Finland in PISA
-
Upload
maia-donovan -
Category
Documents
-
view
46 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Finland in PISA
Finland in PISA
The Reasons behind the Results
Markku Linna
Education System of Finland
BASIC EDUCATION
Pre-school education in schools or children’s day care centres
AgeSchool years
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
CO
MP
UL
SO
RY
ED
UC
AT
ION
UPPERSECONDARYSCHOOLS
VOCATIONAL EDUCATION
UNIVERSITIESPOLYTECHNICS(AMKINSTITUTIONS)
1
2
3 3
33
2
2
2
1 1
1
4 45
SPECIALIST VOCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
FURTHER VOCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONSW
ork
expe
rien
ce
Work experience
OECD countries participating from PISA 2000
OECD countries participating from PISA from 2003
OECD partner countries participating from PISA 2000
OECD partner countries participating from PISA 2003
OECD partner countries participating from PISA 2006
PISA COUNTRY PARTICIPATION
PISA PROGRAMME
• An OECD Programme for International Student Assessment, which produces data on learning outcome in an international framework.
• Surveys every three years, with focus on
– reading skills (PISA 2000)
– mathematical skills (PISA 2003) and
– science skills (PISA 2006)
– problem-solving skills
• The 2003 PISA focused on mathematical literacy
Pisa tests:
• how well 15-year-olds master basic skills they will need in future society in order to respond to changes in working life and to lead quality lives ?
• what kind of factors influence these skills and how these skills develop ?
• Pisa does not assess learning of curricular content.
PISA 2003 MAIN RESULTS
Young Finns :
• rank highest among the OECD countries in
• mathematical literacy (544 points)
• science literacy (548 points)
• reading literacy (543 points)
• are among the top in problem-solving (548 points)
• performed well and uniformly in all the areas.
• The proportion of poorly performing students was small and that of high-performers excellent.
• Differences across regions and schools were small.
• Gender differences have decreased in all the performance areas.
PISA RESULTS: MEAN SCORES FOR MATHEMATICS 2003 Source: OECD 2004
356359360
417422
437468
483527
536550
385423
445466466
483485
490490
493495
498500
503503
506509511
514515516
523524
527
529532534
538542544
300 350 400 450 500 550 600
BrazilTunisia
IndonesiaThailandUruguay
Serbia andRussia
LatviaMacao (China)Liechtenstein
Hong Kong (China)
MexicoTurkey
GreeceItaly
PortugalUSA
SpainHungary
PolandLuxembourgh
NorwaySlovakia
OECD averageIreland
GermanyAustria
SwedenFrance
DenmarkIceland
Czech RepublicNew Zealand
AustraliaSwitzerland
United KingdomBelgiumCanada
JapanNetherlands
KoreaFinland
PISA RESULTS: MEAN SCORES FOR SCIENCE 2003 Source: OECD 2004
385390
395429
436438
489489
525525
539
405434
468475
481483484486487
491491
495495
498500502503505506
509511513
519521523524525
538548548
300 350 400 450 500 550 600
TunisiaBrazil
IndonesiaThailand
Serbia and MontenegroUruguay
LatviaRussia
Macao (China)Liechtenstein
Hong Kong (China)
MexicoTurkey
PortugalDenmarkGreece
LuxemburgNorw ay
ItalySpain
AustriaUSA
IcelandSlovakia
PolandOECD average
GermanyHungary
IrelandSw edenBelgiumFrance
Sw itzerlandCanada
New ZealandCzech Republic
NetherlandsAustralia
United KingdomKoreaJapan
Finland
PISA RESULTS: MEAN SCORES FOR READING LITERACY 2003 Source: OECD 2004
375382
403412
420434
442491
498510
525
400441
469472
476478479481482
489491491492492494495496497498499500
507513514
515522525
528534
543
300 350 400 450 500 550 600
TunisiaIndonesia
BrazilSerbia and
ThailandUruguay
RussiaLatvia
Macao (China)Hong Kong
Liechtenstein
MexicoTurkey
SlovakiaGreece
ItalyPortugal
LuxembourgSpain
HungaryCzech
AustriaGermany
IcelandDenmark
OECD averageUSA
FrancePolandJapan
Sw itzerlandNorw ayBelgium
NetherlandsSw eden
United KingdomIreland
New ZealandAustraliaCanada
KoreaFinland
PISA RESULTS: MEAN SCORES FOR PROBLEM SOLVING 2003 Source: OECD 2004
345361
371411
420425
479483
529532
548
384408
448469470
477482
487490492494
498500501
505506
509513
516517519520521
525529530
533547548550
300 350 400 450 500 550 600
TunisiaIndonesia
BrazilUruguay
Serbia and MontenegroThailand
RussiaLatvia
LiechtensteinMacao (China)
Hong Kong (China)
MexicoTurkeyGreece
ItalyPortugal
USASpain
PolandNorw aySlovakia
LuxembourghIreland
OECD averageHungary
IcelandAustria
Sw edenGermany
Czech RepublicDenmark
FranceNetherlandsSw itzerland
BelgiumCanada
AustraliaNew Zealand
JapanFinlandKorea
Pisa 2003: Comparison of the national averages
above the OECD average close to the OECD average below the OECD average
Mathematics Reading Literacy Scientific Literacy Problem-SolvingHong Kong (China) Finland Finland KoreaFinland Korea Japan Hong Kong (China)Korea Canada Hong Kong (China) FinlandNetherlands Australia Korea JapanLiechtenstein Liechtenstein Liechtenstein New ZealandJapan New Zealand Australia Macau (China)Canada Ireland Macau (China) AustraliaBelgium Sweden Netherlands CanadaMacau (China) Netherlands Czech LiechtensteinSwitzerland Hong Kong (China) New Zealand BelgiumAustralia Belgium Canada SwitzerlandNew Zealand Norway Switzerland NetherlandsCzech Switzerland France FranceIceland Japan Belgium DenmarkDenmark Macau (China) Sweden CzechFrance Poland Ireland GermanySweden France Hungary SwedenAustria United States Germany IcelandGermany Denmark Poland AustriaIreland Iceland Slovakia HungarySlovakia Germany Iceland IrelandNorway Austria United States LuxembourgLuxembourg Latvia Austria SlovakiaPoland Czech Russia NorwayHungary Hungary Latvia PolandSpain Spain Spain LatviaLatvia Luxembourg Italy SpainUnited States Portugal Norway RussiaRussia Italy Luxembourg United StatesPortugal Greece Greece PortugalItaly Slovakia Denmark ItalyGreece Russia Portugal GreeceSerbia-Montenegro Turkey Uruguay ThailandTurkey Uruguay Serbia-Montenegro Serbia-MontenegroUruguay Thailand Turkey UruguayThailand Serbia-Montenegro Thailand TurkeyMexico Brazil Mexico MexicoIndonesia Mexico Indonesia BrazilTunisia Indonesia Brazil IndonesiaBrazil Tunisia Tunisia Tunisia
COMPARISION OF THE NATIONAL AVERAGES
Variance in student performance between schools and within schools on the mathematics scale Expressed as a percentage of the average variance in student performance in OECD countries
100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Turkey
Hungary
Japan
Belgium
Italy
Germany
Austria
Netherlands
Czech Republic
Korea
Slovak Republic
Greece
Switzerland
Luxembourg
Portugal
Mexico
United States
Australia
New Zealand
Spain
Canada
Ireland
Denmark
Poland
Sweden
Norway
Finland
Iceland
Source: OECD 2003
Between-school variance Within-school variance
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
12000
13000
Sw
itze
rlan
d1
Un
ited
Sta
tes
No
rway
Den
mar
k
Au
stri
a
Sw
eden
Can
ada1
Ital
y1
Bel
giu
m
Fra
nce
Jap
an
Fin
lan
d
Au
stra
lia
Net
her
lan
ds
Icel
and
Un
ited
Kin
gd
om
Ger
man
y
Isra
el
Sp
ain
Irel
and
New
Zea
lan
d
Ko
rea
Po
rtu
gal
1
Gre
ece
Hu
ng
ary1
Cze
ch R
epu
blic
Po
lan
d1
Ch
ile
Slo
vak
Rep
ub
lic
Mex
ico
Ru
ssia
n F
eder
atio
n 1
Tu
rkey
1
Bra
zil
Exp
en
ditu
re p
er
stu
de
nt
(in
eq
uiv
ale
nt
US
do
llars
co
nve
rte
d u
sin
g P
PP
s)
1. Public institutions only.Countries are ranked in descending order of expenditure on educational institutions per student.Source: OECD. Tables B1.1a. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2006 ).
OECD Total
Annual expenditure on educational institutions per student in primary through tertiary education (2003)In equivalent US dollars converted using PPPs, for primary to tertiary education, based on full-time equivalents. Source: OECD: 2006
Cumulative number of intended instruction hours in public institutions between ages 7 and 14
This chart shows the total number of hours of instruction a student in public sector education can expect to receive from the age of 7 years up to and including 14 years. Source: OECD 2006
0 1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000 5 000 6 000 7 000 8 000 9 000
Netherlands
Australia
Italy
New Zealand
Israel
France
Greece
Mexico
Ireland
Portugal
England
Belgium (Fr.)
Belgium (Fl.)
Turkey
Austria
Spain
Luxembourg
J apan
Czech Republic
Iceland
Germany
Hungary
Poland
Denmark
Korea
Sweden
Norway
Finland
Total number of intended instruction hours
Background of Good Results
• Equal opportunities for education irrespective of domicile, sex, economic situation or mother tongue
• Instruction, books, school materials and welfare services at school free of charge
• Comprehensive, non-selective basic education
• Teachers highly qualified professionals (master´s degree), profession valued, position autonomous
Background of Good Results
• Individual support for the learning and welfare of pupils, student counselling. Special needs education based on inclusion
• Development-oriented evaluation and pupil assessment–sample -based national testing of learning outcome, no ranking lists
• Significance of education in the society, broad political consensus on education policy
Background of Good Results
• Supportive and flexible administration – centralised steering of the whole, local implementation. Strong autonomy of municipal authorities in providing and organizing education
• The role of home-school relations and co-operation between schools and other authorities and society important– the idea of partnership
• Philosophy of education, core curriculum and teaching methods are learner-oriented
Backgound of good results
• Good network of public libraries
• History and tradition
• Trust
Future
• But what about the future