Keywords

1 Introduction

Quality of teaching comprises a topic of interest for most educational systems around the world and actions for maximizing the effect of the teaching and learning processes on student learning outcomes are frequently undertaken by investing a significant amount of resources. However, many of the efforts made to improve quality of education may be considered fragmented, superficial and lacking theoretical and empirical support (Scheerens, 2013, 2016). Teacher training and professional development, which are considered essential mechanisms for improving quality of teaching through the development of teachers’ teaching practices, is not always based on the existing knowledge-base. Teachers may thus be involved in professional development, the content of which was not found to be associated to student learning or their own individual needs for development (Creemers et al., 2013). Developing effective professional development programmes that can promote change in classroom practices (Darling-Hammond, 2000) is needed, so as to improve quality of teaching and, consequently, student learning outcomes. Teachers’ improvement efforts should be based on a solid theoretical framework that has received empirical validation for its main assumptions and that may guide teachers’ improvement efforts. Research within the field of Educational Effectiveness Research (EER) should, thus, be considered for designing professional development programmes that may lead to improvements in teaching practices (Kyriakides et al., 2020b). Towards that end, the Dynamic Approach to teaching improvement (DA) was developed and makes use of the dynamic model (Creemers & Kyriakides, 2008) which addresses the complexity of educational effectiveness, and at the same time, its representation of factors and measurement dimensions provide opportunities to design teaching improvement programmes which are flexible and differentiated to meet the needs of individual teachers situated at different stages (Creemers et al., 2013). More information on the DA may be found in Sect. 4. In this chapter, we acknowledge that variation exists in teacher effectiveness which should be taken into consideration when offering teacher professional development programmes (Antoniou, 2013; Muijs et al., 2014). The dynamic model, supports that the factors included at the teacher level can be classified into different stages of effective teaching, structured in a developmental order beginning from simpler teaching behaviour to more complex teaching skills (i.e., differentiation of teaching). In the next section, the rationale and main elements of the dynamic model are described.

2 The Dynamic Model of Educational Effectiveness

In this section the main elements and rationale upon which the dynamic model has been developed, are presented. The factors included at classroom level are analyzed and their main features are explained. Even though the dynamic model is multilevel in nature, in this chapter we only focus on the classroom level and present the teaching factors as these have been systematically shown to have a greater effect on student learning than factors located at the upper levels (i.e., school and system). Despite the fact, that factors located at the upper levels also have effects on student outcomes, these are smaller and mostly indirect (Kyriakides et al., 2018b). Since, therefore, it would not be possible to equally address in this paper the factors of different levels, we place focus on the factors located at the classroom level. For more information on the factors included in the dynamic model at the upper and lower levels see Creemers and Kyriakides (2008).

2.1 Main Elements and Rationale

The dynamic model of educational effectiveness (Creemers & Kyriakides, 2008) depicts the outcome of a systematic attempt to develop a framework of effectiveness that is able to encompass the dynamic nature of education and that is comprehensive enough to be able to be used by stakeholders in education, in order to improve the outcomes of educational efforts. Namely, the main aim of its development was to establish links between EER and school improvement. The dynamic model was developed by considering the limitations of the integrated models of educational effectiveness and incorporated the findings of studies conducted regarding the factors that have an influence on student outcomes (Creemers & Kyriakides, 2008). It was developed based on the main principles of the Creemers’ Comprehensive model (Creemers, 1994), however providing clearer definitions of the factors included at the different levels, as well as a more elaborated description of their measurement. In addition, the dynamic model takes into account the “new goals of education”, which more broadly define the expected outcomes of schooling and are not restricted solely to the acquisition of basic skills. This means that apart from its reference to the cognitive outcomes of schooling, it also refers to other outcomes, such as affective, psychomotor, and new learning outcomes (e.g., metacognition). This portrays the need to view education in a more holistic manner and comprises ways of building upon previous theories of educational effectiveness. However, the dynamic model is based on the notion that a model should not only be parsimonious but should also be able to describe the complex nature of educational effectiveness. This implies that the model is based on a specific theory, but at the same time some of the factors included in the major constructs of the model are expected to relate to one another within and/or between levels. Therefore, the dynamic model is also multilevel in nature and refers to factors operating at the four levels shown in Fig. 2.1 (i.e., student, classroom, school, and system). However, special emphasis is placed at the classroom level and the roles of the two main actors (i.e., teacher and student) are analyzed.

Fig. 2.1
A diagram of magnifying lens with the labels focus, quality, differentiation, frequency, and stage. It links to a flowchart. The flow is, National or regional policy for education, school policy, and quality of teaching which lists a block of objectives. All 4 blocks lead to a set of outcomes.

The dynamic model of educational effectiveness

Full size image

The dynamic model also suggests that factors at the school and system level have both direct and indirect effects on student achievement since they are able to influence not only student achievement but also teaching and learning. In addition, the model assumes that there is a need to carefully examine the relationships between the various effectiveness factors which operate both at the same and different levels. Such relations were also demonstrated through earlier models such as Walberg’s theory of educational productivity (Walberg, 1984) who indicated that aptitude, instruction and the psychological environment influence one another and are also influenced by feedback on the amount of learning that occurs. Such an approach to modelling educational effectiveness may reveal groupings of factors that make teachers and schools more or less effective. Therefore, strategies for improving effectiveness which are comprehensive in nature may emerge. It should be noted here, that the dynamic model was designed in such way that can also be used for promoting improvement in education and not exclusively for research and theory development (Kyriakides et al., 2020b; Savage, 2012). In particular, the dynamic model aims to address another criticism made in the earlier theories of EER, regarding their practical use and the possibility of using their basic principles for policy development. The practical use of the dynamic model for improvement purposes, both at the classroom and school level, has been demonstrated through several experimental studies (for a review of these studies see Kyriakides et al., 2020b).

Finally, the dynamic model assumes that each factor can be defined and measured by using five dimensions: frequency, focus, stage, quality, and differentiation. This can be considered as one of the main differences of the dynamic model from all the existing theoretical models in EER, since other frameworks such as the Three Basic Dimensions of Teaching Quality (TBD) (Praetorius et al., 2018) and the International Comparative Analysis of Learning and Teaching” (ICALT) (Van de Grift, 2007), do not take into account the different dimensions with which factors may be measured. Therefore, the dynamic model attempts to show that effectiveness factors are multidimensional constructs and can be measured in relation to specific dimensions. The importance of taking each dimension of the teaching effectiveness factors into account is illustrated below.

  • Frequency is a quantitative means of measuring the functioning of each factor. However, the other four dimensions which refer to the qualitative characteristics of the functioning of the factors reveal that effectiveness is more complicated than assumed by previous theoretical models and studies. Frequency, is probably the easiest way to measure the effect of a factor on student achievement, and, consequently, most effectiveness studies used this dimension to define effectiveness factors. For example, the frequency dimension of structuring is measured by taking into account the number of structuring tasks that take place in a typical lesson, as well as how long each structuring task takes place.

  • Focus can be defined by taking into account two different facets. The first one refers to the specificity of the activities associated with the functioning of a factor, namely whether they can be considered as specific in terms of solid activities or policies; or more general, in terms of not providing adequate details to the different stakeholders on the application processes of an activity. The second aspect refers to the purpose for which an activity takes place by looking whether an action aims at achieving one or several purposes. The dynamic model argues that there should be a balance in the specificity of the teaching tasks and this assumption is in line with the synergy theory (see Kyriakides et al., 2020b). For example, with regard to the factor of structuring this may refer to the individual lesson or a series of lessons.

  • Stage is related to the time at which tasks associated with a factor take place. It is assumed that the application of a factor in only one point in time may not constitute an effective way of dealing with the factor in terms of increasing the positive effects resulting from its implementation. For example, structuring tasks are expected to take place not only at the beginning or end of a lesson, or unit of lessons, but at different time points so that the students are given the opportunity to develop links among the different parts of a lesson/series of lessons. Thus, the factors need to take place over a long period of time to ensure that they have a continuous direct or indirect effect on student learning.

  • Quality refers to the properties of the specific factor itself, as they are discussed in the literature. For instance, in regard to the assessment factor, as it is stated through literature, formative assessment is expected to be more beneficial to students than summative and facilitate both learning and teaching (Black & Wiliam, 2009; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Wiliam et al., 2004).

  • Differentiation refers to the extent to which activities associated with a factor are applied without any digression for all the subjects involved with it (e.g., all the students, teachers, schools) irrespective of their needs and/or abilities. It is expected that adaptation to the specific needs of each subject or group of subjects will increase the successful implementation of a factor and will ultimately maximize its effect on student learning outcomes also addressing issues of equity (Kyriakides et al., 2018a). Taking in mind that students learn best when their teachers become accustomed to the differences in their readiness levels, interests and learning needs and make an effort to adjust their teaching in order to satisfy them (Tomlinson, 2005), the need for examining the functioning of the different factors in terms of differentiation is amplified. For example, teachers may ask students both process and product questions of different difficulty level, so as to give all students the opportunity to be engaged in a lesson.

In this section, the main assumptions and rationale upon which the dynamic model was developed were discussed. In the next section, a brief description of the factors included at classroom level is provided and their main characteristics are explained.

2.2 Teaching Factors: An Integrated Approach to Effective Teaching

Based on the main findings of teacher effectiveness research (e.g., Brophy & Good, 1986; Fraser et al., 1987; Muijs & Reynolds, 2001; Opdenakker & Van Damme, 2000; Rosenshine & Stevens, 1986), the dynamic model refers to factors which describe teachers’ instructional role and are associated with student learning outcomes. These factors refer to observable instructional behaviour of teachers in the classroom rather than to factors that may explain such behaviour (e.g., teacher beliefs and knowledge and interpersonal competences). The eight factors included in the model are: orientation, structuring, questioning, teaching modelling, application, management of time, teacher role in making classroom a learning environment, and classroom assessment. These eight factors do not refer only to one approach of teaching, such as structured or direct teaching (Joyce et al., 2000) or to approaches associated with constructivism (Schoenfeld, 1998). An integrated approach in defining quality of teaching is adopted. Specifically, the dynamic model does not refer only to skills associated with direct teaching and mastery learning such as structuring and questioning, but also to orientation and teaching modelling which are in line with theories of teaching associated with constructivism (Brekelmans et al., 2000). Moreover, the collaboration technique is included under the overarching factor of teacher contribution to the establishment of the classroom learning environment. Studies investigating differential teacher effectiveness have revealed that the previously listed eight factors may have a stronger impact on the learning of specific groups of students but can be treated as generic in nature as research has highlighted a link with the achievement of each group of students (Campbell et al., 2004). A short description of each factor follows. Information on the instruments for measuring these factors may, also, be found in Creemers and Kyriakides (2012).

  1. A)

    Orientation: This factor draws on theories in the field of motivation and refers to teacher behaviour in providing the students with opportunities to identify the reason(s) for which an activity or lesson or series of lessons occur and/or actively involving students to the identification of the reason(s) for which a lesson includes a specific task. Through this process it is expected that the activities that take place during lessons, become meaningful to students and consequently increase their motivation for participating actively in the classroom (e.g., De Corte, 2000; Paris & Paris, 2001). This factor may thus have an impact on increasing student motivation and through that, on increasing student learning outcomes.

  2. B)

    Structuring: Student learning is positively influenced when teachers actively present materials and structure them by: (a) beginning with overviews and/or review of objectives; (b) outlining the content to be covered and signaling transitions between lesson parts; (c) calling attention to main ideas; and (d) reviewing main ideas at the end (Rosenshine & Stevens, 1986). Structuring activities aim at assisting students develop links between the different parts of lessons, instead of dealing with them in an isolated way (Kyriakides et al., 2020b).

  3. C)

    Questioning: This factor is defined according to five elements. Firstly, effective teachers are expected to not only provide a large amount of product questions which require students to respond in a single way, but also focus on expecting students to elaborate on their answers and provide details on how they were able to reach their answer (i.e., by also posing process questions). Secondly, it is anticipated that teachers provide enough time to students before calling for their answers respective of each question’s level of difficulty. Thirdly, the clarity of the questions posed is taken into consideration, so that no misconceptions or misinterpretations are caused. Fourthly, the question level of difficulty should reflect students’ ability, avoiding too difficult questions that would inevitably cause complete failure to respond (Brophy & Good, 1986). Finally, it is outlined that an important aspect of this factor is the way teachers deal with student responses. Specifically, correct responses should be acknowledged so that all students are aware of the correct answer at the end of the discussion. In case a student’s answer is not fully correct then the teacher should acknowledge whatever part may be correct and assist the student in discovering the correct answer or provide an improved response, through the provision of clarification or helpful guidelines.

  4. D)

    Teaching-modelling: Although there is a long tradition in research on teaching higher-order thinking skills and problem solving, these teaching and learning activities have received unprecedented attention during the last two decades, due to the policy emphasis on the achievement of new goals of education. Thus, the teaching-modeling factor is associated with findings of effectiveness studies revealing that effective teachers are expected to help students use strategies and/or develop their own strategies that can help them solve different types of problems (Muijs et al., 2014). Consequently, students are expected to develop skills that help them organize their own learning (e.g., self-regulation and active learning). In defining this factor, the dynamic model also addresses the properties of teaching-modeling tasks, and the role that teachers are expected to play in order to help students devise problem-solving strategies. Teachers may either present students with a clear problem-solving strategy, or they may invite students to explain how they themselves would approach or resolve a particular problem and then use that information for promoting the idea of modeling. Recent research suggests that the latter approach may encourage students to not only use, but also develop their own problem-solving strategies (Aparicio & Moneo, 2005; Gijbels et al., 2006).

  5. E)

    Application: Providing students with practice and application opportunities can improve learning outcomes. Learning new information cannot be a constant process, since according to the Cognitive Load Theory the working memory can only process a limited amount of information at each given time (Kirschner, 2002). It is also argued that application tasks should not only constitute a repetition of the material that students were taught in classroom but should move a step forward adding more complex and mentally stimulating elements. Thus, application activities should provide the trigger for further knowledge, contributing to the linkage of the units taught in one lesson or series of lessons with the following. Effective teachers are expected to not only observe students engaging in application tasks, but also to actively contribute to their learning by supervising their progress and providing students with constructive feedback (Creemers et al., 2013).

  6. F)

    The classroom as a learning environment: This factor as described in the dynamic model consists of five components which were shown to be the most important aspects of the classroom climate through teacher effectiveness studies and meta-analyses: (a) teacher-student interaction, (b) student-student interaction, (c) students’ treatment by the teacher, (d) competition between students, and (e) classroom disorder (Fraser & Goh, 2003). Classroom environment research has shown that the first two of these elements are important components of measuring classroom climate (see Cazden, 1986; Harjunen, 2012). However, the dynamic model is concerned with the immediate impact that teacher initiatives have on establishing relevant interactions in the classroom, and it investigates the extent to which teachers are able to establish on-task behaviour through promotion of interactions. The other three elements refer to teachers’ attempts to create an efficient and supportive environment for learning in the classroom (Walberg, 1986). These elements are measured by taking into account the teacher’s behaviour in establishing rules, persuading students to respect and use the rules, and the teacher’s ability to maintain them in order to create and sustain an effective learning environment in the classroom.

  7. G)

    Management of time: To address this factor the amount of time used per lesson for on-task behaviour is investigated. Teachers are expected to: (a) prioritize academic instruction and allocate available time to curriculum-related activities; and (b) maximize student engagement rates. Time management skills are not restricted solely to teachers’ ability to avoid the loss of teaching time through minimizing external classroom disruptions, or through dealing effectively with organizational issues (e.g., moving between classes, organizing and distributing materials or giving instructions). Apart from the overall teaching time, management of time skills also include teacher actions that increase the learning time for each individual student (i.e., the on-task time).

  8. H)

    Assessment: Assessment is seen as an essential part of teaching (Stenmark, 1992). Especially formative assessment has been shown to be one of the most important factors associated with effectiveness at all levels, especially at the classroom level (Christoforidou et al., 2014). Effective teachers are therefore expected to: (a) Use appropriate techniques to collect data on student knowledge and skills; (b) analyze data in order to identify student needs; (c) report assessment results to students and parents; and (d) evaluate their own practices.

In this section, the factors included at the classroom level of the dynamic model have been briefly described, in the next section, a description of the main studies that have provided empirical support to the main assumptions of the model at the classroom level is provided.

3 Empirical Support Provided to the Main Assumptions of the Dynamic Model at the Classroom Level

Sixteen empirical studies have been conducted thus far to examine the main assumptions of the dynamic model at classroom level. These studies have been able to demonstrate that teaching factors in the dynamic model are associated with students’ achievement gains. It is also important to note that different types of learning outcomes were used as criteria for measuring teacher effectiveness. Namely, the impact of teaching factors was demonstrated on promoting not only cognitive, but also affective (e.g., Kyriakides & Creemers, 2008) psychomotor (e.g., Kyriakides et al., 2018c) and meta-cognitive learning outcomes (e.g., Kyriakides et al., 2020a). Different subjects (i.e., language, mathematics, science, religious education, and physical education) and different phases of education (i.e., pre-primary, primary, and secondary education), have also been considered in these studies. Therefore, these studies provided some empirical support for the assumption that teaching factors can be generic. However, it should be noted that only two studies examined the impact of the teaching factors on non-cognitive outcomes and only one on student metacognitive outcomes. What is, however, more important is that in some studies it was not possible to see the effects of some factors when only the frequency dimension was considered, but variation in student achievement was explained when the other four dimensions of these factors were taken into account (e.g., Kyriakides et al., 2020b). It is relevant to point out that one of these studies was conducted in Ghana whereby the observation instruments and the student questionnaire were used to collect data on the teaching factors of the dynamic model and measure the impact of teaching factors on mathematical achievement of primary students in Ghana (see Azigwe et al., 2016). In this study no effect of the teaching factors was identified through the student questionnaire which was able to collect data on all eight teaching factors but not on all measurement dimensions and therefore only the data collected through the observation instruments were used to measure the effect of the teaching factors on student achievement. This shows the need to also collecting observational data for the measurement of the factors. Similar results were also found in a study in the Maldives where data collected through the student questionnaire were able to detect the effect of only few factors on student learning outcomes whereas observation data were able to detect the effect of all factors on student learning outcomes (Musthafa, 2020).

Regarding the link between effectiveness factors and their impact on student achievement, Kyriakides et al. (2013) conducted a quantitative synthesis of 167 studies, which had been carried out between 1980 and 2010 and which had been designed to investigate the contribution of teacher classroom behaviours to student learning outcomes. For the purpose of this synthesis, all the selected studies included explicit and valid measures of student achievement in relation to cognitive, affective or psychomotor outcomes of schooling. Studies that used more global criteria for academic outcomes, such as dropout rates, grade retention and enrolment in universities, were also included. Given the focus of this meta-analysis, a study was included if it also had measures of specific teaching factors and provided information on the methods used to measure each factor. This meta-analysis not only revealed that factors included in the dynamic model were moderately associated with student achievement, but also that the type of outcomes had no significant effect on the functioning of the factors examined in the study. On the other hand, the type of study did have an effect since experimental studies were found to report higher effect sizes than longitudinal and cross-sectional studies. This meta-analysis, also, revealed that factors not included in the model were weakly associated with student learning, except for concept mapping and self-regulation. However, the effect of concept mapping was only investigated through three studies which were experimental in nature, hence the strong average size reported for concept mapping should not be dissociated from the nature of the studies considered with respect to this factor. With regard to self-regulation, this may be seen as closely associated to other factors already included in the dynamic model. For example, the orientation factor included in the model attends to the extent to which the teacher provides information to orient students towards the importance of learning the new content. This factor of the dynamic model could be considered as a component of teachers’ attempt to encourage self-regulation and help students understand the reasons for which they should be engaged in certain learning tasks. From a theoretical standpoint, then, such connections suggest that including self-regulation in the dynamic model might be a natural extension to the model. This is because this factor can help better capture the extent to which teaching not only gives students the opportunity to apply approaches presented in the lesson (i.e., application) or to develop certain strategies for dealing with particular problems (i.e., modelling), but it can also help students gradually become independent learners.

Finally, the findings of this meta-analysis provide some empirical support for the use of an integrated approach to defining effective teaching, especially since the factors found to have an effect on student outcomes, be they (meta) cognitive, affective or psychomotor, were not associated solely with either the direct and active teaching approach or the constructivist approach. For example, this meta-analysis showed that factors related to direct instruction (e.g., time management, structuring) or to constructivism (e.g., orientation, modelling) both contribute to student learning outcomes. This finding empirically supports the assumptions of the dynamic model, which, pursues an integrated approach and incorporates factors from different instructional perspectives at the teacher/classroom level (see Kyriakides, 2008).

Despite the abovementioned studies and meta-analysis, it should be noted that, no analyses have been done to examine whether the factors may be grouped into second order overarching factors, however, studies have supported the assumption that the teaching factors of the dynamic model and their dimensions are inter-related and revealed that they can be classified into stages of effective teaching, structured in a developmental order by using the Rasch model (see Kyriakides et al., 2020b).

In particular, the first study that revealed relationships among the teaching factors (Kyriakides et al., 2009) was conducted to identify the impact of the eight teaching factors and their dimensions on student achievement gains in different subjects (i.e., language, mathematics, and religious education) and on different types of learning outcome (i.e., cognitive and affective). This study tested the validity of the measurement dimension framework proposed by the dynamic model and made use of the Rasch model to identify the extent to which the five dimensions of the teaching factors could be reducible to a common unidimensional scale. By analyzing the data that emerged from the observation instruments used to measure the performance of the teacher sample in relation to the eight teaching factors and their dimensions, it was discovered that the data fitted the Rasch model, and a reliable hierarchical scale of teaching skills was established. Then, by using cluster analysis, it was found that the teaching skills could be grouped into five levels of difficulty that could be taken to stand for different types of teacher behaviour, moving from relatively easy to more difficult and spanning the five dimensions of the eight teaching factors included in the dynamic model.

The first three levels are mainly related to the direct and active teaching approach, moving from the basic requirements concerning quantitative characteristics of teaching routines to the more advanced requirements concerning the appropriate use of these skills as measured by the qualitative characteristics of these factors. These skills also gradually move from the use of teacher-centered approaches to the active involvement of students in teaching and learning. The last two levels are more demanding since teachers are expected to differentiate their instruction (level 4) and to demonstrate their ability to use the new teaching approach (level 5). Multilevel analysis of student achievement also showed that teachers situated at higher levels are more effective than those situated at the lower levels. This association is found with respect to achievement in all three different subjects and both cognitive and affective outcomes (see Kyriakides et al., 2009).

Similar results emerged from a study conducted in Canada which made use of student ratings to measure the skills of teachers in relation to each teaching factor and its dimensions (Kyriakides et al., 2013). In this case the stages which were identified also moved gradually from skills associated with direct teaching to more advanced skills involved in the constructivist approach and differentiation of teaching. This indicates that teachers may also move gradually from one type of teaching behaviour to a more complex one. An experimental study also investigated the impact of offering the teaching improvement programmes based on the dynamic approach for a longer period rather than just a single school year (Kyriakides et al., 2017). This study revealed that a stepwise progression of teachers’ skills took place (over a period of three school years) and thus supported the generalizability of findings of the studies seeking to identify stages of effective teaching.

4 Establishing Links Between Theory and Practice: The Dynamic Approach to Teaching and School Improvement

The dynamic model has been developed taking into consideration that the theoretical base of educational effectiveness research should provide a basis for policy development and guide teaching and school improvement efforts. It is argued that in many cases, the relationship between science and practice in education and in educational effectiveness, specifically, has not been successful (Kyriakides et al., 2020b). However, considering research evidence when designing and implementing improvement programmes in education may lead to better student outcomes that reflect the efforts of practitioners towards improvement. Therefore, this chapter argues that the dynamic model may contribute to establishing a theory-driven and evidence-based approach to teacher professional development.

Regarding teacher professional development, different approaches are used, which in many cases, however, do not consider existing knowledge on effective teaching and the ways that teachers could better learn and implement educational practices that were found to be effective in promoting learning (Borko et al., 2010). In this context, it is acknowledged that in the literature of teacher professional development, different views exist on the methodology, structure, and philosophical perspectives of different approaches to teacher training and professional development and the role of teachers in the developmental process (Day & Sachs, 2005). Towards that end, research on teacher training and professional development indicates two dominant approaches which may be seen not only as different, but also as rather opposing: the Competency-Based Approach (CBA) and the Holistic Approach (HA). On one hand, the CBA emphasizes skill acquisition through the setting of professional standards for teachers. Such professional standards have been developed on the assumption that it is possible to define what teachers should know and, most importantly, be able to do. This approach has been criticized for reinforcing teachers’ practices in a reproductive way separating practice from content and restricting teachers’ critical and creative thinking (Sprinthall et al., 1996). On the other hand, the HA which recognizes reflection as the way for teachers to develop effective practice has also been extensively criticized. Whereas reflection is identified as an important element in all aspects of learning (Ottesen, 2007); contradictory interpretations of what constitutes reflection (Cornford, 2002; Fendler, 2003) and how it translates into action (Cornford, 2002) can be identified. What is most important, however, is that none of these dominant approaches has provided enough evidence of their positive effect on teaching and learning. Taking the above mentioned into consideration, the Dynamic Approach (DA) to teacher professional development was proposed (Creemers et al., 2013) in an attempt to link EER with research on teacher professional development and address the limitations of the currently employed professional development approaches.

First, the DA assumes that teacher improvement efforts should aim at the development of teaching skills which relate to positive student learning outcomes. It is argued that teaching skills should not be addressed separately through teacher professional development without considering the professional needs of teachers (as proposed by the CBA) or very broadly (as implied by the HA) but rather, teacher training and professional development should address specific groupings of teaching factors in relation to student learning. Therefore, the DA draws on the two dominant approaches (i.e. the CBA and the HA) and aims to overcome their main weaknesses through considering the grouping of teaching factors included in the dynamic model of educational effectiveness (Creemers & Kyriakides, 2008). The main steps of the DA to teacher development are presented next.

4.1 The Main Steps of the DA

This section refers to the four main steps of the DA. The first step is concerned with the identification of the professional development needs of each teacher separately through empirical investigation. The DA assumes that an initial evaluation of teachers’ teaching skills should be conducted prior to offering teacher training, to investigate the extent to which they possess certain teaching skills while identifying their needs and priorities for improvement (Creemers et al., 2013). The results of the initial evaluation can help us classify teachers into developmental stages of teaching and generate suggestions for the content of training to be offered to different groups of teachers based on the stage at which they were found to be situated. The second step is concerned with the support that the advisory team (i.e. mentors) will provide to teachers in order to help them establish their own action plans. Specifically, the advisory team is expected to provide teachers of each group with supporting literature and research findings related to the teaching skills of their developmental stage. As a result, each teacher is in a position to develop his/her own action plan. The next step of the DA comprises the establishment of formative evaluation procedures. The formative evaluation procedures refer to the identification of the learning goals, intentions or outcomes and criteria for achieving them; the provision of timely and constructive feedback to enable teachers advance their learning; the active involvement of teachers in their own learning and, lastly, improvement in teaching skills. These procedures could be accomplished by the close collaboration of the advisory team and the participating teachers. The final step of the DA aims to identify the impact of the teacher professional development programme on the development of teachers’ skills and its indirect effect on student learning. The results of summative evaluation assist in measuring the effectiveness of the DA and allow subsequent decisions to be made on how to further improve the programme and maximize its effect on educational quality. In the next section, experimental studies investigating the impact of this approach on improving teaching and promoting student learning outcomes are briefly presented.

4.2 Research on the Impact of the DA on Improving Teaching and Promoting Student Learning

Recent studies support the effectiveness of the DA in relation to the CBA and the HA. Particularly, a group randomisation study compared the effectiveness of the DA to the HA (Antoniou & Kyriakides, 2011). A total number of 130 teachers volunteered to participate in a teacher professional development programme. Their teaching skills and achievement of their students in mathematics (n = 2356) were measured at the beginning and at the end of the intervention. Teachers found to be at each developmental stage at the beginning of the intervention were randomly allocated evenly into two groups. The first group employed the DA and the second the HA. Teachers employing the DA managed to improve their teaching skills more than teachers employing the HA. The use of the DA also had a significant impact on student achievement gains in mathematics. In addition, all teachers of the study, participated in a follow-up measurement of their teaching skills, which took place 1 year after the end of the intervention. One year after the end of the intervention, the teaching skills of the participating teachers were evaluated using the same procedures as those used to measure their skills at the beginning and end of the intervention. The aim of this follow-up study was to investigate whether teachers had fallen back to their initial stage or whether they had continued to improve their teaching skills even after the intervention stimulus had ended. Analyses of data provided evidence to compare the impact of the two approaches to TPD 1 year after the end of the intervention. Regarding the sustainability of the intervention, the follow-up measurement of teaching skills 1 year after the end of the interventions revealed no further improvement or decline in the teaching skills of either the DA or the HA group (Antoniou & Kyriakides, 2013). Taking into consideration, the improvement of teaching skills on the part of the DA group during the intervention, we argue that teachers can improve their teaching skills when they are exposed to appropriate interventions and participate in effective and systematic professional development programmes. Research findings also support the view that improvement is more apparent in those teachers who continue with informal education and participate systematically in effective professional development programmes (e.g., King & Kitchener, 1994). This is an important reminder that stage growth does not develop spontaneously but requires a stimulating and supportive environment. This project seems to reveal that such an environment can be established when teaching improvement projects based on the DA are offered to teachers. The second study compared the effectiveness of the DA to the CBA in improving teacher assessment skills and promoting student outcomes. Following the same approach as in the first study, teachers were invited to participate in a professional development programme and their skills in conducting assessment as well as the achievement of their students in mathematics (n = 2358) were measured at the beginning and at the end of the intervention. Teachers found to be at a certain stage at the beginning of the intervention were again randomly allocated evenly into two groups (see Christoforidou et al., 2014). The first group employed the DA and the second the CBA. The results of the study demonstrated that, for teachers at all stages, the DA was more effective in improving both assessment skills, as well as student outcomes in mathematics (see Creemers et al., 2013). Since experimental studies demonstrated that one-year interventions based on the DA have a positive impact on teacher effectiveness, a study took place by Kyriakides et al. (2017) aimed to examine the impact that a long-term programme based on the DA may have on quality of teaching. Therefore, a three-year school-based professional development programme was offered to 106 in-service primary education teachers in Cyprus coming from different public schools. Particularly, in-service primary school teachers were randomly allocated into two groups. The first group received a three-year programme based on the DA whereas the second acted as the control group. Pre- and post-measurement of teaching skills were performed each year. Results showed that, offering the DA for a longer period resulted in bigger effects on improving teaching skills but no change in the skills of the control group was observed. Namely, the effect sizes measuring the impact of offering the DA for 1 year (0.17), 2 years (0.30) or 3 years (0.39) reveal that the duration of a programme based on the DA plays an important role in improving teaching skills. During the first year of the implementation of the project a small effect of the DA on improving teaching skills was identified which is a similar result to those reported in previous studies investigating the impact of offering the DA for only 1 year. However, by offering the DA for a period of 3 years a bigger effect on improving teaching was identified which provides implication for the duration of teacher professional development.

5 Conclusion – Global Perspectives of Educational Effectiveness

EER has significantly evolved during the past decades both in terms of methodology, as well as, in terms of theory. The significance of teaching factors as the most important predictor of student learning outcomes, has also been systematically demonstrated (Muijs et al., 2014; Scheerens and Bosker, 1997). However, most studies have been conducted in developed- western countries, with a significantly smaller amount having been conducted in developing, and particularly SubSaharan African countries, which portray significant differences in contextual variables (Riddell, 2008). Research evidence suggest that teachers and schools may matter more in developing rather than in developed countries. Namely, a recent study conducted in Ghana (Azigwe et al., 2016), revealed that 55 per cent of the total variance in student achievement in mathematics was situated at the classroom level and only 45 per cent at the student level. This finding suggests that the classroom/teacher effect is much bigger in Ghana than in developed countries where studies conducted during the last four decades reveal that more than 60 per cent of variance is situated at the student level (see Creemers & Kyriakides, 2008; Scheerens & Bosker, 1997). Therefore, examining the differences in teacher effectiveness in different countries around the world and especially developing countries, is essential in terms of not only achieving quality of teaching in different educational settings, but also addressing issues of equity and equal opportunities in education and learning. In addition, using cross sectional data, Heyneman and Loxley (1982) found that SES was more important than school factors in determining children’s academic performance in economically developed countries. Similar results are reported by Park (2008), who discussed how the association of the home literacy environment on reading achievement varies from country to country. Therefore, cross-national studies are needed to examine the effects of different factors in different educational settings. In addition, EER has frequently been criticized as being developed apart from teaching practice. Similarly, the results of teacher effectiveness research have not always provided a basis for teacher improvement efforts. Despite the improvements made to the field of EER during the last three decades, regarding research design, improvements in sampling techniques, and improvements in statistical techniques, the link between EER and professional development is still problematic. For this reason, we propose the establishment of strategies for teacher improvement which give emphasis on the evidence stemming from theory and research. Thus, the value of a theory-driven approach to teacher professional development is stressed. To that end, the DA was developed that considers the individual teacher professional development needs of teachers and is based on the assumption that teacher improvement efforts should aim at the development of teaching skills which were found to be related to improved student learning outcomes. Moreover, the DA aims to address the main weaknesses of the two dominant approaches (i.e., the CBA and the HA) to teacher professional development by considering the inter-relations between effectiveness factors when designing teacher training. Even though studies have shown the impact of the DA on improving teaching skills and student learning outcomes, the sustainability of the results of the DA after the intervention need further investigation. One experimental study attempted to examine the one-year sustainability of the effects of the DA to teacher professional development (see Antoniou & Kyriakides, 2013) and revealed that, one year after the end of the interventions, no further improvement or decline in the teaching skills of the participating teachers took place. This may be partly explained by the fact that teaching experience alone without any form of teacher professional development does not contribute to the improvement of teaching skills (Çakir & Bichelmeyer, 2016; Huang & Moon, 2009). Taken that most recent studies on teacher professional development examine the short terms effects of providing teachers with professional development and even if positive effects are observed the sustainability of these effects is not determined (Derri et al., 2015), more research is needed to examine issues of sustainability of the effects of the DA.

Despite issues of sustainability, one should also examine the role of the Advisory and Research Team (A&R Team) that the DA assumes to have an important role towards the improvement of teaching skills. This team, consisting of researchers on teacher effectiveness and teacher professional development experts, is able to make available the appropriate knowledge base on improving the teaching skills that are set as improvement priorities for each teacher, as well as possessing technical expertise. The A&R Team is also expected to facilitate the process of formative assessment which is foreseen by the DA for monitoring the actions undertaken. Therefore, the degree to which the support of the A&R Team is needed for teacher improvement purposes, as well as the contribution of establishing formative assessment mechanisms, should also be examined. Finally, it should be acknowledged that studies examining the impact of the DA were only focused on determining its effect on improving student outcomes and have not dealt with issues of equity in education (Kyriakides et al., 2018a). Therefore, more studies are needed that search for the impact of DA on not only promoting student learning outcomes but also contributing to the reduction of the impact of background factors on student learning outcomes. These studies may help us identify how teacher professional development programmes can contribute in promoting both the quality and equity in education.