Innovation to improve 21st century education for all

Prof. Dr. Dirk Van DammeHead of the Centre for Educational Research and Innovation - OECD

2

3

4

INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS

1.

5

“Education is only the image and reflection of society. It imitates and reproduces the latter…it does not create it”Emile Durkheim

“Education is a social process. Education is growth. Education is not a preparation for life; education is life

itself”John Dewey

6

Time, continuity, change

• Durkheim – and ‘reproduction theories’ after him – sees education as a kind of ‘condensation’ of a society’s history, social structure etc., thus following social change– ‘slowness’ in terms of time-lag between

social change and educational change– ‘slowness’ in terms of individual biography

and the prolonged impact of education on one’s life

7

Time, continuity, change

• John Dewey – and progressive educators in his footsteps (Paulo Freire) – see education as a potential driver of social change by stressing the transformative capacities of education– Enhancing the capacity of critical analysis

and reflection to overcome historical legacies

– Guiding individuals and communities to pockets of change in society (e.g. science) which drive transformative change

8

Time, continuity, change

• The transformative capacity of education has a lot to do with the capacity of educational systems themselves to change– So, analysing innovation in education helps

to understand the capacity of education to drive innovation in society at large

• This becomes extremely relevant today as change is accelerating and several ‘change agents’ perceive education as ‘out-of-tune’ with the pace, direction and contents of change

9

EDUCATION IN THE 21ST C:‘MORE OF THE SAME’?

2.

10

20th century education: expansion

• Following the emergence of popular education in the 18th and 19th C, modern institutionalised and professionalised education systems have consolidated and expanded in the 20th C– Connected to economic, political and

social transformations: global capitalism, democracy, social mobility and meritocracy

– From elitist to universalist ambitions– Globalisation and convergence– Standardisation

Growth in university-level qualificationsC

anad

a

Uni

ted

Sta

tes

New

Zea

land

Est

onia

Fin

land

Aus

tral

ia

Nor

way

Sw

eden

Net

herl

ands

Sw

itzer

land

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

Den

mar

k

Japa

n

Ger

man

y

Icel

and

Bel

gium

OE

CD

ave

rage

Luxe

mbo

urg

EU

19 a

vera

ge

Irel

and

Fra

nce

Spa

in

Hun

gary

Slo

veni

a

Gre

ece

Aus

tria

Pol

and

Kor

ea

Slo

vak

Rep

ublic

Cze

ch R

epub

lic

Ital

y

Mex

ico

Chi

le

Bra

zil

Tur

key

Por

tuga

l0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

502000's 1990's 1980's 1970's%

Approximated by the percentage of the population that has attained tertiary-type A education in the age groups 25-34 years, 35-44 years, 45-54 years and 55-64 years (2007)

12

Where are we now?

• Enormous expansion and massification: the ‘educational revolution’– In 55-64y olds population: 39 million tertiary

qualified– In 25-34y olds population: 81 million tertiary

qualified• Shifting balances in global talent pool

– US: from 35.8% to 20.5% between two generations

– China: from 6.9% to 18.3%

13

Where are we now?

• Universalist ambitions have not (yet) been fully fulfilled– Still huge gaps in access, participation and

achievement– Equity: huge impact of social background

on educational outcomes– Standardisation: huge quality variation in

comparable levels of qualification– Lifelong learning: unproductive

concentration of educational investment in early phase of life-course

14

Where are we now?

• While at the same time the impact of education on economic and social outcomes has reached unprecedented levels– Increasing impact on earnings distribution

and labour market participation– Increasing impact on social risks and

social outcomes• This tension between increasing social

relevance and difficulties in delivering constitute a huge risk for educational systems– Alternatives already appearing

15

Proportion of 20-24 year-olds who are not in education and have no upper secondary qualification (2007)

Por

tuga

l

Spa

in

Icel

and

Ital

y

Nor

way

Luxe

mbo

urg

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

OE

CD

ave

rage

Gre

ece

Bel

gium

Net

herl

ands

Est

onia

Fra

nce

Ger

man

y

Hun

gary

Aus

tria

Irel

and

Uni

ted

Sta

tes

Isra

el

Can

ada

Aus

tral

ia

Fin

land

Sw

itzer

land

Sw

eden

Slo

vak

Rep

ublic

Slo

veni

a

Pol

and

Cze

ch R

epub

lic

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Born abroad Born in the country

%

%

16

Relative earnings by qualificationB

razi

l

Hun

gary

Uni

ted

Sta

tes

Cze

ch R

epub

lic

Por

tuga

l

Slo

vak

Rep

ublic

Pol

and

Luxe

mbo

urg

Isra

el

Aus

tria

Can

ada

Fra

nce

Ital

y

Ger

man

y

Fin

land

Kor

ea

OE

CD

ave

rage

Irel

and

Tur

key

Bel

gium

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

Net

herl

ands

Sw

itzer

land

Spa

in

Sw

eden

Aus

tral

ia

Japa

n

Den

mar

k

New

Zea

land

Nor

way

Est

onia

Gre

ece

Slo

veni

a

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

Below upper secondary education Tertiary-type B education Tertiary-type A and advanced research programmes

Index for males, upper secondary=100, 25-64y olds (2008)

17

Low skills and economic outcomes

0 1 2 3 41.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

In lowest two quintiles of personal income

Unemployed

Received social assistance in last year

Did not receive investment income in last year

Number of skills domains with low performance

Increased likelihood of failure (16-65 year olds)

Number of skills domains with low performanceNumber of skills domains with low performance

Increased likelihood (16-65 year olds)

18

The skills value of qualifications

No

t co

mp

lete

d s

cho

ol

Up

pe

r se

con

da

ry

Un

ive

rsity

No

t co

mp

lete

d s

cho

ol

Up

pe

r se

con

da

ry

Un

ive

rsity

No

t co

mp

lete

d s

cho

ol

Up

pe

r se

con

da

ry

Un

ive

rsity

Country A Country B Country C

150

200

250

300

350

Skill score

Interquartile range in skill distribution by educational qualification

19

Lifelong de-skilling

15 25 35 45 55 65225

235

245

255

265

275

285

295

305

No adjustmentAdjusted for immigrant status and educationAdjusted for immigrant status, education and reading engagement

Age

Skill score

Factoring in population ageing

20

But also vast macro-efficiency problems

• Despite huge increase in expenditure for education, very limited rise in outcomes over the past 10 to 15 years

• Problems in quantity and quality of the teaching work force

• Governance reform (school autonomy, decentralisation) have not fully produced expected results and have counterproductive effects

21

Is expansion the only answer?

• Most development goals in education (MDGs, European Commission 2020, etc.) are still purely quantitative targets, aiming at further expansion of education systems

• But will ‘more of the same’ be a sufficient answer to address the needs and tackle the increasing challenges in delivering and efficiency?– “has the concern for equity and access

driven progressive educators into conservatism?”

• Or will innovation be truly part of the response?

22

INNOVATION DRIVER: NEW SKILLS DEMANDS

3.

23

CERI’s Innovation Strategy project

• The main driver for innovation in education does not come from within education, but from the external changing skills demand

• Research questions:– Do innovation-driven economies require

more and better educated populations?– What qualifications do innovative

businesses need?– What individual skills should education

systems foster?

Changing skill demand

40

45

50

55

60

65

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Routine manual

Nonroutine manual

Routine cognitive

Nonroutine analytic

Nonroutine interactive

Source: Levy and Murnane, 2005

Mea

n ta

sk in

put

as p

erce

ntile

s of

th

e 19

60 t

ask

dist

ribut

ion Economy-wide measures of routine and non-routine task input (US)

24

25

Working in creative jobsIncrease in creativity-oriented jobs (Canada, 1901-2006)

Employment structure in selected countries in 1980

Source: Michael et al. 26

Employment structure in selected countries in 2004

Source: Michael et al.27

Skills supply hampering innovation

No need to innovate because no demand for innovations

No need to innovate due to prior innovations

Uncertain demand for innovative goods or services

Markets dominated by established enterprises

Lack of information on technology

Difficulty in finding cooperation partners for innovation

Lack of information on markets

Innovation costs too high

Lack of funds within your enterprise or enterprise group

Lack of qualified personnel

Lack of finance from sources outside your enterprise

0.3

0.35

0.44

0.97

0.98

1.00

1.05

1.14

1.18

1.29

1.37

1.39

Source: OECD, based on CIS data

(odds ratios: innovative vs. non-innovative (ref))

28

Which tertiary education studies lead to active participation in innovation?

science

s

engineering

agricultu

re

education

socia

l science

s

business

humanities

services

health law0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Innovator work in innov. comp. Not in innovative organisation

Source: OECD, based on REFLEX and HEGESCO data29

Critical skills for the most innovative jobs(tertiary-educated workers)

assert your authoritynegociate

knowledge of other fieldsperform under pressure

write reports or documentswork productively with others

mobilize capacities of othersuse time efficiently

make your meaning clearuse computers and internet

write and speak a foreign languagecoordinate activities

master of your own fieldanalytical thinking

present ideas in audiencealertness to opportunities

willingness to question ideasacquire new knowledge

come with news ideas/solutions

0.90

1.56

1.76

1.76

1.81

1.94

1.95

1.97

1.98

1.99

2.00

2.02

2.05

2.11

2.15

2.18

2.24

2.34

2.44

2.97

Likelihood (odds ratios) of reporting the following job requirements: people in the most innovative jobs vs. least innovative jobs

Source: OECD, based on REFLEX and HEGESCO data30

Skills for Innovation

• Foundation skills (literacy, numeracy…) are key to access lifelong learning

• Which individual skills for innovation are key?– Subject-based skills (know-what and

know-how)– Skills in thinking and creativity (critical

thinking, imagination, curiosity...)– Behavioural and social skills (self-

confidence, energy, passion, leadership, collaboration, communication...)

31

Skills for Innovation

What individual competences should people acquire to contribute to innovation as producers

and users?

Subject-based skills

(know-what and know-how)

Skills in thinking and

creativity(Critical thinking,

ability to make connections, imagination, curiosity,...)

Behavioural and social skills (Self-confidence,

energy, perseverance, passion, leadership,

collaboration, communication)

32

33

21st Century Skills

Ways of thinking•Creativity and innovation•Critical thinking, problem solving•Learning to learn, meta-cognition

Ways of working•Communication•Collaboration (teamwork)

Tools of working•Information literacy•ICT literacy

Living in the world•Citizenship – local and global•Life and career•Personal, social responsibility

Source: Microsoft-Intel-Cisco ATC21S project

34

A challenging situation

• Early 21st C education systems are especially good in delivering routine-based skills which can easily be taught in standardised ways but also easily digitised and automated

• But are not yet well prepared to equip learners with the flexible, creative, innovative and collaborative skills sets which they will need in 21st C economies and societies

35

ARE EDUCATION SYSTEMS INNOVATION-FRIENDLY?

4.

36

Innovation in education

• Education generally is a low innovation-intensive sector– Especially low in product/services and

tools/instruments/methods innovation• Available evidence does not show a knowledge

dynamics between ‘grey’ and ‘green’ knowledge typical for knowledge-intensive and innovative sectors– New teachers do not have different pedagogical

beliefs than more experienced teachers• Innovation is not rewarded in professional appraisal

systems– Three out of four teachers reporting not to be

rewarded for innovation

37

Product/service innovation

Source: Paul (2007)

38

Process/tools/instruments innovation

Source: Paul (2007)

Are new teachers innovators?

39

Au

stri

a*

Ice

lan

d

Tu

rke

y*

Au

stra

lia

Be

lgiu

m (

Fl.)

*

Est

on

ia

Ma

lta

De

nm

ark

No

rwa

y

Ko

rea

Ire

lan

d*

Slo

ven

ia

Hu

ng

ary

Slo

vak

Re

pu

blic

Me

xico

Po

lan

d*

Bra

zil

Sp

ain

Lith

ua

nia

Po

rtu

ga

l

Bu

lga

ria

Ma

lays

ia

Italy

-0.5

0.0

0.5

Constructivist beliefs - Experienced teachers Constructivist beliefs - New teachersDirect transmission beliefs - Experienced teachers Direct transmission beliefs - New teachers

Ipsa

tive

me

an

s

40

Rewarding innovation

Be

lgiu

m (

Fl.)

No

rwa

y

Ire

lan

d

Au

stra

lia

De

nm

ark

Sp

ain

Ko

rea

Au

stri

a

Ma

lta

Ice

lan

d

Po

rtu

ga

l

Bra

zil

Est

on

ia

TA

LIS

Ave

rag

e

Lith

ua

nia

Tu

rke

y

Slo

ven

ia

Me

xico

Hu

ng

ary

Slo

vak

Re

pu

blic

Italy

Po

lan

d

Bu

lga

ria

Ma

lays

ia

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Teachers who would receive increased monetary or non-monetary rewards if they are more innovative in their teaching

%

%

41

Research as a motor for innovation?

Research as a motor for innovation?

42

43

Technology as a motor for innovation?

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

Fin

lan

dLie

ch

ten

ste

inN

ew

Ze

ala

nd

Jap

an

Ca

na

da

Ge

rma

ny

Ko

rea

Ne

the

rla

nd

sH

un

ga

ryIr

ela

nd

Sw

itze

rla

nd

Be

lgiu

mA

ustr

alia

Au

str

iaS

we

de

nG

ree

ce

Po

lan

dS

pa

inC

roa

tia

Ma

ca

o-C

hin

aLit

hu

an

iaIt

aly

Slo

ve

nia

Slo

va

k R

ep

ub

lic

Cze

ch

Re

pu

blic

No

rwa

yLa

tvia

Ice

lan

dP

ort

ug

al

De

nm

ark

Ru

ssia

n F

ed

era

tio

nC

hile

Tu

rke

yU

rug

ua

yB

ulg

ari

aT

ha

ila

nd

Se

rbia

Jord

an

Co

lom

bia

Qa

tar

Frequency of use of computers at school and student performance on PISA science scale

Frequent use Moderate use Rare or no use

44

INNOVATIVE PEDAGOGIES

5.

45

Conceptual model

Learning research

46

Transversal conclusions

To promote learning, environments should: • Make learning central, encourage engagement, and be

where learners come to understand themselves as learners

• Ensure that learning is social and often collaborative• Be highly attuned to learners’ motivations and the

importance of emotions• Be acutely sensitive to individual differences including in

prior knowledge • Be demanding for each learner but without excessive

overload• Use assessments consistent with its aims, with strong

emphasis on formative feedback• Promote horizontal connectedness across activities and

subjects, in-and out-of-school47

Expressed in educational terms…

These ‘principles’ mean that learning environments should be:

• Learner-centred: highly focused on learning but not as an alternative to the key role for teachers

• Structured and well-designed: needs careful design and high professionalism alongside inquiry & autonomous learning

• Profoundly personalised: acutely sensitive to individual and group differences and offering tailored feedback

• Inclusive: such sensitivity to individual and group differences means they are fundamentally inclusive

• Social: learning is effective in group settings, when learners collaborate, and when there is a connection to community.

48

Cognitive outcomes versus interest

380 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560 580 600 620440

460

480

500

520

540

560

580

600

620

640

BRA

HKG

MAC

IDN

RUS

AUS

AUT

BEL

CAN

CHL

CZE

DNK

EST

FIN

FRADEU

GRC

HUN

ISL

IRL

ISR

ITA

JPN

KOR

LUX

MEX

NLD

NZL

NOR

POL

PRT

SVK

SVN

ESP

SWE

CHE

GBR

TUR

USA

PISA 2006 Science score

Inte

rest

in s

cie

nce

sco

re

HIGH SCOREHIGH INTEREST

LOW SCORELOW INTEREST

LOW SCOREHIGH INTEREST

HIGH SCORELOW INTEREST

Science scores and interest in science are not always fostered simultaneously

49

50

More supportive teaching?

Israe

l

Japa

n

Mex

ico

Austra

lia

Denm

ark

Spain

Greec

e

Finla

nd

Canad

a

Norway Ita

ly

Sweden

Franc

e

Hunga

ry

Irela

nd

Switzer

land

OECD ave

rage

-26

New Z

eala

nd

Czech

Rep

ublic

Unite

d Sta

tes

Belgi

umKor

eaChi

le

Icela

nd

Germ

any

Portu

gal

Polan

d0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

PISA 2009 PISA 2000 Change 2000-2009

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Pe

rcen

tag

e p

oin

ts cha

ng

e 2

00

0-2

00

9

51

More innovative teaching practices?D

en

ma

rk

No

rwa

y

Ice

lan

d

Ma

lays

ia

Tu

rke

y

Po

lan

d

Me

xico

Bra

zil

Au

stri

a

Au

stra

lia

Ko

rea

Slo

vak

Re

pu

blic

Est

on

ia

Sp

ain

Slo

ven

ia

Be

lgiu

m (

Fl.)

Lith

ua

nia

Po

rtu

ga

l

Italy

Bu

lga

ria

Ma

lta

Hu

ng

ary

Ire

lan

d

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Structuring teaching practices Student-oriented teaching practices Enhanced teaching activities

Ipsa

tive

mean

s

Pedagogies for innovation skills

appl

icat

ion

hands

-on

inte

ract

ion

inve

stig

atio

n

-0.15

-0.1

-0.0500000000000002

-2.22044604925031E-16

0.0499999999999998

0.0999999999999998

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

4 8

1

-1-2 -2

-10

Science score

appl

icat

ion

hands

-on

inte

ract

ion

inve

stig

atio

n

-0.15

-0.1

-0.0500000000000002

-2.22044604925031E-16

0.0499999999999998

0.0999999999999998

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

20

3 60

-2-1 -1

Interest in Science Top-ics

52

Pedagogies for innovation skills

appl

icat

ion

hands

-on

inte

ract

ion

inve

stig

atio

n

-0.15

-0.1

-0.0500000000000002

-2.22044604925031E-16

0.0499999999999998

0.0999999999999998

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

26

1

11

20

-1

0

-3

Science Enjoyment

appl

icat

ion

hands

-on

inte

ract

ion

inve

stig

atio

n

-0.15

-0.1

-0.0500000000000002

-2.22044604925031E-16

0.0499999999999998

0.0999999999999998

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

15

4 5 4

Science Self-Efficacy

53

UNDERSTANDING EDUCATIONAL INNOVATION

6.

54

55

Further work

• CERI publications on skills for innovation and innovation in education in 2012-13

• CERI publication on innovative learning environments: analysis of innovative cases

• CERI/NSF publication on learning research and implications for innovation in education

• Analytical work on innovative teaching practices in science and math

• Etc.

56

Innovation for 21st C education

• Many of the emerging and developing countries focus exclusively on traditional cognitive learning outcomes

• How to integrate 21st skills and innovative pedagogies into the educational development agenda?

• An ecology of innovation will require visionary leadership, better research evidence, more knowledge-intensive professionalisation, strong communities of practice and open institutions

Thank you !

dirk.vandamme@oecd.orgwww.oecd.org/edu/ceri

57