Advertisement

Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 191–209 | Cite as

The same in German as in English? Investigating the subject-specificity of teaching quality

  • Anna-Katharina Praetorius
  • Svenja Vieluf
  • Steffani Saß
  • Andrea Bernholt
  • Eckhard Klieme
Schwerpunkt

Abstract

Teaching quality often is assumed to be a personal and stable characteristic of teachers. Whether this is true has scarcely been investigated empirically. In this study the extent to which value-added scores of teachers teaching German and English as a foreign language (EFL) to the same class remain consistent across subjects was investigated. Then, the consistency of two teaching quality dimensions—classroom management and motivational support—across subjects was explored. A sample consisting of 25 classes with 548 students to whom German and EFL were taught by the same teacher was analyzed using multivariate multilevel models and generalizability theory. The results showed that the value-added scores were highly correlated across subjects. While there was hardly any subject-dependent variance in classroom management, there was substantial subject-dependent variance in motivational support. The results indicate that it is important to conduct further studies on the situational and contextual factors that might influence teaching quality to gain a more comprehensive picture regarding the consistency of teaching quality across various conditions.

Keywords

Generalizability theory Teacher effectiveness Teaching quality Subject specificity Value-added model 

Wie in Deutsch, so in Englisch? Zur Fachspezifität von Unterrichtsqualität

Zusammenfassung

Unterrichtsqualität wird oft als stabiles Personenmerkmal von Lehrkräften interpretiert. Inwiefern dies angemessen ist, wurde bislang jedoch kaum empirisch überprüft. Im vorliegenden Beitrag steht die Stabilität von Unterrichtsqualität über Unterrichtsfächer im Fokus. Zum einen wurde untersucht, inwiefern Value-added-Werte für Lehrkräfte, die die Fächer Deutsch und Englisch in einer Klasse unterrichten, über diese Fächer stabil ausgeprägt sind und zum anderen, wie stabil zwei Basisdimensionen von Unterrichtsqualität (Klassenführung und unterstützendes Unterrichtsklima) über Fächer hinweg ausgeprägt sind. Es wurden Daten von 25 Klassen mit ihren 548 Schülerinnen und Schülern analysiert, die in den Fächern Deutsch und Englisch von derselben Lehrkraft unterrichtet wurden. Ausgewertet wurden die Daten mittels multivariaten Mehrebenenanalysen sowie Generalisierbarkeitsanalysen. Die Valued-added-Werte wiesen einen hohen Zusammenhang auf. Bei beiden untersuchten Unterrichtsqualitätsdimensionen überwog der fachübergreifende Anteil an Unterrichtsqualität, wobei für Klassenführung kaum fachspezifische Anteile, für das unterstützende Unterrichtsklima hingegen substanzielle fachspezifische Anteile gefunden wurden. Die Befunde weisen auf die Bedeutsamkeit weiterer Studien zum Einfluss situationaler und kontextueller Bedingungen auf Unterrichtsqualität hin, um einen umfassenderen Eindruck bezüglich der Variation von Unterrichtsqualität über verschiedene Bedingungen hinweg zu erhalten.

Schlüsselwörter

Unterrichtsqualität Effektivität Fachspezifität Generalisierbarkeitstheorie Value-added-Modell 

References

  1. Barber, M., & Mourshed, M. (2007). How the world’s best-performing school systems came out on top. London: McKinsey.Google Scholar
  2. Baumert, J., & Kunter, M. (2013). The COACTIV model of teachers’ professional competence. In M. Kunter, J. Baumert, W. Blum, U. Klusmann, S. Krauss, & M. Neubrand (Eds.), Cognitive activation in the mathematics classroom and professional competence of teachers. Results from the COACTIV project (pp. 25–48). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T., & Jordan, A. (2010). Teachers’ mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 133–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borg, W. R., & Ascione, F. R. (1982). Classroom management in elementary mainstreaming classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 85–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brennan, R. L. (2001a). Generalizability theory. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brennan, R. L. (2001b). Manual for urGenova (Version 2.1). Iowa City: Iowa Testing Programs, University of Iowa.Google Scholar
  7. Brophy, J. (1986). Teacher influences on student achievement. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1069–1077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chetty, R., Friedmann, J. N., & Rockoff, J. E. (2013). Measuring the impact of teachers I: Evaluating bias in teacher value-added estimates. NBER Working Paper No. 19423.Google Scholar
  9. Cohen, D. K. (1993). Teaching for understanding: Challenges for policy and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  10. Cornelius-White, J. (2007). Learner-centered teacher-student relationships are effective: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 77, 113–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Creemers, B. P. M., & Kyriakides, L. (2008). The dynamics of educational effectiveness: A contribution to policy, practice and theory in contemporary schools. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Davis, H. A. (2003). Conceptualizing the role and influence of student-teacher relationships on children’s social and cognitive development. Educational Psychologist, 38, 207–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DESI-Konsortium (Ed.) (2008). Unterricht und Kompetenzerwerb in Deutsch und Englisch: Ergebnisse der DESI-Studie. Weinheim: Beltz.Google Scholar
  14. Eichler, W. (2008). Sprachbewusstheit Deutsch. In DESI-Konsortium (Ed.), Unterricht und Kompetenzerwerb in Deutsch und Englisch. Ergebnisse der DESI-Studie (pp. 149–156). Weinheim: Beltz.Google Scholar
  15. Emmer, E. T., & Stough, L. M. (2001). Classroom management: A critical part of educational psychology, with implications for teacher education. Educational Psychologist, 36, 103–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fauth, B., Decristan, J., Rieser, S., Klieme, E., & Büttner, G. (2014). Student ratings of teaching quality in primary school: Dimensions and prediction of student outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 29, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ganzeboom, H. B. G., De Graaf, P., Treiman, D. J., & De Leeuw, J. (1992). A standard international socio-economic index of occupational status. Social Science Research, 21(1), 1–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goldhaber, D., Cowan, J., & Walch, J. (2012). Is a good elementary teacher always good? Assessing teacher performance estimates across subjects. CEDR working paper 2012—7.2. Seattle: University of Washington.Google Scholar
  19. Grossman, P., Cohen, J., Ronfeldt, M., & Brown, L. (2014). The test matters: The relationship between classroom observation scores and teacher value added on multiple types of assessment. Educational Researcher, 43, 293–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Haertel, E. H. (2013). Reliability and validity of inferences about teachers based on student test scores. Princeton: Education Testing Service.Google Scholar
  21. Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2010). Generalizations about using value-added measures of teacher quality. American Economic Review, 100, 267–271.Google Scholar
  22. Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2012). The distribution of teacher quality and implications for policy. Annual Review of Economics, 4, 131–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harsch, C., & Schröder, K. (2008). Textrekonstruktion Englisch. In DESI-Konsortium (Ed.), Unterricht und Kompetenzerwerb in Deutsch und Englisch. Ergebnisse der DESI-Studie (pp. 149–156). Weinheim: Beltz.Google Scholar
  24. Hartig, J., Jude, N., & Wagner, W. (2008). Methodische Grundlagen der Messung und Erklärung sprachlicher Kompetenzen. In DESI-Konsortium (Ed.), Unterricht und Kompetenzerwerb in Deutsch und Englisch. Ergebnisse der DESI-Studie (pp. 34–54). Weinheim: Beltz.Google Scholar
  25. Hiebert, J., & Morris, A. K. (2012). Teaching, rather than teachers, as a path toward improving classroom instruction. Journal of Teacher Education, 63, 92–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hill, H. C., Charalambous, C. Y., & Kraft, M. A. (2012). When rater reliability is not enough: Teacher observation systems and a case for the G-study. Educational Researcher, 41, 56–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kennedy, M. M. (2010). Attribution error and the quest for teacher quality. Educational Researcher, 39, 591–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kersting, N. B., Chen, M.-K., & Stigler, J. W. (2013). Value-Added Teacher Estimates as Part of Teacher Evaluations: Exploring the Effects of Data and Model Specifications on the Stability of Teacher-Value Added Scores (Special issue on value-added research for policy). Educational Policy Analysis Archives.Google Scholar
  29. Klieme, E., & Rakoczy, K. (2003). Unterrichtsqualität aus Schülerperspektive: Kulturspezifische Profile, regionale Unterschiede und Zusammenhänge mit Effekten von Unterricht. In J. Baumert, C. Artelt, E. Klieme, M. Neubrand, M. Prenzel, U. Schiefele, W. Schneider, & K.-J. Tillmann (Eds.), PISA 2000. Ein differenzierter Blick auf die Länder der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (pp. 334–359). Opladen: Leske + Budrich.Google Scholar
  30. Klieme, E., & Vieluf, S. (2009). Teaching practices, teachers’ beliefs and attitudes. In OECD (Ed.), Creating effective teaching and learning environments. First results from TALIS (pp. 87–135). Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  31. Klieme, E., Schümer, G., & Knoll, S. (2001). Mathematikunterricht in der Sekundarstufe I: Aufgabenkultur und Unterrichtsgestaltung. In Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) (Ed.), TIMSS—Impulse für Schule und Unterricht. Forschungsbefunde, Reforminitiativen, Praxisberichte und Video-Dokumente (pp. 43–57). Munich: Medienhaus Biering.Google Scholar
  32. Koedel, C., & Betts, J. (2007). Re-Examining the Role of Teacher Quality In the Educational Production Function (Working Papers 0708, Department of Economics, University of Missouri).Google Scholar
  33. Kounin, J. S. (1970). Discipline and group management in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  34. Kunter, M. (2005). Multiple Ziele im Mathematikunterricht. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  35. Kunter, M., Klusmann, U., Baumert, J., Richter, D., Voss, T., & Hachfeld, A. (2013). Professional competence of teachers: Effects on quality and student development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 805–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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, 527–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Loeb, S., & Candelaria, C. A. (2013). How stable are value-added estimates across years, subjects and student groups? http://www.carnegieknowledgenetwork.org/briefs/value-added/value-added-stability/. Accessed 10 Sept 2015.
  38. Loeb, S., Kalogrides, D., & Beteille, T. (2012). Effective schools: Teacher hiring, assignment, development, and retention. Education Finance and Policy, 7(3), 269–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lotz, M. (2016). Kognitive Aktivierung im Leseunterricht der Grundschule. Eine Videostudie zur Gestaltung und Qualität von Leseübungen im ersten Schuljahr. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59, 14–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McCaffrey, D. F., Lockwood, J. R., Koretz, D., Louis, T. A., & Hamilton, L. (2004). Models for value-added modeling of teacher effects. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29, 67–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Muthén, B., & Muthén, L. (1998–2012). Mplus (Version 7.11). Los Angeles: StatModel.Google Scholar
  43. Papay, J. P. (2011). Different test, different answers: The stability of teacher value-added estimates across outcome measures. American Educational Research Journal, 48(1), 163–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Patrick, H., & Mantzicopoulos, P. (2014). Is effective teaching stable? The Journal of Experimental Education, 11, 1–25.Google Scholar
  45. Patrick, H., Ryan, A. M., & Kaplan, A. (2007). Early adolescents’ perceptions of the classroom social environment, motivational beliefs, and engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pianta, R. C., & Hamre, B. K. (2009). Conceptualization, measurement, and improvement of classroom processes: Standardized observation can leverage capacity. Educational Researcher, 38, 109–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Piwowar, V., Thiel, F., & Ophardt, D. (2013). Training inservice teachers’ competencies in classroom management—a quasi-experimental study with teachers of secondary schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 30, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Praetorius, A.-K., Lenske, G., & Helmke, A. (2012). Observer ratings of instructional quality: Do they fulfill what they promise? Learning and Instruction, 6, 387–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Praetorius, A.-K., Pauli, C., Reusser, K., Rakoczy, K., & Klieme, E. (2014). One lesson is all you need? Stability of instructional quality across lessons. Learning and Instruction, 31, 2–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Prange, K. (2011). Didaktik und Methodik. In J. Kade, W. Helsper, C. Lüders, B. Egloff, F.-O. Radtke, & W. Thole (Eds.), Pädagogisches Wissen. Erziehungswissenschaft in Grundbegriffen (pp. 183–190). Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
  51. Rakoczy, K. (2008). Motivationsunterstützung im Mathematikunterricht – Unterricht aus der Perspektive von Lernenden und Beobachtern. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  52. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  53. Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing students’ engagement by increasing teachers’ autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion, 28, 147–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Reyes, M. R., Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., White, M., & Salovey, P. (2012). Classroom emotional climate, student engagement, and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 700–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rjosk, C., Richter, D., Hochweber, J., Lüdtke, O., Klieme, E., & Stanat, P. (2014). Socioeconomic and language minority classroom composition and individual reading achievement: The mediating role of teaching quality. Learning and Instruction, 32, 63–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rost, J. (2004). Lehrbuch Testtheorie – Testkonstruktion (2nd edn.). Bern: Huber.Google Scholar
  57. Rowan, B., Correnti, R., & Miller, R. (2002). What large-scale, survey research tells us about teacher effects on student achievement: Insights from the Prospects Study of Elementary Schools (Conceptual Paper). Michigan: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  58. Seidel, T., & Shavelson, R. J. (2007). Teaching effectiveness research in the last decade: Role of theory and research design in disentangling meta-analysis results. Review of Educational Research, 77, 454–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Shavelson, R., & Webb, N. (1991). Generalizability theory: A primer. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  60. Shumate, S. R., Surles, J., Johnson, R. L., & Penny, J. (2007). The effects of the number of scale points and non-normality on the generalizability coefficient: A Monte Carlo study. Applied Measurement in Education, 20, 357–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Thorndike, R. L., & Hagen, E. P. (1993). Form 5 cognitive abilities test – norms booklet. Chicago: Riverside Publishing.Google Scholar
  62. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk-Hoy, A. (2001) Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive concept. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Vieluf, S., & Klieme, E. (2011). Mathematics teachers’ beliefs about the nature of teaching and learning and their classroom teaching practices in cross-cultural comparison. In G. Kaiser & Y. Li (Eds.), Expertise in mathematics instruction. An international perspective (pp. 295–325). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wentzel, K. R., Battle, A., Russell, S., & Looney, L. (2010). Social supports from teachers and peers as predictors of academic and social motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 193–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anna-Katharina Praetorius
    • 1
  • Svenja Vieluf
    • 1
  • Steffani Saß
    • 2
  • Andrea Bernholt
    • 2
  • Eckhard Klieme
    • 1
  1. 1.German Institute for International Educational Research (DIPF)Frankfurt a. MainGermany
  2. 2.Leibniz Institute for Science and Mathematics EducationKielGermany

Personalised recommendations