WIM VAN DE GRIFT MICHELLE HELMS-LORENZ University of Groningen The Netherlands

WIM VAN DE GRIFT MICHELLE HELMS-LORENZUniversity of GroningenThe Netherlands

CLASSROOM PRACTICE IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS

1. Theory and prior empirical research2. Research questions3. Sample 4. Method5. Psychometric quality6. Results7. Conclusions

AGENDA

Linear models: Fuller (1969, 1970); Dreyfus & Dreyfus (1986); Berliner (1994, 2001); Steffy & Wolfe (2001)

Parabolic models: Burke, Christensen, Fessler & Price (1987); Lynn (2002); Day (2008); Gonçalves (2009)

THEORIES OF PROFESSIONEL DEVELOPMENT

PRIOR EMPIRICAL STUDIESHargreaves (2005); Holloway (2003); Huberman (1989); Rosenholtz & Simpson (1990); Van de Grift, Van der Wal & Torenbeek (2011) found indications that teachers with 20-30 years of teaching experience with lower teaching abilities than teachers with less and with more teaching experience

Lineair or parabolic development?• Do teachers have higher teaching qualities

with more years of experience or,• do they show a dip in teaching abilities

between 20-30 years of experience?

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

• Cross sectional research on 1604 teachers in 138 secondary schools

• 950 teachers licenced for lower secondary education

• 169 teachers licenced for upper secondary education

SAMPLE

• Independent classroom observations done by specially trained teachers using the ICALT observation instrument

• Scheffé test on 8 groups of teacher with different job experience

METHOD

RELIABILITY

Creating a safe and stimulating learning climate

4 3.3 .54 .84 .62 **

Efficient lesorganization 4 3.2 .55 .80 .65 **Clear and structured instruction 7 3.1 .51 .85 .67 **Activating lessons 7 2.8 .56 .84 .61 **Teaching learning strategies 6 2.5 .65 .87 .47 **Taking individual needs into account in instructions

4 2.3 .64 .81 .45 **

Student involvement 3 3.0 .65 .86    

# items M sd

Cron-bach’alpha

R with student involvement

PSYCHOMETRIC QUALITY

MEAN SCORES

1

2

3

4

N=1604 3,32 3,18 3,1 2,82 2,49 2,28 2,95

climate organiz-ation instruction activate

studentslearning

strategiesdifferen-

tiationstudent involv.

insufficient

sufficient

good

GENDER

1

2

3

4

male 3,27 3,12 3,02 2,76 2,47 2,22 2,91female 3,38 3,24 3,14 2,87 2,49 2,38 3significant ** ** ** ** ** *

climate organi instruct acivation l strat diff s involve

good

sufficient

insufficient

TEACHING LICENCE

1

2

3

4

tech (950) 3,28 3,17 3,07 2,79 2,45 2,27 2,91uni (169) 3,36 3,16 3,1 2,85 2,61 2,23 2,92significant **

climate org instr activation l strat diff s involve

good

sufficient

insufficient

TEACHING SUBJECT

1

2

3

4

dutch (450) 3,37 3,28 3,14 2,87 2,57 2,39 2,98eng (48) 3,4 2,97 3,15 2,73 2,32 2,13 2,9f g s (46) 3,18 3,01 2,86 2,57 2,24 2,09 2,86math (69) 3,36 3,21 3,15 2,89 2,7 2,36 3,05science (39) 3,16 2,98 3,06 2,76 2,51 2,14 2,77geog (79) 3,41 3,33 3,16 2,96 2,56 2,32 3,14hist (134) 3,22 3,11 3,03 2,76 2,45 2,07 2,9bio (70) 3,2 3,1 3 2,8 2,28 2,19 2,86soc (101) 3,28 3,2 3,06 2,78 2,38 2,13 2,85eco (38) 3,3 3,24 3,15 2,73 2,61 2,37 2,96proj (45) 3,06 3,11 2,96 2,61 2,49 2,23 2,77

clim org instr act l strat diff s involve

good

sufficient

insufficient

SECONDARY SCHOOL LEVEL

1

2

3

4

bb/lwoo (109) 3,42 3,33 3,29 2,85 2,48 2,47 2,98kaderb (201) 3,2 3,2 3,08 2,74 2,34 2,11 2,92theor lw (159) 3,3 3,2 3,1 2,81 2,52 2,4 2,91havo (535) 3,25 3,07 3 2,72 2,42 2,1 2,87vwo (208) 3,38 3,18 3,11 2,9 2,6 2,33 3significant bb/lwoo vwo bb/lwoo bb/lwoo vwo vwo bb/lwoo tl vwo5% niveau vs kb vs havo vs kb vwo vs havo vskb havo vs kb havo

climate org instr acti l strat diff s involve

good

sufficient

insufficient

CLASSES (STUDENT AGE)

1

2

3

4

1 (485) 3,31 3,25 3,13 2,81 2,48 2,34 2,962 (123) 3,17 3,09 3,08 2,72 2,27 2,17 2,883 (206) 3,27 3,08 2,98 2,78 2,47 2,19 2,874 (221) 3,32 3,12 3,03 2,77 2,54 2,17 2,855 6 (39) 3,51 3,31 3,24 3,16 2,95 2,54 3,24significant 56 vs 2 56 vs 2 56 vs 1234 56 vs 1234 56 vs 4

climate org instr act l strat diff s involve

good

suffcient

insufficient

CLASSROOM SIZE

1

2

3

4

<15 (118) 3,34 3,2 3,09 2,86 2,41 2,39 3,0515 20 (232) 3,35 3,32 3,21 2,85 2,57 2,43 2,9220 25 (341) 3,28 3,13 3,03 2,78 2,42 2,2 2,9125 30 (329) 3,35 3,16 3,05 2,79 2,46 2,22 2,95>30 (48) 3,22 3,13 3,01 2,64 2,45 2,34 2,96significant 15 20 vs 20 25 15 20 vs 20 25 15 20 vs 20 255% level and 25 30 and 25 30 and 25 30

climate org instr act l strat diff s involve

good

sufficient

insufficient

TEACHING EXPERIENCE

1

2

3

4

climate 3,17 3,15 3,35 3,32 3,56 3,26 3,26 3,37org 2,83 3,05 3,2 3,18 3,51 3,12 3,2 3,31instr 3 2,94 3,21 3,06 3,38 2,97 3,04 3,13act 2,59 2,65 2,9 2,83 3,09 2,73 2,68 2,91l strat 2,02 2,38 2,55 2,52 2,73 2,54 2,53 2,65diff 1,9 2,09 2,29 2,25 2,51 2,19 2,22 2,46s involv 2,76 2,81 3,02 2,93 3,37 2,73 2,85 3,03

< 1 1 5 5 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 > 30

sufficient

insufficient

good

RELIABILITY

Creating a safe and stimul. learn. climate 22.0Efficient lesorganization 14.3Clear and structured instruction 12.6Activating lessons 13.2Teaching learning strategies 21.2Taking individual needs into account 15.8Average 16.5

% teachers with 20-30 years experience still scoring on the high side

1. 80-85% of the teachers with 20-30 years of experience seem to have a serious dip in their teaching abilities

2. Further, longitudinal research is needed to find an explanation (mid life crisis?; bad teacher training procedures 25 years ago?)

MAIN CONCLUSIONS