This chapter provides an overview of the characteristics, backgrounds and working contexts of teachers across education systems, and how these have evolved in recent years. It examines key demographic features of the teaching workforce – including the age, gender, education and prior experience of teachers, with particular attention to novice and second-career entrants. The chapter considers teachers’ self-efficacy as a lens for understanding their confidence in responding to contemporary classroom situations. The chapter also examines the distribution of teachers across different types of schools and student populations, including schools with higher shares of students from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds, refugee or migrant communities, or those with special education needs. The chapter analyses how teachers adapt their practices – such as the use of digital tools like artificial intelligence, adaptive instruction and social-emotional learning – to meet the needs of all learners.
Results from TALIS 2024
Abstract
The average age of teachers is around 45 years old. In Lithuania and Portugal, the average age is 51, and in Latvia, it is 50. Conversely, the average age of teachers in Türkiye is 38 years old, and it is around 39 in Morocco, the United Arab Emirates and Uzbekistan. More than one out of two teachers are 50 or older in Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania and Portugal.
Prior work experience is common for teachers. In around half of the education systems, at least one out of two teachers have prior non-teaching work experience. This is particularly high in Iceland (95%), the United States (79%), Australia and Sweden (both 77%).
Today’s schools are more diverse. Compared to 2018, the share of teachers who teach in schools with more than 10% of students who are non-native speakers increased by 7 percentage points. Ten education systems saw an increase of 25 percentage points or more in the proportion of schools where over 1% of students are refugees. The largest changes are seen in Czechia, Estonia and Lithuania.
Teachers report using classroom management practices more frequently compared to 2018, such as calming students who are disruptive, with an increase of 8 percentage points on average across OECD education systems. There was an increase in 30 education systems and a decrease in 1 education system (Malta). There was also a 6 percentage-point average increase in teachers reporting that they have to tell students to follow classroom rules or to listen.
Teaching social and emotional skills is a key feature of many education systems. Female teachers and teachers who have a higher percentage of students with special education needs (above 30%) tend to be more likely to use practices that develop social and emotional skills. Other factors, such as age, teaching experience, school location and class size, do not have a consistent impact on these practices.
Many education systems were forced to use online or hybrid learning during the COVID-19 pandemic, and some systems have maintained those methods. On average across OECD education systems, over 16% of teachers work in schools where at least one lesson was taught hybrid or online in the last month. The highest proportion of teachers working in this manner were in Singapore (81%), Israel (47%) and the United Arab Emirates (47%). While remote education may improve access, education systems may need to provide specific types of support to teachers if such modalities are to become permanent expectations.
Around one in three teachers report having used artificial intelligence (AI) in their work, on average across OECD education systems. Around 75% of teachers in Singapore and the United Arab Emirates use AI in their work, whereas fewer than 20% of teachers do so in France and Japan. Teachers are using AI to learn about or summarise a topic (68%) or to generate lesson plans or activities (64%). The least frequent use of AI is in reviewing data on student participation or performance (25%). Around 90% of teachers in the United Arab Emirates and Viet Nam agree that AI assists in creating or improving lesson plans, compared to less than 20% of teachers in France and around 31% of teachers in Denmark and Finland.
In recent years, education systems around the world have faced rapid and wide-reaching change. The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic disrupted traditional schooling and accelerated the use of digital technologies. At the same time, shifting demographics and increasingly diverse student populations have raised new expectations for equity, inclusion and teacher responsiveness in classrooms. These global developments are reshaping what it means to educate – and be educated – in the 21st century.
Amid these changes, understanding who teachers are and how they work has become more important than ever. Teachers support students in learning and navigating this uncertainty. Their backgrounds, training, teaching practices and levels of self-efficacy can influence how effectively they can respond to contemporary challenges. By examining the composition of the teaching workforce and how teachers adapt their approaches, this chapter aims to provide insights that can help education systems better support teachers in meeting the evolving needs of their students.
A teaching workforce that reflects a range of demographic characteristics can help education systems respond to evolving student needs (Adair, Tobin and Arzubiaga, 2012[1]). Teachers can also benefit from working in teams that bring varied levels of experience, training and backgrounds, contributing to professional learning and collaboration (OECD, 2019[2]; de Jong, Meirink and Admiraal, 2022[3]). The Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) examines teacher demographics and backgrounds by looking at their age, gender, level of experience, level of education and prior teaching and non-teaching experience.
Gender
Large gender imbalances in the teaching profession are a policy concern as research suggests that gender balance can influence student career aspirations and attitudes toward specific disciplines, such as science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) (Dulce-Salcedo, Maldonado and Sánchez, 2022[4]). A lack of diverse role models within certain fields could make it harder for students to envision success in those fields in later life (Stearns et al., 2016[5]; Sevilla, Bordón and Ramirez-Espinoza, 2023[6]). A highly feminised profession can also, paradoxically, lower the perceived impact of the profession due to long‑held gender biases (Cacouault-Bitaud, 2001[7]). This could then have a snowball effect where men are less likely to aspire to join the profession as it is perceived as feminised. Cacouault-Bitaud (2001[7]) argues that this feminisation of professions, followed by lower value perceptions, has occurred in a wide variety of professions, including teaching, legal careers (such as judges and magistrates) and in some medical career pathways (such as general practitioners).
Women make up the majority of the teaching profession, representing around seven out of ten teachers across OECD countries and territories with available data (hereafter, “on average”) (Figure 1.1). This is most pronounced in Latvia (86% are female teachers), Lithuania (85%) and Estonia (84%). On the other hand, there are three education systems participating in TALIS with available data (hereafter, “education systems”) where female teachers are in the minority in 2024: Japan (41% female teachers), Morocco (46%) and Saudi Arabia (49%).
TALIS data suggest that these gender patterns have remained relatively consistent over the last six years, with some notable exceptions (Table 1.2). There was an increase in female teachers between 2018 and 2024 in the United Arab Emirates (8 percentage points), Türkiye (5 percentage points) and Korea (4 percentage points). In contrast, the percentage of female teachers decreased between 2018 and 2024 in Brazil, Saudi Arabia (by 4 percentage points), the Flemish Community of Belgium, and Latvia (by 3 percentage points).
Percentage of female lower secondary teachers
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
Source: OECD, TALIS 2024 Database, Table 1.1.
Age
Across OECD education systems, the share of the population aged 65 and over has doubled, from under 9% in 1960 to 18% in 2021 (OECD, 2023[8]). Projections from the United Nations show that the global share of people aged 65 and over is expected to quadruple from 595 million to 2 billion between the years 2000 and 2050 (United Nations, 2022[9]). Increasing life expectancy, declining fertility rates and net migration are driving rapid population ageing in many countries (Lobo and Falleiro, 2024[10]). The age of teachers in many countries mirrors this trend.
A higher share of older teachers may raise human resourcing challenges, particularly when it comes to replacing retiring staff if student numbers remain stable. At the same time, older teachers often bring valuable professional experience to both the classroom and the wider school environment (Podolsky, Kini and Darling-Hammond, 2019[11]). By contrast, a younger teaching workforce may have less experience but can contribute more recent training and up-to-date pedagogical knowledge that can benefit student learning (OECD, 2019[2]).
In 2024, the average age of teachers is around 45 years old, on average (Table 1.3). In Lithuania and Portugal, the average age is 51, and in Latvia, it is 50. Conversely, the average age of teachers in Türkiye is 38 years old, and it is around 39 in Morocco, the United Arab Emirates and Uzbekistan.
The average age of teachers has risen by two or more years in 2024 compared to 2018 in Malta, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Türkiye, and Viet Nam (Figure 1.2). The average age of teachers has decreased by around two years in that time in Austria, Korea, Norway1 and South Africa.
Average age of lower secondary teachers
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
Source: OECD, TALIS 2018 and TALIS 2024 Databases, Table 1.4.
More than one out of two teachers are 50 or older in Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania and Portugal (Figure 1.3). These systems may face the challenge of replacing a large number of teachers over the next 10-15 years, as half of them will reach retirement age. These systems also have a relatively small share of teachers aged 30 and under, which may exacerbate this issue. At the other end of the spectrum, Japan, Morocco, Shanghai (People’s Republic of China, hereafter “China”), South Africa, and Uzbekistan have 20% or more of their teachers under the age of 30. For these systems, professional development and the composition of teaching experience within each school could be a policy challenge.
Percentage of lower secondary teachers, by age group
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
Source: OECD, TALIS 2024 Database, Table 1.3.
In Bahrain, Morocco, Shanghai (China), Türkiye, the United Arab Emirates and Uzbekistan, the share of teachers under the age of 30 is equal to or greater than the share of those aged 50 and above (Table 1.3). On the other hand, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, and Portugal have older teaching workforces, in fact the proportion of teachers aged 50 and above exceeds that of those under 30 by 45 percentage points or more.
Since 2018, the share of teachers aged 50 and above has increased by 8 percentage points or more in France, Portugal, Saudi Arabia and Singapore (Table 1.5). In contrast, it has declined by 8 percentage points or more in Austria and Korea. Overall, between 2018 and 2024, the share of teachers aged 50 and above increased in 14 education systems, while only 3 systems (Austria, Korea and Slovenia) reported a decrease.
Teachers aged 50 and above are more likely to teach in publicly managed schools (5 percentage points more than privately managed schools, on average) and in urban areas (2 percentage points more than rural areas) (Table 1.6). For education systems with an ageing teacher population and a stable student population, there are potential policy levers that can be used to recruit and train novice teachers to replace those who are retiring. For example, allocating novice teachers within the system to less challenging classrooms (see Chapter 3); addressing contract instability and raising teaching status to make the profession more attractive for novice teachers (see Chapter 7); and reviewing and, where appropriate, relaxing prerequisites for professional development that may mean novice teachers cannot access the training they need (see Chapter 4).
Background
Education
Attracting highly qualified and motivated candidates into the teaching profession is a key policy priority in many countries. Initial teacher education requirements vary widely across countries (see Chapter 4 for more information). Research is not prescriptive about the length of quality initial teacher education should be, nor at what education level it should be; however, the general consensus is that it includes knowledge training and pedagogy training, and there is some level of quality assurance before teachers begin their profession (OECD, 2019[12]; Hammerness and Klette, 2015[13]). Research has also shown that certification, the type of qualification and degrees earned are important for student learning (OECD, 2019[12]; Darling-Hammond, 2006[14]). Understanding the initial teacher training requirements and the different entry pathways is crucial to examining how people become teachers. Higher levels of tertiary education are not necessarily the only policy lever for policymakers; indeed, striking a balance between accessible entry routes and ensuring adequate professional training and competencies is essential.
In 2024, 57% of teachers hold a master’s degree or equivalent (ISCED 7) (International Standard Classification of Education, ISCED), on average (Table 1.7). In Croatia, Finland, Poland, Portugal and the Slovak Republic, this figure exceeds 90%. Conversely, very few teachers have less than an ISCED 5 qualification, a short-cycle tertiary qualification (3% on average), or doctoral or equivalent qualification (ISCED 8) (2%).
Teaching experience
A teacher’s level of teaching experience is an important part of what they bring to the profession. Novice teachers, those with up to five years of teaching experience, often bring more up-to-date training and potentially new ideas. Experienced teachers, who have more than ten years of experience, by definition, have more pedagogical experience and are more likely to be more confident in their teaching practices (OECD, 2019[15]).
Teachers have an average of around 17 years of experience (Table 1.9). Some 18% of teachers have 5 years or less of teaching experience, 45% have between 6 and 20 years of experience, and 37% of teachers have more than 20 years of experience. Around 30% of teachers in Austria, Morocco and South Africa have five years or less of teaching experience. In contrast, over 60% of teachers in Latvia, Lithuania and Portugal have more than 20 years of experience.
These shares have remained relatively consistent since 2018, on average (Table 1.10). The share of teachers with less than five years of experience has decreased in ten education systems. The highest decreases are in Singapore (decreasing by 18 percentage points between 2018 and 2024) and Türkiye (decreasing by 14 percentage points). The proportion of novice teachers increased in 11 education systems with a 6 percentage-point increase or more between 2018 and 2024 in Iceland, Korea and Spain.
Novice teachers are more likely to work in schools that are privately managed or have more than 10% of students who have difficulties understanding the language(s) of instruction (Table 1.11). Over 20 percentage points more novice teachers work in privately managed schools compared to those in publicly managed schools in Colombia, Costa Rica, Kazakhstan and Saudi Arabia. Over 10% more novice teachers work in schools where 10% or more of students have difficulties understanding the language(s) of instruction in Colombia, Morocco and Türkiye.
Non-teaching experience
Understanding previous or concurrent work experience is important, as teachers from non‑teaching fields are likely to bring different skills and competencies. TALIS asks teachers about their work experience at the school where they currently teach, their total years as a teacher, as well as the years they have worked in other education roles (not as a teacher, e.g. as a university lecturer or nurse), and the years they have worked in other non-education roles. Extended periods of leave (such as parental leave) are not included.
TALIS defines second-career teachers as those with at least ten years of work experience in non‑education roles and for whom teaching was not their first career choice (not a top priority as a desired career). Many education systems open pathways for second-career teachers in an effort to respond to teacher shortages in their systems (Tigchelaar, Brouwer and Vermunt, 2010[16]) (see Box 1.1). Some systems may wish to bring diverse experiences from the workforce into the classroom (Nielsen, 2016[17]). Policies that support mid-career entry into teaching may also help address shortages related to ageing workforces. On the other hand, these teachers may require different mentoring or professional development in the early years of their teaching careers. How education systems support second‑career teachers is explored in Chapter 4.
Over one in two teachers have worked in other education roles or non-education roles, on average (Table 1.12). In 26 out of 54 education systems, one in two teachers has prior non‑education work experience. This is particularly high in Iceland (95%), the United States (79%), Australia and Sweden (both 77%). Approximately 30% of teachers have experience in other education roles, on average.
The percentage of teachers with 6 to 20 years of non-teaching work experience (so both in education and non-education roles) increased in 18 education systems between 2018 and 2024 (Figure 1.4). Bulgaria saw a 13% increase from 2018. France was the only education system to see a decrease (from 21% of teachers in 2018 to 17% in 2024). For teachers with more than 20 years of non-teaching work experience, there were smaller changes between 2018 and 2024, with 13 education systems seeing a positive change, compared to just France seeing a negative change (Table 1.13).
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who have previous work experience (6‑20 years) in non-teaching roles
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
Non-teaching roles include experience in both non-teaching education roles (e.g. as a university lecturer or a nurse) and non-education roles.
Source: OECD, TALIS 2018 and TALIS 2024 Databases, Table 1.13.
Around 8% of teachers are second‑career teachers, on average (Figure 1.5). The education systems with 15% or more second-career teachers include Iceland (21%), Australia, the Netherlands* and New Zealand* (all 17%), Bulgaria and the United States (both at 16%). In contrast, there are 1% or less of these second‑career teachers in Azerbaijan, Japan, Korea, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Shanghai (China), Türkiye, Uzbekistan and Viet Nam. More second-career teachers are male (12% male compared to 7% female, on average) (Table 1.15). A discussion about teachers who chose teaching as a first career choice is in Chapter 7.
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who have at least ten years of work experience in non-education roles, for whom teaching was not a first career choice
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
Source: OECD, TALIS 2024 Database, Table 1.14.
Teacher shortages across OECD education systems have increased the urgency for policies that attract individuals into the teaching profession. Many countries have introduced alternative pathways into teaching, oftentimes targeting mid-career professionals, as well as policies to support those who decide to make the switch into the teaching career and the classroom.
In Australia, for example, the High Achieving Teachers (HAT) program recruits participants from a diverse range of backgrounds. Participants are placed in teaching positions in Australian primary and secondary schools experiencing teacher shortages. In schools, they receive a high degree of training and support while they complete an Australian accredited teaching qualification.
Through the National Teacher Workforce Action Plan, the government committed 1 500 more places to the HAT program. In 2024, ten providers were selected to pilot new and innovative employment‑based pathways into teaching across all states and territories, with cohorts commencing from 2025. These pilots focus on recruiting individuals from diverse backgrounds, including STEM specialists, First Nations peoples, people with disabilities, teacher aides, and those based in remote locations.
Bulgaria introduced a three-year Motivated Teachers programme (2019-22, later merged with the Qualification programme) to encourage professionals from other fields, and qualified teachers with no teaching experience, to take on teaching positions in schools that have a shortage of staff or serve vulnerable communities. The national programme funds the costs of participants’ (re)qualification programmes and offers basic training in specific topics. In 2019, Motivated Teachers attracted approximately 300 teachers to schools short of staff specialised in mathematics, physics and astronomy, informatics and information technology. In 2022, the Motivated Teachers and Qualification programme, as it is now called, was outsourced to a consortium made up of Teach for Bulgaria and the Bulgarian Union of Teachers.
Colombia created the possibility for side entry into the teaching profession. Individuals with degrees from other disciplines can apply for subject teacher positions in secondary education, provided they complete a programme in pedagogy at a tertiary institution. In addition, individuals with a background other than education may have the opportunity to enter teaching after completing a relevant postgraduate qualification (i.e. a specialisation, master’s degree, or PhD related to education, ISCED levels 7-8).
The Netherlands provides subsidies to schools to support tailor-made training programmes for second‑career teachers, allowing them to start teaching while they receive training and in-school supervision. Candidates can enter the profession programme for second-career teachers immediately if they pass a suitability assessment. Alternatively, part-time training is available for teachers who do not start teaching immediately. Policy measures have been introduced to increase flexibility in training, recognising prior experience and knowledge of second-career teachers.
In New Zealand, efforts to attract mid-career professionals into teaching include the Education Workforce website, which highlights career change stories and offers detailed information on the requirements, programmes and financial support options available. Additionally, the School Onsite Training Programme, which had two-thirds of its initial pilot cohort made up of career changers, received increased funding in 2024 and 2025.
Source: Australian Education Ministers Meeting (n.d.[18]), The National Teacher Workforce Action Plan December 2022; Australian Government Department of Education (n.d.[19]), High Achieving Teachers (HAT) Program, https://www.education.gov.au/teaching-and-school-leadership/high-achieving-teachers-hat-program/high-achieving-teachers-hat-program-frequently-asked-questions; Education Workforce (2024[20]), Changing to a teaching career, https://workforce.education.govt.nz/becoming-teacher-new-zealand/why-become-teacher/changing-teaching-career#career-changer-stories-1; Guthrie, C. et al. (2022[21]), OECD Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment in Education: Bulgaria, https://doi.org/10.1787/57f2fb43-en; Radinger, T. et al. (2018[22]), OECD Reviews of School Resources: Colombia 2018, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264303751-en; Netherlands Central Government (n.d.[23]), Working in Education: Question and Answer, https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/werken-in-het-onderwijs/vraag-en-antwoord/hoe-word-ik-zijinstromer-in-het-onderwijs.
Teacher supply
Teacher shortages are an increasing concern for the stability of various education systems around the world (Arnold and Rahimi, 2025[24]; OECD, 2024[25]; OECD, 2024[26]; OECD, 2023[27]; UNESCO, 2024[28]). According to the 2022 round of OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), the share of students in schools whose principal reported that instruction is hindered by a lack of teaching staff increased by 21 percentage points (from 26% to 47%) between 2018 and 2022, on average (OECD, 2023[27]). During the same period, the share of students in schools whose principals reported that instruction is hindered by inadequate or poorly qualified teaching staff increased from 16% to 25%. TALIS 2024 data echo these findings. Around one in five teachers work in schools where the provision of quality instruction is perceived to be hindered by the shortage of qualified teachers, on average (Table 1.17).
These shortages could stem from demographic changes as well as recruitment and retention challenges. In many education systems, attracting new teachers to the profession is difficult, while a growing number of teachers are leaving the profession (OECD, 2024[25]; 2024[26]). Demographic changes, such as ageing, are causing shortages across the labour market in some economies (Causa et al., 2025[29]). The ageing teacher population heightens the challenge, as many teachers approach retirement, increasing the need to recruit new ones (OECD, 2024[26]).
TALIS 2024 examines whether structural barriers – such as staffing shortages, time constraints, or inadequate infrastructure – are perceived by principals as obstacles to providing high-quality teaching (see Chapter 2). A common barrier reported across OECD education systems is the shortage of teachers who have the competences to teach students with special education needs; 33% of teachers work in schools where this was reported as an issue (Table 1.17). At least one in two teachers works in schools where this is perceived as a challenge in Bahrain, the French Community of Belgium, Brazil, Colombia, Estonia, Morocco and the Netherlands*. In contrast, only one in ten teachers in Albania work in schools that report this issue. Some education systems have reported improvements since 2018, including the French Community of Belgium and Colombia, where the share of teachers working in schools reporting this issue declined by more than 20 percentage points (Table 1.18).
Just over three out of ten teachers (31%) work in schools that report shortages of support personnel, on average (Table 1.17). Over five out of ten teachers work in schools that report this in Austria, the French Community of Belgium, Colombia, Italy, Morocco, South Africa and Spain. Only 5% or less of teachers work in schools where this is reported as an issue in Bulgaria, Iceland, Shanghai (China) and Singapore. On average, reports of support staff shortages have decreased between 2018 and 2024 (6 percentage points). There were decreases in the French Community of Belgium (16 percentage points), Colombia (17 percentage points), and Italy (21 percentage points), though patterns remain uneven across countries (Table 1.18). In many education systems, including Austria, Bulgaria and Shanghai (China), there has been no change between the two cycles in the proportion of teachers who work in schools where staff shortages are reported as an obstacle to the provision of quality teaching.
In addition, 23% of teachers work in schools that report that a shortage of qualified teachers limits their school’s capacity to provide quality instruction (Figure 1.6). This concern is especially prevalent in Bahrain, Latvia and the Netherlands*, where around half of teachers work in schools that report this barrier. In Albania, Costa Rica, Korea, North Macedonia, Norway*, Poland, Shanghai (China) and Sweden, less than 10% of teachers work in schools that report this concern. Staff shortages are often more likely reported in publicly managed schools compared to privately managed schools, and differences of over 30 percentage points are observed in Australia, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia (Table 1.19). Similarly, while most education systems do not show large differences in perceptions based on the socio-economic intake of students, in some systems – such as Australia, Denmark, Estonia and New Zealand* – socio‑economically advantaged schools are less likely to report this challenge, with differences again exceeding 30 percentage points.
Percentage of lower secondary teachers teaching in schools where shortage of qualified teachers hinders quality instruction
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
Results based on responses of principals.
Source: OECD, TALIS 2024 Database, Table 1.17.
In 2024, the perception of the impact of qualified teacher shortages on the school’s capacity to provide quality instruction has increased on average by 2 percentage points since 2018 (Table 1.18). In 16 education systems, there is an increase in the reporting of this issue, with the largest increase observed in the Netherlands* and Malta (32 percentage points more). However, seven education systems report a decrease in this issue; in particular, Viet Nam (43 percentage points less in 2024), Colombia (33 percentage points less in 2024) and the French Community of Belgium (22 percentage points less). Schools reporting a perception of shortage of support personnel have, on average, decreased by 6 percentage points between 2018 and 2024. In contrast, Alberta (Canada)*, Croatia, Malta and Norway* report an increase in the impact shortages of support personnel had on the school’s capacity to provide quality instruction.
Teacher self-efficacy
Teacher self-efficacy refers to teachers’ beliefs in their ability to teach effectively and to support student engagement and learning (Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, 2001[30]). There is evidence to suggest that higher levels of teacher self-efficacy are associated with lower rates of teacher burnout (Skaalvik and Skaalvik, 2007[31]), greater job satisfaction, improved student achievement (Caprara et al., 2006[32]; Klassen et al., 2010[33]) and increased student motivation (Hardré and Sullivan, 2008[34]; Lauermann and Butler, 2021[35]). Research indicates that teachers with higher self-efficacy are more likely to use more diverse teaching practices and adapt these practices to meet students’ needs (Hardré and Sullivan, 2008[34]; Nie et al., 2012[36]; Lauermann and ten Hagen, 2021[37]).
In addition to collecting data on factors such as teachers’ age, training and professional development, TALIS asks teachers about their self-efficacy in student engagement, instruction and classroom management. TALIS also captures teachers’ beliefs about their effectiveness in specific practices, such as adaptive pedagogies, supporting students’ social and emotional learning and using digital resources and tools.
On average, teacher self-efficacy is highest in classroom management (for example, 84% of teachers feel that they can calm a student who is disruptive or noisy and 87% of teachers also believe that they can get students to follow classroom rules) and in instruction (80% of teachers feel that they can use a variety of assessment tasks) (Table 1.21).
Teacher self-efficacy in student engagement is reported at lower levels. For example, just 67% of teachers feel that they can motivate students who show low interest in schoolwork, on average (Table 1.21).
Teachers with the following characteristics, on average, are more represented in the top quartile of teachers with high self-efficacy (Table 1.22):
Teachers aged 50 years or older compared to those under 30, by 9 percentage points. The reverse is true in Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Israel, North Macedonia and Türkiye.
Experienced teachers are more represented than novice teachers, by 8 percentage points.
Teachers with ISCED level 7 education attainment compared to ISCED level 6, by 3 percentage points. The reverse is true in Brazil (by 8 percentage points).
Approximately 25% of female teachers compared to 24% of male teachers. In contrast, the only education system where male teachers are more represented in the top quartile of teachers with high self-efficacy than female teachers is Japan (by 9 percentage points).
Teachers who work in schools with the following characteristics, on average, are more represented in the top quartile of teachers with high self-efficacy (Table 1.24):
Teachers working in urban schools compared to teachers in rural or village schools, by 3 percentage points. The reverse is true in South Africa (13 percentage points more in rural schools), the United Arab Emirates (9 percentage points more) and Brazil (8 percentage points more).
Teachers who work in privately managed schools are more likely to be in the top quartile of self‑efficacy, with 27% of teachers from privately managed schools compared to 25% of teachers in publicly managed schools.
Teachers who work in schools where less than 10% of students come from socio-economically disadvantaged homes compared to schools with over 30% of these students. The reverse is true in Brazil, Israel, South Africa and the United Arab Emirates.
However, once teachers’ gender, age and years of teaching experience are taken into account, the apparent influence of school-level factors largely disappears. After controlling for teacher characteristics, school factors – such as location (rural or urban), governance (publicly managed or privately managed), student intake from socio-economically disadvantaged homes, special education needs or those who have difficulties understanding the language(s) of instruction – generally do not have a statistically significant association with teacher self-efficacy across education systems (Table 1.23).
Classrooms often vary widely in students’ backgrounds, readiness, ability levels and interests (Parsons et al., 2017[38]; Tomlinson, 2017[39]). In this context, differentiation and adaptation are essential to support learning (Smale-Jacobse et al., 2019[40]). Differentiation and adaptation are based on the idea that students can reach their full potential when instruction reflects the diversity of their characteristics. This requires teachers to adjust their approaches and resources to support each learner’s growth (Tomlinson, 2015[41]).
Percentage of lower secondary teachers teaching in schools with the following compositions
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
Results based on responses of principals.
Source: OECD, TALIS 2024 Database, Table 1.25.
TALIS asks school principals about the composition of the students in their schools, looking at factors such as the percentage of students with special education needs, students from minority backgrounds or students who are refugees. In 2024, on average (Figure 1.7 and Table 1.25):
Around one in two teachers work in schools with at least 1% of students who are refugees. This is above seven in ten teachers in Austria, the Flemish Community of Belgium, the French Community of Belgium, Czechia, Iceland, the Netherlands*, Norway* and Sweden.
Around one in two teachers work in schools with more than 10% of students with special education needs. In Chile, France, the Netherlands* and New Zealand*, this is higher, at more than seven in ten teachers.
One in four teachers work in schools where more than 10% of students are non-native speakers. This is over six in ten teachers in Alberta (Canada)*, Austria, the Flemish Community of Belgium, South Africa, Sweden and the United Arab Emirates.
Around one in five teachers work in schools where more than 30% of students come from socio‑economically disadvantaged homes. This is more than six in ten teachers in Chile, Costa Rica and South Africa.
Around one in five teachers work in schools where more than 10% of students are immigrants or have an immigrant background. This is more than one in two teachers in Alberta (Canada)*, Austria, the Flemish Community of Belgium and Sweden.
Around one in six teachers work in schools where more than 10% of students are from minority backgrounds. This is more than two out of five teachers in Bulgaria, Singapore, South Africa and the United States.
Around one in six teachers work in schools where more than 10% of students have difficulties understanding the language(s) of instruction. This is more than two out of five teachers in Alberta (Canada)*, the Flemish Community of Belgium, Morocco, Portugal and South Africa.
Changes in multiculturalism
More teachers teach in schools with a diverse range of students in 2024 than in 2018, particularly when it comes to teaching in schools with at least 1% of students who are refugees (up 22 percentage points on average) (Figure 1.8). The number of teachers working in schools with more than 30% of students coming from socio-economically disadvantaged homes has not changed, on average, during the same period.
Percentage of lower secondary teachers teaching in schools with the following compositions (OECD average-24)
Note: Results based on responses of principals.
Source: OECD, TALIS 2018 and TALIS 2024 Databases, Table 1.26.
These changes are country-specific and depend on a variety of external factors, such as immigration rates, special education definitions and policies, and how integrated the education system is. Changes in school composition may indicate that students are spread across more or fewer schools or can indicate an increasing number of students within a system (due to specific migration, for example). For teachers, these changes may lead to new professional development needs and different adaptive practices being utilised within their classrooms (see Box 1.2 for a discussion about changes in policy to respond to increasingly diverse classrooms).
Between 2018 and 2024, ten education systems saw an increase of more than 25 percentage points in the proportion of schools where over 1% of students are refugees (Table 1.26). The largest changes are seen in Czechia (75% in 2024 compared to 4% in 2018), Lithuania (60% in 2024 compared to 2% in 2018) and Estonia (64% in 2024 compared to 9% in 2018). Conversely, fewer teachers work in schools with 1% of students who are refugees in Saudi Arabia (11% in 2024 compared to 30% in 2018) and Sweden (71% in 2024 compared to 84% in 2018). These large changes in the number of students who are refugees are likely due to immigration policies and various conflicts around the world that have led to the mass migration of refugees, for example, the war in Ukraine. Creating resilient education systems that are prepared to welcome refugees and incorporate training for teachers, as well as language integration and psychosocial support for students and their families, may become increasingly necessary.
Around a quarter of teachers teach in schools with more than 10% of students who are non-native speakers in 2024, up by 7 percentage points from 2018, on average (Table 1.26). The proportion is over 15 percentage points higher in the Flemish Community of Belgium, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Malta, the Netherlands*, Slovenia, the United Arab Emirates and the United States. In contrast, the proportion of teachers working in schools where 10% of students are non-native speakers decreased in Croatia, Singapore and Viet Nam.
Between 2018 and 2024, 14 education systems saw an increase in teachers working in schools where more than 10% of students are immigrants or have an immigrant background (Table 1.26). There was an increase of over 20 percentage points in Colombia and Portugal. In contrast, there was a decrease in 2 education systems, Israel and Singapore.
Fewer education systems saw a change in the number of students coming from socio‑economically disadvantaged homes in their schools between 2018 and 2024 (Table 1.26). Six education systems saw decreases: Colombia (-21 percentage points), Portugal (-12 percentage points), Hungary (-8 percentage points), Bulgaria (-7 percentage points), Singapore and Shanghai (China) (both -4 percentage points). Conversely, the Flemish Community of Belgium, the French Community of Belgium, Czechia, the Netherlands*, Romania, the Slovak Republic and Türkiye saw increases.
Teacher self-efficacy when working in multicultural environments
Teachers report varied levels of self-efficacy when teaching in multicultural environments. On average, around seven out of ten teachers feel confident that they can facilitate students with different cultural or ethnic backgrounds working together, reducing ethnic stereotyping among students, and raising awareness about cultural differences among students (Table 1.27). However, only around one in two teachers feel that they can critically examine the curriculum to determine whether it reinforces negative cultural stereotypes.
Teachers working in schools with a higher share of students from ethnic or national minority groups, or Indigenous communities, report higher self-efficacy across all aspects of multicultural pedagogy (Table 1.28). They report more that they feel confident in promoting that students with different backgrounds work together (81% of teachers with a high share of these students agree compared to 71% of teachers who teach in schools without such student populations). They also report more that they adapt teaching to the cultural diversity of the students (70% compared to 62%) and that they use culturally familiar examples (71% compared to 64%).
Special education needs
The term “special education needs” refers to a broad range of requirements among students experiencing disabilities or disorders that affect their learning and development. These can include (but are not limited to) physical impairments, learning disabilities and disorders related to mental health (Brussino, 2020[42]). In recent years, there has been increased recognition of special education needs and higher rates of diagnosis in many countries (Francisco, Hartman and Wang, 2020[43]; UK Department of Education, 2025[44]). In certain countries, the term has shifted from special education needs to learning support needs. This needs to be considered when examining trend data on special education needs in schools, as these students may have been present in classrooms without being diagnosed, so the demands on the teacher may not have shifted significantly. However, with increased recognition and diagnosis, there is an opportunity for teachers to receive higher levels of support in adapting their teaching practices to meet the individual needs of students. While education policies for students with special education vary widely, effective monitoring and evaluation systems for these policies are crucial for ensuring they support student well-being, both inside and outside the classroom (Brussino, 2020[42]).
In TALIS, there is a common definition of students with special education needs: Students with special education needs are those for whom a special education need has been formally identified because they are mentally, physically or emotionally disadvantaged. Often, they will be those for whom additional public or private resources (personnel, material or financial) have been provided to support their education.
The percentage of teachers working in a school with more than 10% of students with special learning needs rose from 30% in 2018 to 45% in 2024, a 15 percentage-point increase, on average (Figure 1.9). However, this varies by country. There was a 25 percentage-point or more increase in Australia*, the French Community of Belgium, Estonia, France, Italy, the Netherlands*, New Zealand*, and the Slovak Republic (see Box 1.2 for a discussion about changes in policy to respond to increasingly diverse classrooms).
Percentage of lower secondary teachers teaching in schools with more than 10% of students who have special education needs
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
ª Estimates for TALIS 2018 and the change between TALIS 2018 and TALIS 2024 should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
Source: OECD, TALIS 2018 and TALIS 2024 Databases, Table 1.26.
Teacher self-efficacy when teaching students with special education needs
Around seven in ten teachers report that they can work jointly with other professionals and staff to teach students with special education needs in the classroom, on average (Table 1.29). In contrast, only around four in ten teachers feel confident in their ability to adapt standardised assessments for students with special education needs. A similar number of teachers feel comfortable informing others about laws and policies relating to the inclusion of students with special education needs.
When looking at teachers who work in schools that have more than 10% of students with special education needs, teachers feel more confident in designing learning tasks to accommodate students with special education needs (an average of 65%) compared to adapting standardised assessments so that all students with special education needs can be assessed (an average of 45%) (Table 1.30). These self-efficacy rates are comparable with teachers teaching in schools with fewer than 10% of their students having special education needs.
Major global developments, such as migration and rising inequalities, have contributed to the increasing diversity found in communities. Countries are considering the implications that diversity has on education systems and, conversely, the role education systems play in shaping these trends and building more sustainable, cohesive and inclusive societies. This box discusses how Austria, Italy and Sweden are adapting their education systems to reflect and embrace growing diversity.
Austria
To support students who need help acquiring German language skills, Austria introduced German support classes and courses in the 2018/19 school year. Placement into these support options is determined using MIKA-D (Measurement Instrument for Competence Analysis – German), a nationwide standardised test administered during school enrolment. This assessment identifies whether students should receive a German support course – for those with limited proficiency – or a more intensive German support class – for students with very limited German skills. Students placed in either programme are given “extraordinary” status. At the end of each semester, teachers reassess the language progress of these students using MIKA-D, and based on the results, adjust their support placement accordingly.
Italy
Italy’s approach to supporting inclusive education focuses on teacher training and peer support. The Ministry of Education and Merit collaborates directly with schools to design mandatory professional development programmes for mainstream teachers, with a focus on incorporating students with special educational needs (SEN). This training covers topics such as how to spot learning difficulties early, adapt teaching methods, and support both SEN and non-SEN students in inclusive classrooms. Other actors, like local health services, universities and community organisations, are sometimes involved in designing and delivering this training.
To support this work, since 2021, the Ministry has also established Territorial Support Centres (CTS), a national network of schools that serve as resource hubs. These centres provide practical tools, share teaching strategies between schools, and supply assistive technology to help teachers include students with SEN in mainstream classrooms.
Sweden
To address teacher shortages (see Box 1.3 for more policies focused on this issue) and support the integration of newly arrived migrants, Sweden launched the Fast-Track initiative for multiple occupations, including teaching, in 2016. The programme offers a streamlined path to employment for individuals with teaching qualifications through rapid credential recognition and a one-year training programme – significantly shorter than the standard four years. The training, partly conducted in Arabic and offered by six Swedish universities, is complemented by 26 weeks of work placements in schools or preschools.
The government allocated SEK (Swedish krona) 35 million (EUR 3.14 million) annually between 2017 and 2019 to support the Fast-Track programme’s implementation. Evidence suggests that positive outcomes have been achieved, with strong collaboration between universities and the Public Employment Service contributing to the programme’s success.
Source: Erling, E. J., Gitschthaler, M., & Schwab, S. (2022[45]) Is segregated language support fit for purpose? Insights from German language support classes in Austria. European Journal of Educational Research, 11(1), 573-586 https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.11.1.573 Bundesgesetzblatt authentisch ab 2004 (2018[46]) , “Improvement of German Learning Though the Formation of German Language Classes”, https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/eli/bgbl/I/2018/35/20180614; Brussino, O. (2020[42]), “Mapping policy approaches and practices for the inclusion of students with special education needs”, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/600fbad5-en.
What teachers do in the classroom plays a pivotal role in what students learn. Over the past decades, research has consistently attested to the critical role of teachers in student learning (Nilsen and Gustafsson, 2016[47]; Muijs et al., 2014[48]). TALIS collects data on general teaching practices that all teachers can employ within their classrooms. These practices include clarity of instruction, cognitive activation and classroom management. In addition, TALIS asks teachers how frequently they use these general practices within a target class (defined as “lessons taught over the week preceding the survey to a class randomly selected from teachers' current weekly timetables”).
Clarity of instruction
In 2024, the three most common teaching practices reported, on average, are linked to clarity of instruction. Teachers report that they “frequently” or “always”:
explain what students are expected to learn (91%)
explain how new and old topics are related (87%)
set goals at the beginning of instruction (83%) (Table 1.31).
The three least common teaching practices reported, on average, are:
giving students projects that require at least one week to complete (28%)
presenting tasks for which there is no obvious solution (37%)
encouraging students to question and critique arguments made by other students (44%) (Table 1.31).
Clarity of instruction practices was, in general, more commonly reported by teachers in 2024 compared to 2018 (Table 1.32). In 37 education systems, there was an increase in teachers “frequently” or “always” presenting a summary of recently learned content between 2018 and 2024 (with no systems seeing a decrease in that time). The other practices increased slightly on average and were reported by eight to nine out of ten teachers.
Eight out of ten teachers, on average, report that they “frequently” or “always” select tasks for student practice that gradually increase in difficulty (Table 1.33). Over nine out of ten teachers in Latvia, Romania, Serbia, Shanghai (China) and the United Arab Emirates do so. In contrast, only about five in ten teachers in Estonia and Korea report this.
There has been a small overall increase in the percentage of teachers who “frequently” or “always” let students practice similar tasks until every student has understood the subject matter, from 68% in 2018 to 70% in 2024 (Table 1.34). In 21 education systems, there was an increase, with more than a 10 percentage-point increase in France, Kazakhstan, Norway* and Portugal. Eight education systems saw a decrease, with a 5 percentage-point decrease or more in Korea and the Slovak Republic.
Classroom management
Classroom management is an important part of teaching practice. In teacher initial training and professional practice, teachers develop multiple competencies to manage their classroom (Wubbels, 2011[49]). There is not just one way to manage a classroom, however. In general, classroom management practices aim to ensure that all students are engaging in their work in a manner that supports their learning and the learning of their peers in class. TALIS asks teachers how often they instruct students to follow classroom rules, listen to what they say, calm disruptive students, or quiet down at the beginning of a lesson. TALIS also asks if maintaining classroom discipline is a source of stress (see Chapter 3).
In 2024, teachers report using classroom management practices more frequently, such as calming students who are disruptive, with an average increase of 8 percentage points (Figure 1.10). There was an increase in 30 education systems, while 1 system (Malta) experienced a decrease. There was also a 6 percentage-point average increase in teachers reporting that they have to tell students to follow classroom rules or to listen (Table 1.35).
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who “frequently” or “always” calm students who are disruptive
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
Results refer to lessons taught to a class randomly selected from teachers' current weekly timetables during the week preceding the survey.
Source: OECD, TALIS 2018 and TALIS 2024 Databases, Table 1.35.
Cognitive activation
Cognitive activation is the group of practices that teachers can use that require students to evaluate, integrate and apply knowledge within the context of problem solving (Lipowsky et al., 2009[50]). These activities are often associated with working within a group on complicated problems and are associated with improved learning outcomes (Förtsch et al., 2016[51]; Li et al., 2020[52]). However, outcomes can vary by country, student ethnic background, economic context, and the type and frequency of cognitive activation strategies used (Wang et al., 2023[53]).
Eight in ten teachers feel they can help students think critically (either “quite a bit” or “a lot”), on average (ranging from 30% to 98%) (Table 1.21). Another practice that can help build cognitive activation is crafting good questions for students. Around 88% of teachers, on average, feel they can do this “quite a bit” or “a lot” (ranging from 56% to 99%).
More teachers report using teaching practices that link to cognitive activation in 2024 than in 2018, on average. Japan, Malta, Norway*, Saudi Arabia, Shanghai (China) and Türkiye saw the most increases (above a 10 percentage-point increase in 2024) in reports of “frequently” or “always” giving tasks that require students to think critically (Table 1.36). There was an increase in teachers stating that they ask students to decide on their own procedures for solving complex tasks in 17 education systems, while there was a decrease in 7 education systems. Korea was the only country that saw a decrease in the four teaching practices that are linked to cognitive activation between 2018 and 2024.
Adaptive practices
Adaptive teaching is a complex process involving meeting students’ educational needs within a dynamic classroom context. It requires both careful lesson planning and responsive teacher interventions throughout a lesson (Corno, 2008[54]; Schipper et al., 2020[55]). These practices can be useful when students’ educational needs are particularly diverse within a classroom.
TALIS asks teachers about how often they engage in five specific adaptive practices, with responses ranging from “never or almost never” to “always”, namely:
Teachers consider students’ prior knowledge when lesson planning.
Teachers direct students to different learning materials depending on their needs.
Teachers change how they explain something when a student has difficulty understanding.
Teachers adapt their teaching methods to students’ needs.
Teachers ask questions at varying difficulty levels to check students’ understanding.
Many teachers report using these adaptive practices in their classrooms. Nine in ten teachers report “frequently” or “always” changing the way they explain a topic or task when a student has difficulties understanding (Table 1.37). Around nine in ten teachers report “frequently” or “always” considering students’ prior knowledge and needs when planning lessons. In contrast, only around six in ten teachers say that they point students to different materials for learning depending on their needs. This is over nine out of ten teachers in Shanghai (China) and the United Arab Emirates.
Generally, female teachers and teachers with a higher level of special education needs students (above 30%) tend to report using adaptive practices in their classrooms more than others (Table 1.38). Other school, class, and teacher factors, such as the location of the school, class size, and teacher age, do not tend to systematically impact the frequency of adaptive practice use.
Over eight out of ten teachers feel that they can help every student progress “quite a bit” or “a lot” (Table 1.39). This is, more common in schools with no students that have difficulties understanding the language(s) of instruction compared to those with over 10% of students with these difficulties in nine education systems compared to two education systems that show the reverse. It is also more common privately managed schools compared to publicly managed schools (4 percentage points more on average).
Assessment and feedback
Teachers need to understand how students are progressing in their learning and provide feedback to help them improve (Hattie and Timperley, 2007[56]). TALIS asks teachers to report the frequency with which they use a set of four practices for assessing student learning in their target class. Among the six assessment practices asked about in TALIS, four are widespread, on average. Teachers are most likely to report “frequently” or “always”:
observing students when working on particular tasks and providing immediate feedback (81%)
using assessments to check whether students have learned the material presented (78%)
providing oral or written feedback to indicate areas for improvement (78%)
administer an assessment at the end of a unit or block of lessons (73%) (Table 1.40).
Teachers are less likely to report “frequently” or “always”:
giving a mark to communicate how students performed in relation to their classmates (55%)
asking students to assess their own progress (48%) (Table 1.40).
Education systems saw a change in assessment practices between 2018 and 2024. For example, an increase is observed in teachers reporting that they “frequently” or “always” ask students to assess their own progress across most education systems (the OECD average is 47% in 2024, compared to 39% in 2018) (Table 1.41). The largest increases (over 30 percentage points) are in Italy, Saudi Arabia and Shanghai (China). In contrast, this practice decreased in Sweden (13 percentage-point decrease) and Kazakhstan (5 percentage-point decrease).
There was a slight increase between 2018 and 2024 in teachers reporting that they observe students when working on particular tasks and provide immediate feedback, with an average increase of 2% (Table 1.41).
Social and emotional learning
Social and emotional skills are “necessary for academic learning, significant predictors of labour market and employment outcomes, strongly related to an individual’s health and well-being, and key ingredients of peaceful and prosperous democracies” (OECD, 2024, p. 23[57]). Several education systems include social and emotional skills within their curricula (OECD, 2024[58]). Understanding teachers’ competencies and self-efficacy in teaching these skills is important.
TALIS asks teachers about how they support student development of social and emotional skills. Teachers’ beliefs about social and emotional skills and the types of teaching practices that can be used to nurture these skills are shown to influence how students learn them (Brackett et al., 2011[59]; Durlak et al., 2011[60]).
Around eight in ten teachers report that they “frequently” or “always” focus on developing student skills in establishing and maintaining healthy relationships with others, empathising with others, understanding the perspective of others and making caring and constructive choices about their personal actions (Table 1.42). Almost seven in ten teachers report “frequently” or “always” developing students’ skills in understanding their own emotions, thoughts or behaviour, or managing these.
Results vary across education systems, with teachers reporting that they “frequently” or “always” focus on developing social and emotional skills. Around nine out of ten teachers report doing so (across the six skills listed) in Albania, Italy, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Shanghai (China) and the United Arab Emirates (Table 1.42). On the other hand, the reports are more varied from teachers in Australia (between 53% and 75% for the six skills), the French Community of Belgium (between 47% and 80%), Finland (between 51% and 71%) and Sweden (between 44% and 73%). This could indicate that these countries have specific policies for social and emotional learning.
This data echoes the findings of the OECD Survey on Social and Emotional Skills (SESS) (OECD, 2024[58]). The SESS asks teachers of 10-year-olds and 15-year-olds how often they include opportunities for students to develop different social and emotional skills in their lessons. Among teachers of 15‑year‑olds, on average across sites that participated in both age groups, 76% report focusing on assertiveness, sociability and enthusiasm in “most” or “every” lesson. Similarly, 83% report focusing on co‑operation, trust, and understanding others in “most” or “every” lesson, while 75% report focusing on emotional self-control and coping skills in “most” or “every” lesson. This survey also confirmed that these skills were taught more frequently to 10-year-olds than to 15-year-olds (see Box 1.3).
In around three-quarters of education systems, female teachers tend to be more likely than their male counterparts to use practices that foster students’ social and emotional skills (Figure 1.11). Teachers who have a higher percentage of students with special education needs (above 30%) also tend to be more likely to carry out practices that develop social and emotional skills (Table 1.43). Other factors, such as age, teaching experience, school location and class size, do not consistently impact these practices.
Change in the scale of lower secondary teachers' social and emotional skill development1 associated with teacher gender (female)2,3
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
Statistically significant coefficients are highlighted with filled circles (see Annex B). Filled circles above 0 indicate a positive association between teachers’ use of practices that develop social and emotional skills and teacher gender (female), while those below 0 reflect a negative relationship.
1. Standardised scale scores with a standard deviation of 2 and the value of 10 corresponding to the item mid-point value of the response scale. For more information on the scales, see Annex B.
2. The reference category is male. The regression model also controls for diverse/non-binary/other gender category in countries/territories with available data.
3. Results based on linear regression analysis, showing the change in the outcome variable associated with a one-unit increase in the explanatory variable. After controlling for teacher (i.e. gender, age and years of teaching experience) and school characteristics (i.e. school location, school governance type, school intake of students from socio-economically disadvantaged homes, school intake of students who have difficulties understanding the language(s) of instruction, and school intake of students with special education needs).
Source: OECD, TALIS 2024 Database, Table 1.43.
Female teachers also report having higher empathy with students on average (Table 1.44). Female teachers report caring about the social and emotional problems of their students 6 percentage points more on average than male teachers. Female teachers also report that they are aware of students feelings and show warmth to their students an average of 6 percentage points more than male teachers.
Around seven in ten teachers feel they can support students’ social and emotional learning “quite a bit” or “a lot”, on average (Table 1.45). Specifically, 88% of teachers stated that taking care of students’ social and emotional needs comes naturally to them, on average; 86% agreed that they are comfortable providing instruction on social and emotional skills to students; and 78% reported that informal lessons in social and emotional learning are part of their regular teaching practice.
Teachers, in around four out of ten education systems with available data, report more that they can support students’ social and emotional learning “quite a bit” or “a lot” in privately managed schools compared to publicly managed schools (Table 1.46). This difference was over 10 percentage points higher for teachers in privately managed schools in Morocco (17 percentage points higher) and Spain (12 percentage points higher). Results are varied for school location, with six education systems having more teachers who work in schools in urban areas reporting this than those working in rural or village schools: Sweden (15 percentage points more) and France (9 percentage points more). The reverse is true in five education systems: Colombia and South Africa (7 percentage points less for urban-based teachers), Brazil (6 percentage points less) and Poland and Romania (5 percentage points less).
Teachers participating in TALIS 2024 report “frequently” or “always” focusing on developing six social‑emotional skills in students. These skills include students’ ability to: 1) understand their own emotions, thoughts or behaviour; 2) manage their emotions, thoughts or behaviour; 3) understand the perspectives of others; 4) empathise with others; 5) establish and maintain healthy relationships; and 6) make caring and constructive choices about their personal actions. A clear general trend emerges from the findings – as the level of education increases (i.e. moving from ISCED level 1 to ISCED level 3), fewer teachers focus on these practices.
For example, more primary teachers than lower secondary teachers support students in building healthy relationships. The biggest differences are seen in the Flemish Community of Belgium* (22 percentage points more primary teachers) and the Netherlands* (21 percentage points more). Conversely, fewer upper secondary teachers focus on this practice as compared to lower secondary peers in Denmark (21 percentage points less) (Table 1.42).
In 10 out of 15 education systems, more than 90% of primary teachers support students in making caring and constructive choices about their personal actions. The biggest difference is observed in the Netherlands* (27 percentage points more primary teachers than lower secondary teachers). For upper secondary teachers, the biggest difference is observed in Denmark (26 percentage points less compared to lower secondary teachers).
Teachers also focus on helping students understand and manage their own emotions. The biggest differences are found in Australia (understanding their own emotions, thoughts and behaviour: 32 percentage points more primary teachers than lower secondary teachers) and the Flemish Community of Belgium* (managing their own emotions, thoughts, and behaviour: 30 percentage points more primary teachers). For education systems with available data for ISCED levels 2 and 3, the largest difference is observed in Denmark for both practices (35 percentage points less).
The growing impact of digital technologies on all areas of society, including education, has created an expectation of substantial changes in how teaching and learning will occur. While the role of teachers in the student learning process remains central, the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the potential and importance of digital tools in maintaining education during times of disruption. Many countries have digitised existing educational processes, but fewer have embraced a digital transformation that rethinks and modifies teaching practices and processes (OECD, 2023[61]). While the digital transformation of education can offer opportunities, there are some valid challenges, including potential issues with equity, new or amplified biases and privacy concerns, to name a few (OECD, 2023[61]).
Digital tools
Digital tools and resources can be used for a variety of pedagogical practices, such as whole-class instruction, individualised instruction or assessment. TALIS asks teachers about the extent to which they can do certain things with technologies, including enhancing student learning, adapting resources to different activities and learning to use new technology. TALIS also asks teachers about their attitudes to opportunities and challenges with using digital tools and resources for their work. Finally, TALIS asks teachers about their experience with AI and their beliefs around this specific technology (see the next section on Artificial intelligence).
Attitudes towards and use of digital tools for student learning vary considerably between education systems. In general, teachers “agree” or “strongly agree” that using digital tools develops students’ interest in learning (85% on average) (Table 1.47). However, opinions are more divided regarding whether digital tools improve academic performance, with fewer than 50% of teachers agreeing in Austria, the French Community of Belgium, Finland, France and Sweden. In contrast, over 95% of teachers agree in Albania, Saudi Arabia and Viet Nam.
Around one in two teachers “agree” or “strongly agree” that digital resources and tools can distract students from learning, on average (Table 1.48). This belief varies considerably, with around eight in ten teachers, or more, in Australia, Norway* and Sweden agreeing, compared to only three in ten in Italy and Türkiye. Around seven out of ten teachers, on average, “agree” or “strongly agree” that the use of digital resources and tools results in students submitting content obtained online as their own work.
Teachers who use digital resources and tools “frequently” or “always” report doing so to present information through direct instruction (66%) and handle logistic aspects of teaching (60%) (Table 1.49).
Female teachers, on average, are more likely to report using digital resources and tools “frequently” or “always” to present information through direct instruction (67% of female teachers compared to 62% of male teachers) and handle logistic aspects of teaching (61% of female teachers compared to 58% of male teachers) (Table 1.49). On the other hand, male teachers report using digital resources and tools “frequently” or “always” to give students problems that can only be solved by using digital resource and tools (24% of male teachers compared to 19% of female teachers) and to enable collaboration with others outside of the school (21% of male teachers compared to 19% of female teachers).
In general, teachers under 30 years are more likely than teachers over 50 to use digital technologies and tools on all the tasks listed in the survey (Table 1.50).
A strong predictor of whether teachers will use digital tools in the classroom is their beliefs about the benefits of these tools (e.g. digital tools develop student interest in learning, help students develop skills, improve their academic performance or collaborate on tasks). Teachers who have more positive beliefs about the benefits of using digital resources and tools tend to be more likely to use those resources for whole-class instruction (Table 1.51). This relationship is positive for all education systems after accounting for teacher and school characteristics (like age, gender, and school location). This relationship is the same for teachers using digital resources and tools for individualised instruction (Table 1.52).
Digital technologies also make it possible to deliver lessons in person, online, and in a hybrid format (a combination of both in person and online). Due to school closures, many education systems were forced to use online or hybrid learning during the COVID-19 pandemic (Schleicher, 2022[62]). TALIS 2024 data suggest that most lessons delivered by participating education systems take place in person post-COVID‑19, though some systems might be exploring remote education as a permanent solution (see Box 1.4 to see how countries are leveraging digital technologies to support teaching).
Some 81% of teachers work in schools where all lessons took place in person the month before the survey, on average (Table 1.53). Conversely, 16% of teachers work in schools where some or all lessons took place online or in hybrid format in the past month. However, this varies across countries, with 40% or more of teachers in Estonia, Israel, Japan, Kazakhstan, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, and the United Arab Emirates reporting that some or all lessons are being delivered online or in hybrid format.
TALIS looks at what school, class or individual teacher characteristics are more or less likely to use digital tools for whole-class instruction or for individualised instruction and assessment.
Teachers with more than 10% of students who have difficulties understanding the language(s) of instruction tend to be more likely to use digital resources for whole-class instruction (Table 1.54). In contrast, teachers with over 30% of students who are low academic achievers in their class tend to use these resources less frequently.
In around half of the education systems, teachers with more than 10% of students in their class who have difficulties understanding the language(s) of instruction tend to be more likely to use digital tools for individualised instruction and assessment (Table 1.55). Similarly, teachers with more than 30% of their students who have special education needs tend to do the same. In contrast, teachers who teach classes with over 30% of students from socio-economically disadvantaged homes tend to be less likely to do this. Teacher factors, such as age, gender and experience, have on average, little to no effect on the level of digital resource use for individual instruction.
School factors sometimes impact the capacity of teachers to provide quality instruction due to a shortage or inadequacy of digital resources and tools. The biggest difference is seen between publicly managed and privately managed schools, with more teachers in publicly managed schools experiencing this in 18 education systems (Table 1.56). Only in the Flemish Community of Belgium is the reverse true.
Understanding teachers’ self-efficacy with digital tools offers insight into how confident they feel using technology in the classroom. On average, 75% of teachers report that they can identify appropriate digital resources for their subject, while 68% feel confident in adapting them to different teaching activities (Table 1.58). On average, teachers’ confidence in using digital tools to support student learning is similar across most school settings. However, those working in schools where over 10% of students have difficulties understanding the language of instruction report slightly lower confidence (2 percentage points less) compared to their peers in schools without such students (Table 1.57).
The growing digitalisation of education is prompting governments to rethink how they support teaching. For example, Bahrain and Korea have developed digital platforms that provide teachers with access to teaching resources. Bahrain’s My Digital Library Platform follows a participatory model, allowing teachers to upload and share resources with peers. To ensure quality, submitted materials are reviewed based on predefined criteria and indicators. In addition to these repositories, both countries have established online communities to promote professional exchange among teachers. Korea’s Knowledge Spring, a network of 10 000 teachers, serves as a real-time, interactive space where educators can seek advice and collaborate nationwide. These digital tools are also leveraged to support teachers’ professional development. Knowledge Spring, for instance, offers Korean teachers a flexible and autonomous training system, enabling them to access instructional materials and learning opportunities tailored to their needs.
Singapore has been exploring how to leverage AI for education since the launch of the National AI Strategy in 2019. The Ministry of Education has since progressively rolled out AI-enabled features on the national teaching and learning platform, the Singapore Student Learning Space, with ethical safeguards and pedagogical considerations in place. Some of these AI-enabled features include the following tools that support teachers’ teaching and provide a more personalised learning experience for students:
The Adaptive Learning System, which uses machine learning to analyse students’ responses to learning content and questions, make inferences on students’ concept mastery, and provide customised and/or personalised learning recommendations to students.
The Short Answer Feedback Assistant, which provides immediate and personalised feedback on students' responses, allowing teachers to focus on providing more targeted support and guidance to students to advance learning.
The Data Assistant, which allows teachers to use large-language-model-based analysis to speed up the analysis of students’ text-based responses, allowing for more timely intervention.
The Learning Assistant, a student-facing dialogic agent that guides students’ learning through iterative questioning, is designed with safeguards in place to ensure proper use by the students. For example, teachers can set interaction limits to reduce students’ over-reliance on the tool. Teachers can also access students’ conversation logs for insights.
In tandem with making AI-based tools available to teachers and students, the Singapore Ministry of Education also places emphasis on building students’ AI literacy, including understanding how AI works, its benefits, and its risks. This will provide them with a solid foundation for learning how to use AI effectively and ethically, as well as how to learn with AI.
Digitalisation and, notably, the emergence of AI have also raised questions around how and what teachers should teach in the digital era. To explore these issues, the Netherlands has established the National Education Lab AI (NOLAI), which conducts research on the pedagogical, social and ethical implications of AI in education.
Source: Ministry of Education, Kingdom of Bahrain (2025[63]) Digital Educational Content Production and My Digital Library, https://moe.gov.bh/en/digital-educational-content-production-and-my-digital-library ; The Ministry of Education, (n.d.[64]) Knowledge Spring, https://educator.edunet.net/ ; European Commission (n.d.[65]), National Education Lab AI, https://commission.europa.eu/projects/national-education-lab-ai_en; GovTech Singapore (2025[66]), AI in Education: Transforming Singapore’s Education System with Student Learning Space, https://www.tech.gov.sg/media/technews/ai-in-education-transforming-singapore-education-system-with-student-learning-space/; Radboud Universiteit (n.d.[67]), About the National Education Lab AI, https://www.ru.nl/en/nolai/about-nolai.
Artificial intelligence
Within TALIS, AI is defined as “the capacity for computers to perform tasks traditionally thought to involve human intelligence. This can include making predictions, suggesting decisions, or generating text.” (OECD, 2023[61]). It is important to note that this definition goes beyond generative AI and large-language models (LLMs) (like ChatGPT) and includes technologies such as natural language processing (NLP) and speech recognition, learning analytics and data mining, image recognition and processing and autonomous agents (such as avatars and smart robots) (UNESCO, 2021[68]).
The use of AI in education has been a topic of research for over 40 years. However, the release of OpenAI’s ChatGPT in late 2022 accelerated the everyday use of AI in many parts of society. Although AI is playing a larger role in people’s lives, the short- and long-term influence of AI on education remains uncertain. How AI should be used in education is also a pertinent question.
TALIS asks teachers whether they use AI in their teaching or to facilitate student learning. Based on these responses, TALIS asks in what ways AI is used or why it is not used. TALIS asks teachers to “agree” or “disagree” with statements about AI that are split into benefits (such as “AI enables teachers to adapt learning material to different students’ abilities”) and concerns (such as “AI enables students to misrepresent others’ work as their own”).
Around one in three teachers report having used AI in their work, on average (Figure 1.12). There is variation across countries, however. Around 75% of teachers in Singapore and the United Arab Emirates report doing so, and fewer than 20% of teachers in France and Japan do so.
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who report using AI in the last year
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
Source: OECD, TALIS 2024 Database, Table 1.59.
Out of teachers who use AI, some 68% say they use it to efficiently learn about and summarise a topic, and 64% use AI to generate lesson plans, on average (Table 1.60). Only 25% of teachers report using AI to review data on student participation or performance, and 26% indicate that they use it to assess or grade student work.
Further, 40% of teachers “agree” or “strongly agree” that AI helps them support students individually, on average (Figure 1.13). Around 50% agree that AI assists in creating or improving lesson plans, though agreement ranges from as low as 18% in France and 31% in Denmark and Finland to as high as 87% in the United Arab Emirates and 91% in Viet Nam (Table 1.61).
Seven in ten teachers (on average) believe AI could enable students to misrepresent others’ work as their own (Table 1.62). Around four in ten teachers agree that AI may amplify biases, reinforce student misconceptions, or compromise data privacy and security.
Since the COVID-19 pandemic, integrating new technologies – including AI – has become a growing expectation for teachers in many education systems (OECD, 2021[69]). Approximately 33% of teachers that have not used AI across OECD education systems report feeling overwhelmed by this shift, citing it as a barrier to using AI in their teaching (Table 1.63). This varies widely across systems, however, from fewer than 20% in Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Italy, Morocco, Türkiye and the United Arab Emirates, to over 50% in Croatia, the Flemish Community of Belgium, Japan and Serbia.
Three in four teachers report that they lack the knowledge or skills to teach using AI, on average (Table 1.63). About half of teachers do not believe AI should be used in teaching. In terms of school policy, one in ten teachers report that their school does not allow AI in teaching.
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who agree with the following statements
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
Source: OECD, TALIS 2024 Database, Tables 1.59, 1.61 and 1.62.
Primary school teachers (ISCED 1)
Fewer primary teachers report using AI as compared to their lower secondary peers. The biggest differences are observed in Australia (19 percentage points less) and the Flemish Community of Belgium* (14 percentage points less) (Table 1.59). Nevertheless, for teachers who do use AI, a bigger proportion of primary teachers tend to use it for the specific practices reported in TALIS 2024 compared to their lower secondary counterparts.
For instance, in nearly half of the education systems with available data for primary and lower secondary education, a bigger proportion of primary teachers use AI to support students with special education needs (the biggest difference is in France; 36 percentage points more for primary teachers) and to adjust the difficulty of lesson materials according to students’ learning needs (the biggest difference is in the Netherlands*; 26 percentage points more) (Table 1.60). More primary teachers also report using AI for practices such as generating text for student feedback (biggest difference is in France; 32 percentage points more for primary teachers) and parent/guardian communications and reviewing data on student participation and performance (biggest difference in the Netherlands*; 24 percentage points more) (Table 1.60).
In general, primary school teachers reported fewer challenges with using AI compared to their lower secondary peers. For instance, in 12 out of 15 education systems with available data for primary and lower secondary education, fewer primary school teachers reported that AI enables students to misrepresent others’ work as their own. In ten of these systems, fewer primary school teachers reported that AI could make recommendations that may not be appropriate or correct, and in nine education systems, primary school teachers reported less than their lower secondary peers that AI amplifies biases that reinforce students’ misconceptions (Table 1.62).
Upper secondary school teachers (ISCED 3)
Conversely, a larger proportion of upper secondary teachers utilise AI compared to their lower secondary peers, in half of the education systems with available data for both upper and lower secondary education. The biggest differences are found in the Flemish Community of Belgium (10 percentage points higher in upper secondary) and Slovenia (13 percentage points higher). No differences are observed in the rest of the education systems (Table 1.59).
Among education systems with available data for upper and lower secondary education, fewer upper secondary teachers who use AI use it for specific practices listed in TALIS 2024 compared to their lower secondary peers. The only exception to this trend is the Flemish Community of Belgium, where more upper secondary teachers use AI to learn about and summarise a topic (9 percentage points more) (Table 1.60). A smaller proportion of upper secondary teachers use AI to adjust the difficulty of lessons to meet diverse student needs, support students with special education needs and generate text for student feedback or parent/guardian communications. The biggest differences are observed in Portugal (11 percentage points less for upper secondary teachers), Croatia (19 percentage points less) and Denmark (12 percentage points less) for each practice, respectively (Table 1.60).
In five out of eight education systems with available data for upper and lower secondary education, a bigger proportion of upper secondary teachers report that AI enables students to misrepresent others’ work as their own, compared to lower secondary teachers. In four of those education systems, upper secondary teachers were also more likely to report that AI makes recommendations that may not be appropriate or correct, and in three education systems, teachers are more likely to report that AI amplifies biases that reinforce students’ misconceptions (Table 1.62).
References
[1] Adair, J., J. Tobin and A. Arzubiaga (2012), “The dilemma of cultural responsiveness and professionalization: Listening closer to immigrant teachers who teach children of recent immigrants”, Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, Vol. 114/12, pp. 1-37, https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811211401203.
[24] Arnold and Rahimi (2025), The Global Status of Teachers 2024, Education International (EI), Brussels, https://www.ei-ie.org/en/item/29412:the-global-status-of-teachers-2024.
[18] Australian Education Ministers Meeting (n.d.), The National Teacher Workforce Action Plan December 2022, Australian Ministry of Education, https://www.education.gov.au/national-teacher-workforce-action-plan.
[19] Australian Government Department of Education (n.d.), High Achieving Teachers (HAT) Program, https://www.education.gov.au/teaching-and-school-leadership/high-achieving-teachers-hat-program/high-achieving-teachers-hat-program-frequently-asked-questions (accessed on 12 May 2025).
[59] Brackett, M. et al. (2011), “Assessing teachers’ beliefs about social and emotional learning”, Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, Vol. 30/3, pp. 219-236, https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282911424879.
[42] Brussino, O. (2020), “Mapping policy approaches and practices for the inclusion of students with special education needs”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 227, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/600fbad5-en.
[46] Bundesgesetzblatt authentisch ab 2004 (2018), Improvment of German Learning Through the Formation of German Language Classes, https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/eli/bgbl/I/2018/35/20180614;.
[7] Cacouault-Bitaud, M. (2001), “Is the feminization of a profession a loss of prestige?”, Travail, genre et sociétés, Vol. 5/1, pp. 91-115, https://shs.cairn.info/journal-travail-genre-et-societes-2001-1-page-91?lang=en.
[32] Caprara, G. et al. (2006), “Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs as determinants of job satisfaction and students’ academic achievement: A study at the school level”, Journal of School Psychology, Vol. 44/6, pp. 473-490, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.09.001.
[29] Causa, O. et al. (2025), “Labour shortages and labour market inequalities: Evidence and policy implications”, OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 1832, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/14e62ec0-en.
[54] Corno, L. (2008), “On teaching adaptively”, Educational Psychologist, Vol. 43/3, pp. 161-173, https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520802178466.
[14] Darling-Hammond, L. (2006), Powerful Teacher Education: Lessons from Exemplary Programs, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
[3] de Jong, L., J. Meirink and W. Admiraal (2022), “School-based collaboration as a learning context for teachers: A systematic review”, International Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 112, p. 101927, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2022.101927.
[4] Dulce-Salcedo, O., D. Maldonado and F. Sánchez (2022), “Is the proportion of female STEM teachers in secondary education related to women’s enrollment in tertiary education STEM programs?”, International Journal of Educational Development, Vol. 91, p. 102591, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2022.102591.
[60] Durlak, J. et al. (2011), “The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta‐analysis of school‐based universal interventions”, Child Development, Vol. 82/1, pp. 405-432, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x.
[20] Education Workforce (2024), Changing to a teaching career, https://workforce.education.govt.nz/becoming-teacher-new-zealand/why-become-teacher/changing-teaching-career#career-changer-stories-1 (accessed on 12 May 2025).
[45] Erling, E., M. Gitschthaler and S. Schwab (2022), “Is segregated language support fit for purpose? Insights From German language support classes in Austria”, European Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 11/1, pp. 573-586, https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.11.1.573.
[65] European Commission (n.d.), National Education Lab AI, https://commission.europa.eu/projects/national-education-lab-ai_en (accessed on 12 May 2025).
[51] Förtsch, C. et al. (2016), “Effects of cognitive activation in biology lessons on students’ situational interest and achievement”, Research in Science Education, Vol. 47/3, pp. 559-578, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9517-y.
[43] Francisco, M., M. Hartman and Y. Wang (2020), “Inclusion and special education”, Education Sciences, Vol. 10/9, p. 238, https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10090238.
[66] GovTech Singapore (2025), AI in Education: Transforming Singapore’s Education System with Student Learning Space, https://www.tech.gov.sg/media/technews/ai-in-education-transforming-singapore-education-system-with-student-learning-space/ (accessed on 14 May 2025).
[21] Guthrie, C. et al. (2022), OECD Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment in Education: Bulgaria, OECD Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment in Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/57f2fb43-en.
[13] Hammerness, K. and K. Klette (2015), “Indicators of Quality in Teacher Education: Looking at Features of Teacher Education from an International Perspective”, in International Perspectives on Education and Society, Promoting and Sustaining a Quality Teacher Workforce, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, https://doi.org/10.1108/s1479-367920140000027013.
[34] Hardré, P. and D. Sullivan (2008), “Teacher perceptions and individual differences: How they influence rural teachers’ motivating strategies”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 24/8, pp. 2059-2075, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.04.007.
[56] Hattie, J. and H. Timperley (2007), “The power of feedback”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 77/1, pp. 81-112, https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487.
[33] Klassen, R. et al. (2010), “Teacher efficacy research 1998–2009: Signs of progress or unfulfilled promise?”, Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 23/1, pp. 21-43, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9141-8.
[35] Lauermann, F. and R. Butler (2021), “The elusive links between teachers’ teaching-related emotions, motivations, and self-regulation and students’ educational outcomes”, Educational Psychologist, Vol. 56/4, pp. 243-249, https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1991800.
[37] Lauermann, F. and I. ten Hagen (2021), “Do teachers’ perceived teaching competence and self-efficacy affect students’ academic outcomes? A closer look at student-reported classroom processes and outcomes”, Educational Psychologist, Vol. 56/4, pp. 265-282, https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1991355.
[52] Li, H. et al. (2020), “Examining the relationships between cognitive activation, self‐efficacy, socioeconomic status, and achievement in mathematics: A multi‐level analysis”, British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 91/1, pp. 101-126, https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12351.
[50] Lipowsky, F. et al. (2009), “Quality of geometry instruction and its short-term impact on students’ understanding of the Pythagorean Theorem”, Learning and Instruction, Vol. 19/6, pp. 527-537, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.11.001.
[10] Lobo, C. and S. Falleiro (2024), “A cross-national empirical analysis of the contribution of fertility, life expectancy and net migration in driving contemporary and future population ageing”, Population and Economics, Vol. 8/4, pp. 64-91, https://doi.org/10.3897/popecon.8.e118982.
[64] Ministry of Education (n.d.), Knowledge Spring, https://educator.edunet.net/.
[63] Ministry of Education, Kingdom of Bahrain (2025), Digital Educational Content Production and My Digital Library, https://moe.gov.bh/en/digital-educational-content-production-and-my-digital-library.
[48] Muijs, D. et al. (2014), “State of the art – teacher effectiveness and professional learning”, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Vol. 25/2, pp. 231-256, https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2014.885451.
[23] Netherlands Central Government (n.d.), Working in Education: Question and Answer, https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/werken-in-het-onderwijs/vraag-en-antwoord/hoe-word-ik-zijinstromer-in-het-onderwijs (accessed on 17 June 2025).
[17] Nielsen, A. (2016), “Second career teachers and (mis)recognitions of professional identities”, School Leadership and Management, Vol. 36/2, pp. 221-245, https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2016.1209180.
[36] Nie, Y. et al. (2012), “The roles of teacher efficacy in instructional innovation: its predictive relations to constructivist and didactic instruction”, Educational Research for Policy and Practice, Vol. 12/1, pp. 67-77, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-012-9128-y.
[47] Nilsen, T. and J. Gustafsson (eds.) (2016), Teacher Quality, Instructional Quality and Student Outcomes, Springer International Publishing, Cham, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41252-8.
[26] OECD (2024), Education at a Glance 2024: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c00cad36-en.
[25] OECD (2024), Education Policy Outlook 2024: Reshaping Teaching into a Thriving Profession from ABCs to AI, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/dd5140e4-en.
[58] OECD (2024), Nurturing Social and Emotional Learning Across the Globe: Findings from the OECD Survey on Social and Emotional Skills 2023, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/32b647d0-en.
[57] OECD (2024), Social and Emotional Skills for Better Lives: Findings from the OECD Survey on Social and Emotional Skills 2023, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/35ca7b7c-en.
[8] OECD (2023), Health at a Glance 2023: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/7a7afb35-en.
[61] OECD (2023), OECD Digital Education Outlook 2023: Towards an Effective Digital Education Ecosystem, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c74f03de-en.
[27] OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume II): Learning During – and From – Disruption, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a97db61c-en.
[69] OECD (2021), OECD Digital Education Outlook 2021: Pushing the Frontiers with Artificial Intelligence, Blockchain and Robots, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/589b283f-en.
[12] OECD (2019), A Flying Start: Improving Initial Teacher Preparation Systems, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/cf74e549-en.
[2] OECD (2019), Supporting and Guiding Novice Teachers: Evidence from TALIS 2018, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2019/12/supporting-and-guiding-novice-teachers_f15d19e5.html.
[15] OECD (2019), TALIS 2018 Results (Volume I): Teachers and School Leaders as Lifelong Learners, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1d0bc92a-en.
[38] Parsons, S. et al. (2017), “Teachers’ instructional adaptations: A research synthesis”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 88/2, pp. 205-242, https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317743198.
[11] Podolsky, A., T. Kini and L. Darling-Hammond (2019), “Does teaching experience increase teacher effectiveness? A review of US research”, Journal of Professional Capital and Community, Vol. 4/4, pp. 286-308, https://doi.org/10.1108/jpcc-12-2018-0032.
[67] Radboud Universiteit (n.d.), About the National Education Lab AI, https://www.ru.nl/en/nolai/about-nolai (accessed on 12 May 2025).
[22] Radinger, T. et al. (2018), OECD Reviews of School Resources: Colombia 2018, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264303751-en.
[55] Schipper, T. et al. (2020), “Becoming a more adaptive teacher through collaborating in Lesson Study? Examining the influence of Lesson Study on teachers’ adaptive teaching practices in mainstream secondary education”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 88, p. 102961, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.102961.
[62] Schleicher, A. (2022), Building on COVID-19’s Innovation Momentum for Digital, Inclusive Education, International Summit on the Teaching Profession, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/24202496-en.
[6] Sevilla, M., P. Bordón and F. Ramirez-Espinoza (2023), “Reinforcing the STEM pipeline in vocational-technical high schools: The effect of female teachers”, Economics of Education Review, Vol. 95, p. 102428, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2023.102428.
[31] Skaalvik, E. and S. Skaalvik (2007), “Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations with strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout.”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 99/3, pp. 611-625, https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.611.
[40] Smale-Jacobse, A. et al. (2019), “Differentiated instruction in secondary education: A systematic review of research evidence”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 10, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02366.
[5] Stearns, E. et al. (2016), “Demographic characteristics of high school math and science teachers and girls’ success in STEM”, Social Problems, Vol. 63/1, pp. 87-110, https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spv027.
[16] Tigchelaar, A., N. Brouwer and J. Vermunt (2010), “Tailor-made: Towards a pedagogy for educating second-career teachers”, Educational Research Review, Vol. 5/2, pp. 164-183, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2009.11.002.
[39] Tomlinson, C. (2017), How to Differentiate Instruction in Acadmically Diverse Classrooms, ASCD, Alexandria, VA.
[41] Tomlinson, C. (2015), “Teaching for excellence in academically diverse classrooms”, Society, Vol. 52/3, pp. 203-209, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-015-9888-0.
[30] Tschannen-Moran, M. and A. Hoy (2001), “Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 17/7, pp. 783-805, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0742-051x(01)00036-1.
[44] UK Department of Education (2025), Special Educational Needs in England, https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/special-educational-needs-in-england/2024-25 (accessed on 27 June 2025).
[28] UNESCO (2024), Global Report on Teachers: Addressing Teacher Shortages and Transforming the Profession, UNESCO, Paris, https://doi.org/10.54675/figu8035.
[68] UNESCO (2021), AI and Education: Guidance for Policy-Makers, UNESCO, https://doi.org/10.54675/pcsp7350.
[9] United Nations (2022), World Population Prospects 2022: Online Edition, https://population.un.org/wpp/ (accessed on 18 June 2025).
[53] Wang, X. et al. (2023), “Factors predicting mathematics achievement in PISA: A systematic review”, Large-scale Assessments in Education, Vol. 11/1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-023-00174-8.
[49] Wubbels, T. (2011), “An international perspective on classroom management: What should prospective teachers learn?”, Teaching Education, Vol. 22/2, pp. 113-131, https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2011.567838.
← 1. * For countries highlighted with an asterisk (*), estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias. See the Reader's Guide and Annex A for more detail.