teaching community with a tool to be able to engage in a meaningful international dialogue on pedagogy and educational practice. It is not possible for hundreds or thousands of teachers to gather in one classroom to observe and dissect instruction. This digital platform will provide the profession with an unprecedented opportunity to collaboratively and collectively tackle the small and big challenges at the heart of their job – and to do so at scale.

Across OECD countries, including the G7 countries Canada (Alberta), France, Italy, Japan and the United States, nearly 90% of teachers consider professional development activities to be effective when they build on teachers’ prior knowledge, and provide opportunities to practise and apply new ideas in the classroom.

In the United Kingdom (England), more than 80% of teachers consider professional development activities most effective when they have a coherent structure and are adapted to the needs of the individual teacher.

Figure 14. Characteristics of effective professional development, according to teachers Percentage of lower secondary teachers for whom the most effective professional development activities had the following characteristics1 (OECD average-31)

1. Includes teachers who report on the professional development activity that had the greatest positive impact on their teaching in the 12 months prior to the survey. Teachers reporting that none of the professional development activities attended in the 12 months prior to the survey had a positive impact in their teaching practice were filtered out and are not covered in the figure.

Values are ranked in descending order of the characteristics of the most effective professional development activities as reported by teachers.

Source: OECD (2019[1]), TALIS 2018 Database, Table I.5.15.

Teachers and principals across OECD countries most often cite conflicts with their work schedule and lack of incentives as barriers to participating in professional development activities. Some 90% of teachers in Japan cite conflicts with their work schedule as a barrier to participation. The shares of teachers who report conflicts with work schedules as a barrier to participation have grown in France and the United Kingdom

HOW TEACHERS LEARN Š OECD 2019

22 | (England) over the past five years, while those shares have shrunk in Canada (Alberta) and Italy over the same period.

Figure 15. Change between 2013 and 2018 in barriers to teachers’ participation in professional development Percentage of lower secondary teachers reporting the following barriers to their participation in professional development1

1. Includes teachers who agree or strongly agree that the following elements present barriers to their participation in professional development.

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 teachers reporting professional development conflicts with the teacher's work schedule as a barrier to their participation in professional development in 2018.

Source: OECD (2019[1]), TALIS 2018 Database, Table I.5.39.

What types of professional development activities do teachers say they need and participate in?

To understand the challenges teachers face in their schools and classrooms, TALIS asks teachers about their participation in and need for continuous professional development. TALIS asks teachers to select from a list of 14 items the topics that were covered in the professional development activities in which they had participated in the 12 months prior to the survey. For each of the items, teachers are asked to indicate their level of need for training, from “no need” or “low”, to “moderate” or “high” level of need.

On average across OECD countries, teachers tend to take part in subject- or content-oriented continuous professional development activities that focus on specific subject areas (76% of teachers), pedagogy of the subject (73%), and general pedagogic topics, such as student assessment practices (65%) or knowledge of the curriculum (65%). Teachers tend to participate less in activities that focus on the practical

HOW TEACHERS LEARN © OECD 2019

| 23 skills and tools to address concrete situations in their classrooms, such as ICT skills for teaching, teaching students with special needs, or teaching in a multicultural or multilingual setting to name just a few.

Beyond defining patterns of participation, examining the areas in which teachers expressed a high need for professional development provides first-hand knowledge of teachers’ training requests and the issues they grapple with in their daily work. On average across OECD countries, the three areas where large shares of teachers report a high need of continuous professional development are “teaching students with special needs” (22%); “ICT skills for teaching” (18%); and “teaching in a multicultural or multilingual setting” (15%) (Figure 16).

Figure 16. Participation in professional development for teachers and need for it Results based on responses of lower secondary teachers (OECD average-31) Percentage of teachers for whom the following topics were included in their professional development activities Percentage of teachers reporting a high level of need for professional development in the following areas 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80 %

Knowledge and understanding of my subject field(s) Pedagogical competencies in teaching my subject field(s) Student assessment practices Knowledge of the curriculum ICT skills for teaching Student behaviour and classroom management Teaching cross-curricular skills Analysis and use of student assessments Approaches to individualised learning Teaching students with special needs Teacher-parent/guardian co-operation School management and administration Teaching in a multicultural or multilingual setting Communicating with people from different cultures or countries

Note: ICT refers to information and communication technology.

Values are ranked in descending order of the percentage of teachers for whom the above topics were included in their professional development activities.

Source: OECD (2019[1]), TALIS 2018 Database, Tables I.5.18 and I.5.21.

TALIS also surveys school leaders about shortages of resources that hinder their school’s capacity to provide quality instruction “quite a bit” or “a lot”. These shortages can include a lack or inadequacy of certain skills among their school’s teachers. Interestingly, more than 20% of principals identify inadequate skills among their teachers in the same three areas as cited by the largest shares of teachers when they report their need for professional development (Figure 17).

HOW TEACHERS LEARN © OECD 2019

24 |

Figure 17. Shortages of school resources that hinder quality instruction Percentage of lower secondary principals reporting that the following shortages of resources hinder the school's capacity to provide quality instruction "quite a bit" or "a lot" (OECD average-30) 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

%

Shortage of support personnel Shortage of teachers with competence in teaching students with special needs Shortage or inadequacy of time for instructional leadership Shortage or inadequacy of physical infrastructure Shortage or inadequacy of time with students Shortage or inadequacy of instructional space Shortage or inadequacy of digital technology for instruction Shortage of qualified teachers Shortage of teachers with competence in teaching students in a multicultural or multilingual setting Insufficient Internet access Shortage or inadequacy of necessary materials to train vocational skills Shortage of teachers with competence in teaching students from socio-economically disadvantaged homes Shortage or inadequacy of library materials Shortage of vocational teachers Shortage or inadequacy of instructional materials

Values are ranked in descending order of the prevalence of shortages of school resources.

Source: OECD (2019[1]), TALIS 2018 Database, Table I.3.63.

On average across OECD countries, 32% of school principals report that a shortage of teachers with competence in teaching students with special needs hinders their school’s capacity to provide quality instruction. Among G7 countries, less than a quarter of principals in Canada (Alberta) and the United Kingdom (England) so report, but 70% of principals in France do. There is generally a low demand for this type of professional development among teachers in Canada (Alberta), the United Kingdom (England) and the United States, among G7 countries; but 34% of teachers in France and 46% of teachers in Japan report a high need for professional development in teaching students with special needs (Figure 18).

Analysis of TALIS data shows that between 2013 and 2018 participation in professional development in the area of “teaching students with special needs” increased in the majority of countries with available data, and particularly so in Italy and the United Kingdom (England) among G7 countries (Figure 19). The need for training in this area increased in about two-thirds of countries with data, but only moderately so among G7 countries. Italy saw a steep drop in teachers’ reported need for this type of training, possibly related to the Buona Scuola reform, which was introduced in 2015 to improve educators’ skills for inclusive education (Box 8).

HOW TEACHERS LEARN © OECD 2019

| 25

Figure 18. Teaching students with diverse abilities and needs Countries/economies where the indicator is above the OECD average Countries/economies where the indicator is not statistically different from the OECD average Countries/economies where the indicator is below the OECD average

Percentage of teachers teaching in classes with more than 10% of special needs students

Canada (Alberta) France Germany Italy Japan United Kingdom (England) United States Argentina (CABA) Estonia Singapore OECD average-31

32 40 ..

37 21 41 51 3 14 19 27

Percentage of teachers for whom Percentage of the "teaching in a teachers who felt mixed-ability "well prepared" or setting" has been "very well prepared" included in their for teaching in a formal education or mixed-ability setting training 77 49 ..

57 64 90 81 57 51 79 62

44 25 ..

37 26 69 56 51 24 54 44

Percentage of teachers for whom "teaching students with special needs" was included in their recent professional development activities 47 30 ..

74 56 57 56 23 57 35 43

Percentage of Percentage of teachers reporting a principals reporting high level of need for a shortage of professional teachers with development in competence in teaching students teaching students with special needs with special needs

11 34 ..

15 46 6 9 36 26 20 22

14 70 ..

48 44 23 28 18 47 17 32

Source: OECD (2019[1]), TALIS 2018 Database, Table I.3.28, Table I.4.13, Table I.4.20, Table I.5.18, Table I.5.21 and Table I.3.63.

Box 8. Aligning incentives and opportunities with teachers’ professional development needs in Italy The Italian government focuses on school-level autonomy as a key lever for improving education.

Reflecting this orientation, the Good School reform (la Buona Scuola), introduced in 2015, made inservice training mandatory, permanent and structural. The reform was designed to respond to the low participation rates in professional development activities among Italy’s teachers. The Italian government made a large financial investment (EUR 1.5 billion) exclusively for training in areas of system skills (school autonomy, evaluation and innovative teaching) and 21st-century skills (such as digital skills, schoolwork schemes) and skills for inclusive education. The programme stands out because of its tailored approach and scope of choice for teachers to participate in professional development activities according to their needs. Teachers are given EUR 500 per year on their “Teachers Card” to enable them to participate in training activities and purchase related resources (books, conference tickets). The programme aligns training offers with training demands via a digital platform.

Source: OECD (2017[22]), Education Policy Outlook: Italy, http://www.oecd.org/education/Education-Policy-Outlook-Country-Profile-Italy.pdf

HOW TEACHERS LEARN © OECD 2019

26 |

Figure 19. Change between 2013 and 2018 in participation and need for professional development in teaching students with special needs Percentage-point differences between 2018 and 2013 in the share of teachers (i) having participated1 in and (ii) reporting a high level of need for professional development in teaching students with special needs2

1. Refers to professional development activities in which teachers participated in the 12 months prior to the survey.

2. "Students with special needs" are those for whom a special learning need has been formally identified because they are mentally, physically or emotionally disadvantaged.

Notes: Values over zero reflect an increase in participation or need between 2013 and 2018 while values below zero reflect a decrease in participation or need between 2013 and 2018.

Statistically significant values are marked in a darker tone.

Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the change in the percentage of teachers reporting that teaching students with special needs was included in their professional development activities (TALIS 2018 - TALIS 2013).

Source: OECD (2019[1]), TALIS 2018 Database, Tables I.5.27 and I.5.28.

Incorporating information and communication technologies (ICT) in teaching and learning is another challenge for education systems (OECD, 2018[23]). Some 25% of principals, on average across OECD countries, report that a shortage or inadequacy of digital technology for instruction hinders the quality of instruction in their school. Among G7 countries, 30% of principals in France and Italy, and 34% in Japan so report (Figure 20). However, earlier OECD analyses have shown that mere exposure to technology will not improve student learning unless teachers are trained in using ICT (OECD, 2015[24]). It is thus important to examine teachers’ reported need for professional development in ICT skills for teaching. Among G7 countries, less than 10% of teachers in Canada (Alberta), the United Kingdom (England) and the United States report a high need for training in this area; by contrast, 39% of teachers in Japan and 23% of teachers in France report a high need for training in ICT skills for teaching (Figure 20).

Between 2013 and 2018, there was a significant surge in participation in this type of professional development activity in France, Italy and Japan. During the same period, teachers’ reported need for this type of training dropped sharply in Italy. Again, this is likely related to the emphasis on digital skills in the Buona Scuola reform (Box 8). By contrast, in Japan, both participation and teachers’ reports of a high need for training in ICT skills for teaching increased since 2013 (Figure 21).

HOW TEACHERS LEARN © OECD 2019

| 27

Figure 20. ICT for teaching Countries/economies where the indicator is above the OECD average Countries/economies where the indicator is not statistically different from the OECD average Countries/economies where the indicator is below the OECD average Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of teachers for whom teachers for whom teachers who teachers who felt teachers reporting a principals reporting "use of ICT for the "use of ICT for "frequently" or "well prepared" or teaching" has been high level of need for shortage or teaching" has been "always" let "very well prepared" professional inadequacy of digital included in their included in their students use ICT for the use of ICT for recent professional development in ICT technology for formal education or for projects or class teaching skills for teaching instruction development training work activities Canada (Alberta) France Germany Italy Japan United Kingdom (England) United States Argentina (CABA) Estonia Singapore OECD average-31

71 51 ..

52 60 75 63 53 54 88 56

42 29 ..

36 28 51 45 50 30 60 43

56 50 ..

68 53 40 60 61 74 75 60

8 23 ..

17 39 5 10 20 19 14 18

66 36 ..

47 18 41 60 64 46 43 53

12 30 ..

31 34 15 19 39 12 2 25

Source: OECD (2019[1]), TALIS 2018 Database, Table I.4.13, Table I.4.13, Table I.5.18, Table I.5.21, Table I.2.1 and Table I.3.63.

Figure 21. Change between 2013 and 2018 in participation and need for professional development in ICT skills for teaching Percentage-point differences between 2018 and 2013 in the share of teachers (i) having participated1 in and (ii) reporting a high level of need for professional development in ICT2 skills for teaching

1. Refers to professional development activities in which teachers participated in the 12 months prior to the survey.

2. ICT refers to information and communication technology.

Notes: Values over zero reflect an increase in participation or need between 2013 and 2018 while values below zero reflect a decrease in participation or need between 2013 and 2018. Statistically significant values are marked in a darker tone.

Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the change in the percentage of teachers reporting that ICT skills for teaching was included in their professional development activities (TALIS 2018 - TALIS 2013).

Source: OECD (2019[1]), TALIS 2018 Database, Tables I.5.27 and I.5.28.

HOW TEACHERS LEARN Š OECD 2019

28 | TALIS results also show that classrooms in many countries are ethnically, culturally or linguistically diverse.

On average across OECD countries, 17-30% of teachers teach in schools with a culturally or linguistically diverse student population; however, not many teachers are trained in teaching such classes. Indeed, 20% of principals across OECD countries report that a shortage of teachers with competence in teaching students in a multicultural or multilingual setting is an impediment to providing quality instruction in their school. Among G7 countries, France, where 40% of principals so reported, and Italy, where 52% of principals so reported, are particularly affected by such shortages.

Some 15% of teachers, on average, report a high need for training in teaching culturally or linguistically diverse classes, with larger shares of teachers in France and Italy reporting so. Even in Japan, where relatively few teachers teach multilingual classes, teachers report a high need for this type of training (Figure 22).

In most countries, the reported need for continuous professional development in “teaching in a multicultural or multilingual setting” increased between 2013 and 2018. Canada (Alberta) and Italy show particularly large increases in teachers’ participation in this type of training (Canada [Alberta] offers resources to teachers that specifically address this issue; Box 9). Italy and the United Kingdom (England) show a decline in the need for this type of training over the same period (Figure 23).

Figure 22. Teaching in multicultural or multilingual settings Countries/economies where the indicator is above the OECD average Countries/economies where the indicator is not statistically different from the OECD average Countries/economies where the indicator is below the OECD average

Percentage of teachers teaching in classes with more than 10% of students whose first language is different from the language of instruction

Canada (Alberta) France Germany Italy Japan United Kingdom (England) United States Argentina (CABA) Estonia Singapore OECD average-31

45 16 ..

17 2 27 25 9 13 58 18

Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of teachers for whom teachers for whom teachers reporting a teachers who felt "teaching in a "teaching in a high level of need for "well prepared" or multicultural or multicultural or professional "very well prepared" multilingual setting " multilingual setting " development in for teaching in a was included in their was included in their teaching in a multicultural or recent professional formal education or multicultural or multilingual setting development training multilingual setting activities 63 12 ..

26 27 68 70 35 28 72 35

38 8 ..

19 11 43 48 34 16 61 26

41 6 ..

28 13 19 42 19 25 25 22

Percentage of teachers who feel they can cope with the challenges of a multicultural classroom "quite a bit" or "a lot" in teaching a culturally diverse class 1

10 17 ..

14 15 5 6 25 11 5 15

67 66 ..

80 17 72 66 70 70 65 67

1. The sample is restricted to teachers reporting that they have already taught a classroom with students from different cultures.

Source: OECD (2019[1]), TALIS 2018 Database, Table I.3.28, Table I.4.13, Table I.4.20, Table I.5.18, Table I.5.21 and Table I.3.38.

Box 9. Building teachers’ capacity for diverse educational environments in Canada (Alberta) For its educators, the government of Alberta prioritises awareness, understanding and the need to support students from diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds. This issue is highlighted in the preamble to the Ministerial Order on Student Learning and aligned to professional development tools for teachers.

Alberta Education offers a series of resources to in-service teachers so they can learn about the Indigenous communities of Canada (First Nation, Métis and Inuit) and understand contemporary issues

HOW TEACHERS LEARN © OECD 2019

| 29 affecting students from these communities. It further supports teachers by providing a curriculum development tool, Guiding Voices, for including Indigenous perspectives throughout the school curriculum. Thus, teachers are guided in incorporating the history and contemporary realities of Indigenous peoples in programmes of study, assessments, and teaching and learning resources. For example, the toolkit includes examples of narratives and images of First Nation, MĂŠtis, Inuit and other Indigenous groups that could be used while teaching certain subjects in the classroom. It also provides guidelines on how teachers, through their classroom practices, can prevent social exclusion among students. This support mechanism stands out, as it focuses on building a strong foundation of knowledge and awareness among teachers, followed by concrete teaching strategies and resources for reference, to encourage informed implementation of the recommended practices.

Source: Alberta Education (2015[25]), Guiding Voices, http://www.learnalberta.ca/content/fnmigv/index.html (accessed 1 March 2019).

Figure 23. Change between 2013 and 2018 in participation and need for professional development in teaching in multicultural or multilingual settings Percentage-point differences between 2018 and 2013 in the share of teachers (i) having participated1 in and (ii) reporting a high level of need for professional development in teaching in multicultural or multilingual settings

1. Refers to professional development activities in which teachers participated in the 12 months prior to the survey.

Notes: Values over zero reflect an increase in participation or need between 2013 and 2018 while values below zero reflect a decrease in participation or need between 2013 and 2018.

Statistically significant values are marked in a darker tone.

Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the change in the percentage of teachers reporting that teaching in multicultural or multilingual settings was included in their professional development activities (TALIS 2018 - TALIS 2013).

Source: OECD (2019[1]), TALIS 2018 Database, Tables I.5.27 and I.5.28.

HOW TEACHERS LEARN Š OECD 2019

30 |

Box 10. Policy pointers – Enable teacher participation in high-quality professional development activities TALIS findings suggest a number of ways to enable teacher participation in professional development: TALIS suggests: •

In order to provide high-quality professional development for teachers, training programmes should include a balance of strong content, opportunities for collaboration and active learning for teachers. Training opportunities such as peer-observation or coaching can be particularly helpful for teachers in improving their instruction.

•

School-level professional development plans respond directly to the needs of the school’s teachers while taking account of the specific context of the school.

•

In order to maximise participation of teachers in professional development activities, barriers to professional development need to be lifted. Allocating time to participate in professional development activities and providing school-based opportunities can enable more teachers to participate.

An effective incentive to encourage participation in continuous professional development activities is to align the offerings with the professional development needs of teachers.

Notes 1

Canada (Alberta) is one of the few countries where this relationship does not hold.

2

According to ISCED-2011, these education programmes, designed to provide participants with intermediate academic and/or professional knowledge, skills and competencies, typically consist of three to four years of full-time study (ISCED level 6).

3

Due to a change in the ISCED classifications between TALIS 2013 and TALIS 2018, it is not possible to disentangle the change in the percentage of teachers holding a bachelor’s degree and that of teachers holding a master’s degree. However, the percentage of teachers holding a bachelor’s degree or a master’s degree has risen in more than a third of countries and economies participating in TALIS since 2008 or 2013, depending on the data available.

4

TALIS also asks principals about the provisions included in teacher induction in their school, and their reports are relatively consistent with those of teachers.

HOW TEACHERS LEARN © OECD 2019

| 31

References Alberta Education (2015), Guiding Voices, http://www.learnalberta.ca/content/fnmigv/index.html (accessed on 1 March 2019).

[25]

Andersen, L., E. Heinesen and L. Pedersen (2014), “How does public service motivation among teachers affect student performance in schools?”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 24/3, pp. 651-671, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mut082.

[4]

Avalos, B. (2011), “Teacher professional development in Teaching and Teacher Education over ten years”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 27/1, pp. 10-20, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.08.007.

[21]

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.

[5]

Boyd, D. et al. (2009), “Teacher preparation and student achievement”, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 31/4, pp. 416-440, http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0162373709353129.

[9]

Clotfelter, C., H. Ladd and J. Vigdor (2007), “Teacher credentials and student achievement: Longitudinal analysis with student fixed effects”, Economics of Education Review, Vol. 26/6, pp. 673-682, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2007.10.002.

[8]

DeMonte, J. (2017), Country Background Report. OECD Initial Teacher Preparation Study. U.S., OECD, http://www.oecdteacherready.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/United-States-CountryBackground-Report-ITP-Study.pdf.

[19]

Glazerman, S. et al. (2010), Impacts of Comprehensive Teacher Induction: Final Results from a Randomized Controlled Study, (NCEE 2010-4027) National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S., Washington, DC, https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20104027/pdf/20104027.pdf.

[12]

Harris, D. and T. Sass (2011), “Teacher training, teacher quality and student achievement”, Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 95/7-8, pp. 798-812, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.JPUBECO.2010.11.009.

[10]

Helms-Lorenz, M., B. Slof and W. van de Grift (2013), “First year effects of induction arrangements on beginning teachers’ psychological processes”, European Journal of Psychology of Education, Vol. 28/4, pp. 1265-1287, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10212-0120165-y.

[13]

Hill, H., B. Rowan and D. Ball (2005), “Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement”, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 42/2, pp. 371-406, https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312042002371.

[6]

Ingersoll, R. (2012), “Beginning teacher induction: What the data tell us”, Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 93/8, pp. 47-51, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/003172171209300811.

[17]

Ingersoll, R. and T. Smith (2004), “Do teacher induction and mentoring matter?”, NASSP Bulletin, Vol. 88/638, pp. 28-40, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/019263650408863803.

[16]

HOW TEACHERS LEARN © OECD 2019

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

[7]

OECD (2019), Promising Practice 6: Mandatory 1-year Induction for New Teachers in Japan, http://www.oecdteacherready.org/promising-practice/mandatory-1-year-induction-for-newteachers-in-japan/.

[15]

OECD (2019), Promising Practice 1: Teacher residencies featuring the Centre for Inspired Teaching, http://www.oecdteacherready.org/promising-practice/teacher-residencies-featuringthe-centre-for-inspired-teaching/.

[18]

OECD (2019), “TALIS Teaching and learning international survey - indicators”, OECD Education Statistics (database), https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/data-00698-en (accessed on 21 June 2019).

[1]

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

[14]

OECD (2018), The Future of Education and Skills: Education 2030, OECD, http://www.oecd.org/education/2030/E2030%20Position%20Paper%20(05.04.2018).pdf.

[23]

OECD (2017), Education Policy Outlook: Italy, OECD, Paris, http://gpseducation.oecd.org (accessed on 21 June 2019).

[22]

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

[24]

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.

[20]

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.

[11]

Perry, J. and L. Wise (1990), “The motivational bases of public service”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 50/3, pp. 367-373.

[2]

Scribner, J. (1999), “Professional development: Untangling the influence of work context on teacher learning”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 35/2, pp. 238-266, https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X99352004.

[3]

HOW TEACHERS LEARN © OECD 2019

Write to us

Order our publications

Directorate for Education and Skills OECD 2, rue André Pascal 75 775 Paris Cedex 16 FRANCE edu.contact@oecd.org

OECD online bookshop: www.oecd.org/bookshop

Visit our website www.oecd.org/edu

Explore our data on education and skills gpseducation.oecd.org

Read our books on line www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/books

Subscribe to our online library www.oecd-ilibrary.org

Connect with us on Education and Skills Today: Global perspectives on Education oecdedutoday.com @OECDEduSkills

Subscribe to our newsletter oe.cd/teachernewsletter