Search

Feedback is considered of great relevance for supporting student learning. It is therefore the focus of a significant body of theoretical work and is included in many observation frameworks for measuring teaching quality. However, little is currently known about the extent to which the theoretical and empirical knowledge of feedback from the literature is represented in operationalizations of feedback in observation frameworks. In this exploratory study, we first reviewed the literature and identified nine quality criteria for effective feedback. Using content analysis, we then explored the extent to which 12 widely used observation frameworks for teaching quality reflect these criteria and the similarities and differences in their approaches to capturing feedback quality. Only ten of the 12 frameworks measured feedback. Nine frameworks addressed feedback directly, while one framework only captured feedback indirectly. All frameworks differed in the number of feedback quality criteria they captured, the aspects they focused on for each one, and the detail in which they described them. One criterion (Feed Up) was not captured by any framework. The results show that more clarity is needed about which facets of feedback are integrated into frameworks and why. The study also highlights the importance of finding ways to complement observation frameworks with other measures so that feedback quality is captured in a more comprehensive fashion.

Teaching effectiveness has often been described from a variable-centered perspective according to instructional, organizational, and emotional teaching characteristics and their prediction of students' outcomes. Adopting a person-centered approach, the present study analyzed how multiple variables of teaching quality co-occur simultaneously within teachers and how these teaching profiles are related to students' development in achievement and enjoyment. Data from 3483 secondary students and their 155 mathematics teachers were analyzed at two measurement points. A latent profile analysis identified high-, medium-, and low-quality teaching profiles. Multilevel analyses revealed that the high-quality profile--as compared to the medium-quality profile--was positively related to achievement gains, whereas no significant difference was found for students' development in enjoyment. The findings reveal quantitative instead of qualitative teaching profiles and challenge the implicit assumption the higher the better. In particular, effective teachers may not need to display the highest levels in all teaching aspects. Instead, different thresholds for teaching effectiveness may apply for students' achievement gains and emotional development, respectively.

Valid cross-country comparisons of student learning and pivotal factors contributing to it, such as teaching quality, offer the possibility to learn from outstandingly effective educational systems across the world and to improve learning in classrooms by providing policy relevant information. Yet, it often remains unclear whether the instruments used in international large-scale assessments work similarly across different cultural and linguistic groups, and thus can be used for comparing them. Using PISA 2012 data, we investigated data comparability of three teaching quality dimensions, namely student support, classroom management, and cognitive activation using a newly developed psychometric approach, namely alignment. Focusing on 15 countries, grouped into five linguistic clusters, we secondly assessed the impact of linguistic similarity on data comparability. Main findings include that (1) comparability of teaching quality measures is limited when comparing linguistically diverse countries; (2) the level of comparability varies across dimensions; (3) linguistic similarity considerably enhances the degree of comparability, except across the Chinese-speaking countries. Our study illustrates new and more flexible possibilities to test for data comparability and outlines the importance to consider cultural and linguistic differences when comparing teaching-related measures across groups. We discuss possible sources of lacking data comparability and implications for comparative educational research.

In this paper, we argue that classroom management, student support, and cognitive activation are generic aspects of classroom teaching, forming Three Basic Dimensions of teaching quality. The conceptual framework was developed in research on mathematics instruction but it is supposed to generalize across subjects. It is based on general theories of schooling and teaching as well as established theories and research traditions from educational psychology. Although used frequently in German-speaking countries, no comprehensive overview of the theoretical foundation as well as the existing evidence regarding the framework, including its strengths and weaknesses, exists so far. The present paper therefore presents first an overview of the theoretical rationale of the framework. Second, it gives an overview of differences and commonalities in the operationalizations of the Three Basic Dimensions in different studies, including a comprehensive set of sub-dimensions. Third, evidence on the reliability and validity of the dimensions is reviewed, with good results for reliability and mixed results for predictive validity. Fourth, an analysis of three mathematics lessons using observer ratings illustrates how the framework of the Three Basic Dimensions can be used for investigating instructional quality. Finally, strengths and limitations of the framework for capturing instructional quality are discussed and we elaborate on the framework's potential for further development.

Observation-based frameworks of instructional quality differ largely in the approach and the purposes of their development, their theoretical underpinnings, the instructional aspects covered, their operationalization and measurement, as well as the existing evidence on reliability and validity. The current paper summarizes and reflects on these differences by considering the 12 frameworks included in this special issue. By comparing the analysis of three focal mathematics lessons through the lens of each framework as presented in the preceding papers, this paper also examines the similarities, differences, and potential complementarities of these frameworks to describe and evaluate mathematics instruction. To do so, a common structure for comparing all frameworks is suggested and applied to the analyses of the three selected lessons. The paper concludes that although significant work has been pursued over the past years in exploring instructional quality through classroom observation frameworks, the field would benefit from establishing agreed-upon standards for understanding and studying instructional quality, as well as from more collaborative work.

Researchers from different fields have developed different observational instruments to capture instructional quality with a focus on generic versus content-specific dimensions or a combination of both. As this work is fast accumulating, the need to explore synergies and complementarities among existing work on instruction and its quality becomes imperative, given the complexity of instruction and the increasing realization that different frameworks illuminate certain instructional aspects but leave others less visible. This special issue makes a step toward exploring such synergies and complementarities, drawing on the analysis of the same 3 elementary-school lessons by 11 groups using 12 different frameworks. The purpose of the current paper is to provide an up-to-date overview of prior attempts made to work at the intersection of different observational frameworks. The paper also serves as the reference point for the other papers included in the special issue, by defining the goals and research questions driving the explorations presented in each paper, outlining the criteria for selecting the frameworks included in the special issue, describing the sampling approaches for the selected lessons, presenting the content of these lessons, and providing an overview of the structure of each paper.