4 MODELS OF EDUCATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
4.2 Integrated Models of Educational Effectiveness
4.2.3 The dynamic model of educational effectiveness
Creemers’ approach is regarded as one of the most influencial theoretical constructs in the field (Teddlie & Reynolds, 2000). Its validity was examined by several authors (for example de Jong et al., 2004 or Kyriakides, 2006). De Jong et al. (2004), who conducted a study of mathematics in the first year of primary education in the Netherlands, found that the amount of time spent, the opportunity to learn, and the quality of instruction were strong predictors of achievement.
Analyses undertaken by Kyriakides (2006) using IEA TIMSS 1999 data resulted in a number of variables related to the three main factors of Creemers’ model, but he only could explain a small percentage of unexplained variance. However, up to present, educational studies testing Creemers’ model outside of the Western world are still rare; consequently, Kyriakides (2006, p. 528) noted the necessity of further analysis of data from international comparative studies, in order to investigate the validity and generalizability of Creemers’ model.
Stacey, 2007). An overview on the main characteristics of the dynamic model can be found in Figure 4-3.
When compared to the previously described models, an important distinction is that different dimensions are used for measuring how the identified effectiveness factors work. This implies that the factors should not only be examined by measuring their frequency, but also need to be investigated in terms of their quality or how they are functioning. Here, Creemers and Kyriaki-des (2008) saw factors as multi-dimensional constructs and measured them in five different dimensions: Frequency, Focus, Stage, Quality, and Differentiation, which are described in the subsequent paragraphs.
Frequency refers to the quantity of an activity associated with an effectiveness factor. However, in the dynamic model the association does not necessarily need to be a linear one. The frequency of “personal monitoring”, for example, might exhibit a curvilinear relation with outcomes (Creemers & Kyriakides, 2008, p. 84).
Focus relates to two different aspects: first, the specificity of the activity as such can be more general or more specific; second, the specificity and number of the purposes for each activity.
Creemers and Kyriakides stated, for example, that a policy on parental school involvement might be very specific (parents may visit schools only at specific hour), but at the same time it is multi-purpose (parents may visit schools to exchange information about children and to assist teachers inside and outside classroom). Curvilinear associations between specificity and num-ber of purposes may also be expected in such cases (Creemers & Kyriakides, 2008, p. 85).
Stage refers to the duration a factor remains active, and relates to the principle of constancy in Creemers’ model. While measuring the stage gives information about the continuity of a factor, it is worthwhile to consider that the activities associated with these factors might change in the process of self-evaluation processes and subsequent redefinition of the policies.
Quality denotes the construct validity (the properties of a construct), but also describes the ex-tent to which staff make use of the policies and documents available to ensure the quality of instruction.
Differentiation refers to the extent that activities associated with an effectiveness factor can be seen as generic for all student groups. Put differently, differentiation refers to the adaptive im-plementation needed for different student groups (such as SES, thinking styles, motivation, or prior knowledge).
However, while the model allows for a detailed description of the complex nature of educational effectiveness, measuring each factor in five different dimensions makes the model quite com-plex.
Figure 4-3: Main Characteristics of the Dynamic Model (from Creemers & Kyriakides, 2008, p. 150)
4.2.3.1 Context factors of the dynamic model
Creemers and Kyriakides’ (2008) dynamic model doesn’t focus on a specific structure of an educational system, but rather focuses on policies affecting learning inside and outside the classroom and on their regular evaluation. In particular, context and school level policies that are related to teaching practices and to the school learning environment are regarded as essential in affecting teaching practice in classrooms and, in turn, student learning outcomes.
Context level
School level
Classroom level
GenderSES Ethnicity Personality
traits
National/regional policy for education Evaluation of policy The educational environment
School policy Evaluation of school policy
Quality of teaching - Orientation - Structuring
- Modeling - Application - Questioning - Assessment - Management of time
- Classroom as a learning environment Aptitude
Perseverance Time on task
Opportunity to learn
Expectations Thinking style
Subject motivation
Outcomes - Cognitive - Affective - Psychomotor - New learning
sssFrequency/
Focus/Stage/
Quality/
Differen-tiation
Similarly to Creemers’ model, also the dynamic model focuses on relevant factors in teaching and learning in regard to the dimensions of quantity (time), quality, and provision of learning opportunities. Secondly, the evaluation mechanisms of the national educational policies are assumed to contribute to the improvement of educational effectiveness on a system level.
4.2.3.2 School factors of the dynamic model
While school factors are assumed to influence student outcomes partly directly, they are ex-pected to influence them mainly indirectly – via influence on the classroom level and especially on teaching practices. Elements that provide the conditions for the same essential concepts of quantity and quality of teaching, and the provision of learning opportunities that were used to define class-level factors, are especially emphasized. The model therefore highlights two as-pects that are assumed to affect learning and teaching and, consequently, the student outcomes:
school policies regarding teaching, and school policies regarding the creation of an effective school learning environment. Policies here do not only comprise formal documents and guide-lines, but “mainly refer to the actions taken by the school to help teachers and other stakeholders have a clear understanding of what they are expected to do” (Creemers & Kyriakides, 2008, p. 118).
Altogether, on school level Creemers and Kyriakides regarded the subsequent four important factors in the model:
• School policy for teaching and actions taken for improving teaching practice;
• School policy for creating an SLE and actions taken for improving the SLE;
• Evaluation of school policy for teaching and of actions taken to improve teaching, and
• Evaluation of the SLE
4.2.3.3 Class factors of the dynamic model
Similar to Creemers’ integrated model, the dynamic model also focuses on the classroom envi-ronment, referring to factors that are related to teacher instruction and associated with student outcomes. Only observable factors (teacher behaviors) are regarded in their model meaning that explanatory factors such as teacher beliefs and knowledge are not taken into account.
The model distinguishes between eight main instructional factors: orientation, structuring, questioning, teaching/modeling, application, the teacher’s role in making the classroom a learning environment, time management, and classroom assessment which are described in more detail in Table 4-2.
Table 4-2: Main elements of the dynamic model on the teaching level (summary taken from (Chapman et al., 2015, p. 116)
In contrast to earlier effectiveness models, teaching in this instance does not focus only on the acquisition of basic skills through approaches such as direct teaching, but rather follows a more integrative approach which also covers new goals of education associated with theories of teaching in line with constructivism (see also section 3.3.5.1), as research indicates that both strategies might be equally effective (Louis et al., 2010). Louis et al. therefore suggested to
Main elements
- Providing the objective of a specific task/lesson/series of lessons
- Challenging students to identify the reason why an activity is taking place in the lesson
- Begining with overview and/or review of objectives
- Outlining the content to be covered and signalling transitions between lesson parts
-Drawing attention to and reviewing main ideas
- Raising different types of questions (i.e. process and products) at approriate difficulty level
- Giving time for student to respond - Dealing with student responses
- Encouraging students to use problem-solving strategies presented by the teacher or other classmates
- Inviting students to develop strategies - Promoting the idea of modelling
- Using seat work or small group tasks in order to provide needed practice and application opportunities
- Using application tasks as starting points for the next step in teaching and learning
- Organizing the classroom environment - Maximizing engagement rates
- Establishing on-task behavior through the interactions promoted (i.e.
teacher-student and student-student interactions)
- Dealing with classroom disorder and student competition by establishing rules, persuading students to respect them, and using the rules
- Using apppropriate techniques to collect data on student knowledge and skills
- Analyzing data in order to identify student needs, and reporting the results to students and parents
- Evaluating own practice Time management
Making the classroom a learning
environment
Classroom assessment
Factors Orientation
Structuring
Questioning
Teaching/modelling
Application
combine both approaches into an overarching construct, which they called “focused instruction”
(Louis et al., 2010, p. 39).
4.2.3.4 Student factors of the dynamic model
Firstly, the dynamic model includes all the student level factors of Creemers’ model (i.e., apti-tude, socio-economic background, motivations, time on tasks, and opportunities used). Addi-tionally, the dynamic model includes personal characteristics of students that were found to be associated with learning gains. In general, the dynamic model distinguishes between two main categories of factors: 1. socio-cultural and economic background variables emerging from a sociological perspective, and 2. background variables emerging from a psychological perspec-tive. Figure 4-4 shows the student-level factors of the dynamic model and their assumed inter-relations.
Figure 4-4: Factors of the dynamic model operating at student level and their assumed interre-lation (from Creemers & Kyriakides, 2008, p. 94).
The socio-cultural and economical background variables contain SES, ethnic background, and gender. From the psychological perspective, the model adds aptitude, motivation, and expecta-tions. Concerning motivation, the main focus is put on its conception as perseverance and sub-ject-related motivation (de Jong et al., 2004; Kyriakides, 2005).
Quality of teaching
- Aptitude - Perseverance
- Variables related to specific
learning tasks:
* Time on task
* Opportunity to learn - Factors that are unlikely to
change
* SES
* Gender
* Ethnicity
* Personality traits
- Fators that change over time
* Expectations
* Thinking style
* Subject motivation
Achievement STUDENT-LEVEL FACTORS
A new asset of the model is the addition of students’ personal characteristics, such as person-ality traits and thinking style. They are seen as important variables that teachers need to take into account in order to be able to differentiate the teaching practice accordingly, and thus to respond to the different needs of the students to improve effectiveness. Creemers and Kyriaki-des (2008) perceived some of the student-level factors as being more stable, while others, such as motivation, are more susceptible to interventions, and consequently might show reciprocal effects with students’ achievement gains.
The empirical validity of the dynamic model was tested in several studies. Creemers and Kyri-akides (2010), for example, showed that school factors can be classified according to the five dimensions of the dynamic model and that most of the factors are associated with different learning outcomes. Several studies and meta-analyses gave empirical evidence for the associa-tion of the teacher factors identified in the model with student outcomes (Blömeke et al., 2016;
Kyriakides & Creemers, 2009; Scheerens, Luyten, Steen, & Luyten-de Thouars, 2007).
Based on a larger review of school effectiveness research, Scheerens (2013) studied the extent to which school effectiveness research studies were based on theoretical constructs. He found that out of 109 studies, only 11 made reference to “specific broader conceptual principles”
(Scheerens, 2013, p. 1) and that out of those, 5 were based on Creemers’ comprehensive model and the dynamic model, while the rest referred to different established theories.