Teachers’ instructional practices comprise a number of aspects, which have been shown to be highly important for students’ learning outcomes such as achievement and motivation (Creemers & Kyriakides, 2008; Fauth, Decristan, Rieser, Klieme, & Büttner, 2014; Kunter et al., 2013). Even though the concept is understood differently across the field, there is an agreement that instructional practices are multidimensional. More specifically, effective practices are characterized by: (1) classroom management (i.e., actions taken by the teacher to ensure an orderly environment and an effective use of time during lessons; van Tartwijk & Hammerness, 2011); (2) teacher support (i.e., teachers provide extra help when needed, listen to and respect students’ ideas and questions, and care about and encourage students; Klieme et al., 2009); (3) cognitive activation (i.e., instructional activities, in which students have to evaluate, integrate, and apply knowledge in the context of problem solving; Lipowsky et al., 2009); (4) clarity of instruction (i.e., clear and comprehensive instruction and learning goals, connecting new and old topics, providing a summary at the end of a lesson; Hospel & Galand, 2016; Seidel, Rimmele, & Prenzel, 2005).

International large-scale assessment studies aim to monitor student achievement at international and national levels. In addition, the major large-scale assessment studies take into account important information on students’ personal background and the context of learning both in and out of school.

As instructional quality has been established as an important predictor for students’ achievement, it can be expected and it has been shown to contribute to the explanation of achievement differences in international large scale assessments (Klieme, 2013), however due to limited instrumentation there is still a need for more nuanced research in this area (O’Dywer, Wang & Shields, 2015). In order to use instructional quality in an international context the same construct has to be assessed in different countries. Thus, in TIMSS 2015 several countries included scales on the dimensions of teaching quality (cognitive activation, classroom management, supportive climate, and clarity of instruction) as part of their national extensions building on PISA scales and the work done in the IGEL-study (Fauth et al., 2014). This endeavor provides a unique dataset to investigate instructional quality across countries and in relation to different process and outcome variables. It should also be pointed out that TIMSS is the only international large-scale study with a design enabling research on relations between classroom-level constructs and student-level outcomes.

This symposium gathers an international panel of speakers on the validity of the construct of instructional quality within and across the participating countries. The following main question will be addressed:

What can we learn from TIMSS 2015 about the validity of student ratings of instructional quality? To what extent can construct validity be established across different countries, grades and subjects? What is the relationship between the dimensions of teaching quality and outcome measures?

The papers to be presented in this symposium address specific questions within the two general aspects described above and aim at launching a European and international discussion on questions on measurement of instructional quality in large scale assessments.

Creemers, B. P. M. & Kyriakides, L. (2008). The Dynamics of Educational Effectiveness: A Contribution to Policy, Practice and Theory in Contemporary Schools. Abingdon: Routledge. Klieme, E. (2013). The role of large-scale assessments in research on educational effectiveness and school development. In: Davier, M.; Gonzalez, E.; Kirsch, I.; Yamamoto, K. (Eds.): The role of international large-scale assessments. Dordrecht : Springer, 115-148 Hospel, V., & Galand, B. (2016). Are both classroom autonomy support and structure equally important for students‘ engagement? A multilevel analysis. Learning and Instruction, 41, 1-10. Kunter, M., Klusmann, U., Baumert, J., Richter, D., Voss, T., & Hachfeld, A. (2013). Professional competence of teachers: Effects on instructional quality and student development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 805-820. O’Dwyer, L.M., Wang, Y., & Shields, K.A. (2015) Teaching for Conceptual Understanding: A Cross-national Comparison of the Relationship between Teachers’ Instructional Practices and Student Achievement in Mathematics. Large Scale Assessment. 3, 1. DOI 10.1186/s40536-014-0011-6. Seidel, T., Rimmele, R. & Prenzel, M. (2005). Clarity and coherence of lesson goals as a scaffold for student learning. Learning and Instruction, 15(6), 539-556. van Tartwijk, J., & Hammerness, K. (2011). The neglected role of classroom management in teacher education. Teaching Education, 22(2), 109-112.