11 SES 06, Quality Assurance
In contrast to other school systems in Europe, German schools traditionally were part-time schools, opened from morning to midday. Since 2002 the German part-time school system has been changed into an all-day system (Holtappels 2014). Nowadays more than half of the German schools provide an all-day program for their students (KMK 2013). Since PISA 2000 the demand for individual support is key in political discourse in Germany (Klieme & Warwas 2011), particularly regarding all-day schools (Aktionsrat Bildung, 2013). Due to a higher amount of learning time, all-day schools are expected to provide enhanced options to foster students’ learning and development. The educational goals are ambitious: all-day schools shall promote students' competencies, reduce heterogeneity between students from diverse backgrounds, establish equal opportunities, support families and enrich the schools’ learning environment (e. g Holtappels 2014). To meet these high demands, schools implement extracurricular activities like complementary subject-specific courses, homework supervision, time and support for individual learning, remedial teaching, projects, courses for special interest groups, or organized leisure time. In order to support children with different learning preconditions in an optimal way it is necessary to interlock curricular and extracurricular learning contentually, conceptually and organizationally. This does not only demand a lot of professional abilities from individual teachers but also requires cooperation among teachers and between teaching and other pedagogical staff (Böttcher, Maykus, Altermann & Liesegang, 2014). In empirical quality models (cf. Creemers & Kyriakides 2008) collaboration plays an important role among variables of process quality on school level. In approaches of organizational theory, cooperation belongs to important characteristics of an organization (Mintzberg 1979). Some studies have verified the contribution of teacher collaboration to teaching quality and the educational success of schools (e. g. Leithwood 2000; Mortimore et al. 1988), not least in the context of inclusive education (e. g. Elvey, 2017; Loughran, 2010; Spedding 2008).
Regarding school practice the systematical incorporation of individual support (Maykus, Böttcher, Liesegang & Altermann, 2011) as well as the culture of cooperation (Tillmann & Rollett, 2010) varies substantially between schools.
The paper presented examines to what extend all-day primary schools differ in their teachers’ professional behavior components, focusing on individual support and cooperation. The connection to students’ development of subject-related competencies is also analyzed.
The following questions are guiding our analyses:
(1) Can teachers at all-day primary schools be grouped into different profiles based on their own statements on various aspects of professional behavior with a focus on individual support? How can these profiles be described?
(2) How are these ‘teacher profiles’ distributed in schools? Does the representation of these types vary between schools?
(3) Are there systematical differences on school level regarding the development of students’ competencies in reading and science, depending on teachers’ professional behavior orientated on individual support?
The research is embedded in the German ‘Study on Development of All-day schools - Primary School Sample (StEG-P)’. In this study teachers of all-day primary schools were surveyed in 2013 and 2014 regarding various aspects of their professional behavior. The design includes longitudinal data based on standardized questionnaires of students and teachers over four measure points and students' development of competencies in reading and science from third to fourth grade. Analyses are based on data of 537 teachers of 66 schools and examine the following components of professional behavior that focus on individual support: reference standard of achievement performance, professional team work focusing on students’ learning as well as analysing, diagnosting and evaluating, student-related and curriculum-based multiprofessional cooperation, school development regarding individual support as well as teachers' role perception. The scales used for these analyses queried the following aspects of professional behavior that focus on individual support: “teachers' role perception“ (4 Items; α: .603), „individual reference standard for performance evaluation” (5 Items; α: .715,), “teamwork with focus on analysis, diagnosis and evaluation” (7 Items; α: .774), “teamwork with focus on students’ learning” (Items 5; α: .894), “teaching-related multiprofessional cooperation” (5 Items; α: .893), “student-related multiprofessional cooperation” (5 Items; α: .892) und “school development with regard to individual support” (6 Items; α: .887). The development of competencies was measured by standardized test scores in reading and science (national test items and booklets of PIRLS/TIMSS 2011) at two points of measurement in third and fourth grade (Lossen, Tillmann, Holtappels, Rollett & Hannemann, 2016; Tillmann, Sauerwein, Hannemann, Decristan, Lossen & Holtappels, 2018). First, the intercorrelations of professional behavior focusing on individual support and students’ competencies are analyzed. Subsequently, the teachers are grouped into profiles by a latent class analyses (LCA) in Mplus 7 (Hagenaars & McCutcheon, 2002; Muthén & Muthén, 2008). Second, the qualitatively different latent groups are classified and marked by characteristic response profiles regarding various indicators of teachers’ professional behavior as described. As a third step we examine the distribution of different teacher profiles at particular schools to identify school level patterns of teachers’ professional behavior that focus on individual support. Finally, we are conducting regressions to analyze whether the orientation of teaching staffs towards individual support has an impact on students’ development of competencies in reading and science.
Four different teacher profiles can be identified based on the LCA data. The main differential characteristic of the found profiles is multiprofessional cooperation (“teaching-related multiprofessional cooperation”/“student-related multiprofessional cooperation”) followed by teamwork (“teamwork with focus on analysis, diagnosis and evaluation”/ “teamwork with focus on students’ learning”). For the other scales the four teacher profiles don’t show that wide disparity. Additional analyses reveal that these four teacher profiles are unequally distributed among schools. During the talk, in-depth analyses will be presented that approach questions regarding the correlation of the teaching staffs’ focus on individual support with the students’ development. Plausible assumptions can be made in two ways: Either students at schools where a large fraction of teachers focuses on students’ individual support show a stronger development of competencies, or teachers at schools with student bodies that show below-average competencies focus especially on supporting students individually. Implications for research and school practice will be discussed.
Aktionsrat Bildung (2013): Zwischenbilanz Ganztagsgrundschulen: Betreuung oder Rhythmisierung? Gutachten im Auftrag der vbw - Vereinigung der Bayerischen Wirtschaft e.V., Münster: Waxmann. Böttcher, W., Maykus, S., Altermann, A. & Liesegang, T. (Eds.) (2014). Individuelle Förderung in der Ganztagschule. Anspruch und Wirklichkeit einer pädagogischen Leitformel. Münster: Waxmann. Creemers, B. P. M., & Kyriakides, L. (2008). The Dynamics of Educational Effectiveness: A Contribution to Policy, Practice and Theory in Contemporary Schools. London: Routledge Elvey, M. (2017): “You Don’t Realise You Do That”: Teachers’ Reflections on Developing Inclusive Classrooms. In: Plows, V. & Withburn, B , (Eds.) Inclusive Education. Making Sense of Everyday Practice (pp 159-174). Rotterdam/Boston/Taipei: Sense Publishers Hagenaars, J. A. & McCutcheon, A. L. (2002): Applied Latent Class Analysis, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2002. Holtappels, H. G. (2014). Entwicklung und Qualität von Ganztagsschulen. Eine vorläufige Bilanz des größten Reformprogramms in Deutschland. In: Holtappels et al. (Eds.): Jahrbuch der Schulentwicklung, Band 18. Weinheim/Basel: BeltzJuventa, S. 9-61. Klieme, E. & Warwas, J. (2011): Konzepte der Individuellen Förderung. ZfPäd 57(6), pp. 805-801. KMK (2013). Allgemein bildende Schulen in Ganztagsform in den Ländern in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland: Statistik 2007 bis 2011. Berlin: KMK. Leithwood, K. (2000): Organizational learning and school improvement. Greenwich/CT: JAI. Lossen, K. et al.(2016): Entwicklung der naturwissenschaftlichen Kompetenzen und des sachunterrichtsbezogenen Selbstkonzepts bei Schüler/-innen in Ganztagsgrundschulen. Ergebnisse der Längsschnittstudie StEG-P zu Effekten der Schülerteilnahme und der Angebotsqualität. ZfPäd 62(6), pp. 760-779. Loughran, J. (2010). What expert teachers do: Enhancing professional knowledge for classroom practice. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin Mintzberg, H. (1979). The Structuring of Organizations: A Synthesis of the Research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Mortimore, P., Sammons, P., Stoll, L., Lewis, D. and Ecob, R. (1988) School Matters: The Junior Years Shepton Mallett: Open Books. Spedding, S. (2008). The role of teachers in successful inclusion. In P. Foreman (Ed.), Inclusion in action. Victoria, Australia: Thomson. Tillmann, K. & Rollett, W. (2010): Die Bedeutung personeller Ressourcen für innerschulische Kooperation an Ganztagsschulen in Deutschland. In B. Schwarz, P. Nenniger & R. Jäger (Eds.). Erziehungswissenschaftliche Forschung – Nachhaltige Bildung. Beiträge zur 5. DGfE-Sektionstagung "Empirische Bildungsforschung" / AEPF-KBBB, 2009, Landau: Verlag Empirische Pädagogik. Tillmann, K. et al. (2018). Förderung der Lesekompetenz durch Teilnahme an Ganztagsangeboten? – Ergebnisse der Studie zur Entwicklung von Ganztagsschulen (StEG). In M. Schüpbach, L. Frei, & W. Nieuwenboom (Eds.), Tagesschulen. Ein Überblick (pp. 289–307). Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien.
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.