09 SES 06 B, Relating Student, Teacher and Context Variables to Student Achievement and Teacher Judgements
Teachers’ diagnostic competence is pivotal to accurately support children’s learning process. Research on the subject of accuracy has revealed contradicting results (correlations higher than .60: Hoge and Coladarci, 1989; Karing, Matthäi, & Artelt, 2011; Lorenz & Artelt, 2009; correlations lower than .60: Begeny, Krouse, Brown, & Mann, 2011; Südkamp, Kaiser, & Möller, 2012).
Accuracy is influenced by students’ as well as by teachers’ characteristics (Randall & Engelhard, 2010). Various researchers have tried to identify the children’s first language (L1) as a possible influence of judgment accuracy. Paleczek, Seifert, Schwab, and Gasteiger-Klicpera (2015) could not show differences in accuracy of teachers’ judgment of L1 and second language (L2) learners. Limbos and Geva (2001), however, identified differences in teachers’ ability to detect students at risk for reading disability especially in L2 learners. Krolak-Schwerdt and Rummer (2005) found the students’ lower socioeconomic background lead to less accuracy in mathematics and German language arts.
In interaction with students’ gender, Ready and Wright (2011) found that teachers tend to overestimate girls’ literacy skills. Other researchers, however, could not find such an influence of gender on accuracy (Bennett, Gottesman, Rock, Cerullo, & Levin, 1993; Hecht & Greenfield, 2002, Helwig, Anderson, & Tindal, 2001, 2001; Karing et al., 2011; Schabmann & Schmidt, 2009).
In low achieving students, teachers seem to judge achievement less accurately (Demaray & Elliott, 1998; Feinberg & Shapiro, 2009; Feinberg, Shapiro, & D'amato, 2003). Randall and Engelhard (2010) could reveal that especially in borderline cases, teachers also relied on students’ characteristics, such as behavior and motivation when deciding on students’ grades. Also Kaiser, Retelsdorf, Südkamp, and Möller (2013) found teachers’ judgments of students’ performance to be influenced by the students’ motivation.
Hurwitz, Elliott, and Braden (2007) could show that teachers underestimated students with special educational needs (SEN).
Since research about teacher and student characteristics influencing the accuracy of teachers’ judgments is rather rare in comparison to research about accuracy in general, the present paper aimed at adding information concerning the class and individual (student) level to the body of research on accuracy.
The purpose of the present study was to take a closer look at the accuracy of teacher judgments of 2nd and 3rd graders’ reading abilities and, thus, to investigate variables that influence the accuracy of teachers’ judgments.
We posed two main research questions:
(i) How accurately do teachers judge their students’ reading abilities (decoding and reading comprehension)?
Due to previous studies we hypothesized that the teachers’ judgment and the students’ actual achievement correlate about .60 (Hoge & Coladarci, 1989; Südkamp et al., 2012).
(ii) Which variables at individual level (student’s first language, gender, level of the student’s respective reading ability, SEN status) and at class level (class size, percentage of L2 students in class, Grade 2 vs. 3, beginning vs. end of the academic year) predict the accuracy of teacher judgments on the reading abilities (decoding and reading comprehension)?
We hypothesized that at individual level, the SEN status (Hurwitz et al., 2007) and the ability of the students (Feinberg & Shapiro, 2009) but not L1 (Paleczek et al., 2015) and gender (Hecht & Greenfield, 2002) predicted judgment accuracy. At class level, we assumed that Grade and time of measurement predict the accuracy of teachers’ judgments – assuming accuracy to grow along the time (Schmidt & Schabmann, 2010). Class size was also assumed to have an impact on accuracy. The percentage of L2 learners in class, however, was not assumed to predict the accuracy of teachers’ judgments.
Begeny, J. C., Krouse, H. E., Brown, K. G., & Mann, C. M. (2011). Teacher Judgments of Students’ Reading Abilities Across a Continuum of Rating Methods and Achievement Measures. School Psychology Review, (15), 40(1), 23–38. Bennett, R. E., Gottesman, R. L., Rock, D. A., Cerullo, F., & Levin, J. R. (1993). Influence of Behavior Perceptions and Gender on Teachers' Judgments of Students' Academic Skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(2), 347–356. Demaray, M. K., & Elliott, S. N. (1998). Teachers' Judgments of Students' Academic Functioning: A Comparison of Actual and Predicted Performances. School Psychology Quarterly, 13(1), 8–24. Feinberg, A. B., & Shapiro, E. S. (2009). Teacher Accuracy: An Examination of Teacher-Based Judgments of Students' Reading with Differing Achievement Levels. The Journal of Educational Research, 102(6), 453–462. Hoge, R. D., & Coladarci, T. (1989). Teacher-Based Judgments of Academic Achievement: A Review of Literature. Review of Educational Research, 59(3), 297–313. Hurwitz, J. T., Elliott, S. N., & Braden, J. P. (2007). The influence of test familiarity and student disability status upon teachers' judgments of students' test performance. School Psychology Quarterly, 22(2), 115–144. Kaiser, J., Retelsdorf, J., Südkamp, A., & Möller, J. (2013). Achievement and engagement: How student characteristics influence teacher judgments. Learning and Instruction, 28, 73–84. Karing, C., Matthäi, J., & Artelt, C. (2011). Genauigkeit von Lehrerurteilen über die Lesekompetenz ihrer Schülerinnen und Schüler in der Sekundarstufe I – Eine Frage der Spezifität? Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 25(3), 159–172. Lorenz, C., & Artelt, C. (2009). Fachspezifität und Stabilität diagnostischer Kompetenz von Grundschullehrkräften in den Fächern Deutsch und Mathematik. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 23(34), 211–222. Paleczek, L., Seifert, S., Schwab, S., & Gasteiger-Klicpera, B. (2015). Assessing Reading and Spelling Abilities from Three Different Angles – Correlations between Test Scores, Teachers’ Assessment and Children's Self-assessments in L1 and L2 Children. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 2200–2210. Ready, D. D., & Wright, D. L. (2011). Accuracy and Inaccuracy in Teachers' Perceptions of Young Children's Cognitive Abilities: The Role of Child Background and Classroom Context. American Educational Research Journal, 48(2), 335–360. Randall, J., & Engelhard, G. (2010). Examining the grading practices of teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(7), 1372–1380. Schabmann, A., & Schmidt, B. M. (2009). Sind Lehrer gute Lese-Rechtschreibdiagnostiker? Der Einfluss von problematischem Schülerverhalten auf die Einschätzungen der Lesekompetenz durch Lehrkräfte. Heilpädagogische Forschung, 35(3), 133–145. Südkamp, A., Kaiser, J., & Möller, J. (2012). Accuracy of teachers' judgments of students' academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 743–762.
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.