Due to the results of international large-scale-assessments the work of teachers is of growing interest to educational researchers. On the basis of a hypothetical functional chain, “professional knowledge of teachers – teaching practice – teaching quality – pupils’ performance”, those competences of teachers are analysed which, with regard to characteristics of classroom instruction, result in an improvement of pupils’ performance. An optimization of teaching quality therefore is ultimately attributed to the competences of teachers (cf. Tatto, et al., 2008, Baumert, et al., 2010). A particular challenge for teachers is to take the individual learning abilities into account, thereby developing forms of teaching which focus on the pupils’ learning processes (cf. Helmke, et al., 2002). Despite the fact that the demand for pupil-centred forms of teaching is by no means new, the realization in the German school system is unsatisfactory (cf. Götz, et al., 2005). Teachers blame the lack of resources and deficient framework conditions, which would be needed in order to supplement a modification of classroom practice (cf. Solzbacher, 2008).

The effectiveness and efficiency of the use of resources in the education system the education economics research is mainly pursued with regard to the education-production-function which is done by analysing the effects these resources have on pupils’ (cognitive) performance. This shows that additional resources can have a positive effect on pupils’ performance. Taking, however, the impact of class size as an example, it becomes clear that there are no consistent results at the international level (cf. Levacic, 2007). Instead, the effect of additional resources seems to depend on accuracy (For which pupils? For which subjects?). In addition, it is evident that teachers use the same resources differently (cf. Cohen, et al., 2003). In how far the availability and use of resources influence actual classroom practice has, to date, hardly been analyzed.

This paper therefore aims at answering the question, in how far specific resources and framework conditions prove effective to improve individual learning in processes of teaching practice. Resources in detail are:

• Human resources (in terms of personal competences or training opportunities and potential areas for cooperation, etc.),
• Material resources (in terms of equipment and number of rooms, teaching material, computer workplaces and software, etc.) and
• Institutional frame conditions (in terms of class size, number of teachers, length of lessons, etc.).

Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T., Jordan, A., et al. (2010). Teachers’ Mathematical Knowledge, Cognitive Activation in the Classroom, and Student Progress. [10.3102/0002831209345157]. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 133-180. Cohen, D. K., Raudenbush, S. W., & Loewenberg Ball, D. (2003). Resources, Instruction, and Research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 119-142. Götz, T., Lohrmann, K., & Ganser, B. (2005). Einsatz von Unterrichtsmethoden - Konstanz oder Wandel? Empirische Pädagogik, 19(4), 342-360. Helmke, A., Jäger, R. S., Balzer, L., Hosenfeld, I., Ridder, A., & Schrader, F.-W. (2002). MARKUS Mathematik-Gesamterhebung Rheinland-Pfalz: Kompetenzen, Unterrichtsmerkmale, Schulkontext. Kurzbericht. In F. u. J. R.-P. Ministerium für Bildung (Eds.) Available from http://www.lars-balzer.info/publications/pub-balzer_2002-01_MARKUS2002-Kurzbericht.pdf Levacic, R. (2007). The Relationship between student attainment and school resources. In T. Townsend (Ed.), International Handbook of School Effectiveness and Improvement (Vol. 1, pp. 395-410): Springer. Solzbacher, C. (2008). Positionen von Lehrerinnen und Lehrern zur individuellen Förderung in der Sekundarstufe I - Ergebnisse einer empirischen Untersuchung. In I. Kunze & C. Solzbacher (Eds.), Individuelle Förderung in der Sekundarstufe I und II. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren. Tatto, M. T., Schwille, J., Senk, S., Ingvarson, L., Peck, R., & Rowley, G. (2008). Teacher Education and Development Study in Mathematics (TEDS-M): Conceptual framework. East Lansing, MI: Teacher Education and Development International Study Center, College of Education, Michigan State University.