Who is the expert? Construct and criteria validity of student and teacher ratings of instruction

Learning Environments Research

Volumn 9, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 231-251

  Kunter, Mareike ^a   Baumert, Jürgen ^a  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT   (Germany)

Author keywords

Agreement; Classroom instruction; Instructional quality; Questionnaires; Student ratings; Teacher ratings; Validity

Indexed keywords

EID: 33846989742     PISSN: 13871579     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10984-006-9015-7     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Aleamoni, L. M. (1999). Student rating myths versus research facts from 1924 to 1998. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 13(2), 153-166.
2. Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Brunner, M., Krauss, S., Blum, W., & Neubrand, M. (2004). Mathematikunterricht aus Sicht der PISA-Schülerinnen und -Schüler und ihrer Lehrkräfte [Mathematics teaching from the perspective of the PISA students and their teachers]. In The German PISA Consortium (Ed.), PISA 2003: Der Bildungsstand der Jugendlichen in Deutschland-Ergebnisse des zweiten internationalen Vergleichs [PISA 2003: The educational level of adolescents in Germany-the second international comparison] (pp. 314-354). Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
3. Ben-Chaim, D., & Zoller, U. (2001). Self-perception versus students' perception of teachers' personal style in college science and mathematics courses. Research in Science Education, 31(3), 437-454.
4. Brophy, J. (1999). Teaching. Geneva, Switzerland: International Academy of Education/International Bureau of Education.
5. Clausen, M. (2002). Unterrichtsqualität: Eine Frage der Perspektive? [Instructional quality: A question of perspectives?] Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
6. de Corte, E., Greer, B., & Verschaffel, L. (1996). Mathematics teaching and learning. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 491-549). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
7. De Jong, R., & Westerhof, K. J. (2001). The quality of student ratings of teacher behaviour. Learning Environments Research, 4(1), 51-85.
8. den Brok, P., Bergen, T., & Brekelmans, M. (2003, April). Comparing student' and teachers' perceptions of instructional behavior in Dutch secondary education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
9. den Brok, P., Bergen, T., & Brekelmans, M. (2006). Convergence and divergence between students' and teachers' perceptions of instructional behaviour in Dutch secondary education. In D. L. Fisher & M. S. Khine (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to research on learning environments: World views (pp. 125-160). Singapore: World Scientific.
10. Floden, R. E. (2002). The measurement of opportunity to learn. In A. C. Porter, A. Gamoran, & National Research Council/Board on International Comparative Studies in Education (Eds.), Methodological advances in cross-national surveys of educational achievement (pp. 231-266). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
11. Fraser, B. (1991). Two decades of classroom environment research. In H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Educational environments: Evaluation, antecedents and consequences (pp. 3-27). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.
12. Gentry, M., Gable, R. K., & Rizza, M. G. (2002). Students' perceptions of classroom activities: Are there grade-level and gender differences? Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 539-544.
13. Greenwald, A. G. (1997). Validity concerns and usefulness of student ratings of instruction. American Psychologist, 52(11), 1182-1186.
14. Jordan, A., Ross, N., Krauss, S., Neubrand, M., Baumert, J., Brunner, M. et al. (Eds.). (2006). Klassifikationsschema für Mathematikaufgaben: Dokumentation der Aufgabenkategorisierung im COACTIV-Projekt [Classification Scheme for Mathematical Problems: A documentation of the coding system for mathematics tasks in the COACTIV project]. Berlin, Germany: Max Planck Institute for Human Development.
15. Klieme, E., Schümer, G., & Knoll, S. (2001). Mathematikunterricht in der Sekundarstufe I: "Aufgabenkultur" und Unterrichtsgestaltung [Mathematical instruction in secondary school: "Task culture" and instructional settings]. In Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Ed.), TIMSS-Impulse für Schule und Unterricht [TIMSS-Impulses for school and classroom instruction] (pp. 43-57). Bonn, Germany: Federal Ministry of Education and Research.
16. Krauss, S., Kunter, M., Brunner, M., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Neubrand, M. et al. (2004). COACTIV: Professionswissen von Lehrkräften, kognitiv aktivierender Mathematikunterricht und die Entwicklung von mathematischer Kompetenz [Professional knowledge of teachers, cognitively activating mathematics instruction and the development of mathematical literacy]. In J. Doll & M. Prenzel (Eds.), Bildungsqualität von Schule: Lehrerprofessionalisierung, Unterrichtsentwicklung und Schülerforderung als Strategien der Qualitätsverbesserung [School quality: Improving quality through teacher education, instruction, and student support] (pp. 31-53). Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
17. Kunter, M., & Baumert, J. (2006). Linking TIMSS to research on learning and instruction: A reanalysis of the German TIMSS and TIMSS video data. In S. J. Howie & T. Plomp (Eds.), Learning mathematics and science: Lessons learned from TIMSS (pp. 335-351). London: Routledge.
18. Kunter, M., Brunner, M., Baumert, J., Klusmann, U., Krauss, S., Blum, W., Jordan, A., & Neubrand, M. (2005). Der Mathematikunterricht der PISA-Schülerinnen und-Schüler: Schulformunterschiede in der Unterrichtsqualität [Quality of mathematics instruction across school types: Findings from PISA 2003]. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 8(4), 502-520.
19. Lanahan, L., McGrath, D. J., McLaughlin, M., Burian-Fitzgerald, M., & Salganik, L. (2005). Fundamental problems in the measurement of instructional processes: Estimating reasonable effect sizes and conceptualizing what is important to measure. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
20. Marsh, H. W., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Köller, O., & Baumert, J. (2005). Academic self-concept, interest, grades and standardized test scores: Reciprocal effects models of causal ordering. Child Development, 76(2), 397-416.
21. Mayer, D. P. (1999). Measuring instructional practice: Can policy makers trust survey data? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(1), 29-45.
22. Mayer, R. E. (2004). Teaching of subject matter. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 715-744.
23. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2004). Mplus user's guide (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.
24. Porter, A. C. (2002). Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 3-14.
25. The German PISA Consortium (Ed.). (2004). PISA 2003. Der Bildungsstand der Jugendlichen in Deutschland-Ergebnisse des zweiten internationalen Vergleichs [PISA 2003: Literacy of Adolescents in Germany]. Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
26. Urdan, T. (2003, August). Using multiple methods to assess students' perceptions of classroom goal structures. Paper presented at the 10th Conference of the European Association for Research in Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Padua, Italy.
27. Weinert, F. E., Schrader, F.-W., & Helmke, A. (1989). Quality of instruction and achievement outcomes. International Journal of Educational Research, 13(8), 895-914.
28. Wubbels, T., Brekelmans, M., & Hooymayers, H. P. (1992). Do teacher ideals distort the self-reports of their interpersonal behavior? Teaching and Teacher Education, 8(1), 47-58.