Introduction

attention to different students based not only on their motives and beliefs, but also social ex-pectations and curriculum guidelines. Consequently, teachers will have to find a balance be-tween the quality and the equity dimension when allocating their time. Heckhausen (1981) dis-tinguished different kind of allocation strategies: the need principle [Bedürftigkeitsprinzip]

where the focus of time allocation is on students showing a certain deficit with regard to an educational objective, the justness principle [Prinzip der Billigkeit] where the support is related to the achievement level of a student, and the equality principle [Gleichheitsprinzip] with equal allocation of time and attention to each student. Ultimately, the relation between these princi-ples specifies the quality criterion applied.

In the early period of school effectiveness research, the equity dimension dominated in part, and strong movements tried to investigate inequalities among different student groups (see Jencks, 1972 and Edmonds, 1979) and launch school improvement projects especially for low-SES students (‘the urban poor’). Unfortunately, results in this regard proved to be rather modest.

Teddlie and Reynolds (2000) summarized research giving evidence for the existence of differ-ential effects for schooling in terms of prior attainment, socio-economic indictors, gender, and ethnicity (known as differential effectiveness research); it seemed, however, that research re-sults were rather inconclusive and especially did not clearly indicate that more effective schools – as defined in the classical sense – would contribute to a closing of the achievement gap.

Summarizing the knowledge base, Kyriakides (2004) concluded that effective schools are able to promote learning of their students but may not have a special impact on disadvantaged stu-dents. On the other hand, there are certain rather consistent findings that “Children from disad-vantaged backgrounds are likely to be more affected by their schools than other groups across all schools” (Chapman et al., 2015, p. 96). It should be noted, however, that there is still not sufficient understanding regarding which effectiveness factors may be responsible for these differential school effects.

Summarizing the above-mentioned findings, it can be concluded that dimensions of both quality and equity should be regarded for further projects in EER.

3.3 General Effectiveness Factors

understand and finally overcome weaknesses in educational systems. It is therefore not surpris-ing that a rich body of research concernsurpris-ing this area has been accumulated over time. One of the first to explicitly list a set of effectiveness-enhancing factors (the so-called five-factor model or five correlates of school effectiveness) was Edmonds (1979). Teddlie and Reynolds (2000) later expanded the list of basic effectiveness-enhancing factors based on an evaluation of com-prehensive reviews of several hundreds of school effectiveness studies collected by Levine and Lezotte (1990) and by Sammons, Hillman, and Mortimore (1995). They identified the following nine global effectiveness-enhancing factors, which are also well summarized by Reynolds, Sammons, Fraine, Townsend, and van Damme (2011, pp. 17–18):

1. An effective educational leadership

2. A focus on academic outcomes and on maximized learning time

3. A positive school culture that involves a shared vision, an orderly climate, and a posi-tive reinforcement

4. High expectations of students and staff

5. Monitoring progress at school, classroom and student level 6. Parental Involvement

7. Generating effective teaching through maximizing the learning time, grouping strate-gies, benchmarking against best practice, and adapting the practice to student needs 8. Professional development of staff

9. Involving students in the educational process

Although slightly different terms are sometimes used, other authors reviewing educational ef-fectiveness factors (such as Marzano, 2003; Marzano & Kendall, 2006; Scheerens, 1992) report similar factors. Some authors add a few factors they regard over and above the before mentioned ones as essential. Scheerens (1992) for example, added external stimuli to make schools effec-tive, physical and material school characteristics, teacher experience, and school context char-acteristics, while Cotton (1995) additionally regards District-school interactions, special pro-grams, and Equity as important factors.

Many of those global factors also could be identified in the school effectiveness analysis con-ducted by Martin and Mullis (2013), which was based on 34 countries and three benchmarking participants administering PIRLS and TIMSS to the same fourth grade students. They con-cluded from their analysis that “…an effective school was safe and orderly, supported academic

success, had adequate facilities and equipment, was staffed with well-prepared teachers, had well-resourced classrooms, and provided effective instruction” (Martin & Mullis, 2013, p. 7).

Albeit not all of the factors listed by Teddlie and Reynolds (2000) could be supported, these findings, from an international large-scale assessment administered in a large variety of differ-ent countries, in general provide support for earlier analyses with regard to effectiveness-en-hancing factors functioning on a global level.

However, during the last decades, increasing interest has been devoted to investigating how different effectiveness-enhancing factors work depending on the context of the school under consideration, leading to the so-called context-specific models of educational effectiveness (Reynolds et al., 2011). Several authors examined the processes of effective schooling in schools with different average levels of socioeconomic status (SES; Hallinger & Murphy, 1986;

Rowan & Denk, 1984; Wimpelberg, Teddlie, & Stringfield, 1989). These authors, among oth-ers, found that the level of SES does indeed influence the processes in schools. For example, it seems that parents from low-SES communities often prefer an emphasis on social and voca-tional education, while parents from high-SES areas put a higher emphasis on academic goals.

In addition, low-SES schools in general experienced less parental involvement. This situation, in turn, was hypothesized to influence the activities and curricula offered to students. High-SES schools were often found to be more academically oriented, with curricula more specifically designed to promote cognitive learning. Teachers of higher SES schools were found to have higher expectations of students’ academic success. Hallinger and Murphy (1986, p. 349) argue that “The combination of infrequent home-school contact and low academic expectations make the typical low-income school a less effective environment for learning cognitive skills.” Their research reveals that instructionally effective schools are influenced by their environment, and adapt their strategies and processes accordingly. Effective low-SES schools isolated themselves from their environmental norms, and focused on the mastery of basic reading and mathematics skills. They developed a system of rewards intended to build up the academic self-esteem of their students. Principals exerted a strong administrative leadership, setting high standards for students and teachers. In contrast, effective high-SES schools were in general associated with a more open environment of high expectations. A high visibility of parents applying pressure for children to succeed changed the role of the principal to rather one of mediating the demands and expectations of the community (Hallinger & Murphy, 1986, p. 350).

Another important aspect that influences school effectiveness-enhancing factors is the national and cultural context. International large-scale assessments such as TIMSS, PIRLS, PISA, or the international school effectiveness study ISERP allow for the investigation of the international

dimension of educational effectiveness (see also section 3.1.2). Interestingly, findings suggest that some factors “travel” across countries, depending on the cultural context, while others don’t. Reynolds (2006) for example, summarizing major findings from the ISERP study, found that many general effectiveness factors regarding classroom management, instruction, and cli-mate did explain variation in student achievement in diverse countries. In particular, Reynolds found that specific teacher behaviors – such as clarity, questioning, high expectations, a com-mitment to academic achievement, and lesson structuring – could partially explain differences between more and less effective schools across the world. On the other hand, it seemed that certain school factors, such as the quality of the principal, while being an important factor in all countries under investigation, travelled conceptually – meaning that the leadership style mattered by context. For example, Reynolds reported that leadership is more directive in Asian cultures, while it is more lateral/ vertical in the Western societies.

The subsequent sections describe major factors that were identified as being associated with student achievement and indicate empirical evidence from previous studies, reviews, and meta-analyses. While some of the factors are operating from outside (extrinsic), and thus are suscep-tible to policy interventions, others are inherent in nature (intrinsic) and thus cannot be easily altered. While EER is often more interested in malleable factors on school and classroom levels, both groups of factors are interlinked and both are important in predicting achievement. All will be discussed in the following sections. Two factors (time on task and opportunity to learn) that are for several effectiveness frameworks considered as essential elements on each educational level (eg., Creemers, 1994; Creemers & Kyriakides, 2008; Scheerens, 1992) are discussed across all levels at the beginning of sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.3. Subsequently, intrinsic student-level factors will be discussed in section 3.3.4, followed by class-student-level factors in section 3.3.5 and school-level factors in section 3.3.6. The chapter will be concluded by a short overview on context-level conditions for effective schooling in section 3.3.7. All of the factors reviewed in the sections below constitute the basis for the conceptual framework of this research project that will be developed in chapter 6.