The relation between teacher self-reported individualization and student-perceived teaching quality in linguistically heterogeneous classes: an exploratory study

European Journal of Psychology of Education

Volumn 36, Issue 4, 2021, Pages 1159-1179

  Hachfeld, Axinja ^a   Lazarides, Rebecca ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KONSTANZ   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF POTSDAM   (Germany)

Author keywords

Composition effects; Individualization; Non native speakers; Teaching quality

Indexed keywords

EID: 85094183451     PISSN: 02562928     EISSN: 18785174     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10212-020-00501-5     Document Type: Article

References (83)

1. Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
2. Algozzine, B., & Anderson, K. M. (2007). Tips for teaching: Differentiating instruction to include all students. Preventing school failure: Alternative education for children and youth, 51(3), 49–54. 10.3200/PSFL.51.3.49-54. DOI: 10.3200/PSFL.51.3.49-54
3. Anderman, L. H., Andrzejewski, C. E., & Allen, J. (2011). How do teachers support students' motivation and learning in their classrooms? Teachers College Record, 113(5), 969–1003.
4. Anderson, D. L., Lubig, J., & Smith, M. (2012). Meeting the needs of all students: How student teachers identify individualization. Education Research and Perspectives (Online), 39, 1–23.
5. Autorengruppe Bildungsberichterstattung (2018). Bildung in Deutschland 2018. Ein indikatorengestützter Bericht mit einer Analyse zu Wirkungen und Erträgen von Bildung [Education in Germany. An indicator-based report including an analysis of educational gains]. Bielefeld: W. Bertelsmann Verlag
6. Autorengruppe Bildungsberichterstattung (2016). Bildung in Deutschland 2018. Ein indikatorengestützter Bericht mit einer Analyse zu Bildung und Migration [Education in Germany. An indicator-based report including an analysis of education and migration]. Bielefeld: W. Bertelsmann Verlag.
7. Baumert, J., Maaz, K., Neumann, M., Becker, M., & Dumont, H. (2017). Die Berliner Schulstrukturreform: Hintergründe, Zielstellungen und theoretischer Rahmen [The educational reform in Berlin: Aims and theoretical considerations]. In M. Neumann, M. Becker, J. Baumert, K. Maaz, & Köller, O. (Eds.). Zweigliedrigkeit im deutschen Schulsystem. Potenziale und Herausforderungen in Berlin. Münster: Waxmann.
8. Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T., Jordan, A., et al. (2010). Teachers’ mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 133–180. 10.3102/0002831209345157. DOI: 10.3102/0002831209345157
9. Beck, E., Baer, M., Guldimann, T., Bischoff, S., Brühwiler, C., & Müller, P. (2008). Adaptive Lehrkompetenz: Analyse und Struktur, Veränderung und Wirkung handlungssteuernden Lehrerwissens [Adaptive teaching competency. Analysis and structure, variability and effects of teacher knowledge on teachers’ actions]. Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
10. Berlin Senate Administration for Education Youth and Science. (2013). Verfahren zur Genehmigung empirischer Studien an Berliner Schulen [Permission procedure for empirical studies in schools in Berlin]. Retrieved from http://www.ewi-psy.fu-berlin.de/service/Genehmigung_empirischer_Untersuchungen_in_Berliner_Schulen_April_2013.pdf
11. Brühwiler, C. (2014). Adaptive Lehrkompetenz und schulisches Lernen: Effekte handlungssteuernder Kognitionen von Lehrpersonen auf Unterrichtsprozesse und Lernergebnisse der Schülerinnen und Schüler [Adaptive teaching skills and academic learning. Effects of action-controlling cognitions of teachers on the teaching processes and learning outcomes of the students]. Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
12. Brüning, L., & Saum, T. (2010). Individualisierung und Differenzierung – aber wie? Kooperatives Lernen erschließt neue Zugänge [Individualization and differentiation: Using cooperative learning]. Pädagogik, 62, 12–15.
13. Clausen, M. (2002). Unterrichtsqualität: Eine Frage der Perspektive? [Teaching quality: A question of perspective?]. Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
14. Connor, C. M. (2017). Using technology and assessment to personalize instruction: preventing reading problems. Prevention Science, 20, 1–11. 10.1007/s11121-017-0842-9. DOI: 10.1007/s11121-017-0842-9
15. Corno, L., & Snow, R. E. (1986). Adapting teaching to individual differences among learners. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research in teaching (pp. 605–629). London: MacMillan.
16. Decristan, J., Fauth, B., Kunter, M., Büttner, G., & Klieme, E. (2017). The interplay between class heterogeneity and teaching quality in primary school. International Journal of Educational Research, 86, 109–121. 10.1016/j.ijer.2017.09.004. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijer.2017.09.004
17. Decristan, J., Kunter, M., Fauth, B., Büttner, G., Hardy, I., & Hertel, S. (2016). What role does teaching quality play for elementary school children’s science competence? A focus on students at risk. Journal for Educational Research Online/Journal für Bildungsforschung Online, 8(1), 66–89.
18. Dee, A. L. (2010). Preservice teacher application of differentiated instruction. The Teacher Educator, 46(1), 53–70. DOI: 10.1080/08878730.2010.529987
19. Dräger, J. (2009). Individuelle Förderung für ein faires und leistungsstarkes Schulsystem [Individual support for a fair and high-performing school system]. In B. Stiftung (Ed.), Heterogenität und Bildung: Individuelle Förderung in Deutschland – Hindernisse und Herausforderungen (pp. 4–8). Gütersloh, Germany: Bertelsmann Stiftung.
20. Dumont, H. (2019). Neuer Schlauch für alten Wein? Eine konzeptuelle Betrachtung von individueller Förderung im Unterricht [Adaptive teaching: Conceptual reflections]. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 22, 249–277. 10.1007/s11618-018-0840-0. DOI: 10.1007/s11618-018-0840-0
21. Enders, C. K., & Bandalos, D. L. (2001). The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 8(3), 430–457. DOI: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0803_5
22. 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. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.07.001. DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.07.001
23. Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (2011). Short Version of the National Action Plan to implement the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Goals and contents of the National Action Plan. Retrieved from https://www.bmas.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/PDF-Publikationen/a740-short-en.pdf;jsessionid = FADAFEBC65F678C849505568ED54634E?__blob = publicationFile&v = 3 [2019/07/15].
24. Fend, H. (1981). Theorie der Schule. 2., durchgesehene Auflage [Theory of the school, second revised edition]. München, Germany: Urban & Schwarzenberg.
25. Göllner, R., Wagner, W., Eccles, J. S., & Trautwein, U. (2018). Students’ idiosyncratic perceptions of teaching quality in mathematics: A result of rater tendency alone or an expression of dyadic effects between students and teachers? Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(5), 709–725. 10.1037/edu0000236. DOI: 10.1037/edu0000236
26. Groeneveld, I., & Knigge, M. (2015). Moderation primärer sozialer Disparitäten im Leseverständnis in Abhängigkeit vom wahrgenommenen Verhalten der Lehrkraft und der Klassenzusammensetzung [Moderation of social disparities in reading achievement through classroom factors]. Zeitschrift für Bildungsforschung, 5(1), 51–72. 10.1007/s35834-014-0115-7. DOI: 10.1007/s35834-014-0115-7
27. Hachfeld, A., Anders, Y., Schroeder, S., Stanat, P., & Kunter, M. (2010). Does immigration background matter? How teachers’ predictions of students’ performance relate to student background. International Journal of Educational Research, 49, 78–91. 10.1016/j.ijer.2010.09.002. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijer.2010.09.002
28. Hachfeld, A., Hahn, A., Schroeder, S., Anders, Y., & Kunter, M. (2015). Should teachers be colorblind? How multicultural and egalitarian beliefs differentially relate to aspects of teachers’ professional competence for teaching in diverse classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 48, 44–55. 10.1016/j.tate.2015.02.001. DOI: 10.1016/j.tate.2015.02.001
29. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.
30. Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
31. Helmke, A. (2003). Unterrichtsqualität. Erfassen, Bewerten, Verbessern [Capturing, Evaluating, and Improving Teaching Quality]. Seelze, Germany: Kallmeyer.
32. Hochweber, J., Hosenfeld, I., & Klieme, E. (2014). Classroom composition, classroom management, and the relationship between student attributes and grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(1), 289–300. 10.1037/a0033829. DOI: 10.1037/a0033829
33. Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structured Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. 10.1080/10705519909540118. DOI: 10.1080/10705519909540118
34. Jacobs, J. E., Lanza, S., Osgood, D. W., Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Changes in children’s self-competence and values: Gender and domain differences across grades one through twelve. Child Development, 73(2), 509–527. 10.1111/1467-8624.00421. DOI: 10.1111/1467-8624.00421
35. Klieme, E. (2018). Unterrichtsqualität [Teaching quality]. In M. Gläser-Zikuda, M. Harring, & C. Rohlfs (Eds.), Handbuch Schulpädagogik [Handbook of school pedagogy]. (pp. 393-408) Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
36. Klieme, E., Pauli, C., & Reusser, K. (2009). The Pythagoras study: Investigating effects of teaching and learning in Swiss and German mathematics classrooms. In T. Janík & T. Seidel (Eds.), The power of video studies in investigating teaching and learning in the classroom (pp. 137–160). Münster: Waxmann.
37. Klieme, E. & Warwas, J. (2011). Konzepte der individuellen Förderung. [Concepts of individual fostering]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 57(6), 805-818. URN: urn:nbn:de:0111-opus-87822
38. Klusmann, U., Richter, D., & Lüdtke, O. (2016). Teachers’ emotional exhaustion is negatively related to students’ achievement: Evidence from a large-scale assessment study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(8), 1193–1203. 10.1037/edu0000125. DOI: 10.1037/edu0000125
39. Koth, C. W., Bradshaw, C. P., & Leaf, P. J. (2008). A multilevel study of predictors of student perceptions of school climate: The effect of classroom-level factors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 96–104. 10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.96. DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.96
40. Kounin, J. S. (1970). Discipline and group management in classrooms. Oxford, England: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
41. Kunter, M., Baumert, J., & Köller, O. (2007). Effective classroom management and the development of subject-related interest. Learning and Instruction, 17(5), 494–509. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.002. DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.002
42. Kunter, M., Brunner, M., Baumert, J., Klusmann, U., Krauss, S., Blum, W., et al. (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. 10.1007/s11618-005-0156-8. DOI: 10.1007/s11618-005-0156-8
43. Kunter, M., Klusmann, U., Baumert, J., Richter, D., Voss, T., & Hachfeld, A. (2013). Professional competence of teachers: Effects on instructional quality and student development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 805. DOI: 10.1037/a0032583
44. Kunter, M., Schümer, G., Artelt, C., Baumert, J., Klieme, E., Neubrand, M., et al. (2002). PISA 2000: Dokumentation der Erhebungsinstrumente [PISA 2000: Documentation of scales]. Berlin, Germany: Max-Planck-Institut für Bildungsforschung.
45. Kunter, M., Tsai, Y.-M., Klusmann, U., Brunner, M., Krauss, S., & Baumert, J. (2008). Students’ and mathematics teachers’ perceptions of teacher enthusiasm and instruction. Learning and Instruction, 18(5), 468–482. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.06.008. DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.06.008
46. LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 815–852. 10.1177/1094428106296642. DOI: 10.1177/1094428106296642
47. Leuders, T., & Holzäpfel, L. (2011). Kognitive Aktivierung im Mathematikunterricht [Cognitive activation in mathematics instruction]. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 39(3), 213–230.
48. Levpušček, M. P., & Zupančič, M. (2008). Math achievement in early adolescence: The role of parental involvement, teachers’ behavior, and students’ motivational beliefs about math. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 29(4), 541–570. 10.1177/0272431608324189. DOI: 10.1177/0272431608324189
49. 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(6), 527–537. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.11.001. DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.11.001
50. Little, R. J. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83(404), 1198–1202. DOI: 10.1080/01621459.1988.10478722
51. Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Trautwein, U., & Kunter, M. (2009). Assessing the impact of learning environments: How to use student ratings of classroom or school characteristics in multilevel modeling. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(2), 120–131. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.12.001. DOI: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.12.001
52. Madill, R. A., Gest, S. D., & Rodkin, P. C. (2014). Students’ perceptions of relatedness in the classroom: The roles of emotionally supportive teacher-child interactions, children’s aggressive-disruptive behaviors, and peer social preference. School Psychology Review, 43(1), 86–105. DOI: 10.1080/02796015.2014.12087456
53. Magen-Nagar, N., & Shachar, H. (2017). Quality of teaching and dropout risk: A multi-level analysis. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 22(1), 9–24. 10.1080/10824669.2016.1242069. DOI: 10.1080/10824669.2016.1242069
54. Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Trautwein, U., Asparouhov, T., Muthén, B., & Nagengast, B. (2009). Doubly-latent models of school contextual effects: Integrating multilevel and structural equation approaches to control measurement and sampling error. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 44(6), 764–802. 10.1080/00273170903333665. DOI: 10.1080/00273170903333665
55. Martschinke, S. (2015). Facetten adaptiven Unterrichts aus der Sicht der Unterrichtsforschung [Aspects of adaptive teaching from a perspective of instructional research]. In K. Liebers, B. Landwehr, A. Marquardt, & K. Schlotter (Eds.), Lernprozessbegleitung und adaptives Lernen in der Grundschule: Forschungsbezogene Beiträge [Learning process and adaptive teaching in primary school: Empirical findings] (pp. 15-32). Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer.
56. Massumi, M., von Dewitz, N., Grießbach, J., Terhart, H., Wagner, K., Hippmann, K., & Altinay, L. (2015). Neu zugewanderte Kinder und Jugendliche im deutschen Schulsystem. In Bestandsaufnahme und Empfehlungen [Newly arrived children and youths in the German educational system: Status Quo and recommendations]. Köln: Mercator-Institut für Sprachförderung und Deutsch als Zweitsprache und Zentrum für LehrerInnenbildung der Universität Köln.
57. McTighe, J., & Brown, J. L. (2005). Differentiated instruction and educational standards; Is détente possible? Theory Into Practice, 44, 234–244. 10.1207/s15430421tip4403_8. DOI: 10.1207/s15430421tip4403_8
58. Murray, D. W., Rabiner, D. L., Kuhn, L., Pan, Y., & Sabet, R. F. (2018). Investigating teacher and student effects of the incredible years classroom management program in early elementary school. Journal of School Psychology, 67, 119–133. 10.1016/j.jsp.2017.10.004. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsp.2017.10.004
59. Murray, S. (2011). Declining participation in post-compulsory secondary school mathematics: students’ views of and solutions to the problem. Research in Mathematics Education, 13(3), 269–285. 10.1080/14794802.2011.624731. DOI: 10.1080/14794802.2011.624731
60. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2015). Mplus User’s Guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
61. Newman, D. A. (2014). Missing data: Five practical guidelines. Organizational Research Methods, 17(4), 372–411. DOI: 10.1177/1094428114548590
62. O'Connell, A. A., & McCoach, D. B. (2008). Multilevel modeling of educational data. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, INC.
63. OECD. (2015). PISA results (Volume I): Excellence and equity in education. In Immigrant background, student performance and students’ attitudes towards science. Paris: OECD Publishing. 10.1787/9789264266490-11-en. DOI: 10.1787/9789264266490-11-en
64. Opdenakker, M.-C., & Van Damme, J. (2006). Teacher characteristics and teaching styles as effectiveness enhancing factors of classroom practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(1), 1–21. 10.1016/j.tate.2005.07.008. DOI: 10.1016/j.tate.2005.07.008
65. Paetsch, J., Felbrich, A., & Stanat, P. (2015). Der Zusammenhang von sprachlichen und mathematischen Kompetenzen bei Kindern mit Deutsch als Zweitsprache. [Second-language support for immigrant children and students]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 29(1), 19–29. 10.1024/1010-0652/a000142. DOI: 10.1024/1010-0652/a000142
66. Paradies, L., & Linser, H. J. (2008). Differenzieren im Unterricht [Differentiated instruction]. Berlin: Cornelson.
67. Pas, E. T., Cash, A. H., O'Brennan, L., Debnam, K. J., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2015). Profiles of classroom behavior in high schools: Associations with teacher behavior management strategies and classroom composition. Journal of School Psychology, 53(2), 137–148. 10.1016/j.jsp.2014.12.005. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsp.2014.12.005
68. 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. 10.1016/j.tate.2012.09.007. DOI: 10.1016/j.tate.2012.09.007
69. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
70. 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. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.01.007. DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.01.007
71. Rjosk, C., Richter, D., Lüdtke, O., & Eccles, J. S. (2017). Ethnic composition and heterogeneity in the classroom: Their measurement and relationship with student outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(8), 1188–1204. 10.1037/edu0000185. DOI: 10.1037/edu0000185
72. Rucinski, C. L., Brown, J. L., & Downer, J. T. (2017). Teacher–child relationships, classroom climate, and children’s social-emotional and academic development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(7), 992–1004. 10.1037/edu0000240. DOI: 10.1037/edu0000240
73. Seiz, J., Decristan, J., Kunter, M., & Baumert, J. (2016). Differenzielle Effekte von Klassenführung und Unterstützung für Schülerinnen und Schüler mit Migrationshinterund [The role of classroom management and learning support for students with immigrant backgrounds]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 30(4), 237–249. 10.1024/1010-0652/a000186. DOI: 10.1024/1010-0652/a000186
74. Simonsen, B., Fairbanks, S., Briesch, A., Myers, D., & Sugai, G. (2008). Evidence-based practices in classroom management: Considerations for research to practice. Education and Treatment of Children, 31(3), 351–380. DOI: 10.1353/etc.0.0007
75. Smit, J., van Eerde, H. A. A., & Bakker, A. (2013). A conceptualisation of whole-class scaffolding. British Educational Research Journal, 39(5), 817–834. 10.1002/berj.3007. DOI: 10.1002/berj.3007
76. Solzbacher, C. (2008). Was denken Lehrerinnen und Lehrer über individuelle Förderung? [What do teachers think about individualized teaching?]. Pädagogik, 60, 38-42.
77. Tanaka, J. S. (1993). Multifaceted conceptions of fit in structural equation models. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models (Vol. 154, pp. 10–39). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
78. Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., Niarhos, F. J., & Daugherty, T. (1993). What do students think when teachers make adaptations? Teaching and Teacher Education, 9(1), 107–118. 10.1016/0742-051X(93)90018-C. DOI: 10.1016/0742-051X(93)90018-C
79. Vogt, F., & Brühwiler, C. (2014). Adaptive Lehrkompetenz für den Umgang mit Heterogenität [Adaptive teaching competences for teaching in heterogenous classrooms.]. Lehren & Lernen, 8(9), 47–51.
80. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
81. Wang, M. C. (1980). Adaptive instruction: Building on diversity. Theory Into Practice, 19(2), 122–128. 10.1080/00405848009542885. DOI: 10.1080/00405848009542885
82. Wentzel, K. R., Muenks, K., McNeish, D., & Russell, S. (2018). Emotional support, social goals, and classroom behavior: A multilevel, multisite study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(5), 611–627. 10.1037/edu0000239. DOI: 10.1037/edu0000239
83. Yeh, S. S. (2010). Understanding and addressing the achievement gap through individualized instruction and formative assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 17(2), 169–182. 10.1080/09695941003694466. DOI: 10.1080/09695941003694466