Multilevel Supply-Use Model

In recent decades, a great deal of attention in educational research has been focused on identifying learning processes by developing a better understanding of how individuals learn in school settings. Different models have been developed and are available to explain student learning in specific educational contexts. In the early 1980s, researchers started using the process-product model to discover the relationships between what teachers do and what students learn in the classroom (Brophy & Good, 1984). This model provided a causal one-direction model to explain the effects of teaching on student achievements. However, the early studies based on the simple direct model underestimated the impact that other classroom

practices had on student learning. The focus of many of these studies (e.g., on teachers' behaviors in class, on student achievement) could not explain the black box that contained students' learning processes. By conducting a meta-review, Wang et al. (1990) synthesized six categories of variables related to school learning, such as student characteristics, classroom instruction, and school-level variables. Therefore, to have a systematic understanding of student learning, it is necessary to develop a more comprehensive and fundamental model to explain the complicated interplay in classrooms.

To provide a vivid explanation, Fend (1982, 2019) used a metaphor (i.e., supply and use) to point out the relationship between teaching and learning in schools. He assumed that student learning is a process of using opportunities that are offered by teaching and instruction.

Based on this assumption, he introduced the supply-use model (Angebots-Nutzungs-Modell).

Subsequently developed by many other scholars, this has become an influential framework widely used to explain teaching and learning, especially in German-speaking countries (Brühwiler & Blatchford, 2011; Helmke, 2007; Seidel et al., 2016). Building on this model, some researchers have integrated educational sciences with psychology research perspectives (Kunter & Ewald, 2016). Some other researchers have adapted this framework and have narrowed it down to particular constructs and concrete contexts, such as instructional quality in higher education (Seidel, 2014b) and class size effects in primary schools (Brühwiler &

Blatchford, 2011).

With a progressive evolution, this model has gone through several revisions in both name and structure. During the evolution, the name of the supply-use model has also been translated differently, such as the offer-and-use model (Kohler & Wacker, 2013), the opportunity-to-learn model (Seidel & Reiss, 2014), and the offer-take-up model (Göbel &

Helmke, 2010). These different terms have usually been interchangeable in previous literature.

In addition to variation in terminology, the model has been adapted to explain different macro- and micro-level factors that affect student learning across various educational contexts.

Eventually, the recent version came to cover the majority of components that are associated with school learning. The factors have been systematically categorized into three levels: (a) supply level, (b) use level, and (c) learning outcomes level. In the meantime, the structure of the model is framed in terms of personal, class, and environmental factors that explain the interaction happened while student learn. Figure 2.1 provides a visual representation of the reciprocal relationships between different variables or constructs. The effect of these factors can go either from top to bottom or from bottom to top. The three levels constitute a complex framework that can be used to explain student learning comprehensively.

Figure 2.1

Multilevel Supply-Use Model of Student Learning in School

Note. Adapted by permission and copyright received. From “Effects of class size and adaptive teaching competency on classroom processes and academic outcome,” by Brühwiler, C, and Blatchford, P, 2011, Learning and Instruction, 21, p. 95-108. The italic variables in the greyed blocks are the key components investigated in the present dissertation. The fundamental relationships are indicated with bold arrows.

Specifically speaking, the supply level of the model comprises a variety of teaching-related factors that affect student learning at either the macro-level (e.g., education system) or the micro-level (e.g., school and classroom context). According to Seidel and Shavelson (2007), teaching is considered as a learning opportunity involving complex situations that may provide various learning time, materials, or specific activities to students for learning. The micro-level concentrates on the optimal use of opportunities offered by schools and teachers. The opportunity refers to students’ chances to improve their learning competencies and engage in the amount of time allocated for learning (Greeno & Gresalfi, 2008). Besides, the opportunities may vary because of different teaching methods, strategies, and technologies used to address student learning needs (Corno, 2008). Substantial studies claimed that quality teaching in schools matters for student learning, and it ensures students with diverse learning prerequisites

can benefit from formal education (Fauth et al., 2014). In particular, the instructional design and classroom processes should accommodate students’ learning and motivational needs (Heller, 1999). At this supply level, the model reveals that to deliver learning opportunities to students successfully is challenging because it relies on a complex interplay among factors such as the sensitivity to student heterogeneity, appropriate didactic methods, quality of instruction, and teaching-learning materials. In this sense, teaching and instruction do not automatically lead to positive effects on student learning processes. It largely depends on students’ background, their learning prerequisites, and their perception of instruction. In a similar vein, learning relies on meaningful interaction of the individual students (i.e., use) with teachers and instruction (i.e., supply).

The use level of the framework outlines the crucial factors that associate with the effective use of the opportunity to learn. In particular, understanding the effects of the individual characteristics on student learning is a persistent concern of this model. These student characteristics are expected to impact that person’s perception toward the teachers and instruction. In return, teaching and instruction contribute to student learning by providing learning time, materials, or activities (Helmke & Schrader, 2013; Kunter & Trautwein, 2013).

Building upon this reciprocal relationship, the connection between the supply and use level is firmly established. Rather than directly influencing student learning, the learning opportunity is mediated by the individual perception and their interpretation of the teaching. In this vein, for teachers, the challenge arises to provide learning opportunities that elicit active and meaningful learning processes for all students. In response to this, the use level of the current model emphasizes the role of student characteristics, perceptions, and learning behaviors.

These student factors are treated as the prerequisites or preconditions of further learning (Bransford et al., 2000). The student's different learning potentials and prerequisites affect the utilization of the learning opportunities offered during the instruction. Additionally, the supply-use model stresses that the teaching process also does not fully account for student learning.

During an instruction, learners' perception and interpretation of the lesson mediate the relationship between the teaching process and the learning process. Specifically speaking, the learning process reflects how students perceive the learning opportunities given by their teachers in the instructions.

Finally, the outcomes level is at the output end of the learning process. There seems to be general agreement in academic settings that the learning outcomes multidimensional and can be classified into cognitive, non-cognitive, and meta-cognitive outcomes (Brühwiler &

Blatchford, 2011; Kraiger et al., 1993). The empirical study in educational science frequently

focuses on evaluating effective learning by assessing their outcomes (Gagne, 1984). Especially the cognitive learning outcomes, such as students' academic performance and cognitive abilities, have attracted close attention from researchers. In classroom practices, there is no doubt that cognitive learning outcomes (e.g., verbal knowledge, cognitive strategies) are the critical indicators of the effectiveness of teaching and learning processes (Ackerman, 1986, 1987). Individual development in cognitive abilities is necessary, but not the only goal for student learning. Thus, this dissertation primarily focuses more on learning processes and the critical factors involved in the processes.

As described earlier, this model provides a comprehensive explanation of the complicated reciprocal relationships relevant to student learning. Nevertheless, as a dynamic process, changes happen in student learning during the interaction with new techniques or teaching approaches. When more advanced educational technologies are introduced to schools, learning with technology has become a remarkable feature of modern education. It is essential to effectively integrate technology and how technology is associated with the learning opportunity in this situation. However, in addressing the critical issues of technology-related teaching and learning, the supply-use model may not provide a thorough explanation. More importantly, a comprehensive understanding of how to effectively implement technology as a part of instruction and its effect on students’ opportunity to learn is still lacking. Therefore, the current chapter begins with the multi-level structure of the supply-use framework. Using it as a theoretical foundation, more critical issues of student learning in the 21^st-century classrooms would be addressed and explained.