09 SES 07 A, Teacher Characteristics and Practices – Exploring Relations to Student-, School- and System-level Variables
Teacher's classroom management is an important element of student academic success and its improvement is a major concern among educators, parents and policy makers. One of the method to estimate teacher's classroom management level is to ask the students using a questionnaire. Students are first hand witnesses of what occurs in the classrooms and so they are in a privileged position to provide feedback on teaching practices (Brimble & Stevenson-Clarke, 2005; Vonkova et al., 2015). In general, data from student surveys is a central source of information in education research.
However, comparisons of self-reported measures across students in different countries, regions, schools, classrooms, or different socio-economic groups can be biased if respondents differ in their use of scales in the provided questions. Several studies have drawn attention to the heterogeneity in reporting behavior among respondents from different cultural backgrounds (e.g., Buckley, 2009; Clarke, 2001; Chen, Lee, & Stevenson, 1995). The anchoring vignette method has been introduced in the social sciences to adjust for such heterogeneity in reporting behavior and obtain comparable responses across groups (King et al., 2004).
Vonkova et al. (2015) show a substantial heterogeneity in student's perceptions of teacher's classroom management reporting behavior across PISA 2012 countries. In some countries, students have higher standards for judging teacher behavior and therefore such countries improve their relative position in the ranking of teachers' classroom management skills after adjusting for heterogeneity in reporting behavior. In Europe, this is the case of for example Norway, the Netherlands and Denmark. In contrary, students in other countries have lower standards and therefore such countries worsen their relative position after adjustment. This is the case of, for example, Romania, Albania and Bulgaria.
It has been shown in the literature that the heterogeneity in reporting behavior may play a substantial role not only in between-country level but also on within-country level (Bago d'Uva et al., 2008; Vonkova & Hrabak, 2015; Vonkova, Bendl & Papajoanu, forthcoming). In this paper, we focus on the relationship of selected school variables with teacher's classroom management and show whether they play a substantial / minor role when the heterogeneity in reporting behavior is accounted for. The selected school variables are the following: a) private versus public school, b) size of school location, c) competition between schools in the school's location (number of schools in the school's area that compete for students), d) classroom size, e) using achievement data in accountability procedures like posting them publicly, f) teacher salary change based on teacher appraisal, g) proportion of maths teachers with ISCED 5A (maths as major). The analysis is done for all 33 European countries participating in PISA 2012.
Our research questions are:
1) To what extent is the heterogeneity in the student's reporting behavior influenced by the selected school factors in European countries participating in PISA 2012?
2) What is the influence of the selected school factors on teacher's classroom management before and after adjustment for the heterogeneity in reporting behavior across European countries? What selected school factors play substantial role in teacher's classroom management across European countries when (not) adjusted for the heterogeneity?
3) In what European countries is the heterogeneity in reporting behavior most / less substantial?
Buckley, J. (2009). Cross-national response styles in international educational assessments: Evidence from PISA 2006. New York University: Department of Humanities and Social Sciences in the Professions. Retrieved from https://edsurveys.rti.org/PISA/documents/Buckley PISAresponsestyle.pdf Bago d’Uva, T., van Doorslaer, E., Lindeboom, M., & O’Donnell, O. (2008). Does reporting heterogeneity bias the measurement of health disparities? Health Economics, 17(3), 351-375. Brimble, M., & Stevenson-Clarke, P. (2005). Perceptions of the prevalence and seriousness of academic dishonesty in Australian universities. The Australian Educational Researcher, 32(3), 19–44. Clarke, L. (2001). Extreme response style in cross-cultural research. International Marketing Review, 18(3), 301–324. Chen, Ch, Lee, S., & Stevenson, H. W. (1995). Response style and cross-cultural comparisons of rating scales among East Asian and North American students. Psychological Science, 6(3), 170-175. King, G., Murray, C. J. L., Salomon, J. A., & Tandon, A. (2004). Enhancing the validity and cross-cultural comparability of measurement in survey research. American Political Science Review, 98(1), 567-583. Vonkova, H., Bendl, S., Papajoanu, (2015). O. How students report dishonest behavior in school: Self-assessment and anchoring vignettes. Journal of Experimental Education, forthcoming. Vonkova, H., & Hrabak, J. (2015). The (in) comparability of ICT knowledge and skill self-assessments among upper secondary school students: The use of the anchoring vignette method. Computers & Education, 85 , 191-202. Vonkova, H., Zamarro, G., & DeBerg, V. (2015). Comparisons of student perceptions of teacher’s performance in the classroom: Using parametric anchoring vignette methods for improving comparability. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273785729_Comparisons_of_Student_Perceptions_of_Teacher's_Performance_in_the_Classroom_Using_Parametric_Anchoring_Vignette_Methods_for_Improving_Comparability_PRELIMINARY_VERSION
00. Central Events (Keynotes, EERA-Panel, EERJ Round Table, Invited Sessions)
Network 1. Continuing Professional Development: Learning for Individuals, Leaders, and Organisations
Network 2. Vocational Education and Training (VETNET)
Network 3. Curriculum Innovation
Network 4. Inclusive Education
Network 5. Children and Youth at Risk and Urban Education
Network 6. Open Learning: Media, Environments and Cultures
Network 7. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Network 8. Research on Health Education
Network 9. Assessment, Evaluation, Testing and Measurement
Network 10. Teacher Education Research
Network 11. Educational Effectiveness and Quality Assurance
Network 12. LISnet - Library and Information Science Network
Network 13. Philosophy of Education
Network 14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Network 15. Research Partnerships in Education
Network 16. ICT in Education and Training
Network 17. Histories of Education
Network 18. Research in Sport Pedagogy
Network 19. Ethnography
Network 20. Research in Innovative Intercultural Learning Environments
Network 22. Research in Higher Education
Network 23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Network 24. Mathematics Education Research
Network 25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Network 26. Educational Leadership
Network 27. Didactics – Learning and Teaching
The programme is updated regularly (each day in the morning)
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.