Changing political, technological, and methodological landscapes challenge established ways of understanding and legitimizing educational research. These developments make it increasingly important to examine how key educational constructs are conceptualized within this evolving ecosystem. Against this backdrop, teaching quality represents a central and widely debated construct. International interest in understanding and improving teaching quality has grown steadily, as reflected in major comparative initiatives and global reports (OECD, 2005; UNESCO, 2014). This attention is well justified, given that high‑quality teaching is theoretically assumed to be one of the most powerful classroom‑related factors influencing student learning and achievement (Kyriakides et al., 2021). Empirically, however, the evidence base is more nuanced: findings from teaching effectiveness research reveal mixed and sometimes inconsistent effects of teaching quality on student learning gains (Praetorius et al., 2025).

One explanation for the heterogeneous findings lies in the diversity of models used to conceptualize teaching quality across countries, research traditions, and educational systems (Charalambous et al., 2025). In the German-speaking research tradition, teaching quality has predominantly been framed using the Three Basic Dimensions of Teaching Quality (e.g., Klieme et al., 2006), which emphasizes classroom management, cognitive activation, and supportive learning environments as key dimensions of teaching quality. In contrast, the discourse in the US is largely shaped by the Teaching Through Interactions approach (Hamre et al., 2013) and its corresponding observation instrument: the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (e.g., Pianta & Hamre, 2009), which focuses on emotional support, classroom organization, and instructional support. These examples illustrate that teaching quality is not a universally defined construct but one that is deeply embedded in cultural, institutional, and methodological contexts. Consequently, any attempt to describe or compare teaching quality must take into account how the construct is understood and conceptualized within the respective context (Praetorius et al., 2025).

One context that seems particularly relevant here is the school level (Blömeke & Olsen, 2019) as school levels differ systematically in a variety of relevant contextual factors, such as classroom composition. This is particularly evident in primary schools, which are characterized, for instance, by extremely heterogeneous classroom compositions. To be able to validly interpret studies on teaching quality in primary schools, it is therefore necessary to ask how teaching quality is conceptualized in these studies. While systematic reviews on the conceptualization of teaching quality already exist for secondary education (e.g., Appels et al., 2021) or for specific models of teaching quality (e.g., Praetorius et al., 2018), such reviews with an international perspective are still lacking for the primary school sector and the specific needs of this student population. This gap is noteworthy, given the unique pedagogical challenges and developmental needs of primary school students in a constantly changing world. Despite the growing body of research in this area, a systematic overview that synthesizes international conceptualizations of teaching quality in primary education has not yet been provided. This is where the present paper comes in, in which we conducted a systematic review on teaching quality in primary education. Our aim is to identify the conceptual models used in this literature and to examine how these models are translated into concrete dimensions and subdimensions within empirical studies. Based on this objective, the research questions guiding our review are as follows:

1. Which models are used to conceptualize teaching quality in international studies from the primary school context?
2. Which dimensions and subdimensions from the models are actually used in the studies?

To answer these questions, we conducted a systematic review following the PRISMA guidelines (Page et al., 2021). Studies were included if they focused on (1) the primary school level and (2) the quality of teaching. In addition, eligible studies had to employ an empirical approach, be written in German or English, and be published in a peer‑reviewed journal between 1995 and 2024. Based on these criteria, we carried out a systematic search in four scientific databases (Web of Science, PsycInfo, ERIC, and Fachportal Pädagogik), which initially yielded 3,880 records. After removing duplicates and studies that did not meet the formal criteria, 1,483 records remained for abstract screening. During this stage, 1,192 studies were excluded, leaving 291 records for full‑text analysis. Full‑text screening resulted in 105 studies that met all inclusion criteria. We then conducted an additional search for further relevant sources (e.g., through the bibliographies of included studies). Screening the abstracts and full texts of these additional records led to the inclusion of 25 further studies. Next, we assessed the methodological quality of all studies using the Methodological Quality Questionnaire developed by Acosta et al. (2020). Six studies did not meet the required quality threshold and were therefore excluded. In total, 124 studies were included in the final review. All stages of the screening process (abstract and full‑text screening) as well as the quality appraisal were conducted by two independent raters, with disagreements resolved through consensual validation. Following the selection process, we analyzed the studies with regard to their conceptualizations of teaching quality. First, we applied content‑analytic procedures to identify all models of teaching quality referenced or used in the studies (Research question 1). Second, we examined which dimensions and subdimensions of these models were actually conceptualized in the empirical work (Research question 2). All coding steps were carried out by two independent coders, and intercoder reliability was calculated for each model, yielding satisfactory agreement values (e.g., for Three Basic Dimensions of Teaching Quality: κ = .76).

Research question 1. We found a total of 31 conceptualizations of teaching quality in the studies. The conceptualization of the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (n = 39 studies), the Three Basic Dimensions of Teaching Quality (n = 27), the Classroom Observation System (n = 14), the Dynamic Model of Educational Effectiveness (n = 9) and the Mathematical Quality of Instruction (n = 8) were used most frequently. The remaining models appear in four or fewer studies, with 20 models being used in only one study. Additionally, some national differences in the use of the models become apparent (e.g., Classroom Assessment Scoring System predominates in the US context, Three Basic Dimensions of Teaching Quality in Germany). While a minority of studies use conceptualizations that have been specified for primary school (e.g., Classroom Assessment Scoring System for K-3 or Upper Elementary), most studies refer to models that do not differentiate between school levels (e.g., Three Basic Dimensions of Teaching Quality). Research question 2. The (sub-)dimensions used to conceptualize teaching quality in the studies are largely used as they are defined in the original models. Studies based on models that serve as foundation of a specific observation instrument (e.g., Teaching through Interactions as a framework for the Classroom Assessment Scoring System) vary particularly little in this regard. However, there are differences in the use of the Three Basic Dimensions of Teaching Quality): the subdimensions used to conceptualize the basic dimensions partially deviate from the theoretical model and vary between studies. In the presentation, we will discuss these results with respect to the primary school context and the necessity to take greater account of specific aspects of primary school quality in future conceptualizations.

Acosta, S., Garza, T., & Hsu, H.-Y. (2020). Assessing quality in systematic reviews. SAGE Open, 10(3), 1–11. Appels, L., Maeyer, S. de, Faddar, J. & van Petegem, P. (2022). Capturing quality. Educational quality in secondary analyses of international large-scale assessments: a systematic review. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 33(4), 629–668. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2022.2115519 Blömeke, S., & Olsen, R. (2019). Consistency of results regarding teacher effects across subjects, school level, outcomes, and countries. Teaching and Teacher Education, 77, 170–182. Charalambous, C., Muijs, D., Lindorff, A., Steffensky, M., Ortega, L., & Miao, Z. (2025). Conceptualizing teaching quality. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 36(2), 164–191. Hamre, B. K., Pianta, R. C., Downer, J. T., DeCoster, J., Mashburn, A. J., Jones, S. M., Brown, J. L., Cappella, E., Atkins, M., Rivers, S. E., Brackett, M. A., & Hamagami, A. (2013). Teaching Through Interactions: Testing a Developmental Framework of Teacher Effectiveness in over 4,000 Classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 113(4), 461–487. Klieme, E., Lipowsky, F., Rakoczy, K. & Ratzka, N. (2006). Qualitätsdimensionen und Wirksamkeit von Mathematikunterricht: Theoretische Grundlagen und ausgewählte Ergebnisse des Projekts "Pythagoras". In M. Prenzel (Hrsg.), Untersuchungen zur Bildungsqualität von Schule: Abschlussbericht des DFG-Schwerpunktprogramms (S. 127–146). Waxmann. Kyriakides, L., Creemers, B., Panayiotou, A., & Charalambous, E. (2021). Quality and equity in education. Routledge. OECD (2005). Teachers Matter: Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers. Paris: OECD Publishing. Page, J. M., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C. et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement. BMJ, 372(71). Pianta, R. & Hamre, B. (2009). Conceptualization, Measurement, and Improvement of Classroom Processes: Standardized Observation Can Leverage Capacity. Educational Researcher, 38(2), 109–119. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09332374 Praetorius, A.-K., Klieme, E., Herbert, B. & Pinger, P. (2018). Generic Dimensions of Teaching Quality: The German Framework of Three Basic Dimensions. ZDM - Mathematics Education, 50, 407–426. Praetorius, A.-K., Jentsch, A., Luoto, J., Keller, S. D., & Fauth, B. (2025). Context in research on teaching quality. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 36(2), 263–296. UNESCO (2014). Teaching and Learning: Achieving Quality for All. EFA Global Monitoring Report 2013/14.