Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Teacher behavior and student outcomes: Results of a European study

  • Published:
Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study investigates the extent to which the factors included in the dynamic model of educational effectiveness are associated with student achievement gains in six different European countries. At classroom level, the dynamic model refers to eight factors relating to teacher behavior in the classroom: orientation, structuring, questioning, teaching-modeling, application, management of time, teacher role in making classroom a learning environment, and classroom assessment. This paper presents results concerned with the impact of the teacher factors on student achievement. In each participating country (i.e., Belgium/Flanders, Cyprus, Germany, Greece, Ireland, and Slovenia), a sample of at least 50 primary schools (n = 334) was drawn. Written tests in mathematics and science were administered to all grade 4 students (n = 10,742) at the beginning and at the end of the school year 2010–2011. Students were also asked to complete a questionnaire concerning the eight teacher factors of the dynamic model. Structural equation modeling techniques were used to test the construct validity of the student questionnaire. Both across and within country analyses revealed that student ratings are reliable and valid for measuring the functioning of the teacher factors included in the dynamic model. Multilevel analyses revealed that teacher factors are associated with student achievement gains in mathematics and science. Implications for the development of educational effectiveness research and for improving quality of teaching are drawn.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The factors that did not have a statistically significant effect on achievement are not included on Tables 2 and 3.

  2. In the national studies, each dimension of each factor was measured, and the added value of taking into account all five dimensions of teacher factors to explain student achievement was demonstrated (see Creemers and Kyriakides 2008).

References

  • Aparicio, J. J., & Moneo, M. R. (2005). Constructivism, the so-called semantic learning theories, and situated cognition versus the psychological learning theories. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 8(2), 180–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Askew, M., & William, D. (1995). Recent research in mathematics education 5–16. London: Office for Standards in Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS: structural equations program manual. California: Multivariate Software Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing a theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borich, G. D. (1992). Effective Teaching Methods (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brookover, W. B., Beady, C., Flood, P., Schweitzer, J., & Wisenbaker, J. (1979). School systems and student achievement: schools make a difference. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brophy, J., & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 328–375). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M. W., & Mels, G. (1990). Ramona PC: user manual. Pretoria: University of South Africa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryne, B. M. (1994). Structural equation modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cazden, C. B. (1986). Classroom discourse. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 432–463). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. F., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, F. D., & York, R. L. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creemers, B. P. M., & Kyriakides, L. (2006). Critical analysis of the current approaches to modelling educational effectiveness: The importance of establishing a dynamic model. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(3), 347–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creemers, B. P. M., & Kyriakides, L. (2008). The Dynamics of Educational Effectiveness. A contribution to Policy, Practice and Theory in contemporary schools. London: Routledge.

  • Creemers, B. P. M., & Kyriakides, L. (2010). Explaining stability and changes in school effectiveness by looking at changes in the functioning of school factors. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21(4), 409–427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: a review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8 (1). http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1/. Accessed 14 Jan 2014.

  • De Corte, E. (2000). Marrying theory building and the improvement of school practice: a permanent challenge for instructional psychology. Learning and Instruction, 10(3), 249–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, R., Westerhof, K. J., & Kruiter, J. H. (2004). Empirical evidence of a comprehensive model of school effectiveness: a multilevel study in mathematics in the 1st year of junior general education in the Netherlands. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15(1), 3–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Den Brok, P., Brekelmans, M., & Wubbels, T. (2004). Interpersonal teacher behaviour and student outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15(3/4), 407–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, W. (1990). Classroom knowledge as a foundation for teaching. Teachers College Record, 91(3), 347–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edmonds, R. R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37(1), 15–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evertson, C. M., Anderson, C., Anderson, L., & Brophy, J. (1980). Relationships between classroom behaviour and student outcomes in junior high math and English classes. American Educational Research Journal, 17, 43–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gijbels, D., Van de Watering, G., Dochy, F., & Van den Bossche, P. (2006). New learning environments and constructivism: the students’ perspective. Instructional Science, 34(3), 213–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, H. (2003). Multilevel statistical models (3rd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grieve, A. M. (2010). Exploring the characteristics of “teachers for excellence”: teachers’ own perceptions. European Journal of Teacher Education, 33(3), 265–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2011). Conceptual and methodological issues in studying school leadership effects as a reciprocal process. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 22(2), 149–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harjunen, E. (2012). Patterns of control over the teaching–studying–learning process and classrooms as complex dynamic environments: a theoretical framework. European Journal of Teacher Education, 34(2), 139–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heck, R. H., & Moriyama, K. (2010). Examining relationships among elementary schools’ contexts, leadership, instructional practices, and added-year outcomes: a regression discontinuity approach. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21(4), 377–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofman, R. H., Hofman, W. H., & Gray, J. M. (2010). Institutional contexts and international performances in schooling: comparing patterns and trends over time in international surveys. European Journal of Education, 45(1), 153–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A. (2002). Cognitive load theory: implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning. Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. H. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. London: Gilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kyriakides, L. (2008). Testing the validity of the comprehensive model of educational effectiveness: a step towards the development of a dynamic model of effectiveness. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 19(4), 429–446.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kyriakides, L. & Creemers, B. P. M. (2008). Using a multidimensional approach to measure the impact of classroom-level factors upon student achievement: a study testing the validity of the dynamic model. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 19(2), 183–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kyriakides, L., Creemers, B. P. M., & Panayiotou, A. (2012). Report of the Data Analysis of the Student Questionnaire Used to Measure Teacher Factors: Across and Within Country Results (ESF project: Establishing a knowledge base for quality in education: testing a dynamic theory for education 08-ECRP-012). Nicosia, Cyprus: University of Cyprus.

  • Kyriakides, L., Creemers, B., Antoniou, P., & Demetriou, D. (2010). A synthesis of studies searching for school factors: Implications for theory and research. British Educational Research Journal, 36(5), 807–830.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kyriakides, L., & Tsangaridou, N. (2008). Towards the development of generic and differentiated models of educational effectiveness: a study on school and teacher Effectiveness in Physical Education. British Educational Research Journal, 34(6), 807–838.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louis, K. S., Dretzke, B., & Wahlstrom, K. (2010). How does leadership affect student achievement? Results from a national US survey. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21(3), 315–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mortimore, P., Sammons, P., Stoll, L., Lewis, D., & Ecob, R. (1988). School matters: the junior years. Somerset: Open Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muijs, D., & Reynolds, D. (2000). School effectiveness and teacher effectiveness in mathematics: some preliminary findings from the evaluation of the mathematics enhancement programme (primary). School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11(3), 273–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paris, S. G., & Paris, A. H. (2001). Classroom applications of research on self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 36(2), 89–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, D. (2000). School effectiveness: the international dimension. In C. Teddlie & D. Reynolds (Eds.), The international handbook of school effectiveness research (pp. 232–256). London: Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, D. (2006). World class schools: some methodological and substantive findings and implications of the International School Effectiveness Research Project (ISERP). Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(6), 535–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P., Ouston, J., & Smith, A. (1979). Fifteen thousand hours: secondary schools and their effects on children. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sammons, P. (2009). The dynamics of educational effectiveness: a contribution to policy, practice and theory in contemporary schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 20(1), 123–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheerens, J. (2013). School leadership effects revisited: review and meta-analysis of empirical studies. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheerens, J., & Bosker, R. J. (1997). The foundations of educational effectiveness. Oxford: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidel, T., & Shavelson, R. J. (2007). Teaching effectiveness research in the past decade: the role of theory and research design in disentangling meta-analysis research. Review of Educational Research, 77, 454–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepard, L. A. (1989). Why we need better assessments. Educational Leadership, 46(2), 4–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stenmark, J. K. (1992). Mathematics assessment: myths, models, good questions, and practical suggestions. Reston: NCTM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strand, S. (2010). Do some schools narrow the gap? Differential school effectiveness by ethnicity, gender, poverty, and prior achievement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21(3), 289–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teddlie, C., & Reynolds, D. (2000). The international handbook of school effectiveness research. London: Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walberg, H. J. (1986). What works in a nation still at risk. Educational Leadership, 44(1), 7–10.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The research presented in this paper is part of a 3-year project (2009–2012) entitled “Establishing a knowledge-base for quality in education: Testing a dynamic theory of educational effectiveness”, funded by the European Science Foundation (08-ECRP-012) and the Cyprus Research Promotion Foundation (Project Protocol Number: ΔΙΕΘΝΗ/ESF/0308/01).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Education, University of Cyprus, 20537, 1678, Nicosia, Cyprus

    Anastasia Panayiotou & Leonidas Kyriakides

  2. Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences, Department of Pedagogy & Educational Science, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

    Bert P. M. Creemers

  3. Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), Dublin, Ireland

    Léan McMahon

  4. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Gudrun Vanlaar

  5. Technical University Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany

    Michael Pfeifer

  6. Democritus University of Thrace, Komotini, Greece

    Galini Rekalidou

  7. University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia

    Matevž Bren

Authors
  1. Anastasia Panayiotou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Leonidas Kyriakides
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bert P. M. Creemers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Léan McMahon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gudrun Vanlaar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Michael Pfeifer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Galini Rekalidou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Matevž Bren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leonidas Kyriakides.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Panayiotou, A., Kyriakides, L., Creemers, B.P.M. et al. Teacher behavior and student outcomes: Results of a European study. Educ Asse Eval Acc 26, 73–93 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-013-9182-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-013-9182-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation