10 SES 11 D, Student Voice, and Perceptions of Teacher Effectiveness
The importance of teaching behaviour has been highlighted in studies on teacher effectiveness which show that there are some dimensions which contribute to an improvement on students' affective and cognitive outcomes i.e. classroom environment, learning climate, class control, instructional support (Antoniou, Kyriakides & Bert, 2011; Guldemond&Bosker, 2009; Kyriakides &Creemers, 2009; Muijs, Campbell, Kyriakides & Robinson, 2005; Opdenakker&Van Damme, 2001).
Teaching behaviour is generally viewed to be multidimensional in nature (Burdsal&Bardo, 1986; Muijs, Campbell, Kyriakides & Robinson, 2005). Nevertheless, there is no consensus concerning the most suitable term to refer to the best teaching practices (e.g., highly qualified, good pedagogy, excellent teaching, good teaching, effective teaching), the number and nature of the dimensions or the most appropriate way to assess them (Burdsal&Bardo, 1986; Maulana, Helms- Lorenz, Van de Grift, 2017). The observable teaching behaviour framework developed by Van de Grift and his research group establishes a model which consists of six teaching domains including safe learning climate, efficient classroom management, clarity of instruction, activating learning, differentiation, and teaching learning strategies. Whereas some of these domains are simpler to exhibit and the majority of teachers can easily acquire them, other domains are more complex and a great number of teachers find it difficult to display them in their teaching(Maulana, Helms – Lorenz & Van de Grift, 2015; Van de Grift, Maulana & Helms - Lorenz, 2014). The less complex domains cover safe learning climate, efficient classroom management, and clarity of instruction. Activating teaching, teaching learning strategies, and differentiation appear to be more difficult for teachers and require further attention to master.
Several studies have demonstrated that students’ perceptions of their teachers’ behavior can predict their (self–reported) academic engagement, suggesting that the better the teaching behavior perceived by students, the higher the level of academic engagement tends to be (Maulana et al., 2015). The importance of student engagement for various outcomes has been documented in the literature, including student learning and achievement, retention and graduation from secondary school, and admission and success in college (Fredricks et al., 2004). Studies have also shown that student engagement can function as a protective factor for low achievement (Finn, 1993). Other researchers found rather large variations and instability in academic engagement over time and the importance of introducing new contents, student work time and closing components in teaching (Maulana, Opdenakker, Stroet&Bosker, 2012). Using the observation instrument to capture teachers’ teaching behaviour and student engagement in the Netherlands, the study of Maulana, Helms – Lorenz and Van de Grift (2017) shows that the six teaching behaviour domains are a reliable and valid measure of teaching behaviour with a strong predictive validity for student engagement. They also found that two domains of teaching behaviour, classroom management and clarity of instruction, appear to be more predictive of students’ engagement compared to learning climate, activating learning, teaching learning strategies and differentiation, although these dimensions are important as well.
To sum up, the decline of academic engagement can be connected with a decrease in the quality of structure offered by the teacher. Furthermore, effective teaching behavior has a beneficial influence on engaging students academically, and the former can facilitate the achievement of higher grades and lower dropout rates. Based on the literature reviewed above, the aim of the present study is to examine students' perception of their teachers behaviour in the Spanish secondary education context. Additionally, this study will contribute to validate the model of teaching behaviour and student engagement and its relevance for the Spanish context.
Participants Participants were 7,114 students of 410 teachers attending 56 public and private schools in Spain (3,577 boys and 3,415 girls, 122 students did not report their gender). Of the students, 5,112 (71.9%) were from lower secondary education, 1,105 students (15.5%) from upper secondary education, and 897 students (12.6%) from vocational education and training. A total of 3,183 students (44.7%) studied in academic schools, 205 (2.9%) in vocational schools, and 3,726 (52.4%) in multitrack schools. A total of 4,702 students (66.1%) attended public schools whereas 2,412 (33.9%) entered private ones. Despite the initial intention to use probability proportional to size sampling technique, a non-probabilistic convenience sampling was employed due to some circumstances (i.e., school resistance, marginal support from the local and regional authorities). The International Comparative Analysis of Learning and Teaching-version 3-ICALT 3 (Maulana, Van de Grift and Helms – Lorenz, 2014) was used. This instrument was divided into two scales: 1. “My Teacher Scale”. This instrument consisted of six domains: learning climate, efficient classroom management, clarity of instruction, activating teaching, differentiation and teaching learning strategies. There were a total of 41 items where participants had to answer questions by using a Likert scale with responses ranging from 1 to 4 (never, seldom, frequently and often). The alpha coefficient for the whole scale was .931. 2. “Academic Engagement Scale” (Skinner , Kindermann, & Furrer, 2009) In the second subscale, (10 items, the procedure showed two factors regarding academic engagement: behavioral engagement (BEHE) and emotional engagement (EMEN). The alpha coefficient for the whole scale was .878.
We want to analyze if the teacher skills have, or not, some influence on the incresing of students' behavioral and emotional engagement. We are considering the differences by gender and types of subjetcts. To get this goal we are doing the MANOVA, to analyze the means differences and calculate the effect size of teaching skills on students' behavioral and emotional engagement. Previous results, we found differences between instrumenal and non-instrumental subjects, the best results were found in the second one. This paper will deepen in these findings.
Antoniou, P., A., Kyriakides, L. & Bert, C. (2011).Investigating the effectiveness of a dynamic integrated approach to teacher professional development.CEPS Journal, 1, 13 – 41. Burdsal, C.A. & Bardo, J.W. (1986). Measuring student’s perceptions of teaching: dimensions of evaluation.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 46, 63 – 79. Finn, J. D. (1993). School engagement and students at risk. Washington: National center for educational statistics. Fredricks, J., McColskey, W., Meli, J., Mordica, J., Montrosse, B., and Mooney, K. (2011). Measuring student engagement in upper elementary through high school: a description of 21 instruments. (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2011–No. 098). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast. Retrieved from Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs. Guldemond, H. &Bosker, R.J. (2009). School effects on students’ progress – a dynamic perspective. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 20(2), 255 – 268. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09243450902883938 Kyriakides, L. &Creemers, B.P.M. (2009). The effects of teacher factors on different outcomes: two studies testing the validity of the dynamic model. Effective Teaching, 1(1), 61 – 85. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19415530903043680 Maulana, R., Helms – Lorenz, M. & Van de Grift, W. (2015). Development and evaluation of a questionnaire measuring pre – service teachers’ teaching behaviour: a Rasch modelling approach. School effectiveness and school improvement; an International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2014.939198 Maulana, R., Helms – Lorenz, M. & Van de Grift, W. (2017). Validating a model of effective teaching baheviour of pre – service teachers.Teachers and Training.Theory and prctice, 23(4), 471 – 493. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2016.1211102 Maulana, R., Opdenakker, M.C., Stroet, K. &Bosker, R. (2012).Observed lesson structure during the first year of Secondary Education: exploration of change and link with academic engagement.Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 835 – 850. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.03.005 Muijs, D., Campbell, J., Kyriakides, L. & Robinson, W. (2005).Making a case for differentitaed teacher effectiveness: an overview of research in four key areas.School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 16(1), 51 – 70. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09243450500113985 Opdenakker, M.C. & Van Damme, J.V. (2001).Relationships between school composition and characteristics of school processes and their effects on mathematics achievement.British Educational Research Journal, 27(4), 407 – 432. DOI: 10.1080/01411920120071434 Skinner, E.A.; Kindermann, Th.A. & Furrer (2009). Conceptualization and Assessment of Children’s Behavioral and Emotional Participation in Academic Activities in the Classroom. Educational and Pyschological Measurment, 69(3), 493-525.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164408323233 Van de Grift, W., Helms – Lorez, M. & Maulana, R. (2014). Teaching skills of student teachers: calibration of an evaluation instrument and its value in predicting student academic engagement. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 43, 150 – 159. DOI: Jttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2014.09.003.
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.