TALIS 2013 Results: An International Perspective on Teaching and Learning

1
TALIS 2013 Results
An international perspective
on teaching and learning

Mean mathematics performance, by school location,
after accounting for socio-economic status
Fig II.3.3
22 TALIS in Brief
…representing more than 4 million teachers in 34 countries…
Over 100 thousand randomly selected lower secondary
teachers and their school leaders from over 6500 schools
…took an internationally-agreed survey about the working
conditions and learning environments in their schools…
…responding to questions about their background, their teaching
practices, support and development, their relationships with
colleagues and students and the leadership in their schools

Developing Teaching
as a profession
Recruit top candidates
into the profession
Support teachers in
continued
development of
practice
Retain and recognise
effective teachers –
path for growth
Improve the societal
view of teaching as
a profession
Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after acc
ounting for socio-economic status33 TALIS seeks to help with …

Overview of TALIS
The Learning Environment:
Characteristics of Teachers and Schools
The Importance of School
Leadership
Developing and
Supporting Teachers
Improving Teaching
Using Appraisal and
Feedback
Examining Teacher Practices and
Classroom Environment
Teacher Self-Efficacy and Job
Satisfaction: Why they Matter

41%
22%
15%
11%
7%
4%
36%
24%
16%
14%
6%
4%
Spain
Admin/leadership
Curriculum/teaching
Students
Parents/guardians
Community
Other
Average proportion of time lower secondary principals report spending on the following activities throughout the school year
Principals’ working time6
Average

Poland
Serbia
Croatia
Spain
Portugal
SlovakRepublic
England(UK)
Israel
Australia
CzechRepublic
France
Finland
Norway
Flanders(Belgium)
Italy
Average
Bulgaria
Latvia
Romania
Brazil
Denmark
Estonia
Mexico
Sweden
Netherlands
Chile
Singapore
Iceland
Alberta(Canada)
AbuDhabi(UAE)
Korea
Japan
Malaysia
UnitedStates
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Instructional leadership training or course School administration or principal training programme or course
Teacher training/education programme or course
ounting for socio-economic status
Fig II.3.3
77 Elements not included in principals' formal education
Percentage of lower secondary principals whose formal education did not include:

Developing and
Supporting
Teachers

Fig II.3.3
99
Not everywhere where induction programmes are
accessible do teachers use them
Percentage of lower secondary teachers with less than 3 years experience at their school and as a teacher, who are working in schools with the
following reported access to formal induction programmes, and their reported participation in such programmes
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Iceland
Finland
Serbia
Japan
SlovakRepublic
Netherlands
Norway
Alberta(Canada)
Flanders(Belgium)
Australia
UnitedStates
Croatia
Korea
Average
Chile
Israel
Malaysia
England(UnitedKingdom)
Romania
CzechRepublic
Singapore
Access Participation
%

Netherlands
Romania
Slovak Republic
Bulgaria
Iceland
Brazil
Czech Republic
England (United Kingdom)
Australia
Alberta (Canada)
Latvia
Portugal
Korea
Average
Estonia
Spain
Abu Dhabi (UAE)
Croatia
Poland
Mexico
Chile Norway
Finland
Denmark
France
Flanders (Belgium)
ItalySweden
Singapore
Malaysia
Serbia
Israel
Japan
United States
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Percentageofteachersworkinginschoolswherethe
principalreportsthatmentoringprogrammesare
availableforallteachersintheschool
Percentage of teachers who report presently having
an assigned mentor to support them
Fig II.3.3
1010
Not everywhere where principals say mentoring is available
do teachers have mentors

Fig II.3.3
1111 Teachers' needs for professional development
Percentage of lower secondary teachers indicating they have a high level of need for professional development in the
following areas
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Knowledge of the curriculum
Knowledge of the subject field(s)
School management and administration
Pedagogical competencies
Developing competencies for future work
Teaching cross-curricular skills
Student evaluation and assessment practice
Student career guidance and counselling
Approaches to individualised learning
Teaching in a multicultural or multilingual setting
Student behaviour and classroom management
New technologies in the workplace
ICT skills for teaching
Teaching students with special needs
United States Average

Fig II.3.3
1212 Barriers to professional development participation
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who "agree" or "strongly agree" that the following elements represent barriers
to their participation in professional development activities
0 20 40 60 80 100
Do not have the pre-requisites (e.g., qualifications, experience,
seniority)
There is a lack of employer support
Lack of time due to family responsibilities
There is no relevant professional development offered
Professional development is too expensive/unaffordable
There are no incentives for participating in such activities
Professional development conflicts with my work schedule

Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after
accounting for socio-economic status
Fig II.3.3
1313
Professional development recently undertaken by
teachers by type and intensity
Percentage of teachers who participated in the
following professional development activities in the
12 months prior to the survey
Average number of days
of participation among
those who participated
Courses/workshops 8
Education conferences or seminars where teachers and/or
researchers present their research results and discuss
educational issues
4
Observation visits to other schools 3
In-service training courses in business premises, public
organisations or non-governmental organisations
7
Observation visits to business premises, public
organisations or non-governmental organisations
3
Participation in a network of teachers formed specifically
for the professional development of teachers
Individual or collaborative research on a topic of interest to
the teacher
Mentoring and/or peer observation and coaching,
as part of a formal school arrangement
Qualification programme (e.g., a degree programme)
71%
44%
19%
14%
13%
37%
31%
29%
18%

Fig II.3.3
1414
Participation in professional development and level
of support received by teachers
Australia
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Iceland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Latvia
Malaysia
Mexico
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Serbia
Singapore
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Abu Dhabi (United Arab Emirates)
Alberta (Canada)
England (United Kingdom)
Flanders (Belgium)
Average
United States
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Percentageofteacherswhohadtopayfornoneofthe
professionaldevelopmentactivitiesundertaken
Percentage of teachers who undertook some professional development activities in the 12 months prior to
the survey

Fig II.3.3
1515 Impact of professional development
…the professional development
in which they have participated
has had a positive impact on
their teaching.
Regardless of the
content, over 3/4 of
teachers report that…

Improving
Teaching Using
Appraisal and
Feedback

Fig II.3.3
1717 Teachers and feedback
On average across TALIS countries,
...and only one in 5 receive
feedback from
three sources.
Just above half of the teachers
report receiving feedback on
their teaching from
one or two sources

Fig II.3.3
1818 Emphasis placed on feedback
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who report the feedback they received emphasised the following
issues with a "moderate" or "high importance"
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Studentperformance
Behaviourmanagement
Pedagogicalcompetency
Subjectknowledge
Assessmentpractices
Teamwork
Studentfeedback
Feedbackfromparents
Teachingspecialneedsstudents
Feedbacktootherteachers
Multilingualsettings
Average United States

Feedback following classroom
observation
%
Feedback following assessment of
teachers' content knowledge
%
Feedback following analysis of
student test scores
%
External individuals or
bodies
16 11 9
School principal 39 20 24
Member(s) of school
management team
32 20 27
Assigned mentors 12 9 7
Other teachers
(not a part of the
management team)
24 15 18
I have never received
this feedback in this
school.
21 44 35
Fig II.3.3
1919 Where feedback comes from

Fig II.3.3
2020
Teachers feedback :
direct classroom observations
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bulgaria
Poland
UnitedStates
Romania
Alberta(Canada)
Croatia
CzechRepublic
AbuDhabi(UAE)
Flanders(Belgium)
Serbia
SlovakRepublic
Japan
Israel
Average
Singapore
Latvia
Brazil
Mexico
Malaysia
Sweden
Estonia
England(UK)
Norway
Finland
Portugal
Denmark
Korea
Chile
Italy
Netherlands
France
Spain
Iceland
Australia
Percentageofteachers
Principals School Management Other teachers

Fig II.3.3
2121
Teachers feedback :
analysis of students' test scores
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Romania
Bulgaria
Poland
AbuDhabi(UAE)
UnitedStates
Alberta(Canada)
Mexico
Israel
Brazil
CzechRepublic
France
Serbia
SlovakRepublic
Latvia
Average
Norway
Malaysia
Flanders(Belgium)
Estonia
Denmark
Croatia
Portugal
Japan
Chile
England(UK)
Sweden
Italy
Singapore
Korea
Spain
Australia
Netherlands
Iceland
Finland

Fig II.3.3
2222
Teachers feedback :
assessment of teacher content knowledge
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bulgaria
Poland
Romania
AbuDhabi(UAE)
UnitedStates
SlovakRepublic
Serbia
CzechRepublic
Alberta(Canada)
Israel
Latvia
Estonia
Brazil
Flanders(Belgium)
Mexico
Japan
Average
Malaysia
Chile
Norway
Singapore
Finland
Portugal
Denmark
Sweden
Italy
Korea
Iceland
Netherlands
England(UK)
France
Spain
Australia

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Iceland
Finland
Sweden
Flanders(Belgium)
France
Italy
Denmark
Netherlands
Norway
Spain
Australia
Croatia
Alberta(Canada)
UnitedStates
Japan
Portugal
Average
Israel
England(UK)
Chile
Estonia
Serbia
CzechRepublic
SlovakRepublic
Mexico
Singapore
Brazil
Korea
Poland
AbuDhabi(UAE)
Bulgaria
Romania
Latvia
Malaysia
Analysis of students' test scores Direct classroom observation Assessment of content knowledge
Fig II.3.3
2323
Teachers feedback :
never received

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Malaysia
Singapore
Poland
Bulgaria
Latvia
Romania
CzechRepublic
Chile
AbuDhabi(UAE)
Korea
SlovakRepublic
Estonia
UnitedStates
England(UK)
Average
Japan
Sweden
Mexico
Australia
Italy
Serbia
Alberta(Canada)
Israel
Croatia
Finland
Netherlands
Denmark
Brazil
Portugal
Iceland
Spain
Flanders(Belgium)
Norway
France
The best performing teachers in this school receive the greatest recognition
Teacher appraisal and feedback have little impact upon the way teachers teach in the classroom
Teacher appraisal and feedback are largely done to fulfil administrative requirements
Fig II.3.3
2424 Impact of teacher appraisal and feedback systems in schools
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who "agree" or "strongly agree" that :

Fig II.3.3
2525 Consequences of feedback
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who "agree" or "strongly agree" that:
0 20 40 60 80
If a teacher is consistently underperforming, he/she would be
dismissed
The best performing teachers in this school receive the greatest
recognition
Teacher appraisal and feedback have little impact upon the way
teachers teach in the classroom
A mentor is appointed to help teachers improve his/her teaching
A development or training plan is established to improve their
work as a teacher

Fig II.3.3
2626 Feedback and change in behavior
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who report a "moderate" or "large" positive change in the following
issues after they received feedback on their work
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Confidenceasateacher
Motivation
Jobsatisfaction
Knowledgeandunderstandingofmain
subjectfield(s)
Teachingpractices
Studentassessmentstoimprovestudent
learning
Classroommanagementpractices
Methodsforteachingstudentswithspecial
needs
Publicrecognition
Jobresponsibilities
Roleinschooldevelopmentinitiatives
Amountofprofessionaldevelopment
Likelihoodofcareeradvancement
Salaryand/orfinancialbonus
Personal Pedagogical Professional

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
England (UK)
Finland
Australia
Flanders
Netherlands
Iceland
United States
Norway
Sweden
Alberta
(Canada)
Spain
Portugal
France
Denmark
Czech Republic
Estonia
LatviaAverage
Croatia
Singapore
Korea
Israel
Serbia
Slovak Republic
Poland
Abu Dhabi
(UAE)
Japan
Brazil
Bulgaria
Romania
Mexico
Chile
Malaysia
Confidence as a teacher
Motivation
Job satisfaction
Knowledge and
understanding of main
subject field(s)
Fig II.3.3
2727 Outcomes of teacher feedback - Personal

Fig II.3.3
2828 Outcomes of teacher feedback - Pedagogical
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
England (UK)
Finland
Australia
Flanders
Netherlands
Iceland
United States
Norway
Sweden
Alberta
(Canada)
Spain
Portugal
France
Denmark
Czech Republic
Estonia
LatviaAverage
Croatia
Singapore
Korea
Israel
Serbia
Slovak Republic
Poland
Abu Dhabi
(UAE)
Japan
Brazil
Bulgaria
Romania
Mexico
Chile
Malaysia
Teaching practices
Student assessments to
improve student learning
Classroom management
practices
Methods for teaching
students with special needs

Fig II.3.3
2929 Outcomes of teacher feedback - Professional
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
England (UK)
Finland
Australia
Flanders
Netherlands
Iceland
United States
Norway
Sweden
Alberta
(Canada)
Spain
Portugal
France
Denmark
Czech Republic
Estonia
LatviaAverage
Croatia
Singapore
Korea
Israel
Serbia
Slovak Republic
Poland
Abu Dhabi
(UAE)
Japan
Brazil
Bulgaria
Romania
Mexico
Chile
Malaysia
Public recognition
Job responsibilities
Role in school development
initiatives
Amount of professional
development
Likelihood of career
advancement

Teacher Practices
and Classroom
Environment

8%
13%
79%
7%
13%
80%
United
States
Administrative tasks
Keeping order in the
classroom
Actual teaching and
learning
Average proportion of time lower secondary teachers report spending on each of these activities in an average lesson
Distribution of class time31
Average

Fig II.3.3
3232 What teachers do beyond teaching
Average number of 60-minute hours teachers report spending on the following tasks in an average week
Finland Malaysia
Abu Dhabi (United Arab Emirates)Flanders (Belgium)
IsraelItaly Malaysia
JapanMalaysiaSweden
Finland Korea
Finland Malaysia
Finland Korea
Finland Malaysia PortugalSingapore
CroatiaFinland Japan
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Number of hours
School management
Communication with parents
All other tasks
Extracurricular activities
Student counselling
Team work
Administrative work
Marking
Planning

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100 Discussindividual
students
Shareresources
Teamconferences
Collaborateforcommon
standards
Teamteaching
CollaborativePD
Jointactivities
Classroomobservations
Professional collaboration
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who report doing the following activities at least once per month
Teacher co-operation33
Exchange and co-ordination

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Spain
Iceland
France
Brazil
Flanders(Belgium)
Portugal
Finland
Croatia
Italy
Israel
Sweden
Mexico
Chile
Alberta(Canada)
UnitedStates
Norway
Denmark
Average
Australia
Malaysia
CzechRepublic
Bulgaria
Estonia
Netherlands
Serbia
SlovakRepublic
AbuDhabi(UAE)
Singapore
England(UK)
Poland
Romania
Latvia
Japan
Korea
Never observe other
teachers' classes and
provide feedback
Never teach jointly as a
team in the same class
Never engage in joint
activities across different
classes and age groups
(e.g. projects)
Never take part in
collaborative professional
learning
Fig II.3.3
3434 Teacher co-operation: Professional collaboration
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who report never doing the following activities

Fig II.3.3
3535 Teacher co-operation: Exchange and co-ordination
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who report never doing the following activities
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Spain
Iceland
France
Brazil
Flanders(Belgium)
Portugal
Finland
Croatia
Italy
Israel
Sweden
Mexico
Chile
Alberta(Canada)
UnitedStates
Norway
Denmark
Average
Australia
Malaysia
CzechRepublic
Bulgaria
Estonia
Netherlands
Serbia
SlovakRepublic
AbuDhabi(United…
Singapore
England(United…
Poland
Romania
Latvia
Japan
Korea
Never engage in
discussions about the
learning development of
specific students
Never exchange teaching
materials with colleagues
Never work with other
teachers in my school to
ensure common standards
in evaluations for assessing
student progress
Never attend team
conferences

Fig II.3.3
3636 Teachers' beliefs about teaching and learning
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who "agree" or "strongly agree" that:
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Students learn best by finding solutions to problems on their
own
Thinking and reasoning processes are more important than
specific curriculum content
Students should be allowed to think of solutions to practical
problems themselves before the teacher shows them how they
are solved
My role as a teacher is to facilitate students' own inquiry

Fig II.3.3
3737 Teaching practices
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who report using the following teaching practices "frequently" or "in all or nearly
all lessons"
0 20 40 60 80 100
Students work on projects that require at least one week to
complete
Students use ICT for projects or class work
Give different work to the students who have difficulties
learning and/or to those who can advance faster
Students work in small groups to come up with a joint
solution to a problem or task
Let students practice similar tasks until teacher knows that
every student has understood the subject matter
Refer to a problem from everyday life or work to demonstrate
why new knowledge is useful
Check students' exercise books or homework
Present a summary of recently learned content

Fig II.3.3
3838 Teaching practices by country
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who report using the following teaching practices "frequently" or
"in all or nearly all lessons"
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
AbuDhabi(UnitedArabEmirates)
Mexico
Chile
Norway
Denmark
Australia
Alberta(Canada)
UnitedStates
Brazil
England(UnitedKingdom)
Sweden
Malaysia
Average
Netherlands
SlovakRepublic
Portugal
Romania
Bulgaria
Iceland
Spain
Poland
Italy
Latvia
Singapore
CzechRepublic
France
Estonia
Flanders(Belgium)
Serbia
Israel
Korea
Finland
Croatia
Japan
Students work in small groups to come up with a joint solution to a problem or task
Students work on projects that require at least one week to complete
Students use ICT for projects or class work
Cumulative percentage
of the three teaching
practices is above 150%

Fig II.3.3
3939 Teachers' use of student assessment practices
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who report using the following methods of assessing student learning
"frequently" or "in all or nearly all lessons"
0 20 40 60 80 100
Let students evaluate their own progress
Administer a standardised test
Individual students answer questions in front of the class
Provide written feedback on student work in addition to a
mark
Develop and administer own assessment
Observe students when working on particular tasks and
provide immediate feedback

Percentage of lower secondary teachers who report using the following methods of assessing student
learning "frequently" or "in all or nearly all lessons"
Fig II.3.3
4040 Reported use of methods of assessing student learning
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Latvia
Japan
Korea
Finland
Slovak Republic
Czech Republic
Romania
Estonia
Poland
Netherlands
Serbia
Iceland
Bulgaria
Italy
Sweden
Denmark
FlandersBrazil
Malaysia
Israel
Chile
Croatia
United States
Alberta
(Canada)
Spain
Singapore
Mexico
France
Norway
Australia
Portugal
England (UK)
Abu Dhabi
Develop and administer own
assessment
Administer a standardised test
Provide written feedback on
student work in addition to a
mark, i.e. Numeric score or
letter grade
Observe students when
working on particular tasks and
provide immediate feedback

Teacher Self-
Efficacy and Job
Satisfaction

Fig II.3.3
4242
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who "agree" or "strongly agree" with the following statements
84
90
91
85
91
89
0 20 40 60 80 100
I would recommend my school as a
good place to work
I enjoy working at this school
All in all, I am satisfied with my job
Teachers' satisfaction with their working environment

Fig II.3.3
4343 Teachers' satisfaction with their profession
78
77
84
87
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
If I could decide again, I would still choose to work
as a teacher
The advantages of being a teacher clearly outweigh
the disadvantages

Fig II.3.3
4444 Teachers' satisfaction with their profession
9
32
6
34
0 20 40 60 80 100
I regret that I decided to become a teacher
I wonder whether it would have been better to choose
another profession

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Malaysia
Singapore
Korea
AbuDhabi(UAE)
Finland
Mexico
Alberta(Canada)
Flanders(Belgium)
Netherlands
Australia
England(UK)
Romania
Israel
UnitedStates
Chile
Average
Norway
Japan
Latvia
Serbia
Bulgaria
Denmark
Poland
Iceland
Estonia
Brazil
Italy
CzechRepublic
Portugal
Croatia
Spain
Sweden
France
SlovakRepublic
Percentageofteachers Mean mathematics performance, by school location,
Fig II.3.3
4545 Teachers' perceptions of the value of teaching
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who "agree" or "strongly agree" that teaching profession is a valued profession
in society
Above-average performers in PISA

Fig II.3.3
4646
Countries where teachers believe their profession is valued
show higher levels of student achievement
Relationship between lower secondary teachers' views on the value of their profession in society and the country’s
share of top mathematics performers in PISA 2012
Australia
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Iceland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Latvia
Mexico
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Serbia
Singapore
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Alberta (Canada)
England (UK)
Flanders (Belgium)
United States
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Shareofmathematicstopperformers
Percentage of teachers who agree that teaching is valued in society
R2 = 0.24 r= 0.49

Fig II.3.3
4747
Countries where teachers believe their profession is valued
show higher levels of student achievement
Relationship between lower secondary teachers' views on the value of their profession in society and the country
mean score in mathematics in PISA 2012
Australia
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France Iceland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Latvia
Mexico
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Serbia
Singapore
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Alberta (Canada)
England (UK)
Flanders (Belgium)
United States
380
390
400
410
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
490
500
510
520
530
540
550
560
570
580
590
600
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Mathematicsmeanscore
R2 = 0.15 r= 0.38

Fig II.3.3
4848
Relationship between the value of the teaching profession
and the share of low mathematics performers
Relationship between lower secondary teachers' views on the value of their profession in society and the country’s
share of low mathematics performers in PISA 2012
Australia
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Iceland
Israel
Italy
Japan Korea
Latvia
Mexico
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Serbia
Singapore
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Alberta (Canada)
England (UK)
Flanders (Belgium)
United States
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Shareofmathematicslowperformers
R2 = 0.06 r= 0.23

Fig II.3.3
4949 Value of teaching and job satisfaction
Australia
Brazil
Bulgaria Chile
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Iceland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Latvia
Malaysia
Mexico
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Serbia
Singapore
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Abu Dhabi (UAE)
Alberta (Canada)
England (UK)
Flanders (Belgium)
Average
United States
80
82
84
86
88
90
92
94
96
98
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Allinall,Iamsatisfiedwithmyjob
I think that the teaching profession is valued in society

Fig II.3.3
5050 Drivers of job satisfaction
The more frequently that
teachers report participating
in collaborative practices
with their colleagues,
the higher their level of
self-efficacy.
The same is true
for job satisfaction.

Fig II.3.3
5151
Behavioral issues equate to lower job satisfaction,
class size doesn’t
Teachers' job satisfaction level following the number of students in the classroom in relation to the percentage of
students with behavioural problems
10.0
10.5
11.0
11.5
12.0
12.5
13.0
15orless
16-20
21-25
26-30
31-35
36ormore
Teacherjobsatisfaction(level)
Class size (number of students)
10.0
10.5
11.0
11.5
12.0
12.5
13.0
None
1%to10%
11%to30%
31%ormore
Students with behavioural problems

Fig II.3.3
5252 Teachers' job satisfaction and experience
Teachers' job satisfaction level in lower secondary according to their total years of teaching experience
11.2
11.4
11.6
11.8
12.0
12.2
12.4
12.6
12.8
5orless
6-10
11-15
16-20
21-25
26-30
31ormore
Years of experience as a teacher in total

Fig II.3.3
5353 Teachers' self-efficacy and experience
Teachers' self-efficacy level in lower secondary according to their total years of teaching experience
11.6
11.8
12.0
12.2
12.4
12.6
12.8
13.0
13.2
5orless
6-10
11-15
16-20
21-25
26-30
31ormore
Teacherself-efficacy(level)
Years of experience as a teacher in total

TALIS
is a partnership
between
Fig II.3.3
5454 TALIS in Brief
an international
research
consortium
OECD
Governments
in 34 countries
European
Commission
Teachers’ unions
Find out more about TALIS at www.oecd.org/talis
• All national and international publications
• The complete micro-level database
Email: TALIS@OECD.org
Twitter: @Kristen_TALIS

TALIS 2013 Results: An International Perspective on Teaching and Learning

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Destaque

Destaque (8)

Semelhante a TALIS 2013 Results: An International Perspective on Teaching and Learning

Semelhante a TALIS 2013 Results: An International Perspective on Teaching and Learning (20)

Mais de EduSkills OECD

Mais de EduSkills OECD (20)

Último

Último (20)

TALIS 2013 Results: An International Perspective on Teaching and Learning

Notas do Editor