This chapter examines students' interactions with their parents at home and teachers in school, and how these relate to their use of sustained learning strategies. It also explores how certain types of interactions can particularly encourage low-performing students to use these learning strategies.
PISA 2022 Results (Volume V)
Learning Strategies and Attitudes for Life
PISA
Abstract
For Australia*, Canada*, Denmark*, Hong Kong (China)*, Ireland*, Jamaica*, Latvia*, the Netherlands*, New Zealand*, Panama*, the United Kingdom* and the United States*, caution is advised when interpreting estimates because one or more PISA sampling standards were not met (see Reader’s Guide, Annexes A2 and A4).
Lifelong learning is a dynamic, multifaceted and continuous process whereby a person acquires skills and knowledge throughout their life (UNESCO, 2021[1]; OECD, 2021[2]). It extends beyond the traditional educational stages and settings, and cannot be confined to a single, specific phase of life or context. (OECD, 2019[3]; UNESCO, 2006[4]). Supportive environments in and out of the classroom can shape students’ attitudes towards learning, and their motivations and willingness to try new ways to learn better.
Alongside teachers, parents play a key role in furthering (or, not) children’s cognitive abilities, and their disposition towards learning (Fan and Chen, 2001[5]; Bornstein, 2019[6]; Skinner, Johnson and Snyder, 2005[7]; OECD, 2012[8]; OECD, 2023[9]; Borgonovi and Montt, 2012[10]).
This section looks at how student-parent interactions at home and student-teacher interactions in school relate to students’ use of strategies for sustained lifelong learning and students’ motivations (see Chapter 1). It also emphasises how certain interactions particularly help low-performing students (students who perform below Level 2 in mathematics; see Box V.2.1 in Chapter 2 for definitions).
Fifteen-year-olds who interact with their parents on an ordinary, everyday basis and in conversations about learning and school, employ more sustained learning strategies. They are more proactive in mathematics learning, more meticulous about their schoolwork and stronger in critical thinking. Interacting more frequently with parents is also associated with students' motivation to learn.
Students whose teachers are often supportive are more proactive in learning mathematics. They use critical-thinking skills more and take control of their learning. They also reported more exposure to problem-solving and cognitive activation practices. Students who receive teacher support more often also show motivation to learn.
Low performers benefit the most from parental interactions and teacher support. Low-performing students who experience any form of parental interaction more frequently use learning strategies more than those who have less parental interaction in most countries and economies. Additionally, low performers who receive teacher support often are more proactive in learning mathematics and use critical-thinking skills more than their peers who receive less.
PISA 2022 asked 15-year-old students how often their parents (or other family members) do different activities with them. These activities break down into three forms of parental interactions:
Daily routine activities such as eating meals together and spending time talking.
Learning-oriented conversations around how well students are doing at school, encouragement to get good marks, interest in what students are learning, etc.
Future-oriented conversations about education or the importance of completing secondary schooling (see Figure V.5.1).
Percentage of students reporting their parents or someone in their family do the following with them, at least once a week; OECD average
For each category, items are ranked in ascending order of the percentage of students at the OECD average.
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 Database, Table V.B1.5.1. See Table V.5.1 for StatLink at the end of this chapter.
Students who interact often with their parents employ more sustained learning strategies
They are more proactive in mathematics learning
PISA 2022 data show that students whose parents generally interact more frequently with them have higher levels of proactive learning attitudes towards mathematics1 than those whose parents interact less (see Figure V.5.2b [available online]). This is true even after accounting for students’ and schools’ socio-economic profile. Learning-focused conversations (e.g. what students are learning, what problems they may be facing, their relationships with other students) show the strongest associations with students’ proactive mathematics behaviours and is positive across all countries and economies – Albania, Cambodia, Paraguay, the Philippines and the United Arab Emirates show the strongest relationships (Table V.B1.5.3).
Parental future-oriented discussions are more weakly associated with students’ proactive mathematics learning but the relationships are still positive. Students whose parents talk to them about their educational future have weaker proactive learning attitudes towards mathematics than those whose parents just spend time talking with them or take an interest in what their children are learning. This holds across most countries and economies (see Figure V.5.2). These results suggest that students whose parents simply show interest in their learning are more actively engaged in their own learning. Moreover, students who have ordinary everyday interactions with their parents (e.g. eating meals together) are more likely to be proactive in learning mathematics than those who do not. These relationships hold true even after accounting for students' and schools’ socio-economic profile (Tables V.B1.5.2 and V.B1.5.3).
Difference in the mean index of proactive mathematics study behaviour between students interacting more frequently with their parents (once a week to almost everyday) and those interacting less frequently (never to once a month)
Notes: All differences are statistically significant (see Annex A3).
Only countries and economies with available data are shown.
Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the difference in mean index of proactive mathematics study behaviour for students whose parents spend time just talking to them.
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 Database, Table V.B1.5.2. See Table V.5.1 for StatLink at the end of this chapter.
They are more meticulous about their schoolwork
Students whose parents frequently interact with them are more meticulous about their learning (e.g. more careful about their schoolwork and careful not to make mistakes). An average of at least 45% of students in OECD countries who reported more frequent parental interaction carefully check their homework before turning it in. This is 9 to 14 percentage points higher than students with fewer parental interactions (see Figure V.5.3). This variation was observed in nearly all countries and economies, and to some extent, depending on the type of interactions. Students whose parents spend more time in daily routine activities or learning-focused conversations with them are more meticulous, even after accounting for students’ and schools’ socio-economic profile. For example, in Albania and Ireland*, the percentage of students carefully checking their homework before turning it in is more than 15 percentage points higher among students whose parents interact with them in these ways (see Figure V.5.3b [available online]). However, in about half of countries and economies with available data, students are equally meticulous in their schoolwork (e.g. careful not to make mistakes) when their interactions with their parents take the form of conversations about future-oriented learning, even after accounting for students’ and schools’ socio-economic profile (Figure V.5.3b [available online], Tables V.B1.5.7, V.B1.5.9, V.B1.5.10 and V.B1.5.12).
Percentage of students agreeing or strongly agreeing that they carefully check homework before turning it in; OECD average
Note: All differences between students interacting at least once a week with their parents and those interacting at the most twice a month are statistically significant (see Annex A3).
For each category, items are ranked in ascending order of the percentage of students for students interacting at least once a week with their parents.
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 Database, Table V.B1.5.10. See Table V.5.1 for StatLink at the end of this chapter.
They are stronger in critical thinking
Parental interactions are also positively associated with students’ critical thinking (perspective-taking). Approximately 60% of students whose parents generally interact with them often try to consider everybody’s perspective before taking a position and can view almost all things from different angles. Around 50% of students with less frequent parental interactions show these critical-thinking skills, on average across OECD countries (see Figure V.5.4). Students who have more frequent daily routine interactions with their parents employ critical-thinking skills more in most countries and economies, even after accounting for students’ and schools’ socio-economic profile. Those who have more frequent learning-oriented and future-oriented conversations with their parents show this variation too but to a lesser extent compared to daily routine interactions. This suggests that daily routine interactions with parents help cultivate students’ critical-thinking skills (Tables V.B1.5.22, V.B1.5.24, V.B1.5.25 and V.B1.5.27). PISA 2022 also explores other forms of parental interactions, such as discussions about political or social issues. These are associated with the use of critical-thinking skills and other learning strategies, and motivation to learn (see Box V.5.1).
Percentage of students agreeing or strongly agreeing they try to consider everybody's perspective before taking a position; OECD average
Note: All differences between students interacting at least once a week with their parents and those interacting at the most twice a month are statistically significant (see Annex A3).
For each category, items are ranked in ascending order of the percentage of students interacting about once or twice a week with their parents when considering everybody's perspective before taking a position.
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 Database, Table V.B1.5.22. See Table V.5.1 for StatLink at the end of this chapter.
PISA 2022 examines additional forms of parental interaction such as engaging in discussions on political or social issues and nurturing a social connection between children and parents.1
Students whose parents talk about political or social issues with them are more engaged in critical thinking (perspective-taking)2 than students whose parents do this less. This was observed in a majority of countries and economies with available data, particularly in Belgium, Brazil, Ireland* and Portugal, even after accounting for students' and schools’ socio-economic profile (Table V.B1.5.119).
Students show higher levels of proactiveness in mathematics study behaviours when they feel more connected to their parents (e.g. students feel their parents encourage them to make their own decisions; feel their parents show that they care; etc.). For example, in the United Arab Emirates, more than 80% of students who reported feeling this way about their parents pay more attention when their mathematics teacher is speaking compared to around 60% of their less-supported peers. In New Zealand*, around 80% of students whose parents help them as much as they need reported putting effort into their assignments more frequently. This is 20 percentage points more than students whose parents help them less often (Tables V.B1.5.114, V.B1.5.115 and V.B1.5.116).
These two forms of parental interaction are also associated with students’ motivation to learn. Students whose parents reported discussing political and social issues more frequently like to ask questions, love learning new things in school and like developing hypotheses and checking them based on what they observe more than their counterparts, even after accounting for students’ and schools’ socio-economic profile. In Belgium, Croatia, Ireland* and Latvia*, 50% of students whose parents talk about political or social issues love learning new things in school. This is around 8 percentage points more than for their counterparts whose parents discuss issues less frequently with them. On the other hand, in Colombia, the Dominican Republic and Panama*, around 80% of students love learning new things regardless of whether their parents discuss political or social issues with them (Table V.B1.5.118).
Students who reported feeling more connected to their parents want to do well in mathematics class more than their counterparts. In Slovenia and the United Arab Emirates, the share of students motivated in this way is around 10 percentage points more for students who feel more connected, even after accounting for students’ and schools’ socio-economic profile (Tables V.B1.5.119 and V.B1.5.117).
While causality cannot be attributed to these PISA results, they highlight various ways in which parents can potentially support their children’s use of sustainable learning strategies and motivation towards learning.
Note: Data from the well-being questionnaire are available for 13 countries and economies, and 16 countries and economies for the parental questionnaire.
1. The index of social connection to parents (SOCONPA) is based on students’ ratings of how often their parents or guardians engaged in a range of behaviours (e.g. “Help me as much as I need”, “Let me do the things I like doing”) in question WB163. For further information please refer to the PISA 2022 Technical Report, Chapter 19.
2. Students who report to agree/strongly agree they consider everybody’s perspective before taking a position, or students who report to agree/strongly agree they can view almost all things from different angles.
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 Database, Tables V.B1.5.113 - V.B1.5.119.
Parental interactions are especially supportive of low performers using learning strategies
Among low performers, there is a large and significant gap in the use of learning strategies between students who interact more often with their parents and those who do less in most countries and economies. For all forms of parental interaction (daily routine activities; learning-oriented conversations around how well students are doing at school; and future-oriented conversations about education), low performers show a greater use of learning strategies when they interact more often with their parents than their peers who do less. However, this gap is mostly non-significant among skilled performers (students who perform at Level 3 or above in mathematics) across most countries and economies. This suggests that students who have the potential to be skilled performers take up learning strategies regardless of parental interactions (see Chapter 2).
The gaps in the aforementioned learning strategies are particularly telling. The share of low-performing students who reported more proactiveness in learning mathematics (e.g. allocating more time to learn materials for mathematics class; asking questions when they do not understand; and connecting new content to previously learned mathematics lessons) is larger among students who interact more with their parents (regardless of the form of interaction) than those who do so less frequently in almost all countries and economies. For example, in Albania, the difference in the percentage of low-performing students is greater than 20 percentage points between students whose parents interact more and those whose parents interact less (Figure V.5.5, Tables V.B1.5.14, V.B1.5.17 and V.B1.5.20).
Percentage-point difference among low-performing students responding to whether they try to connect new material to what they have learned in previous mathematics lessons, between those interacting more frequently with their parents (once a week to almost everyday) and those interacting less frequently (never to once a month)
Notes: Percentage-point differences among low performers that are statistically significant are shown in a darker tone (see Annex A3).
Only countries and economies with available data are shown.
Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the change in the percentage of low-performing students when reporting their parents spend time just talking to them.
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 Database, Table V.B1.5.20. See Table V.5.1 for StatLink at the end of this chapter.
Another instance is that low performers are more meticulous when they interact more with their parents, regardless of the form of interaction, in more than half of countries and economies (Tables V.B1.5.8 and V.B1.5.11). Parents’ involvement in their child’s learning plays an important role in students’ learning outcomes (previous PISA analyses highlighted the positive relationship between parental support and mathematics performance (OECD, 2023[9]) and their attitudes towards mathematics. This is especially so for those who have difficulties in mathematics. While causality cannot be attributed to these PISA results, these findings suggest that more frequent interactions with parents encourage low-performing students to take an active role in their learning process. It potentially helps them improve their learning outcomes as well.
Students with supportive families are more motivated to learn
Parental interactions are also related to students’ motivations to learn. PISA 2022 data indicate a positive relationship between greater parental support and increased motivation to learn (both intrinsic and instrumental motivations) in almost all countries and economies, even after accounting for students’ and schools’ socio-economic profile. This is in line with previous research showing that students whose parents are involved in their learning development tend to have a stronger intrinsic motivation to learn (Bong, Hwang and Song, 2010[11]; Ginsburg and Bronstein, 1993[12]).
Students’ intrinsic motivations are stronger when their parents talk with them often about how they are doing at school (around 50% in terms of loving learning new things and around 70% for enjoying new ways to solve problems). Compare this to students whose parents have fewer conversations of this nature with them (around 40% in terms of loving learning new things and around 60% for enjoying new ways to solve problems). These findings are observed in almost all countries and economies, even after accounting for differences in students’ and schools’ socio-economic profile. Another example of students’ intrinsic motivation is their readiness to ask questions. Around 52% of students whose parents spend more time talking to them like to ask questions compared to 41% of students whose parents do so less, on average across OECD countries. This difference is more than 20 percentage points in Albania, Baku (Azerbaijan), Denmark*, the Dominican Republic, Ireland* and Qatar (Tables V.B1.5.34, V.B1.5.36, V.B1.5.37, V.B1.5.39, V.B1.5.43, and V.B1.5.45).
Daily routine activities with parents (e.g. eating meals together; spending time talking) also have a positive relationship with students’ motivations to learn (52% on average across OECD countries) compared to students who reported less of these interactions with their parents (around 40% on average across OECD countries). Future-oriented conversations also show a positive relationship with students’ motivations to learn but with less intensity (Tables V.B1.5.37 and V.B1.5.43).
Students with more frequent parental interactions are more instrumentally motivated, even after accounting for students’ and schools’ socio-economic profile. Around 70% of students agreed that school teaches them things that could be useful in a job compared to around 60% of students who did so less, on average across OECD countries. The difference between students who have more and less parental interaction is greater for daily routine interactions and learning-oriented conversations (between 10 to 14 percentage-point difference, on average across OECD countries) compared to future-oriented conversations (between 6 to 7 percentage-point difference, on average across OECD countries) (Tables V.B1.5.49 and V.B1.5.51).
Besides parental interaction, students’ motivation to learn and use learning strategies can be further supported by other learning resources at home (see Box V.5.2).
Parental interaction helps students enhance their cognitive activation skills and develop problem-solving abilities in school
Talking with parents can stimulate students' intellectual curiosity and learning practices. PISA 2022 data suggest that parents who discuss school activities or progress with their children, and encourage them to learn can reinforce students’ metacognitive skills at school.
Students with more parental interaction2 reported being more exposed to cognitive activation practices3 across all countries and economies, both before and after accounting for students’ and schools’ socio-economic profile (Table V.B1.5.59). Interestingly, low performers with more frequent parental interaction (of all kinds) reported more exposure to cognitive activation practices than skilled performers in most countries and economies (Table V.B1.5.5).
In addition, students with more frequent parental interaction are more engaged in classroom activities and assignments that involve problem-solving than students who interact less, even after accounting for students’ and schools’ socio-economic profile. Learning-oriented interactions with parents encourage students’ engagement in classroom activities that involve problem-solving the most. On average across OECD countries, more than 65% of students whose parents more frequently take an interest in what students are learning at school agreed that activities in class help them think of new ways to solve problems compared to around 55% of their counterparts (Tables V.B1.5.30 and V.B1.5.31).
Digital devices can be a distraction for students, as reported in previous findings of PISA 2022 (OECD, 2023[9]). But, when these are oriented exclusively to learning, they can help students develop positive study behaviours in mathematics.
PISA 2022 data show that students who benefit from technological tools for specific learning purposes, such as having a computer for schoolwork or educational software or applications (see note), are more likely to develop proactiveness and motivation towards learning in mathematics. On average across OECD countries, students are at least 49% more likely to be meticulous with their homework or want to do well in their mathematics class, even after accounting for students’ and schools’ socio-economic profile (Tables V.B1.5.109 and V.B1.5.110).
Students who reported having a computer that can be used for schoolwork show higher levels of proactiveness in mathematics study behaviours in 66 out of 79 countries and economies with available data. These students take time to learn the material for mathematics class, carefully check homework before turning it in and try to connect new material to what they have previously learned. However, after accounting for differences in students’ and schools’ socio-economic profile, this was observed in fewer countries and economies (49 out of 79). This indicates that having a computer at home is related to socio-economic profile (Table B1.5.111).
Nonetheless, educational software and applications help students strengthen positive study behaviours, regardless of socio-economic profile. Students using these resources show higher levels of proactiveness in mathematics in almost all countries and economies. On average across OECD countries, these students are 33% more likely to connect what they are learning to what they know on their own and 56% more likely to check their homework (Tables V.B1.5.110 and V.B1.5.111).
Students are more likely to feel motivated to learn when they use a computer at home for schoolwork or educational software or applications in most countries and economies. On average across OECD countries, those who reported having education software or applications are almost 50% more likely to want to do well in their mathematics class while those who reported having a computer for schoolwork are 73% more likely to do so (Tables V.B1.5.109 and V.B1.5.110).
Although these PISA results do not establish causality, they suggest that a supportive home environment is positively related to favourable learning.
Note: On average, across OECD countries, 92% have a computer (laptop, desktop, or tablet) for schoolwork at home while 75% have education software or application at home.
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 Database, Tables V.B1.5.108 - V.B1.5.112.
In PISA 2022, 15-year-old students were asked how often their teachers support them in their mathematics lessons. Support can take the form of showing an interest in students’ learning, providing help, and teaching until students understand what is being taught (see Figure V.5.6).
Percentage of students reporting the following things happen in their mathematics lessons, most lessons or every lesson; OECD average
Items are ranked in ascending order of the percentage of students at the OECD average.
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 Database, Table V.B1.5.60. See Table V.5.1 for StatLink at the end of this chapter.
Teacher support is key to lifelong learning skills
Students are more proactive in learning mathematics
PISA 2022 data find a strong and positive relationship between student performance and supportive teachers in most countries and economies (OECD, 2023[9]). A similar relationship is observed for every form of support from teachers (whether they show an interest in students’ learning, provide help, or persevere in teaching until students understand what they are teaching) and 15-year-old students’ proactiveness in learning mathematics. This finding is evident across all countries and economies (see Figure V.5.7, Figure V.5.7b [available online] and Figure V.5.8).
Motivating students to become active and autonomous learners is one major concern of educators and teachers. Effective teachers are not just adept at increasing students’ knowledge but provide a supportive learning environment for promoting skills such as critical thinking (Blazar and Kraft, 2017[13]). Helping teachers cultivate lifelong learning skills in students should be a priority for education systems (see Box V.5.3). PISA 2022 results show that students who benefit from more teacher support pay more attention and put more effort into their assignments for mathematics class (around 78% and 67%, respectively; among students who receive teacher support less often, this was around 63% and 53%, respectively, on average across OECD countries). In contrast, students who receive less teacher support give up when they do not understand the learning material and lose interest during mathematics lessons to a greater extent (around 26% and 40%, respectively; among students who receive teacher support more often, this was 18% and 25%, respectively, on average) (Tables V.B1.5.67, V.B1.5.69, V.B1.5.71 and V.B1.5.79)
In all countries and economies, students reporting that they received teacher support more often reported higher levels of proactiveness in learning in mathematics than those reporting less
Notes: All differences are statistically significant (see Annex A3).
Only countries and economies with available data are shown.
Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the difference in the mean index of proactive mathematics study behaviour for students whose teachers give extra help when they need it.
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 Database, Table V.B1.5.61. See Table V.5.1 for StatLink at the end of this chapter.
Percentage of students reporting they do the following at least more than half of the time during their school year when their teachers help them with their learning; OECD average
Note: All differences between students receiving teacher support more frequently and those less frequently are statistically significant (see Annex A3).
Items are ranked in descending order of the percentage of students whose teachers help them with their learning in most or every lesson.
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 Database, Table V.B1.5.73. See Table V.5.1 for StatLink at the end of this chapter.
Teacher-supported students use critical-thinking skills and take control of their learning
Teacher support also relates positively to critical thinking and control of one’s own learning, even after accounting for students’ and schools’ socio-economic profile. Approximately 60% of students who have more support of any kind from their teachers try to consider everybody’s perspective before taking a position and can view almost all things from different angles, on average across OECD countries. Students who try to consider everybody’s perspective reported, on average, more teacher support than students who agreed or strongly agreed that they can view almost all things from different angles. Around 47% of students who reported more teacher support carefully check their homework before turning it in compared to less than 40% of students with less teacher support, on average across OECD countries (Tables V.B1.5.64, V.B1.5.66, V.B1.5.84, V.B1.5.86, V.B1.5.87 and V.B1.5.89).
Teacher support is also related to students’ love of learning and motivations
Students who receive teacher support more often are more motivated. More specifically, teacher support is associated with students’ love of learning at school. Across all types of teacher support, around 55% of students with more support like to learn new things in school compared to 43% of students with less support, on average across OECD countries (Table V.B1.5.96).
Additionally, students who receive teacher support more frequently want to do well in mathematics class more than students with less frequent teacher support, even after accounting for students’ and schools’ socio-economic profile. This is true across most countries and economies. The difference in the percentage of students who want to do well in mathematics class is more than 10 percentage points across all forms of teacher support in Finland, Hong Kong (China)* and Kazakhstan. On average across OECD countries, more than 90% of students with more frequent teacher support want to do well in mathematics class (Figure V.5.9 [available online], Tables V.B1.5.101 and V.B1.5.103).
Teachers in Singapore attend pre-service training at the National Institute of Education (NIE) where they learn about the purpose, values, knowledge and skills related to teaching. The Enhanced TE21: Empowering Teachers for the Future Model, launched in 2023, is based on:
Three value paradigms that motivate teachers to increase knowledge and develop skills and competencies to become lifelong learners. Teachers must be guided by values in their use of pedagogy. The three values include commitment to the learner, the teaching profession, and the community. Commitment to the learner is believing that all children can learn, nurturing each learner holistically, and valuing diversity. Commitment to the profession includes engagement in lifelong learning not only for one’s personal and professional growth but as a role model to students. Commitment to the community highlights that teachers should be cognisant of their role in the ecosystem and contribute to society by impacting the next generation of learners.
Skills to prepare teachers of 21st-century learners. Examples of these skills include those promoting reflection and metacognition, self-regulation, adaptive thinking, digital and data literacy, cross-cultural literacy, and civic literacy.
Knowledge of the self as a teacher and knowledge of the learners, the subject content, and pedagogy. This includes expanding teachers’ knowledge base in topics such as sustainability, global and environmental issues, and health and mental health so that teachers can better understand their students and their role in the broader context.
Competencies are the dynamic interactions of skills and knowledge mediated by positive values. The three competency dimensions of Professional Practice, Personal Growth and Development, and Leadership and Agency develop teachers to perform the five roles, namely, shapers of character, creators of knowledge, facilitators of learning, architects of learning environments and agents of educational change. These central components of Singapore’s Enhanced TE21 model form the basis of the design and delivery of teacher education programmes. They prepare beginning teachers to develop 21st-century competencies (21CC) in their students.
The Ministry of Education (MOE) provides in-service teacher professional learning to further support teachers. The Teacher Growth Model, a comprehensive professional learning roadmap, equips teachers with the requisite skills and knowledge. It explicates the roles of the future-ready teacher and recommends learning experiences that cover areas such as curriculum, pedagogies, and digital literacies. Teachers are encouraged to pursue professional learning through platforms like work attachments to industries and organisations beyond education, which expose them to how 21CC is required as competencies to navigate and thrive in a dynamic work environment. Additionally, teachers can refer to the Singapore Teaching Practice (STP), which makes explicit effective teaching and learning to develop students’ 21CC in Singapore schools. They are also supported by a digital learning portal where they can plan their learning, sign up for workshops, and share and reflect on their learning.
Low performers benefit the most from teacher support in their uptake of learning strategies
Similar to parental interactions, the gap between students with more teacher support and those with less is significant in terms of their uptake of certain learning strategies in most countries and economies. This gap is mostly non-significant for skilled performers, suggesting that these students use learning strategies anyway regardless of the level of teacher support.
Teacher-supported low performers use critical-thinking skills more
Teachers who give students extra help when they need it; help students with their learning; and keep on teaching until students understand what they are teaching are most effective in getting low-performing students to use critical thinking. There is a statistically significant gap between teacher-supported low performers and less-supported low performers in their considering everybody’s perspective. The gap is significant in more countries and economies than among skilled performers. This suggests that dynamic teacher-student interactions foster the use of critical-thinking skills in students, especially low-performing students, and that teachers’ active support is more effective than passive forms such as simply showing interest in students’ learning (Table V.B1.5.85).
Teacher-supported low performers are more proactive in learning mathematics
Low performers (and to some extent, skilled performers) who have more teacher support benefit more than top performers (students who perform at Level 5 or 6 in mathematics) in proactive mathematics learning. This is particularly true in their setting aside time to learn material for mathematics class and trying to connect new material to what they have learned in previous mathematics lessons (Tables V.B1.5.74 and V.B1.5.82).
Teacher-supported students are more motivated to learn
Low performers benefit from teacher support more than skilled performers in their motivations to learn. They love to learn new things in school and want to do well in their mathematics class when their teachers help them with their learning and continue teaching until they understand. In Japan, more than 80% of low performers who receive teacher support more frequently want to do well in mathematics class compared to around 60% of their counterparts who receive less teacher support (a difference of more than 20 percentage points). In contrast, in Mexico, the difference between teacher-supported low performers and those with less teacher support who want to do well in mathematics class is only around 5 percentage points. Among skilled performers this gap is mostly non-significant across most countries and economies. These findings suggest that students who have the potential to be skilled performers are intrinsically motivated, regardless of the support they receive from teachers. However, teacher support can help students with mathematics difficulties develop positive attitudes and motivation towards learning (Tables V.B1.5.97 and V.B1.5.102).
Other aspects of a student’s life in school, such as satisfaction, can also be beneficial to students’ motivation to learn and their use of sustainable learning strategies (see Box V.5.4).
PISA 2022 shows that students’ satisfaction with various aspects of school, including what they learn at school, their relationship with their teachers and their life at school, is associated with the use of learning strategies and motivation to learn.
Students who reported being satisfied in these areas exhibit more proactive behaviours in learning mathematics, including taking time to learn the material, asking questions when they do not understand, and trying to connect new learning material to what they have learned in previous lessons. Across the 13 countries and economies with available data, the percentage of students who take time to learn the material for class who are satisfied with what they learn in school ranges from around 25% in Macao (China) to 60% in the United Arab Emirates. This is 7 to 23 percentage points more than for students who are not satisfied. These students also employ more problem-solving skills and are more meticulous about their learning. For example, in Hong Kong (China)* and the United Arab Emirates, around 8 in 10 students who are satisfied in these areas agree that activities in class help them think of new ways to solve problems compared to around 5 in 10 students who are not satisfied (Tables V.B1.5.123, V.B1.5.124, V.B1.5.125, V.B1.5.120, V.B1.5.121 and V.B1.5.122).
Student satisfaction at school is also associated with students being more motivated to learn. For example, in Hong Kong (China)*, Hungary, Ireland* and the Netherlands*, more than 70% of students who are satisfied with what they learn in school agree that school teaches them things that could be useful in a job compared to around 40% of students who are not satisfied (Table V.B1.5.123).
These findings suggest that students being satisfied with what they learn at school, their relationship with teachers and their lives at school are more likely to adopt learning strategies and be motivated to learn.
Note: Data from the well-being questionnaire are available for 13 countries and economies.
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 Database, Tables V.B1.5.123 - V.B1.5.125.
PISA 2022 findings show that parental interaction and teacher support play a crucial role in 15-year-old students’ use of sustained learning strategies. Students without these – especially low performers – are likely to be disadvantaged compared to their peers who have both kinds of support.
What can parents and teachers do?
Parental interactions, especially routine activities and conversations about learning, are connected to students' sustained learning strategies and motivation to learn. Having discussions about political and social issues are related to students’ critical thinking. In addition to these interactions, feelings of connectedness to parents can encourage students to use learning strategies and be motivated. This can be fostered by parents showing that they care or encouraging students to make their own decisions and can take place on an everyday basis.
Teacher support similarly stimulates student motivation and learning strategies such as critical-thinking abilities and problem-solving skills. Students who are satisfied with their school life also use more learning strategies and are more motivated to learn. To further support students, teachers can make sure they have good relationships with their students.
While schools cannot replace parental interaction and support, education systems can help make up the difference with supportive classrooms for students who have little possible family support. Encouraging school environments can help these students develop their learning skills as much as possible.
References
[14] Academy of Singapore Teachers (2024), Teacher Growth Model, https://academyofsingaporeteachers.moe.edu.sg/professional-excellence/teacher-growth-model/ (accessed on 20 July 2024).
[15] Academy of Singapore Teachers (2024), The Singapore Teaching Practice, https://academyofsingaporeteachers.moe.edu.sg/professional-excellence/the-singapore-teaching-practice/ (accessed on 20 July 2024).
[13] Blazar, D. and M. Kraft (2017), “Teacher and teaching effects on students’ attitudes and behaviors”, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 39/1, pp. 146-170, https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373716670260.
[11] Bong, M., A. Hwang and J. Song (2010), “Teachers’ comments and behaviors that influence students’ self-efficacy and achievement goal formation”, Korean Journal of Educational Methodology Students, Vol. 22, pp. 167-193.
[10] Borgonovi, F. and G. Montt (2012), “Parental Involvement in Selected PISA Countries and Economies”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 73, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5k990rk0jsjj-en.
[6] Bornstein, M. (2019), Handbook of Parenting: Volume I: Children and Parenting, Routledge, New York, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429440847.
[5] Fan, X. and M. Chen (2001), , Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 13/1, pp. 1-22, https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1009048817385.
[12] Ginsburg, G. and P. Bronstein (1993), “Family Factors Related to Children’s Intrinsic/Extrinsic Motivational Orientation and Academic Performance”, Child Development, Vol. 64/5, pp. 1461-1474, https://www.jstor.org/stable/1131546.
[16] National Institute of Education (2023), TE21: Empowering Teachers For The Future, https://ebook.ntu.edu.sg/nie_te21_booklet/full-view.html (accessed on 24 May 2024).
[9] OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume II): Learning During – and From – Disruption, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a97db61c-en.
[2] OECD (2021), OECD Skills Outlook 2021: Learning for Life, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/0ae365b4-en.
[3] OECD (2019), OECD Skills Outlook 2019: Thriving in a Digital World, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/df80bc12-en.
[8] OECD (2012), Let’s Read Them a Story! The Parent Factor in Education, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264176232-en.
[7] Skinner, E., S. Johnson and T. Snyder (2005), “Six dimensions of parenting: A motivational”, Parenting: Science and Practice, Vol. 5/2, pp. 175-235, https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327922par0502_3.
[1] UNESCO (2021), Lifelong Learning.
[4] UNESCO (2006), Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2006: Literacy for life, GEM Report UNESCO, https://doi.org/10.54676/hfrh4626.
← 1. The index of proactive mathematics study behaviour (MATHPERS) is based on question ST293, which asked students how often they engaged in behaviours indicative of effort and persistence in mathematics (e.g. “I actively participated in group discussions during mathematics class”, “I put effort into my assignments for mathematics class”). For further information please refer to the PISA 2022 Technical Report, Chapter 19.
← 2. The index of family support (FAMSUP) is based on students’ ratings of how often their parents or someone else in their family engaged in a range of behaviours indicative of family support (e.g. “Discuss how well you are doing at school”, “Spend time just talking with you”) in question ST300. For further information please refer to the PISA 2022 Technical Report, Chapter 19.
← 3. The index of cognitive activation in mathematics: foster reasoning (COGACRCO) is based on students’ ratings of their mathematics teacher showing a range of behaviours indicative of fostering mathematics reasoning during the ongoing school year (e.g. “The teacher asked us to explain our reasoning when solving a mathematics problem”, “The teacher asked us to defend our answer to a mathematics problem”) in question ST285. For further information please refer to the PISA 2022 Technical Report, Chapter 19.