Trends in Teacher Monitoring Methods across Curriculum and Didaktik Traditions: Evidence from three PISA waves
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7577/njcie.3530Keywords:
teacher monitoring methods; accountability; curriculum; didaktik; international comparative education; PISAAbstract
The main objectives of this study were to examine trends in teacher monitoring methods (TMMs) among a representative set of 12 curriculum and didaktik countries, using data from PISA 2009, 2012, and 2015, and the association of TMMs with students’ reading, mathematics, and science performance accordingly. Curriculum and didaktik education traditions frame the study theoretically, while quantitative research methods are used, consisting of a two-sample difference of proportion test and hierarchical linear modelling. The findings suggest that across the PISA waves, the control over teachers is growing across all countries and in all three subject domains and four TMMs. However, the proportion of students in schools where any of the TMMs are used is higher and more statistically significant for curriculum than for didaktik countries. Student tests, teacher peer review, and principal observation are much more common TMMs than external inspector observation across all countries. Nevertheless, the use of external inspector observation is very low in several didaktik countries, and in the case of Finland almost inexistent. Results for Sweden seem to be over-reported as in previous survey work it was found that teacher self-assessment is the most common TMM, however, teacher self-assessment is not a variable included in the PISA survey. The results from within-country hierarchical linear models (HLMs) of associations of TMMs with students’ reading (2009), mathematics (2012), and science (2015) performance in PISA show mixed, and at times relatively large, effects from country to country and across three PISA waves, and interestingly the associations had diminished by PISA 2015. Adding a more diverse set of questions to PISA contextual questionnaires is warranted for results to be more meaningful and representative across more countries.
Downloads
Metrics
References
Baker, D., & LeTendre, G. K. (2005). National differences, global similarities: World culture and the future of schooling. Stanford University Press.
Brandt, C., Mathers, C., Oliva, M., Brown-Sims, M., & Hess, J. (2007). Examining district guidance to schools on teacher evaluation policies in the Midwest Region (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2007–No. 030). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Midwest. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
Carnoy, M., & Loeb, S. (2002). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis. Educational evaluation and policy analysis, 24(4), 305-331.
Darling-Hammond, L., Amrein-Beardsley, A., Haertel, E., & Rothstein, J. (2012). Evaluating teacher evaluation. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(6), 8-15.
Deng, Z. & Luke, A. (2008). Subject Matter: Defining and Theorizing School Subjects. In F. Connelly, M. F. He, & J. Phillion (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Curriculum and Instruction. (pp. 66-87). Sage.
Drori G. S., Meyer, J.W., Ramirez, F.O., & Schofer, E. (2003). Science in the Modern World Polity. Institutionalization and Globalization. Stanford University Press.
Duschl, R., Maeng, S., & Sezen, A. (2011). Learning progressions and teaching sequences: A review and analysis. Studies in Science Education, 47(2), 123-182.
Eurydice. (2019). Welcome to Eurydice. https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice/home_en
Ford, T. G., & Hewitt, K. (2020). Better integrating summative and formative goals in the design of next generation teacher evaluation systems. Education policy analysis archives, 28(63), 1-34. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.28.5024
Girdler-Brown, B. V., & Dzikiti, L. N. (2018). Hypothesis tests for the difference between two population proportions using Stata. Southern African Journal of Public Health, 2(3), 63-68.
Gundem, B. B., & Hopmann, S. (1998). Didaktik and/or curriculum. Peter Lang.
Harris, D. N., Ingle, W. K., & Rutledge, S. A. (2014). How teacher evaluation methods matter for accountability: A comparative analysis of teacher effectiveness ratings by principals and teacher value-added measures. American Educational Research Journal, 51(1), 73-112.
Hopmann, S. (2007). Restrained Teaching: the common core of Didaktik. European Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 109–124.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 cultures. Sage.
Humboldt, V. W. (1793/2000). Theory of Bildung. In I. Westbury, S. Hopmann, & K. Riquarts (Eds.), Teaching as a reflective practice: The German Didaktik tradition (pp. 57–61). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Isoré, M. (2009). Teacher Evaluation: Current Practices in OECD Countries and a Literature Review, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 23, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/223283631428
Kansanen, P. (1995). The Deutsche Didaktik. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 27(4), 347-352.
Klette, K. (2007). Trends in Research on Teaching and Learning in Schools: didactics meets classroom studies. European Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 147–160.
Kliebard, H. M. (2004). The struggle for the American curriculum, 1893-1958. Routledge.
National Research Council (NRC). (2003). Understanding Others, Educating Ourselves:
Getting More from International Comparative Studies in Education. The National Academies Press.
OECD. (2017). PISA 2015 technical report. PISA/OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/2015-technical-report/PISA2015_TechRep_Final.pdf
OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 Results (Volume II): Policies and Practices for Successful Schools. PISA/OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264267510-en
OECD. (2014). PISA 2012 technical report. PISA/OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2002). PISA 2000 technical report. PISA/OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/33688233.pdf
Orphanos, S. (2014). What matters to principals when they evaluate teachers? Evidence from Cyprus. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 42(2), 243-258.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (Vol. 1). Sage.
Ridge, B. L., & Lavigne, A. L. (2020). Improving instructional practice through peer observation and feedback: A review of the literature. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 28(61).
Schiro, M. S. (2013). Curriculum theory: Conflicting visions and enduring concerns. Sage.
Schubert, W. H. (2008). Curriculum Inquiry. In Connelly, F. M., He, M. F., & Phillion, J. (Eds.). The Sage Handbook of Curriculum and Instruction. (pp. 399-419). Sage.
Sundberg, D., & Wahlström, N. (2012). Standards-based curricula in a denationalised conception of education: The case of Sweden. European Educational Research Journal, 11(3), 342-356.
Tahirsylaj, A. (2019). Teacher autonomy and responsibility variation and association with student performance in Didaktik and curriculum traditions, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 51(2), 162-184. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2018.1535667
Tahirsylaj, A., & Wahlström, N. (2019). Role of transnational and national education policies in realisation of critical thinking: the cases of Sweden and Kosovo. The Curriculum Journal, 30(4), 484-503. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2019.1615523
Tahirsylaj, A. (2017). Curriculum Field in the Making: Influences That Led to Social Efficiency as Dominant Curriculum Ideology in Progressive Era in the U.S. European Journal of Curriculum Studies, 4(1), 618-628.
Tahirsylaj, A., Brezicha, K., & Ikoma, S. (2015), Unpacking Teacher Differences in Didaktik and Curriculum Traditions: Trends from TIMSS 2003, 2007, and 2011. In G. K. LeTendre & A. W. Wiseman (Eds.), Promoting and Sustaining a Quality Teacher Workforce (International Perspectives on Education and Society, Volume 27) (pp. 145-195). Emerald Group Publishing.
Tahirsylaj, A., Niebert, K., & Duschl, R. (2015). Curriculum and didaktik in 21st century: Still divergent or converging? European Journal of Curriculum Studies, 2(2), 262-281.
Wahlström, N., & Sundberg, D. (2017). Municipalities as actors in educational reforms: the implementation of curriculum reform Lgr 11. Institute for Labor Market and Education Policy Evaluation, Uppsala, Sweden.
Wermke, W., & Prøitz, T. S. (2019). Discussing the curriculum-Didaktik dichotomy and comparative conceptualisations of the teaching profession. Education Inquiry, 10(4), 300-327. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2019.1618677
Westbury, I. (2000). Teaching as a Reflective Practice: What Might Didaktik Teach Curriculum? In I. Westbury, S. Hopmann & K. Riquarts (Eds.), Teaching as a reflective practice: The German Didaktik tradition (pp. 15-39). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Westbury, I., Hopmann, S. & Riquarts, K. (Eds.). (2000). Teaching as a reflective practice: The German Didaktik tradition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Zhang, L., Khan, G., & Tahirsylaj, A. (2015). Student Performance, School Differentiation, and World Cultures: Evidence from PISA 2009. International Journal of Educational Development, 42. 43-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2015.02.013
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Armend Tahirsylaj
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Declaration on copyright
- The author/s will keep their copyright and right of reproduction of their own manuscript, with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License, but give the journal a permanent right to 1) present the manuscript to the public in the original form in which it was digitally published and 2) to be registered and cited as the first publication of the manuscript.
- The author itself must manage its financial reproduction rights in relation to any third-parties.
- The journal does not provide any financial or other remuneration for contributions submitted.
- Readers of the journal may print the manuscripts presented under the same conditions that apply to reproduction of a physical copy. This means that mass reproduction of physical copies or production of copies for commercial purposes is not permitted without the agreement of the author/s.
