Advertisement

Learning Environments Research

, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 229–251 | Cite as

Validating a model of effective teaching behaviour and student engagement: perspectives from Spanish students

  • Mercedes Inda-Caro
  • Ridwan Maulana
  • Carmen-María Fernández-GarcíaEmail author
  • José-Vicente Peña-Calvo
  • M. del Carmen Rodríguez-Menéndez
  • Michelle Helms-Lorenz
Original Paper

Abstract

Research consistently shows that teaching behaviour is a highly-important indicator of learning environments. Based on a teacher effectiveness model with six observable teaching behaviour domains (safe learning climate, efficient classroom management, clarity of instruction, activating teaching, teaching–learning strategies, and differentiation), the present paper examines the psychometric quality of the My Teacher questionnaire for capturing student perceptions of teaching behaviour in the Spanish secondary-education context. Additionally, this study validated the model of teaching behaviour and student engagement and its relevance in Spain. 7114 students of 410 teachers attending 56 public and private Spanish schools constituted the sample. The six teaching behavioural dimensions model were confirmed in the Spanish context. Regarding student academic engagement, the presence of two domains (behavioural and emotional engagement) were confirmed. Furthermore, results of a multiple-group structural equation modeling path analysis, examining the relationship between teaching behaviour and student engagement across different teaching experiences, revealed differential effects of teaching behaviour influences on students’ engagement. The percentage of explained variance was larger for emotional engagement than for behavioural engagement. Furthermore, teachers’ teaching experience explained differences in the relationship between perceived teaching behaviour and engagement. Two domains (learning climate and activating teaching) appeared to be the two most-important teaching domains for students’ behavioural engagement while, for emotional engagement, the most important domains for student engagement were learning climate and teaching learning strategies.

Keywords

Academic engagement Effective teaching Secondary education Teaching behaviour 

References

  1. Aaronson, D., Barrow, L., & Sander, W. (2007). Teachers and student achievement in the Chicago public high schools. Journal of Labor Economics, 25(1), 95–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, A. R., Christenson, S. L., Sinclair, M. F., & Lehr, C. A. (2004). Check and connect: The importance of relationships for promoting engagement with school. Journal of School Psychology, 42, 95–113.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2004.01.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Antoniou, P., Kyriakides, L., & Creemers, B. (2011). Investigating the effectiveness of a dynamic integrated approach to teacher professional development. CEPS Journal, 1, 13–41.Google Scholar
  4. Baker, F. (2001). The basics of item response theory (2nd ed.). Madison, WI: ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation. Retrieved from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED458219.pdf.
  5. Bosker, R. J., & Witziers, B. (1996, April). The magnitude of school effects, or: Does it really matter which school a student attends? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Burdsal, C. A., & Bardo, J. W. (1986). Measuring students’ perceptions of teaching: Dimensions of evaluation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 46, 63–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Centra, J. A., & Potter, D. A. (1980). School and teacher effects: An interrelational model. Review of Educational Research, 50(2), 273–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Danielson, C. (2013). Rubrics form the framework for teaching evaluation instrument. Retrieved from: https://www.danielsongroup.org/framework/.
  10. Davidson, A. L., Gest, S. D., & Welsh, J. A. (2010). Relatedness with teachers and peers during early adolescence: An integrated variable-oriented and person-oriented approach. Journal of School Psychology, 48, 483–510.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2010.08.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Jong, R., & Westerhof, K. J. (2001). The quality of student ratings of teacher behaviour. Learning Environments Research, 4, 51–85.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011402608575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ferrando, P. J., & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2017). Program factor at 10: Origins, development and future directions. Psicothema, 29(2), 236–240.  https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2016.304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59, 117–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Finn, J. D. (1993). School engagement and students at risk. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.Google Scholar
  15. Fredricks, J., McColskey, W., Meli, J., Mordica, J., Montrosse, B., & Mooney, K. (2011). Measuring student engagement in upper elementary through high school: A description of 21 instruments (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2011-No. 098). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast. Retrieved from: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/southeast/pdf/REL_2011098.pdf.
  16. Fuller, F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization. American Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 207–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 148–162.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Guldemond, H., & Bosker, R. J. (2009). School effects on students’ progress—A dynamic perspective. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 20(2), 255–268.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09243450902883938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Guskey, T. R., & Passaro, P. D. (1994). Teacher efficacy: A study construct dimensions. American Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 627–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ha, T. D. (2017). Applying multidimensional three-parameter logistic model (M3PL) in validating a multiple-choice test. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 7(2), 175–183.Google Scholar
  21. Hambleton, R. K., Merenda, P., & Spielberger, C. (Eds.). (2004). Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.Google Scholar
  22. Hattie, J. A. C. (2003, October). Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence? Paper presented at the Building Teacher Quality: What does the research tell us ACER Research Conference, Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved from http://research.acer.edu.au/research_conference_2003/4/.
  23. Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Hattie, J. A. C. (2012). Visible learning: Maximizing impact on learning. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Helms-Lorenz, M., Maulana, R., Teli, S., Inda-Caro, M., Fernandez-Garcia, C.-M., & Attard Tona, M. (2018, January). Measuring effective teaching behaviour using student questionnaire: Multinational perspective. Paper presented at the annual International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement, Singapore.Google Scholar
  26. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60. Retrieved from www.ejbrm.com.
  27. Houtveen, A. A. M., Van de Grift, W., & Brokamp, S. K. (2014). Fluent reading in special elementary education. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25(4), 555–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hoyt, D. P., & Pallet, W. H. (1999). Appraising teaching effectiveness: Beyond student ratings. Idea Paper, 36, 1–14.Google Scholar
  29. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modelling: Concepts, issues, and application (pp. 76–99). London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  30. Klem, A. M., & Connell, J. P. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student engagement and achievement. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 262–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Konstantopoulos, S., & Sun, M. (2014). Are teacher effects larger in small classes? School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25(3), 312–328.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2013.808233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.07.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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 Teaching, 1(1), 61–85.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19415530903043680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.06.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lietaert, S., Roorda, D., Laevers, F., Verschueren, K., & De Fraine, B. (2015). The gender gap in student engagement: The role of teachers’ autonomy support, structure and involvement. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 498–518.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2013). Why rotate my data using Promin? (Technical Report). Retrieved from http://psico.fcep.urv.es/utilitats/factor/documentation/whypromin.pdf.
  37. Maulana, R., & Helms-Lorenz, M. (2016). Observations and student perceptions of the quality of preservice teachers’ teaching behaviour: Construct representation and predictive quality. Learning Environments Research, 19, 335–357.  https://doi.org/10.1007/S10984-016-9215-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Maulana, R., & Helms-Lorenz, M. (2017, April). Student engagement and beginning teacher differentiation practices in Dutch secondary education: Are there gender differences? Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, San Antonio, TX.Google Scholar
  39. Maulana, R., Helms-Lorenz, M., & Van de Grift, W. (2015a). Development and evaluation of a questionnaire measuring pre-service teachers’ teaching behaviour: A Rasch modelling approach. School Effectiveness and School Improvement; An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, 26(2), 169–194.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2014.939198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Maulana, R., Helms-Lorenz, M., & Van de Grift, W. (2015b). Pupils’ perception of teaching behaviour: Evaluation of an instrument and importance of academic motivation in Indonesian secondary education. International Journal of Educational Research, 69, 98–112.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2014.11.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Maulana, R., Helms-Lorenz, M., & Van de Grift, W. (2017). Validating a model of effective teaching behaviour of pre-service teachers. Teachers and Teaching, 23(4), 471–493.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2016.1211102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Maulana, R., Opdenakker, M. C., Stroet, K., & Bosker, R. (2012). Observed lesson structure during the first year of secondary education: Exploration of change and link with academic engagement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 835–850.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.03.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Maulana, R., & Schuurman, G. (2018, February). ICALT observation training. Power point presented during the ICALT training in Oviedo, University of Oviedo, Spain.Google Scholar
  44. Muijs, D., Campbell, J., Kyriakides, L., & Robinson, W. (2005). Making a case for differentiated teacher effectiveness: An overview of research in four key areas. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 16(1), 51–70.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09243450500113985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Muijs, D., Kyriakides, L., Van der Werf, G., Creemers, B. P. M., Timperley, H., & Earl, L. (2014). State of the art—Teacher effectiveness and professional learning. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25(2), 231–256.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2014.885451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Muthén, L., & Muthén, B. (2014). Mplus. Statistical Analysis. Los Ángeles: Author.Google Scholar
  47. Newmark, D. (1929). Students’ opinions of their best and poorest teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 29(8), 576–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Opdenakker, M. C., Maulana, R., & Den Brok, P. J. (2012). Teacher-student interpersonal relationships and academic motivation within one school year: Developmental changes and linkage. School Effectiveness and School Improvement; An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, 23(1), 95–119.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2011.619198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Opdenakker, M. V., & Minnaert, A. (2011). Relationships between learning environment characteristics and academic engagement. Psychological Reports, 109(1), 259–284.  https://doi.org/10.2466/09.10.11.pr0.109.4.259-284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Opdenakker, M. C., & Van Damme, J. V. (2001). Relationships between school composition and characteristics of school processes and their effects on mathematics achievement. British Educational Research Journal, 27(4), 407–432.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920120071434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Opdenakker, M. C., & Van Damme, J. V. (2006). Differences between secondary schools: A study about school context, group composition, school practice, and school effects with special attention to public and Catholic schools and types of schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(1), 87–117.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09243450500264457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Opdenakker, M. C., Van Damme, J. V., De Fraine, B., Van Landeghem, G., & Onghena, P. (2002). The effect of schools and classes on mathematic achievement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 13(4), 399–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pianta, R. C., & Hamre, B. K. (2009). Conceptualization, measurement and improvement of classroom processes: Standardized observation can leverage capacity. Educational Researcher, 38(2), 109–119.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09332374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Reckase, M. (2009). Statistical descriptions of item and test functioning. In S. E. Fienberg & W. J. van der Linden (Eds.), Multidimensional item response theory (pp. 113–136). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rockoff, J. E. (1994). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: Evidence from panel data. The American Economic Review, 94(2), 247–252.  https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828041302244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Scheerens, J. (2016). Theories on educational effectiveness and ineffectiveness. In J. Scheerens (Ed.), Educational effectiveness and ineffectiveness (pp. 259–289). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307310317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 571–581.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.4.571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., & Furrer, C. J. (2009). A motivational perspective on engagement and disaffection conceptualization and assessment of children’s behavioral and emotional participation in academic activities in the classroom. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69(3), 493–525.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164408323233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Staiger, D. O., & Rockoff, J. E. (2010). Searching for effective teachers with imperfect information. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24(3), 97–118.  https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.24.3.97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  62. Teodorovic, J. (2011). Classroom and school factors related to student achievement: What works for students? School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 22(2), 215–236.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2011.575650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Thijs, J., & Verkuyten, M. (2010). Students’ anticipated situational engagement: The roles of teacher behavior, personal engagement, and gender. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 170(3), 268–286.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00221320903218323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Townsend, T. (Ed.). (2007). International handbook of school effectiveness and improvement. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  65. Van de Grift, W. (2007). Quality of teaching in four European countries: A review of the literature and application of an assessment instrument. Educational Research, 49(2), 127–152.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00131880701369651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Van de Grift, W. (2010). Ontwikkeling in de beroepsvaardigheden van leraren [Development of teachers’ professional skills]. Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.Google Scholar
  67. Van de Grift, W. (2014). Measuring teaching quality in several European countries. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, 25(3), 295–311.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2013.794845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Van de Grift, W., Helms-Lorenz, M., & Maulana, R. (2014). Teaching skills of student teachers: Calibration of an evaluation instrument and its value in predicting student academic engagement. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 43, 150–159.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2014.09.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Van de Grift, W., Van der Wal, M., & Torenbeek, M. (2011). Ontwikkeling in de pedagogische didactische vaardigheid van leraren in het basisonderwijs [The development of pedagogical didactical competencies of primary school teachers]. Pedagogische Studiën, 88(6), 416–432.Google Scholar
  70. Van de Grift, W., & Van Veen, K. (2017). Individual differences in teacher development: An exploration of the applicability of a stage model to assess individual teachers. Learning and Individual Differences, 58, 46–55.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.07.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Van den Broeck, A., Opdenakker, M. C., & Van Damme, J. (2005). The effects of student characteristics on mathematics achievement in Flemish TIMSS 1999 data. Educational Research and Evaluation, 11(2), 107–121.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13803610500110745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Van der Lans, R., & Maulana, R. (2018). The use of secondary school student ratings of their teacher’s skillfulness for low-stake assessment and high-stake evaluation. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 58, 112–121.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2018.06.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Van der Lans, R. M., Van de Grift, W., & Van Veen, K. (2015). Developing a teacher evaluation instrument to provide formative feedback using student ratings of teaching acts. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 34(3), 18–27.  https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Virtanen, T. E., Lerkkanen, M. J., Poikkeus, A. M., & Kuorelahti, M. (2013). The relationship between classroom quality and students’ engagement in secondary school. Educational Psychology, 35(8), 963–983.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2013.822961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wolters, C. A., & Daugherty, S. G. (2009). Goal structures and teachers’ sense of efficacy: Their relation and association to teaching experience and academic level. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 181–193.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Woolley, M. E., & Bowen, G. (2007). In the context of risk: Supportive adults and the school engagement of middle school students. Family Relations, 56(1), 92–104.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2007.00442.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mercedes Inda-Caro
    • 1
  • Ridwan Maulana
    • 2
  • Carmen-María Fernández-García
    • 1
    Email author
  • José-Vicente Peña-Calvo
    • 1
  • M. del Carmen Rodríguez-Menéndez
    • 1
  • Michelle Helms-Lorenz
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Teacher Training and EducationUniversity of OviedoOviedoSpain
  2. 2.Faculty of Social and Behavioural SciencesUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations