Advertisement

ZDM

, Volume 50, Issue 3, pp 381–393 | Cite as

Using educational effectiveness research to promote quality of teaching: the contribution of the dynamic model

  • Leonidas Kyriakides
  • Bert P. M. Creemers
  • Anastasia Panayiotou
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

The dynamic model of educational effectiveness refers to eight factors that describe teachers’ instructional role. A multidimensional framework for measuring both quantitative and qualitative characteristics of teaching factors is also proposed. Empirical support for the validity of the model has been provided, which revealed that the teaching factors can be grouped into five stages situated in developmental order. In this study, for the first time, a qualitative methodology is used to provide an in-depth analysis of three video-lessons through the perspective of the five stages of effective teaching. Thus, we present how each stage is defined and use the cases of the three video-lessons to justify the rationale for these stages and help readers see how observational data are used to identify individual improvement priorities and provide differentiated feedback, even to teachers allocated to the same stage. Finally, based on the qualitative analysis of the three case-studies, strengths and limitations of the dynamic model to evaluate quality of teaching for formative reasons are identified.

Keywords

Quality of teaching Stages of effective teaching Evaluation of teaching Educational effectiveness research 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Andrich, D. (1988). A general form of Rasch’s extended logistic model for partial credit scoring. Applied Measurement in Education, 1(4), 363–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antoniou, P., & Kyriakides, L. (2011). The impact of a dynamic approach to professional development on teacher instruction and student learning: Results from an experimental study. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 22(3), 291–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Antoniou, P., & Kyriakides, L. (2013). A dynamic integrated approach to teacher professional development: Impact and sustainability of the effects on improving teacher behavior and student outcomes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Azigwe, J. B., Kyriakides, L., Panayiotou, A., & Creemers, B. P. M. (2016). The impact of effective teaching characteristics in promoting student achievement in Ghana. International Journal of Educational Development, 51, 51–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Azkiyah, S. N., Doolaard, S., Creemers, B. P. M., & Van Der Werf, M. P. C. (2014). The effects of two intervention programs on teaching quality and student achievement. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 49(1), 4–11.Google Scholar
  6. Brekelmans, M., Sleegers, P., & Fraser, B. (2000). Teaching for active learning. New learning (pp. 227–242). Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brophy, J., & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher behaviour and student achievement. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 328–375). New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  8. Campbell, R. J., Kyriakides, L., Muijs, R. D., & Robinson, W. (2004). Effective teaching and values: Some implications for research and teacher appraisal. Oxford Review of Education, 30(4), 451–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen, W., Hendricks, K., & Archibald, K. (2011). Assessing pre-service teachers’ quality teaching practices. Educational Research and Evaluation, 17(1), 13–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Christoforidou, M., Kyriakides, L., Antoniou, P., & Creemers, B. P. M. (2014). Searching for stages of teacher skills in assessment. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 40, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Christoforidou, M., & Xirafidou, E. (2014). Using the dynamic model to identify stages of teacher skills in assessment. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 49(1), 12–25.Google Scholar
  12. Creemers, B. P. M., & Kyriakides, L. (2008). The dynamics of educational effectiveness: A contribution to policy, practice and theory in contemporary schools. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Creemers, B. P. M., & Kyriakides, L. (2015). Developing, testing and using theoretical models of educational effectiveness for promoting quality in education. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 26(1), 102–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Flanders, N. A. (1970). Analyzing teacher behavior (pp. 100–107). Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  15. Joyce, B., Weil, M., & Calhoun, E. (2000). Models of teaching. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  16. Kirschner, P. A. (2002). Cognitive load theory: Implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning. Learning and instruction, 12(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kyriakides, L., Archambault, I., & Janosz, M. (2013). Searching for stages of effective teaching: A study testing the validity of the dynamic model in Canada. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 48(2), 11–24.Google Scholar
  18. Kyriakides, L., Christoforidou, M., Panayiotou, A., & Creemers, B. P. M. (2017). The impact of a three-year teacher professional development course on improving quality of teaching: Strengths and limitations of the dynamic approach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 51(1), 51–61.Google Scholar
  19. Kyriakides, L., Christoforou, C., & Charalambous, C. Y. (2013). What matters for student learning outcomes: A meta-analysis of studies exploring factors of effective teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36, 143–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kyriakides, L., & Creemers, B. P. M. (2009). The effects of teacher factors on different outcomes: Two studies testing the validity of the dynamic model. Effective Education, 1(1), 61–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kyriakides, L., Creemers, B. P. M., & Antoniou, P. (2009). Teacher behaviour and student outcomes: Suggestions for research on teacher training and professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(1), 12–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mislevy, R. J., & Wilson, M. (1996). Marginal maximum likelihood estimation for a psychometric model of discontinuous development. Psychometrica, 61, 41–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Muijs, D., Kyriakides, L., van der Werf, G., Creemers, B., Timperley, H., & Earl, L. (2014). State of the art–teacher effectiveness and professional learning. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25(2), 231–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Panayiotou, A., Kyriakides, L., Creemers, B. P. M., McMahon, L., Vanlaar, G., Pfeifer, M., Rekalidou, G., & Bren, M. (2014). Teacher behavior and student outcomes: Results of a European study. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 26(1), 73–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pellegrino, J. W. (2004). Complex learning environments: Connecting learning theory, instructional design, and technology. In N. M. Seel & S. Dijkstra (Eds.), Curriculum, plans, and processes in instructional design (pp. 25–49). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  26. Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching Functions. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd ed., pp. 376–391). New York: Macmillan.  Google Scholar
  27. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1998). Toward a theory of teaching-in-context. Issues in education, 4(1), 1–94.  CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stenmark, J. K. (1992). Mathematics assessment: Myths, models, good questions and practical suggestions. Reston, VA: NCTM.  Google Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leonidas Kyriakides
    • 1
  • Bert P. M. Creemers
    • 2
  • Anastasia Panayiotou
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EducationUniversity of CyprusNicosiaCyprus
  2. 2.Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences, Department of Pedagogy and Educational ScienceUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options