Effects of teacher belief adaptivity on students’ reading skills

  • Frank EgloffEmail author
  • Elmar Souvignier


Teachers’ adaptivity of constructivist and direct-transmissive beliefs may be beneficial for students’ learning based on the theoretical claim that low-ability students need more teacher guidance than high-ability students. The goals of our study were to validate a new questionnaire that measures teachers’ adaptivity of beliefs and to investigate whether adaptivity scores are related to students’ reading skill learning gains. We assessed 25 teachers’ adaptivity of constructivist and direct-transmissive beliefs and 451 students’ reading fluency and reading comprehension at eight points of measurement over one school year. Psychometric assessment of the belief adaptivity questionnaire revealed that the measure is valid and reliable. Thereby, adaptivity was found in a way that teachers’ constructivist beliefs were lower when referring to low-ability compared to high-ability students and that direct-transmissive beliefs were higher for low-ability compared to high-ability students. Three-level latent growth curve modeling showed that teachers’ adaptivity of beliefs affected students’ reading comprehension positively but did not affect reading fluency. We propose that adaptivity should be included as a facet of teaching effectiveness in the research on teacher beliefs.


Teacher belief adaptivity Beliefs about teaching Teacher effectiveness Reading comprehension Reading fluency 



  1. Aberson, C. L. (2010). Applied power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Basturkmen, H. (2012). Review of research into the correspondence between language teachers’ stated beliefs and practices. System, 40, 282–295. Scholar
  3. Behrmann, L., & Souvignier, E. (2013). Pedagogical content beliefs about reading instruction and their relation to gains in student achievement. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28(3), 1023–1044. Scholar
  4. Behrmann, L., & Souvignier, E. (2015). Effects of fit between teachers’ instructional beliefs and didactical principles of reading programs. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 30(3), 295–312. Scholar
  5. Boghossian, P. (2012). Critical thinking and constructivism: mambo dog fish to the banana patch. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 46(1), 73–84. Scholar
  6. Bollen, K. A., & Curran, P. J. (2006). Latent curve models: a structural equation perspective. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc..Google Scholar
  7. Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1988). Toward a more appropriate conceptualization of research on school effects: a three-level hierarchical linear model. American Journal of Education, 97(1), 65–108. Scholar
  8. Chaplin, W. F., John, O. P., & Goldberg, L. R. (1988). Conceptions of states and traits: dimensional attributes with ideals as prototypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(4), 541–557. Scholar
  9. Cheng, M. M., Chan, K. W., Tang, S. Y., & Cheng, A. Y. (2009). Pre-service teacher education students' epistemological beliefs and their conceptions of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(2), 319–327. Scholar
  10. Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., Fishman, B., Giuliani, S., Luck, M., Underwood, P. S., Bayraktar, A., Crowe, E. C., & Schatschneider, C. (2011a). Testing the impact of child characteristics x instruction interactions on third graders’ reading comprehension by differentiating literacy instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(3), 189–221. Scholar
  11. Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., & Katch, L. E. (2004a). Beyond the reading wars: exploring the effect of child-instruction interactions on growth in early reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8(4), 305–336. Scholar
  12. Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., & Petrella, J. N. (2004b). Effective reading comprehension instruction: examining child by instruction interactions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(4), 682–698. Scholar
  13. Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., Schatschneider, C., Toste, J. R., Lundblom, E., Crowe, E. C., & Fishman, B. (2011b). Effective classroom instruction: implications of child characteristics by reading instruction interactions on first graders’ word reading achievement. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4(3), 173–207. Scholar
  14. Corno, L., & Snow, R. E. (1986). Adapting teaching to individual differences in learners. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Third handbook of research on teaching (pp. 605–629). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  15. Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: a handbook for research on interactions. New York: Irvington Publishers.Google Scholar
  16. Cross, D. I. (2009). Alignment, cohesion, and change: examining mathematics teachers’ belief structures and their influence on instructional practices. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 12(5), 325–346. Scholar
  17. Dubberke, T., Kunter, M., McElvany, N., Brunner, M., & Baumert, J. (2008). Lerntheoretische Überzeugungen von Mathematiklehrkräften: Einflüsse auf die Unterrichtsgestaltung und den Lernerfolg von Schülerinnen und Schülern [Mathematics teachers’ beliefs: their impact on instructional quality and student achievement]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie [German Journal of Educational Psychology], 22(34), 193–206. Scholar
  18. Duffy, G., & Anderson, L. (1984). Editorial comment: guest commentary teachers’ theoretical orientations and the real classroom. Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, 5(1-2), 97–104. Scholar
  19. Duncan, T. E., Duncan, S. C., & Strycker, L. A. (2006). An introduction to latent variable growth curve modeling: concepts, issues, and application. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  20. Egloff, F., Förster, N., & Souvignier, E. (2019). Students’ reading ability moderates the effects of teachers’ beliefs on students’ reading progress. Frontline Learning Research, 7(1), 1–22.
  21. Fives, H., & Buehl, M. M. (2012). Spring cleaning for the “messy” construct of teachers’ beliefs: What are they? Which have been examined? What can they tell us? In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, S. Graham, J. Royer, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook, vol 2: Individual differences and cultural and contextual factors (pp. 471–499). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fives, H., Lacatena, N., & Gerard, C. (2015). Teachers’ beliefs about teaching (and learning). In M. G. Gill & H. Fives (Eds.), International handbook of research on teachers’ beliefs (pp. 249–265). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Schatschneider, C., & Mehta, P. (1998). The role of instruction in learning to read: preventing reading failure in at risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology., 90(1), 37–55. Scholar
  24. Grisham, D. L. (2000). Connecting theoretical conceptions of reading to practice: a longitudinal study of elementary school teachers. Reading Psychology, 21(2), 145–170. Scholar
  25. Hatcher, P. J., Hulme, C., & Ellis, A. W. (1994). Ameliorating early reading failure by integrating the teaching of reading and phonological skills: the phonological linkage hypothesis. Child Development, 65(1), 41–57. Scholar
  26. Heyne, N. (2014). Merkmale des Leseunterrichts im vierten Schuljahr im Fokus videobasierter Analysen [Characteristics of fourth grade reading lessons in the focus of video-based analyses]. Münster: Waxmann Verlag.Google Scholar
  27. Hoyles, C. (1992). Mathematics teaching and mathematics teachers: a meta-case study. For the Learning of Mathematics, 12(3), 32–44 Retrieved from Scholar
  28. Jenkins, J. R., Fuchs, L. S., Van Den Broek, P., Espin, C., & Deno, S. L. (2003). Sources of individual differences in reading comprehension and reading fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 719–729. Scholar
  29. Johnston, A. M., Barnes, M. A., & Desrochers, A. (2008). Reading comprehension: developmental processes, individual differences, and interventions. Canadian Psychology, 49(2), 125–132. Scholar
  30. Juel, C., & Minden-Cupp, C. (2000). Learning to read words: linguistic units and instructional strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(4), 458–492. Scholar
  31. Kalyuga, S. (2007). Expertise reversal effect and its implications for learner-tailored instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 19(4), 509–539. Scholar
  32. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: a paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Kleinbub, I. (2010). Unterrichtsqualität im Leseunterricht. Eine videobasierte Analyse in vierten Klassen [Quality of instruction in reading lessons. A video-based analysis in grade 4]. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.Google Scholar
  34. Musti-Rao, S., Hawkins, R. O., & Barkley, E. A. (2009). Effects of repeated readings on the oral reading fluency of urban fourth-grade students: implications for practice. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 54(1), 12–23. Scholar
  35. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  36. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Teaching children to read: an evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  37. Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19(4), 317–328. Scholar
  38. Nie, Y., & Lau, S. (2010). Differential relations of constructivist and didactic instruction to students’ cognition, motivation, and achievement. Learning and Instruction, 20(5), 411–423. Scholar
  39. Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332. Scholar
  40. Peterson, P. L., Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., & Loef, M. (1989). Teacher’s pedagogical content beliefs in mathematics. Cognition and Instruction, 6(1), 1–40. Scholar
  41. Rapp, D. N., Broek, P. V. D., McMaster, K. L., Kendeou, P., & Espin, C. A. (2007). Higher-order comprehension processes in struggling readers: a perspective for research and intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 289–312. Scholar
  42. Raudenbush, S. W., Rowan, B., & Cheong, Y. F. (1993). Higher order instructional goals in secondary schools: class, teacher, and school influences. American Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 523–553. Scholar
  43. Richardson, V., Anders, P., Tidwell, D., & Lloyd, C. (1991). The relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices in reading comprehension instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 559–586. Scholar
  44. Richardson, V. (2003). Preservice teachers’ beliefs. In J. Raths & A. C. McAninch (Eds.), Teacher beliefs and classroom performance: the impact of teacher education. Advances in teacher education, volume 6 (pp. 1–22). Information Age: Greenwich, CT.Google Scholar
  45. Samuels, S. J. (1979). The method of repeated readings. The Reading Teacher, 32(4), 403–408. Retrieved from
  46. Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem based learning: an instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational Technology, 35(5), 31–38 Retrieved from Scholar
  47. Snider, V. E., & Roehl, R. (2007). Teachers’ beliefs about pedagogy and related issues. Psychology in the Schools, 44(8), 873–885. Scholar
  48. Speer, D. C., & Greenbaum, P. E. (1995). Five methods for computing significant individual client change and improvement rates: support for an individual growth curve approach. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63(6), 1044–1048. Scholar
  49. Staub, F. C., & 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. Scholar
  50. Souvignier, E., & Mokhlesgerami, J. (2005). Implementation eines Programms zur Vermittlung von Lesestrategien im Deutschunterricht [Moving strategy-oriented reading instruction into the classroom: The role of the teacher]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie [German Journal of Educational Psychology], 19(4), 249–261. Scholar
  51. Souvignier, E., Förster, N., & Salaschek, M. (2014). Quop: Ein Ansatz internetbasierter Lernverlaufsdiagnostik mit Testkonzepten für Lesen und Mathematik [Quop: An Internet Based Approach with Testing Concepts for Reading and Mathematics]. In M. Hasselhorn, W. Schneider, & U. Trautwein (Eds.), Lernverlaufsdiagnostik [Learning progress assessment] (pp. 239–256). Goettingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  52. Südkamp, A., Kaiser, J., & Möller, J. (2012). Accuracy of teachers’ judgments of students’ academic achievement: a meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 743–762. Scholar
  53. Topping, K. (2006). Paired reading: impact of a tutoring method on reading accuracy, comprehension and fluency. In T. Rasinski, C. Blachowicz, & K. Lems (Eds.), Fluency instruction: research-based best practices (pp. 173–191). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  54. Torff, B., & Warburton, E. C. (2005). Assessment of teachers’ beliefs about classroom use of critical-thinking activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65(1), 155–179. Scholar
  55. Van Kraayenoord, C. E., & Schneider, W. E. (1999). Reading achievement, metacognition, reading self-concept and interest: a study of German students in grades 3 and 4. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14(3), 305–324. Scholar
  56. Verhoeven, L., & Van Leeuwe, J. (2008). Prediction of the development of reading comprehension: a longitudinal study. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 22(3), 407–423. Scholar
  57. Willett, J. B. (1989). Some results on reliability for the longitudinal measurement of change: implications for the design of studies of individual growth. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49(3), 587–602. Scholar
  58. Zohar, A., Degani, A., & Vaaknin, E. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs about low-achieving students and higher order thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(4), 469–485. Scholar

Copyright information

© Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada, Lisboa and Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MünsterMünsterGermany

Personalised recommendations