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

Volumn 19, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 183-205

  Kyriakides, Leonidas ^a   Creemers, Bert P M ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CYPRUS   (Cyprus)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Dimensions of teacher factors; Measuring teacher behaviour; Modelling educational effectiveness; Teacher effectiveness

Indexed keywords

EID: 45749107816     PISSN: 09243453     EISSN: 17445124     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09243450802047873     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Andrich, D. (1988). A general form of Rasch's Extended Logistic Model for partial credit scoring. Applied Measurement in Education, 1(4), 363-378.
2. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. London: King's College London School of Education.
3. Bosker, R.J., & Scheerens, J. (1994). Alternative models of school effectiveness put to test. International Journal of Educational Research, 21(2), 159-180.
4. Brophy, J. (1986). Teacher influence on student achievement. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1069-1077.
5. 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.
6. Bryk, A.S., & Raudenbush, S.W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
7. Campbell, R.J., Kyriakides, L., Muijs, R.D., & Robinson, W. (2003). Differential teacher effectiveness: Towards a model for research and teacher appraisal. Oxford Review of Education, 29(3), 347-362.
8. Choi, J.I., & Hannafin, M. (1995). Situated cognition and learning environments: Roles, structures, and implications for design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(2), 53-69.
9. Cohen, D., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5th ed.). London: Routledge/Falmer.
10. Collins, A., Brown, J.S., & Newman, S.E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing and mathematics. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing learning and instruction (pp. 453-495). Hillsdale, MI: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11. Creemers, B.P.M. (1994). The effective classroom. London: Cassell.
12. Creemers, B.P.M., & Kyriakides, L. (2006). A critical analysis of the current approaches to modelling educational effectiveness: The importance of establishing a dynamic model. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17, 347-366.
13. Creemers, B.P.M., & Kyriakides, L. (2008). The dynamics of educational effectiveness: A contribution to policy, practice and theory in contemporary schools. London: Routledge.
14. Cronbach, L.J. (1990). Essentials of psychological testing (3rd ed.). New York: Harper & Rowe.
15. Cronbach, L.J., Gleser, G.C., Nanda, H., & Rajaratnam, N. (1972). The dependability of behavioral measurements: Theory of generalizability scores and profiles. New York: Wiley.
16. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1). Retrieved March 16, 2005, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1/
17. Dowson, M., & McInerney, D.M. (2003). What do students say about motivational goals?: Towards a more complex and dynamic perspective on student motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(1), 91-113.
18. Doyle, W. (1990). Classroom knowledge as a foundation for teaching. Teachers College Record, 91(3), 347-360.
19. Flanders, N. (1970). Analyzing teacher behaviour. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
20. Gray, J., Hopkins, D., Reynolds, D., Wilcox, B., Farrell, S., & Jesson, D. (1999). Improving schools: Performance and potential. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
21. Harlen, W., & James, M. (1997). Assessment and learning: Differences and relationships between formative and summative assessment. Assessment in Education, 4(3), 365-379.
22. Hayes, M.T., & Deyhle, D. (2001). Constructing difference: A comparative study of elementary science curriculum differentiation. Science Education, 85(3), 239-262.
23. Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. (1993). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
24. Houtveen, A.A.M., Van de Grift, W.J.C.M., & Creemers, B.P.M. (2004). Effective school improvement in Mathematics. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15, 337-376.
25. Kyriakides, L. (2002). A research-based model for the development of policy on baseline assessment. British Educational Research Journal, 28(6), 805-826.
26. Kyriakides, L. (2004). Differential school effectiveness in relation to sex and social class: Some implications for policy evaluation. Educational Research and Evaluation, 10, 141-161.
27. Kyriakides, L. (2005). Extending the comprehensive model of educational effectiveness by an empirical investigation. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 16, 103-152.
28. Kyriakides, L. (2007). Generic and differentiated models of educational effectiveness: Implications for the improvement of educational practice. In T. Townsend (Ed.), International handbook of school effectiveness and improvement (pp. 41-56). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
29. Kyriakides, L., Campbell, R.J., & Christofidou, E. (2002). Generating criteria for measuring teacher effectiveness through a self-evaluation approach: A complementary way of measuring teacher effectiveness. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 13, 291-325.
30. Kyriakides, L., Campbell, R.J., & Gagatsis, A. (2000). The significance of the classroom effect in primary schools: An application of Creemers' comprehensive model of educational effectiveness. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11, 501-529.
31. Ministry of Education. (1994). The new curriculum. Nicosia, Cyprus: Author.
32. Muijs, D., Campbell, R.J., Kyriakides, L., & Robinson, W. (2005). Making the case for differentiated teacher effectiveness: An overview of research in four key areas. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 16, 51-70.
33. 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, 273-303.
34. Muijs, D., & Reynolds, D. (2001). Effective teaching: Evidence and practice. London: Sage.
35. Noble, T. (2004). Integrating the revised Bloom's taxonomy with multiple intelligence: A planning tool for curriculum differentiation. Teachers College Records, 106(1), 193-211.
36. Pellegrino, J.W. (2004). Complex learning environments: Connecting learning theory, instructional design, and technology. In N.M. Seel & S. Dijkstra (Eds.), Curriculum, plans, and processes in instructional design (pp. 25-49). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
37. Peterson., P., Wilkinson, L.C. & Hallinan, M. (Eds.). (1984). The social context of instruction: Group organization and group processes. New York: Academic Press.
38. Rasbash, J., Steele, F., Browne, W., & Prosser, B. (2005). A user's guide to MLwiN: Version 2.0. Bristol, UK: Centre for Multilevel Modelling, University of Bristol.
39. Reezigt, G.J., Guldemond, H., & Creemers, B.P.M. (1999). Empirical validity for a comprehensive model on educational effectiveness. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 10, 193-216.
40. Reusser, K. (2000). Success and failure in school mathematics: Effects of instruction and school environment. European Child & Adolescent Psychology, 9, 17-26.
41. 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.
42. Savery, J.R., & Duffy, T.M. (1995). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational Technology, 35(5), 31-38.
43. Scheerens, J. (1992). Effective schooling: Research, theory and practice. London: Cassell.
44. Scheerens, J., & Bosker, R.J. (1997). The foundations of educational effectiveness. Oxford: Pergamon.
45. Schoenfeld, A.H. (1998). Toward a theory of teaching in context. Issues in Education, 4(1), 1-94.
46. Shavelson, R.J., Webb, N.M., & Rowley, G.L. (1989). Generalizability theory. American Psychologist, 44(6), 922-932.
47. Simons, R.J., Van der Linden, J., & Duffy, T. (2000). New learning: Three ways to learn in a new balance. In R.J. Simons, J. van der Linden, & T. Duffy (Eds.), New learning (pp. 1-20). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
48. Slater, R.O., & Teddlie, C. (1992). Toward a theory of school effectiveness and leadership. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 3, 247-257.
49. Snijders, T., & Bosker, R. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. London: Sage.
50. Stenmark, J.K. (1992). Mathematics assessment: Myths, models, good questions and practical suggestions. Reston, VA: NCTM.
51. Stringfield, S.C., & Slavin, R.E. (1992). A hierarchical longitudinal model for elementary school effects. In B.P.M. Creemers & G.J. Reezigt (Eds.), Evaluation of educational effectiveness (pp. 35-69). Groningen, The Netherlands: ICO.
52. Vermunt, J., & Verschaffel, L. (2000). Process-oriented teaching. In R.J. Simons, J. van der Linden, & T. Duffy (Eds.), New learning (pp. 209-225). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
53. 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.
54. Yair, G. (1997). When classrooms matter: Implications of between-classroom variability for educational policy in Israel. Assessment in Education, 4(2), 225-248.