Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Generic dimensions of teaching quality: the German framework of Three Basic Dimensions

  • Original Article
  • Published:
ZDM – Mathematics Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 07 September 2023

This article has been updated

Abstract

In this paper, we argue that classroom management, student support, and cognitive activation are generic aspects of classroom teaching, forming Three Basic Dimensions of teaching quality. The conceptual framework was developed in research on mathematics instruction but it is supposed to generalize across subjects. It is based on general theories of schooling and teaching as well as established theories and research traditions from educational psychology. Although used frequently in German-speaking countries, no comprehensive overview of the theoretical foundation as well as the existing evidence regarding the framework, including its strengths and weaknesses, exists so far. The present paper therefore presents first an overview of the theoretical rationale of the framework. Second, it gives an overview of differences and commonalities in the operationalizations of the Three Basic Dimensions in different studies, including a comprehensive set of sub-dimensions. Third, evidence on the reliability and validity of the dimensions is reviewed, with good results for reliability and mixed results for predictive validity. Fourth, an analysis of three mathematics lessons using observer ratings illustrates how the framework of the Three Basic Dimensions can be used for investigating instructional quality. Finally, strengths and limitations of the framework for capturing instructional quality are discussed and we elaborate on the framework’s potential for further development.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

Notes

  1. Klieme et al. (2001) used the label student orientation. Other publications also used further labels such as supportive (classroom) climate, personal/ individual learning support, or student support. We use the term student support as it is most closely aligned with the theoretical foundations of the Three Basic Dimensions.

  2. Artefact measures were incorporated in a single study (i.e., COACTIV) so far, for the purpose of measuring the dimension cognitive activation (see e.g., Baumert et al. 2010, for a description of this approach).

  3. We selected ERIC as a search engine as it is specialized in educational research.

  4. The sample items published showed some overlap across studies, for example “Our teacher continues teaching until the students understand” (e.g., PISA 2012; Pythagoras; TALIS 2018) or “Our teacher sometimes lets us go astray in our working until we notice that something is wrong” (e.g., COACTIV; TIMSS Video). Other aspects were worded differently in different studies though focusing on similar aspects, for example “The teacher wants me to be able to explain my answers” (IGEL study) and “The teacher requested us to explain how we arrived at the solution of a task” (PISA 2012).

  5. We therefore excluded the study by Helm (2016) in which mediation models were presented.

References

  • Batzel, A., Bohl, T., Kleinknecht, M., Leuders, T., & Ehret, C. (2013). Kognitive Aktivierung im Unterricht mit leistungsschwächeren Schülerinnen und Schülern. Theoretische Grundlagen, methodisches Vorgehen und erste Ergebnisse. In U. Riegel & K. Macha (Eds.), Videobasierte Kompetenzforschung in den Fachdidaktiken (pp. 97–113). Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumert, J., & Kunter, M. (2013). The effect of content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge on instructional quality and student achievement. In M. Kunter, J. Baumert, W. Blum, U. Klusmann, S. Krauss & M. Neubrand (Eds.), Cognitive activation in the mathematics classroom and professional competence of teachers. Results from the COACTIV project (pp. 175–206). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T., Jordan, A., & Tsai, Y.-M. (2010). Teachers’ mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 133–180. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209345157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumert, J., Lehmann, R., Lehrke, M., Schmitz, B., Clausen, M., Hosenfeld, I., & Neubrand, J. (1997). TIMSS—Mathematisch-naturwissenschaftlicher Unterricht im internationalen Vergleich. Deskriptive Befunde. Wiesbaden: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Begrich, L., Fauth, B., Kunter, M., & Klieme, E. (2017). Wie informativ ist der erste Eindruck? Das Thin-Slices-Verfahren zur videobasierten Erfassung des Unterrichts. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 20, (Suppl. 1), 23–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-017-0730-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brophy, J. (2000). Teaching. Brussels: International Academy of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cappella, E., Lawrence Aber, J., & Yeon Kim, H. (2016). Teaching beyond achievement tests: Perspectives from developmental and education science. In D. Gitomer & C. Bell (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 249–348). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Clausen, M. (2002). Unterrichtsqualität: Eine Frage der Perspektive? Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clausen, M., Reusser, K., & Klieme, E. (2003). Unterrichtsqualität auf der Basis hochinferenter Unterrichtsbeurteilungen. Ein Vergleich zwischen Deutschland und der deutsch sprachigen Schweiz. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 31(2), 122–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, D. K. (1993). Teaching for understanding: Challenges for policy and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corno, L. (2008). On teaching adaptively. Educational Psychologist, 43, 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520802178466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Decristan, J., Klieme, E., Kunter, M., Hochweber, J., Büttner, G., Fauth, B., & Hardy, I. (2015). Embedded formative assessment and classroom process quality: How do they interact in promoting science understanding? American Educational Research Journal, 52(6), 1133–1159. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831215596412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Decristan, J., Kunter, M., Fauth, B., Büttner, G., Hardy, I., & Hertel, S. (2016). What role does instructional quality play for elementary school children’s science competence? A focus on students at risk. Journal for Educational Research Online, 8(1), 66–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diederich, J., & Tenorth, H. E. (1997). Theorie der Schule. Ein Studienbuch zu Geschichte, Funktionen und Gestaltung. Berlin: Cornelsen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douven, I. (2017). Abduction. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/. Accessed 3 Oct 2017.

  • Drollinger-Vetter, B. (2011). Verstehenselemente und strukturelle Klarheit. Fachdidaktische Qualität der Anleitung von mathematischen Verstehensprozessen im Unterricht. Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emmer, E. T., & Stough, L. M. (2001). Classroom management: A critical part of educational psychology, with implications for teacher education. Educational Psychologist, 36(2), 103–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fauth, B., Decristan, J., Rieser, S., Klieme, E., & Büttner, G. (2014a). Grundschulunterricht aus Schüler-, Lehrer- und Beobachterperspektive: Zusammenhänge und Vorhersage von Lernerfolg. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 28(3), 127–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fauth, B., Decristan, J., Rieser, S., Klieme, E., & Büttner, G. (2014b). Student ratings of teaching quality in primary school: Dimensions and prediction of student outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 29, 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fend, H. (1981). Theorie der Schule. München: Urban & Schwarzenbeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabriel, K. (2013). Videobasierte Erfassung von Unterrichtsqualität im Anfangsunterricht der Grundschule. Klassenführung und Unterrichtsklima in Deutsch und Mathematik. Kassel: University press GmbH.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruehn, S. (2000). Unterricht und schulisches Lernen. Schüler als Quellen der Unterrichtsbeschreibung. Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardy, 1, Jonen, A., Möller, K., & Stern, E. (2006). Effects of instructional support within constructivist learning environments for elementary school students’ understanding of “floating and sinking’’. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(2), 307–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J. A. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helm, C. (2016). Zentrale Qualitätsdimensionen von Unterricht und ihre Effekte auf Schüleroutcomes im Fach Rechnungswesen. Zeitschrift für Bildungsforschung, 6, 101–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s35834-016-0154-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helmke, A. (2009). Unterrichtsqualität und Lehrerprofessionalität: Diagnose, Evaluation und Verbesserung des Unterrichts. Seelze: Klett-Kallmeyer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, H. C., Charalambous, C. Y., & Kraft, M. A. (2012). When rater reliability is not enough teacher observation systems and a case for the generalizability study. Educational Researcher, 41(2), 56–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hochweber, J., Hosenfeld, I., & Klieme, E. (2014). Classroom composition, classroom management, and the relationship between student attributes and grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(1), 289–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hochweber, J., & Vieluf, S. (2016). Gender differences in reading achievement and enjoyment of reading: The role of perceived teaching quality. Journal of Educational Research, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2016.1253536.

  • Holzberger, D., Philipp, A., & Kunter, M. (2013). How teachers’ self-efficacy is related to instructional quality: A cross-lagged panel analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 774–786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klieme, E., Backhoff, E., Blum, W., Hong, Y., Kaplan, D., Levin, H., & Vieluf, S. (2013). PISA 2012 Context questionnaire framework. In OECD (Eds.), PISA 2012 Assessment and analytical framework (pp. 167–208). Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 & L. Allolio-Näcke (Eds.), Untersuchungen zur Bildungsqualität von Schule (pp. 127–146). Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klieme, E., & Rakoczy, K. (2003). Unterrichtsqualität aus Schülerperspektive: Kulturspezifische Profile, regionale Unterschiede und Zusammenhänge mit Effekten von Unterricht. In J. Deutsches PISA-Konsortium & Baumert (Eds.), PISA 2000—Ein differenzierter Blick auf die Länder der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (pp. 333–359). Wiesbaden: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Klieme, E., & Rakoczy, K. (2008). Empirische Unterrichtsforschung und Fachdidaktik. Outcome-orientierte Messung und Prozessqualität des Unterrichts. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 54(2), 222–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klieme, E., Schümer, G., & Knoll, S. (2001). Mathematikunterricht in der Sekundarstufe I: “Aufgabenkultur” und Unterrichtsgestaltung. In BMBF (Ed.), TIMSS—Impulse für Schule und Unterricht, Forschungsbefunde, Reforminitiativen, Praxisberichte und Video-Dokumente (pp. 43–58). Bonn: BMBF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korneck, F., Krüger, M., & Szogs, M. (2018). Professionswissen, Lehrerüberzeugungen und Unterrichtsqualität angehender Physiklehrkräfte unterschiedlicher Schulformen. In E. Sumfleth & H. Fischler (Eds.), Professionelle Kompetenzen von Lehrkräften der Chemie und Physik. Studien zum Physik- und Chemielernen Bd. 200. Berlin: Logos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kounin, J. S. (1970). Observing and delineating technique of managing behavior in classrooms. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 4(1), 62–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuger, S. (2016). Curriculum and learning time in international school achievement studies. In S. Kuger, E. Klieme, N. Jude & D. Kaplan (Eds.), Assessing contexts of learning (pp. 395–422). Springer, Berlin

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kuger, S., Klieme, E., Lüdtke, O., Schiepe-Tiska, A., & Reiss, K. (2017). Mathematikunterricht und Schülerleistung in der Sekundarstufe: Zur Validität von Schülerbefragungen in Schulleistungsstudien. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 20(2), 61–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Künsting, J., Neuber, V., & Lipowsky, F. (2016). Teacher self-efficacy as a long-term predictor of instructional quality in the classroom. European Journal Psychology of Education, 31, 299–322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-015-0272-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunter, M. (2005). Multiple Ziele im Mathematikunterricht. Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunter, M., & Baumert, J. (2006). Who is the expert? Construct and criteria validity of student and teacher ratings of instruction. Learning Environments Research, 9(3), 231–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunter, M., Brunner, M., Baumert, J., Klusmann, U., Krauss, S., Blum, W., & Neubrand, M. (2005). Der Mathematikunterricht der PISA Schülerinnen und -Schüler, Schulformunterschiede in der Unterrichtsqualität. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 8(4), 502–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunter, M., Klusmann, U., Baumert, S., Richter, D., Voss, T., & Hachfeld, A. (2013). Professional competence of teachers: Effects on instructional quality and student development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 805–820. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunter, M., & Voss, T. (2013). The model of instructional quality in COACTIV: A multicriteria analysis. In M. Kunter, J. Baumert, W. Blum, U. Klusmann, S. Krauss & M. Neubrand (Eds.), Cognitive activation in the mathematics classroom and professional competence of teachers. Results from the COACTIV project (pp. 97–124). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lenske, G., Wagner, W., Wirth, J., Thillmann, H., Cauet, E., Liepertz, S., & Leutner, S. (2016). Die Bedeutung des pädagogisch-psychologischen Wissens für die Qualität der Klassenführung und den Lernzuwachs der Schüler/innen im Physikunterricht. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 19, 211–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-015-0659-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipowsky, F., Rakoczy, K., Pauli, C., Drollinger-Vetter, B., Klieme, E., & Reusser, K. (2009). Quality of geometry instruction and its short-term impact on students’ understanding of the Pythagorean Theorem. Learning and Instruction, 19, 527–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lotz, M. (2014). Kognitive Aktivierung im Leseunterricht der Grundschule. Eine Videostudie zur Gestaltung und Qualität von Leseübungen im ersten Schuljahr. Wiesbaden: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-10436-8.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Martin-Raugh, M., Tannenbaum, R. J., Tocci, C. M., & Reese, C. (2016). Behaviorally anchored rating scales: An application for evaluating teaching practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 59, 414–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of research in science teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pianta, R. C., & Hamre, B. K. (2009). Conceptualization, measurement, and improvement of classroom processes: Standardized observation can leverage capacity. Educational Researcher, 38, 109–119. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09332374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pietsch, M. (2010). Evaluation von Unterrichtsstandards. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 13, 121–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinger, P., Rakoczy, K., Besser, M., & Klieme, E. (2017). Interplay of formative assessment and instructional quality—interactive effects on students’ mathematics achievement. Learning Environment Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-017-9240-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Praetorius, A., Lenske, G., & Helmke, A. (2012). Observer ratings of instructional quality: Do they fulfill what they promise? Learning and Instruction, 22, 387–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Praetorius, A., Pauli, K., Reusser, C., Rakoczy, K., K., & Klieme, E. (2014). One lesson is all you need? Stability of instructional quality across lessons. Learning and Instruction, 31, 2–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Praetorius, A.-K., Lauermann, F., Klassen, R. M., Dickhäuser, O., Janke, S., & Dresel, M. (2017). Longitudinal relations between teaching-related motivations and student-reported teaching quality. Teaching and Teacher Education, 65, 241–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Praetorius, A.-K., Vieluf, S., Saß, S., Bernholt, A., & Klieme, E. (2016). The same in German as in English? Investigating the subject-specificity of teaching quality. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 19(1), 191–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-015-0660-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rakoczy, K. (2008). Motivationsunterstützung im Mathematikunterricht. Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rakoczy, K., Klieme, E., Drollinger-Vetter, B., Lipowsky, F., Pauli, C., & Reusser, K. (2007). Structure as a quality feature in mathematics instruction of the learning environment vs. a structured presentation of learning content. In M. Prenzel (Ed.), Studies on the educational quality of schools. The final report on the DFG priority programme (pp. 101–120). Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rakoczy, K., & Pauli, C. (2006). Hoch inferentes Rating: Beurteilung der Qualität unterrichtlicher Prozesse. In E. Klieme, C. Pauli & K. Reusser (Eds.), Dokumentation der Erhebungs- und Auswertungsinstrumente zur schweizerisch-deutschen Videostudie “Unterrichtsqualität, Lernverhalten und mathematisches Verständnis”. Teil 3: Videoanalysen. Materialien zur Bildungsforschung (pp. 206–233). Frankfurt am Main: GFPF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rjosk, C. (2015). Zuwanderungsbezogene Klassenzusammensetzung: Messung sowie direkte und vermittelte Effekte auf Leistung und psychosoziale Schülermerkmale (Doctoral dissertation). https://edoc.hu-berlin.de/handle/18452/18052. Accessed 11 Aug 2017.

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheerens, J., Luyten, J. W., Steen, R., & de Thouars, Y. C. H. (2007). Review and meta-analyses of school and teaching effectiveness. Enschede: Universiteit Twente.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidel, T., & Shavelson, R. J. (2007). Teaching effectiveness research in the past decade: The role of theory and research design in disentangling meta-analysis results. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 454–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Staub, F., & Stern, E. (2002). The nature of teachers’ pedagogical content beliefs matters for students’ achievement gains: Quasi-experimental evidence from elementary mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 344–355. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stigler, J., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szogs, M., Korneck, F., Krüger, M., Oettinghaus, L., & Kunter, M. (2016). Kognitive Aktivierung in standardisierten Unterrichtsminiaturen. In C. Maurer (Ed.), Authentizität und Lernen—das Fach in der Fachdidaktik (pp. 605–610). Gesellschaft für Didaktik der Chemie und Physik, Jahrestagung in Berlin 2015. Universität Regensburg. https://www.pedocs.de/volltexte/2016/12125/pdf/Maurer_2015_Authentizitaet_und_Lernen_Tagungsbericht.pdf. Accessed 14 May 2017.

  • Taut, S., & Rakoczy, K. (2016). Observing instructional quality in the context of school evaluation. Learning and Instruction, 46, 45–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, W., Göllner, R., Werth, S., Voss, T., Schmitz, B., & Trautwein, U. (2016). Student and teacher ratings of instructional quality: Consistency of ratings over time, agreement, and predictive power. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(5), 705–721. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000075.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1993). Toward a knowledge base for school learning. Review of Educational Research, 63(3), 249–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Werth, S. (2014). Erfassung und Veränderung der allgemeinen Unterrichtsqualität im Rahmen der Lehrerfortbildungsstudie “Lernen mit Plan” (Doctoral dissertation). https://doi.org/10.15496/publikation-460. Accessed 11 Aug 2017.

  • Werth, S., Wagner, W., Ogrin, S., Trautwein, U., Friedrich, A., Keller, S., & Schmitz, B. (2012). Förderung des selbstregulierten Lernens durch die Lehrkräftefortbildung «Lernen mit Plan»: Effekte auf fokale Trainingsinhalte und die allgemeine Unterrichtsqualität. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 26(4), 291–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wibowo, J. (2016). Unterrichtsqualität im Sportunterricht. http://www.wimasu.de/unterrichtsqualität. Accessed 11 Aug 2017.

  • Yi, H. Y., & Lee, Y. (2017). A latent profile analysis and structural equation modeling of the instructional quality of mathematics classrooms based on the PISA 2012 results of Korea and Singapore. Asia Pacific Education Review, 18, 23–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-016-9455-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Anna-Katharina Praetorius and Eckhard Klieme contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Education, University of Zurich, Freiestrasse 36, 8032, Zurich, Switzerland

    Anna-Katharina Praetorius

  2. German Institute for International Educational Research (DIPF), Schlossstrasse 29, 80486, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

    Eckhard Klieme, Benjamin Herbert & Petra Pinger

Authors
  1. Anna-Katharina Praetorius
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eckhard Klieme
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Benjamin Herbert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Petra Pinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna-Katharina Praetorius.

Additional information

The original online version of this article was revised: appendix A was missing.

Appendix A: Overview of the search terms used

Appendix A: Overview of the search terms used

The following English search terms were used:

  • “Instructional quality basic dimensions” in conjunction with “educational quality”

  • “Classroom process quality” in conjunction with “educational quality”

  • “teaching quality dimensions” in conjunction with “educational quality”

  • “cognitive activation” in conjunction with “educational quality”

The following German search terms were used (the terms in brackets contain the English translations):

  • „Basisdimensionen“ (basic dimensions)

  • „Unterrichtsqualität“ (teaching quality) in conjunction with key words

    „Unterrichtsqualität“ (teaching quality) and „Schule” (school)

  • “Klassenfuehrung“ (classroom management) in conjunction with key words

    „Klassenfuehrung“ (classroom management) and „Unterricht“ (instruction) and

    „Bildungsforschung“ (educational research)

  • „Schülerorientierung“ (student orientation) in conjunction with key word „Unterricht“ (instruction)

  • „Kognitive Aktivierung“ (cognitive activation) in conjunction with key word „Unterricht“ (instruction)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Praetorius, AK., Klieme, E., Herbert, B. et al. Generic dimensions of teaching quality: the German framework of Three Basic Dimensions. ZDM Mathematics Education 50, 407–426 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0918-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0918-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation