Validating Links Between Educational Effectiveness Research and School Improvement: The Impact of the Dynamic Approach to School Improvement

Author(s):

Yiannis Ioannou(presenting / submitting)

Conference:

ECER 2017

Network:

09. Assessment, Evaluation, Testing and Measurement

Format:

Paper

Session Information

09 SES 04 B, Analyzing and Discussing the Dynamic School Effectiveness Model

Paper Session

Time:

2017-08-23

09:00-10:30

Room:

W5.18

Chair:

Jan Van Damme

Contribution

Educational Effectiveness Research (EER) throughout its journey has provided growing evidence that schools can indeed contribute to academic outcomes. The recognition that schools can impact on student outcomes has also supported the emergence of School Improvement Research (SIR) and practice. However, EER has focused more on the whole school level and the ways schools operate as organisations. On the other hand, SIR gave more attention on teachers and processes (Chapman & Sammons, 2013). As Scheerens (2016) points out, EER finishes its job with actual research and knowledge production while SIR is interested more in application and implementation of research results and actual use, in the sense of sustained application and institutionalisation, of improved practises and policies.

An answer to the challenge, of establishing links between the two fields, is the development of the Dynamic Approach to School Improvement (DASI), which aims to help schools and policy makers make use of the knowledge base of EER, included in the Dynamic Model (Creemers and Kyriakides 2012). In this respect, the dynamic model contributes to the foundation of a theory-driven approach to school improvement by providing the necessary prerequisites according to EER and on the other hand DASI is offering a platform for an evidence-based implementation of those prerequisites according to school’s situational characteristics.

Since 2003, when DASI was developed, a number of empirical studies as well as two meta-analyses have been conducted, in order to support the validity of both the Dynamic Model and the DASI. The main results of the studies conducted reveal that DASI can promote students’ learning by improving the functioning of teacher and school factors. However, one could argue that the dynamic model is not necessarily able to describe the nature of educational effectiveness in secondary schools (Creemers & Kyriakides, 2015). Therefore, further research is needed on testing the impact of the teacher and school factors, which are included in the Dynamic Model, on learning outcomes of secondary school students. Such efforts may contribute to the development of the model and also to the investigation of the impact of using the model for school improvement purposes in secondary education.

It is also recognised, that further research is also needed to investigate not only the short-term effects of DASI but also its long-lasting effects. There are questions to be answered about the necessary conditions for effective use of DASI over a long period of time. Thus, information could be provided about issues associated with the sustainability of using this approach. For example, how the roles of school stakeholders and advisory and research (A&R) teams may change over time. The DASI approach depends on the collaboration between the school stakeholders and the A&R team. Therefore, it is important to find out whether school stakeholders, who have participated and used this approach for long, are eventually able to carry on with minimal, or even without any support.

In this respect, this study aims to give answers to the afore mentioned questions raised in the field of educational effectiveness and school improvement research. Precisely, this study aims to:

Examine the impact of using DASI at secondary level schools and
Investigate long-term effects and sustainability issues on using DASI for promoting quality in education.

Method

This research study is designed to test the impact of using the Dynamic Approach to School Improvement, at secondary school level, by means of developing and sustaining effective school self-evaluation mechanisms. In this respect, a sample of 12 secondary schools was used with 3844 participant students and 596 teachers. Six schools were used as the experimental group and the remaining six as the control group. Thus, statistical power has been reached as more than one thousand students participated at each one of the lower secondary school grades. Schools were selected following stratified sampling and at the same time ensuring the willingness of school stakeholders to participate in the project. The latter provision was essential as improvement efforts are based on the school level. Therefore, any such efforts can be undertaken from stakeholders (e.g. teachers, school leaders and parents) who support the idea that schools should always search for improvement, irrespective of how effective these schools are (Creemers & Kyriakides, 2012). For investigating the sustainability aspect and long-lasting effects, the project was conducted for three consecutive school years on various settings. For example, unabated application for three consecutive years, terminated support by the A&R team and continuation of the program by school administrations for one more year, or minimal time application of the program for one school year. The impact of the implementation of the program in the various settings was measured by measuring student achievement at the beginning and the end of each school year. Validated tests were administered to all students at every grade in the participating schools. The written assessment tests were designed to assess knowledge and skills, as these are described in the curriculum. Provision was taken for equating the tests between school grades. Exploratory variables at student level were collected concerning student background characteristics. Precisely, SES questionnaires were administered to all students of the participating schools. Variables referring to the four school-level factors of the dynamic model (policy and evaluation on actions taken to improve teaching and the school learning environment) were measured by asking all teachers and school leaders of the participating schools to complete a questionnaire at the beginning of each school year.

Expected Outcomes

The DASI approach has been described as the conceptually most developed example of improvement models as direct extensions of EER (Scheerens, 2016). In this respect, this research study expects to shade light upon the impact of implementing DASI on school improvement. Furthermore, it is expected to reveal long-term effects as well as examining the sustainability of implementing such models for school improvement. Therefore, measurements on students’ performance were conducted both at the beginning as well as at the end of each one of the three consecutive school years, on which the program is being applied, as well as on various setups. For example, this study expects to examine the variation of effectiveness of the application of DASI between and within schools (e.g. grades) in cases, (a) where the advisory and research team provided unfailing school support, (b) after the termination of the support, (c) when the support is lasting or, (d) in cases where the support is provided for a short time (e.g. one school year). The project will eventually answer questions about issues on long-lasting application of improvement models on secondary education level and will allow for generalizability of the outcomes across time. As this project is in its third year of enactment, data from the first two years of its employment are available. Therefore, by applying multilevel analysis, this paper will be ready to present results on the impact of the implementation of DASI across the first two school years, both within and between schools.

References

Bryk, A.S., Sebring, P.B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J.Q. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Chapman, C., & Sammons, P. (2013). School self-evaluation for school improvement: what works and why? CfBT Education Trust 2013. Creemers, B.P.M., & Kyriakides, L. (2008). The dynamics of educational effectiveness: a contribution to policy, practice and theory in contemporary schools. London and New York: Routledge. Creemers, B.P.M., & Kyriakides, L. (2009). Situational effects of the school factors included in the dynamic model of educational effectiveness. South African Journal of Education, 29(3), 293–315. Creemers, B.P.M., & Kyriakides, L. (2010). Explaining stability and changes in school effectiveness by looking at changes in the functioning of school factors. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21(4), 409–427. Creemers, B.P.M., & Kyriakides, L. (2012). Improving quality in education: Dynamic approaches to school improvement. London and New York: Routledge. Creemers, B.P.M., & Kyriakides, L. (2015). Developing, testing, and using theoretical models for promoting quality in education. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 26(1), 102-119. Hofman, R.H., Hofman, W.H., & Gray, J.M. (2010). Institutional contexts and international performances in schooling: Comparing patterns and trends over time in international surveys. European Journal of Education, 45(1), 153-173. Kyriakides, L., & Campbell, R.J. (2004). School self-evaluation and school improvement: A critique of values and procedures. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 30(1), 23-36. Kyriakides, L., & Creemers, B.P.M. (2008). Using a multidimensional approach to measure the impact of classroom level factors upon student achievement: a study testing the validity of the dynamic model. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 19(2), 183-205. Raynolds, D., Sammons, P., De Fraine, B., Townsend, T., & Van Damme, J. (2011). Educational effectiveness research (EER): A state of the art review. Cyprus, ICSEI, 2011. Sammons, P. (2009). The dynamics of educational effectiveness: a contribution to policy, practice and theory in contemporary schools. School Effectiveness & School Improvement, 20 (1), 123-129. Scheerens, J. (2013). The use of theory in school effectiveness research revisited. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 24(1), 1-38. Scheerens, J. (2016). Educational Effectiveness and Ineffectiveness: A Critical review of the Knowledgebase, Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. Smink, G. (1991). The Cardiff conference, ICSEI 1991. Network News International, 1(3), 2-6. Teddlie, C., & Reynolds, D. (2000). The International handbook of school effectiveness research. London: Falmer Press. Townsend, T. (2007). International handbook of school effectiveness and improvement. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.

Author Information

Yiannis Ioannou (presenting / submitting)

University of Cyprus

Education

Nicosia

Search the ECER Programme

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.