Advertisement

Asia Pacific Education Review

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 23–39 | Cite as

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

  • Hyun Sook YiEmail author
  • Yuree Lee
Article

Abstract

Teachers’ classroom behaviors and their effects on student learning have received significant attention from educators, because the quality of instruction is a critical factor closely tied to students’ learning experiences. Based on a theoretical model conceptualizing the quality of instruction, this study examined the characteristics of instructional quality represented by cognitive activation, student-oriented teacher behavior, class management, and learning support and investigated the relationships between instructional quality and students’ affective and cognitive outcomes. The PISA 2012 survey, administered to students in Korea and Singapore, was used to conduct a latent profile analysis and structural equation modeling. It was found that using more student-oriented instruction and less strategies of cognitive activation was positively associated with lower performance in math, while well-managed classroom and learning support were positively associated with higher performance. The level of instructional quality was generally higher for Singapore than Korea in every index at all achievement levels. Most affective characteristics and the math teachers’ instructional focus were positively associated with higher profiles of instructional quality. However, discrepant results were found between the two countries: Cognitive activation had positive effects on interest and self-concept in math as well as math performance for Korean students, whereas it only had a positive effect on math performance for Singaporean students. In contrast, student-oriented instruction had negative effects on interest in math as well as math performance in Korea, but a positive effect on interest in math in Singapore. The implications of each finding were discussed in detail.

Keywords

PISA 2012 mathematics Teachers’ classroom behaviors Instructional quality Math performance 

References

  1. Anderman, E. M., Eccles, J. S., Yoon, K. S., Roeser, R., Wigfield, A., & Blumenfeld, P. (2001). Learning to value mathematics and reading: Relations to mastery and performance-oriented instructional practices. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 76–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T., Jordan, A., et al. (2010). Teachers’ mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 133–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bolhuis, S. (2003). Towards process-oriented teaching for self-directed lifelong learning: A multidimensional perspective. Learning and Instruction, 13(3), 327–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brookhart, S. M. (1997). A theoretical framework for the role of classroom assessment in motivating student effort and achievement. Applied Measurement in Education, 10, 161–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brophy, J. E. (2000). Teaching: Educational practices series-1. Geneva: International Academy of Education/International Bureau of Education (IAE).Google Scholar
  6. Brown, P. C., Roediger, H. L., III, & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Make it stick: The science of successful learning. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burns, D., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2014). Teaching around the world: What can TALIS tell us? Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education.Google Scholar
  8. Davis, W., & Carson, C. M. (2005). The interactive effects of goal orientation and feedback specificity on task performance. Human Performance, 18(4), 409–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ellery, K. (2008). Assessment for learning: A case study using feedback effectively in an essay-style test. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(4), 421–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fluckiger, J., Vigil, Y. T., Pasco, R., & Danielson, K. (2010). Formative feedback: Involving students as partners in assessment to enhance learning. College teaching, 58, 136–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hanushek, E. A. (1997). Assessing the effects of school resources on student performance: An update. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 141–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Harks, B., Rakoczy, K., Hattie, J., Besser, M., & Klieme, E. (2014). The effects of feedback on achievement, interest, and self-evaluation: The role of feedback’s perceived usefulness. Educational Psychology, 34(3), 269–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hiebert, J., & Grouws, D. A. (2007). The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students’ learning. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 371–404). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.Google Scholar
  14. Kim, H. S., & Ham, E. H. (2014). What school characteristics affect Korean students’ non-cognitive outcomes in mathematics? Journal of Educational Evaluation, 27(5), 1311–1335.Google Scholar
  15. Kingston, N., & Brooke, N. (2011). Formative assessment: A meta-analysis and a call for research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30(4), 28–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Klieme, E. (2013). The role of large-scale assessments in research on educational effectiveness and school development. In M. von Davier, E. Gonzalez, I. Kirsch, & K. Yamamoto (Eds.), The role of international large-scale assessments: Perspectives from technology, economy, and educational research (pp. 115–147). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Klieme, E., Pauli, C., & Reusser, K. (2009). The Pythagoras study: Investigating effects of teaching and learning in Swiss and German mathematics classrooms. In T. Janik & T. Seidel (Eds.), The power of video studies in investigating teaching and learning in the classroom (pp. 137–160). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  18. Ku, J., Kim, S., Rim, H., Park, H., & Han, J. (2015). Comparative analysis on the achievement characteristics and effects of educational contextual variables in high ranking countries of PISA 2012 results. Research report (RRE 2015-6-1), Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation.Google Scholar
  19. 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(6), 527–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. (2012). 1998–2012. Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen. https://www.statmodel.com/download/usersguide/Mplus%20user%20guide%20Ver_7_r6_web.pdf.
  21. OECD (2009). Creating effective teaching and learning environments: First results from TALIS. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  22. OECD. (2013). PISA 2012 assessment and analytical framework: Mathematics, reading, science, problem solving and financial literacy. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/9789264190511-en.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Scheerens, J., & Bosker, R. J. (1997). The foundations of educational effectiveness. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  24. Seidel, T., Rimmele, R., & Prenzel, M. (2005). Clarity and coherence of lesson goals as a scaffold for student learning. Learning and Instruction, 15, 539–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sohn, W., Shin, Y., & Bae, J. (2014). Effects of teachers’ classroom assessment practices on student math confidence, enjoyment and achievement: Comparative analysis of TIMSS 2011 data of Korea, Singapore and Finland. Journal of Educational Evaluation, 27(5), 1337–1359.Google Scholar
  27. Stefanou, C. R., Perencevich, K., DiCintio, M., & Turner, J. C. (2004). Supporting autonomy in the classroom: Ways teachers encourage student decision making and ownership. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 97–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Turner, J. C., Meyer, D. K., Cox, K. E., Logan, C., DiCinto, M., & Thomas, C. T. (1998). Creating contexts for involvement in mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(4), 730–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vieluf, S., Lee, J., & Kyllonen, P. (2009). The predictive power of variables from the PISA 2003 Student Questionnaire. Paper presented at the QEG Meeting, Offenbach, Germany, 19–21 October.Google Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Yair, G. (2000). Reforming motivation: How the structure of instruction affects students’ learning experiences. British Educational Research Journal, 26(2), 191–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Education Research Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EducationKonkuk UniversitySeoulSouth Korea
  2. 2.Graduate CollegeKonkuk UniversitySeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations