Download

Full Text

• Ainley J. Carstens R. (2018). Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2018 Conceptual Framework, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 187, OECD Publishing, Paris. doi: 10.1787/799337c2-en
• Anderson J. C. Gerbing D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 103, 411–423. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
• Asparouhov T. (2005). Sampling weights in latent variable modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 12(3), 411–434. doi: 10.1207/s15328007sem1203_4
• Asparouhov T. Muthén B. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Struct. Equ. Model. 16, 397–438. doi: 10.1080/10705510903008204
• Asparouhov T. Muthen B. Morin A. J. S. (2015). Bayesian structural equation modeling with cross-loadings and residual covariances. J. Manag. 41, 1561–1577. doi: 10.1177/0149206315591075
• Azigwe J. B. Kyriakides L. Panayiotou A. Creemers B. P. M. (2016). The impact of effective teaching characteristics in promoting student achievement in Ghana. Int. J. Educ. Dev. 51, 51–61. doi: 10.1016/j.ijedudev.2016.07.004
• Bonifay W. Lane S. P. Reise S. P. (2017). Three concerns with applying a bifactor model as a structure of psychopathology. Clin. Psychol. Sci. 5, 184–186. doi: 10.1177/2167702616657069
• Brown C. Malin J. (2022). The emerald handbook of evidence-informed practice in education. Emerald Publishing Limited.
• Charalambous C. Y. Litke E. (2018). Studying instructional quality by using a content-specific lens: the case of the mathematical quality of instruction framework. ZDM 50, 445–460. doi: 10.1007/s11858-018-0913-9
• Charalambous C. Praetorius A.-K. (2023). “Theorizing teaching: synthesizing expert opinion to identify the next steps” in Theorizing teaching: Current status and open issues. eds. Praetorius A.-K. Charalambous C. (Cham: Springer).
• Chen F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Struct. Equ. Model. 14, 464–504. doi: 10.1080/10705510701301834
• Cheung G. W. Rensvold R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struct. Equ. Model. 9, 233–255. doi: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
• Clausen M. (2002). Qualität von Unterricht: Eine Frage der Perspektive? [Quality of instruction as a question of perspective?]. Waxmann.
• Cohen J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd Edn. Oxfordshire: Erlbaum.
• Creemers B. Kyriakides L. (2008). The dynamics of educational effectiveness: A contribution to policy, practice, and theory in contemporary schools. Routledge.
• Creemers B. Kyriakides L. (2012). Improving quality in education. Dynamic approaches to school improvement. Routledge.
• Desimone L. M. Smith T. M. Frisvold D. E. (2010). Survey measures of classroom instruction: comparing student and teacher reports. Educ. Policy 24, 267–329. doi: 10.1177/0895904808330173
• DeVellis R. F. (2012). Scale development: Theory and applications (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Dimosthenous A. Kyriakides L. Panayiotou A. (2020). Short- and long-term effects of the home learning environment and teachers on student achievement in mathematics: a longitudinal study. Sch. Eff. Sch. Improv. 31, 50–79. doi: 10.1080/09243453.2019.1642212
• Fauth B. Göllner R. Lenske G. Praetorius A. K. Wagner W. (2020). Who sees what? Zeitschrift für Pädagogik 66, 138–155.
• Finney S. J. DiStefano C. (2013). “Non-normal and categorical data in structural equation modeling” in Structural equation modeling: A second course. eds. Hancock G. R. Mueller R. O.. 2nd ed (Charlotte, North Carolina: Information Age Publishing), 439–492.
• Göllner R. Fauth B. Wagner W. (2021). “Student ratings of teaching quality dimensions: empirical findings and future directions”, in Student feedback on teaching in schools. eds. Rollett W. Bijlsma H. Röhl S. (Switzerland, AG: Springer).
• Hu L.-T. Bentler P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J. 6, 1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118
• Klieme E. Pauli C. Reusser K. (2009). “The pythagoras study: investigating effects of teaching and learning in Swiss and German mathematics classrooms” in The power of video studies in investigating teaching and learning in the classroom. eds. Janik T. Seider T. (Munster: Waxmann), 137–160.
• Koziol S. M. Burns P. (1986). Teachers’ accuracy in self-reporting about instructional practices using a focused self-report inventory. J. Educ. Res. 79, 205–209. doi: 10.1080/00220671.1986.10885678
• Kraft M. A. Gilmour A. F. (2017). Revisiting the widget effect: teacher evaluation reforms and the distribution of teacher effectiveness. Educ. Res. 46, 234–249. doi: 10.3102/0013189X17718797
• Kyriakides L. Archambault I. Janosz M. (2013). Searching for stages of effective teaching: a study testing the validity of the dynamic model in Canada. J. Classr. Interact. 48, 11–24.
• Kyriakides L. Creemers B. Panatyiotou A. (2012). Report of the data analysis of the student questionnaire used to measure teacher factors: Across and within country results. Available at: https://websites.ucy.ac.cy/esf/documents/Analysis_of_Data/Analysis_of_Student_Questionnaire/D12b_Report_student_questionnaire_analysis.pdf (Accessed 5 July 2023).
• Kyriakides L. Creemers B. Panayiotou A. (2018). Using educational effectiveness research to promote quality of teaching: the contribution of the dynamic model. ZDM 50, 381–393. doi: 10.1007/s11858-018-0919-3
• Kyriakides L. Creemers B. Panayiotou A. Charalambous E. (2020). Quality and equity in education. Revisiting theory and research on educational effectiveness and improvement. ProQuest Ebook Central.
• Kyriakides L. Panayiotou A. (2023). “Using educational effectiveness research for promoting quality of teaching: the dynamic approach to teacher and school improvement” in Effective teaching around the world. eds. Maulana R. Helms-Lorenz M. Klassen R. M. (Cham: Springer).
• Lazarides R. Schiefele U. (2021). The relative strength of relations between different facets of teacher motivation and core dimensions of teaching quality in mathematics. Learn. Instr. 76:101489. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021.101489
• Levin B. (2011). Mobilising research knowledge in education. Lond. Rev. Educ. 9, 15–26. doi: 10.1080/14748460.2011.550431
• Little O. Goe L. Bell C. (2009). A practical guide to evaluating teacher effectiveness. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.
• Morin A. J. S. Arens A. K. Marsh H. W. (2016). A bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling framework for the identification of distinct sources of construct-relevant psychometric multidimensionality. Struct. Equ. Model. 23, 116–139. doi: 10.1080/10705511.2014.961800
• Morin A. J. S. Myers N. D. Lee S. (2020). “Modern factor analytic techniques: Bifactor models, exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) and bifactor-ESEM” in Handbook of sport psychology. eds. Tenenbaum G. Eklund R. C.. 4th ed (Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley), 1044–1073.
• Muthén L. K. Muthén B. O. (2012-2019). Mplus user’s guide: Statistical analysis with latent variables (8.3). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
• OECD (2003). New challenges for educational research, Knowledge Management, OECD Publishing, Paris.
• OECD (2007). Evidence in education: Linking research and policy, OECD Publishing, Paris.
• Panayiotou A. Kyriakides L. Creemers B. P. M. McMahon L. Vanlaar G. Pfeifer M. et al. (2014). Teacher behavior and student outcomes: results of a European study. Educ. Assess. Eval. Account. 26, 73–93. doi: 10.1007/s11092-013-9182-x
• Perreira T. A. Morin A. J. Hebert M. Gillet N. Houle S. A. Berta W. (2018). The short form of the workplace affective commitment multidimensional questionnaire (WACMQ-S): a bifactor-ESEM approach among healthcare professionals. J. Vocat. Behav. 106, 62–83. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2017.12.004
• Reddy L. A. Dudek C. M. (2014). Teacher progress monitoring of instructional and behavioral management practices: an evidence-based approach to improving classroom practices. Int. J. Sch. Educ. Psychol. 2, 71–84. doi: 10.1080/21683603.2013.876951
• Reddy L. A. Dudek C. M. Fabiano G. A. Peters S. (2015). Measuring teacher self-report on classroom practices: construct validity and reliability of the classroom strategies scale-teacher form. Sch. Psychol. Q. 30, 513–533. doi: 10.1037/spq0000110, PMID: 25622226
• Reddy L. A. Hua A. N. Dudek C. M. Kettler R. Arnold-Berkovits I. Lekwa A. et al. (2021). The relationship between school administrator and teacher ratings of classroom practices and student achievement in high-poverty schools. Assess. Eff. Interv. 46, 87–98. doi: 10.1177/1534508419862863
• Reise S. P. (2012). The rediscovery of Bifactor measurement models. Multivar. Behav. Res. 47, 667–696. doi: 10.1080/00273171.2012.715555, PMID: 24049214
• Reise S. P. Bonifay W. E. Haviland M. G. (2013). Scoring and modeling psychological measures in the presence of multidimensionality. J. Pers. Assess. 95, 129–140. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2012.725437
• Rodriguez A. Reise S. P. Haviland M. G. (2016). Applying bifactor statistical indices in the evaluation of psychological measures. J. Pers. Assess. 98, 223–237. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2015.1089249, PMID: 26514921
• Roy A. Guay F. Valois P. (2013). Teaching to address diverse learning needs: development and validation of a differentiated instruction scale. Int. J. Incl. Educ. 17, 1186–1204. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2012.743604
• Sánchez-Cabrero R. Estrada-Chichón J. L. Abad-Mancheño A. Mañoso-Pacheco L. (2021). Models on teaching effectiveness in current scientific literature. Educ. Sci. 11:409. doi: 10.3390/educsci11080409
• Scheerens J. (2016). Educational effectiveness and ineffectiveness: A critical review of the Knowledge Base. Dordrecht: Springer.
• Seidel T. Shavelson R. J. (2007). Teaching effectiveness research in the past decade: the role of theory and research design in disentangling meta-analysis results. Rev. Educ. Res. 77, 454–499. doi: 10.3102/0034654307310317
• Senden B. Nilsen T. Blömeke S. (2021). “Instructional quality: a review of conceptualizations, measurement approaches, and research findings” in Ways of analyzing teaching quality. eds. Blikstad-Balas M. Klette K. Tengberg M.. Red ed (Scandinavian University Press), 140–172.
• Teodorović J. Milin V. Bodroža B. Ivana D. Derić I. D. Vujačić M. et al. (2022). Testing the dynamic model of educational effectiveness: the impact of teacher factors on interest and achievement in mathematics and biology in Serbia. Sch. Eff. Sch. Improv. 33, 51–85. doi: 10.1080/09243453.2021.1942076
• Van de Vijver F. He J. (2014). Report on social desirability, midpoint and extreme responding in TALIS 2013. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 107. OECD Publishing, Paris.
• Vanlaar G. Kyriakides L. Panayiotou A. Vandecandelaere M. McMahon L. De Fraine B. et al. (2016). Do the teacher and school factors of the dynamic model affect high- and low-achieving student groups to the same extent? A cross-country study. Res. Pap. Educ. 31, 183–211. doi: 10.1080/02671522.2015.1027724
• Wagner W. Göllner R. Werth S. Voss T. Schmitz B. Trautwein U. (2016). Student and teacher ratings of instructional quality: consistency of ratings over time, agreement, and predictive power. J. Educ. Psychol. 108, 705–721. doi: 10.1037/edu0000075
• Wiggs N. B. Reddy L. A. Kettler R. Hua A. Dudek C. Lekwa A. et al. (2023). Convergence between teacher self-report and school administrator observation ratings using the classroom strategies assessment system. Assess. Eff. Interv. 48, 113–123. doi: 10.1177/15345084221112858