(PDF) Teaching Practices in Primary and Secondary Schools in Europe: Insights from Large-scale Assessments in Education

Maria Magdalena Isac

Patrícia Dinis da Costa

Luísa Araújo

Elena Soto Calvo

Patrícia Albergaria-Almeida

2015

Report EUR 27277 EN

Teaching Practices in Primary and Secondary

Schools in Europe: Insights from Large-Scale

Assessments in Education

2

European Commission

Joint Research Centre

Unit JRC-DDG.01 – Econometrics and Applied Statistics

Contact information

Luísa Araújo

Address: Joint Research Centre, Unit JRC-DDG.01 – Econometrics and Applied Statistics

TP 361 – Via E .Fermi 2749 – I-21027 – Ispra (Va) - ITALY

E-mail: luisa.borges@jrc.ec.europa.eu

Tel.: +39 0332 78 3872

JRC Science Hub

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc

Legal Notice

This publication is a Science and Policy Report by the Joint Research Centre, the European Commission’s in-

house science service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policy-making

process. The scientific output expressed does not imply a policy position of the European Commission. Neither

the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which

might be made of this publication.

All images © European Union 2015

JRC95601

EUR 27277 EN

ISBN 978-92-79-48421-6 (PDF)

ISBN 978-92-79-48422-3 (print)

ISSN 1831-9424 (online)

ISSN 1018-5593 (print)

doi: 10.2788/383588

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2015

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Abstract

3

Teaching Practices in Primary and Secondary Schools in

Europe: Insights from Large-Scale Assessments in

Education

Maria Magdalena Isac

Patrícia Dinis da Costa

Luísa Araújo

Elena Soto Calvo

Patrícia Albergaria-Almeida

4

Unit JRC-DDG.01 – Econometrics and Applied

Statistics

Note

This report is part of the CRELL VII Administrative Arrangement agreed between DG

EDUCATION and CULTURE (EAC) and DG JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE (JRC). Its

content, “Technical report on teaching and learning practices in primary and secondary education” is stipulated

under point 2.3. of the Technical Annex accompanying CRELL VII.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank colleagues from DG JRC and DG EAC for their useful

comments on earlier versions of this report. Thanks also go to Miriam Barattoni and Mattia

Olivi for their support with graphics and text formatting.

5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report focuses on describing teaching practices in primary and secondary schools in

Europe.

For primary education, the report uses combined data from the 2011 Third International

Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and the 2011 Program for International Reading

Literacy Study (PIRLS). For secondary education, it uses data from the 2012 Program for

International Student Assessment (PISA) and from the 2013 Teaching and Learning

International Study (TALIS).

While the TIMSS/PIRLS study is conducted with pupils at the fourth grade level, PISA samples

fifteen year-old students and the TALIS main study collects information from teachers at ISCED

2. For TIMSS/PIRLS, the incidence of the teaching practices analyzed relate to Reading Literacy,

Science and Mathematics instruction. For PISA, only teaching practices related to Mathematics

instruction, the main subject in PISA 2012, are analyzed. The analyses of teaching practices in

TALIS 2013 are based on reported data from different ISCED 2 subject matter teachers.

Using data from the three surveys, this report details the frequency of teaching practices and

establishes relationships between certain practices and students’ achievement and school learning

conditions. The main categories of teaching practices addressed include: 1) General and content-

specific instructional practices; 2) The use of informational technology (ICT); 3) Teacher

collaborative practices; and 4) Characteristics of the school learning environment at the

classroom, school and educational system levels.

The breath of information herein provided allows for a better understanding of the frequency of

different teaching practices in primary and secondary schools in European Union Member States

(EU MS) and for cross-country comparisons. At the same time, the interpretation of the findings

highlights the importance of considering the uniqueness of different learning contexts in any

attempt to understand teaching effectiveness. Taken together, the research evidence gathered

provides detailed information about teaching practices that can assist EU MS in discerning gaps

in the available information, identifying country profiles, and addressing common challenges.

The findings highlighted in each part of the report and related policy messages offer novel

insights into teaching practices in primary and secondary schools in Europe.

6

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 9

PART I - Teaching Practices in Primary Schools in the EU ............................................. 17

1. Teaching Practices. Context, Conceptualization and Measurement ................................. 18

1.1. A brief introduction to TIMSS and PIRLS. ................................................................. 18

1.2. Some highlights of TIMSS and PIRLS 2011 combined. ............................................ 19

1.3. The Conceptualization of Teaching Practices in TIMSS and PIRLS 2011. ............ 22

1.4. The measurement of teaching practices in TIMSS and PIRLS 2011. ...................... 25

2. Indicators of Teaching Practices in TIMSS & PIRLS 2011 ............................................... 30

2.1. Introduction. ..................................................................................................................... 30

2.2. Goals and outcomes of teaching and learning. ............................................................ 32

2.2.1. Standards and levels of performance in Reading, Mathematics and Science. 32

2.2.2. Students’ perceptions of instructional teaching practices. ................................. 39

2.3. Generic and content-specific instructional practices. Teachers’ perspective. ......... 42

2.3.1. Generic instructional practices. ............................................................................. 43

2.3.2. Content-specific instructional practices. .............................................................. 46

2.3.3. ICT integration in teaching and learning. ............................................................ 50

2.4. Teachers’ collaborative practices. .................................................................................. 53

2.5. School environment and support that shape teaching practices. .............................. 56

2.6. Conclusion and discussion. .................................................................................................. 58

References .......................................................................................................................................... 63

PART II - Teaching Practices in Secondary Schools in the EU ...................................... 67

1. A Brief Introduction to PISA .................................................................................................... 68

2. Indicators of Teaching Practices in PISA 2012 ....................................................................... 74

2.1. Introduction. .......................................................................................................................... 74

2.2. Instructional practices. ......................................................................................................... 75

2.2.1. Ability grouping for Mathematics instruction. .......................................................... 75

2.2.2. Teacher instructional intentions in Mathematics classes. ........................................ 81

2.2.3. Opportunity to learn in Mathematics classes............................................................. 86

2.2.4. Teaching practices in Mathematics classes. ................................................................ 87

2.2.5. Teacher quality in Mathematics classes. ..................................................................... 89

2.2.6. ICT in Mathematics lessons. ........................................................................................ 91

2.3. Collaborative practices in Mathematics lessons. ............................................................... 94

2.4. School learning environment/climate. ............................................................................... 96

2.4.1. School learning environment. ...................................................................................... 96

7

2.4.1.1. Teachers morale. ..................................................................................................... 96

2.4.1.2. Maximize achievement in Mathematics. ............................................................. 98

2.4.2. School climate for EU MS. ........................................................................................ 100

2.5. Relationships. ....................................................................................................................... 104

2.5.1. Relationship between teaching instructional practices and the school learning

environment. ........................................................................................................................... 104

2.5.2. Relationship between use of ICT in Mathematics lessons and ICT availability at

school. ...................................................................................................................................... 106

2.5.3. Relationship between student and teacher related aspects of school climate and

Mathematics teachers’ intentions. ........................................................................................ 107

2.5.4. Relationship between ability grouping and students’ achievement. ..................... 109

2.5.5. Relationship between class size and students’ achievement. ................................. 110

2.6. Do instructional practices and school learning environment explain Mathematics

achievement at the EU level? .................................................................................................... 113

2.7. Conclusion and Discussion. .............................................................................................. 117

References ........................................................................................................................................ 122

PART III - Teaching Practices and Other Aspects of Teaching in TALIS 2013 ............ 125

1. Teaching Practices. Context, Conceptualization and Measurement ................................... 126

1.1. A brief introduction to the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) .. 126

1.2. TALIS Conceptual framework.......................................................................................... 127

1.2.1. School dimension: School and professional climate. ............................................. 129

1.2.2. Classroom dimension: Teacher/classroom’s environment. .................................. 130

1.3. Teaching Practices: Results of TALIS 2013 International Report .............................. 131

1.3.1. Operalization of teaching practices in TALIS 2013. .............................................. 132

1.3.2. Education-related factors examined in TALIS and the identified relationships

with the three active teaching practices. .............................................................................. 135

1.3.2.1. Classroom context. ............................................................................................... 135

1.3.2.2. Classroom disciplinary climate. .......................................................................... 135

1.3.2.3. Learning domains: Mathematics, Science and Humanities. ........................... 136

1.3.2.4. Class size. ............................................................................................................... 137

2. Active and non-active teaching practices in EU and their relationship with different class

sizes ................................................................................................................................................... 140

2.1. A Brief Introduction to this Chapter: Methodology, Results and Discussion of the

Findings ....................................................................................................................................... 140

2.2. Aims ...................................................................................................................................... 140

2.3. Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 141

2.4. Results ................................................................................................................................... 143

2.4.1. Active teaching practices. ........................................................................................... 143

2.4.1.1. Students work in small groups to come up with a joint solution to a problem

or task. ................................................................................................................................. 144

8

2.4.1.2. Students work on projects that require at least one week to complete. ....... 146

2.4.1.3. Students use ICT for projects or class work. ................................................... 148

2.4.1.4 Conclusion and discussion. .................................................................................. 151

2.4.2. Non-active teaching practices. ................................................................................... 153

2.4.2.1. I present a summary of recently learned content. ............................................ 154

2.4.2.2. I give different work to the students who have difficulties learning and/or to

those who can advance faster. .......................................................................................... 156

2.4.2.3. I refer to a problem from everyday life or work to demonstrate why new

knowledge is useful ............................................................................................................ 158

2.4.2.4. I let students practice similar tasks until I know that every student has

understood the subject matter. ......................................................................................... 160

2.4.2.5. I check my students’ exercise books or homework ......................................... 162

2.4.2.6 Conclusion and Discussion. ................................................................................. 166

2.5. Conclusion and Discussion ............................................................................................... 167

References ........................................................................................................................................ 169

ANNEXES .................................................................................................................... 173

ANNEX A: TIMSS and PIRLS 2011 detailed data .................................................................. 174

ANNEX B. PISA 2012 detailed data .......................................................................................... 190

Soto Calvo, E.; Isac, M.M.; Araújo, L.; Costa, P. & Albergaria-Almeida, P. - Introduction

9

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this report is to offer a detailed description of teaching practices at the

primary and secondary school levels and, when possible, explore relationships between teaching

practices and other factors such as student achievement and class size. The latest data from

several large-scale assessments in education is used for these purposes, namely TIMSS & PIRLS

2011, PISA 2012 and TALIS 2013. The focus of the report is on the mapping of the frequency

of different teaching practices across European Member States (EU MS) at ISCED levels 1 and

2 as measured in TIMSS/PIRLS at the fourth grade level, in PISA for 15-year olds and in TALIS

for teachers in ISCED level 2.

Each part of the report is divided in two chapters; the first is an overview of the survey,

and the second presents the results of the analyses of different teaching practices. Within the

second chapter of each part, a summary of the findings is presented in bullet points at the end of

each section. Conclusions and policy messages are discussed at the end of each part concerning

the three international surveys. The report addresses the teaching practices captured in the data

collected in TIMSS/PIRLS (Part I), PISA (Part II) and TALIS (Part III).

Specifically, using TIMSS and PIRLS 2011 data collected in the teacher and student

background questionnaires, the first part of the report describes the prevalence of different

instructional and collaborative teaching practices across 17 participating EU MS. Using data

collected in the school questionnaire and in the student questionnaire, the PISA part describes

the frequency of different teaching practices in 26 participating EU MS and explores

relationships between teaching practices and the learning environment and students´

achievement. The TALIS part describes and compares the teacher-reported data on the use of

different active and non-active teaching practices across 18 EU MS. It also examines whether

teachers’ reported use of these teaching practices is related to the size of the class they teach. For

the three large-scale surveys, the selection of the variables related to teaching practices was

carried out according to data availability and on the basis of teaching effectiveness theoretical

frameworks and related research findings. The Background and Rationale section of the report

presents this theoretical framework.

Soto Calvo, E.; Isac, M.M.; Araújo, L.; Costa, P. & Albergaria-Almeida, P. - Introduction

10

Background and Rationale

The idea that teachers and the teaching practices they implement are important for

students’ educational outcomes has been steadily gaining ground since the publication of the

Coleman report in the sixties (Coleman et al., 1968). This report had showed that students’

socioeconomic background was the main determinant of educational outcomes and that the

influence of teachers on student outcomes was minimal. Since then, more sophisticated study

designs and methods have allowed for precise measurements of what goes on in schools and its

relation to the educational outcomes of students. Findings indicate that teachers and the

environment they teach in can indeed make a difference. Conceptual models now include

different dimensions of the educational environment, such as teaching practices, school climate

and resources and look for interactions among them to categorize effective schools. Within an

educational effectiveness framework “an effective school is one that has an effect on student

achievement over and above home influences” (Martin, Foy, Mullins, & O’ Dwyer, 2013, p.111).

More specifically, empirical research has examined the impact of a wide range of

education-related factors, such as students’ home background, school environment and school

instruction, on students’ learning outcomes with the aim of identifying which factors are essential

for educational effectiveness

1

. The teachers’ characteristics that have been more frequently

studied can be classified into three large categories: background qualifications, beliefs

and attitudes, and instructional practices.

The background qualifications category includes teachers’ degrees, college ratings, test

scores and teaching experience. Higher teacher background qualifications have been associated

with better student achievement (Palardy & Rumberger, 2008; Rice, 2003; Wayne & Youngs,

2003), although these findings have not always been replicated and null findings or even negative

effects have also been reported (Buddin & Zamarro, 2009; Clotfelter, Ladd, &Vigor, 2007;

Hanushek, Karin, O’Brien, & Rivkin, 2005).

The teachers' beliefs and attitudes category refers to teachers’ self-efficacy,

expectations for students’ achievement and beliefs about the nature of the teaching and learning

process. There is some evidence that teachers’ beliefs about their students impact student

learning. For example, some studies show that when teachers believe that their students will

1

Educational effectiveness research seeks to investigate which “factors in teaching, curriculum, and the learning

environment at different levels such as the classroom, the school, and the above-school levels can directly or

indirectly explain the differences in the outcomes of students, taking into account student background

characteristics, such as ability, SES and prior attainment”. See Creemers & Kyriakides, 2008, p.12, and Chapter 1 of

this report.

Soto Calvo, E.; Isac, M.M.; Araújo, L.; Costa, P. & Albergaria-Almeida, P. - Introduction

11

perform well and that they are motivated to learn this has a positive direct impact on students’

learning outcomes (Lee, Smith, & Croninger, 1997; Staub & Stern, 2002; Caprara, Barbaranelli,

Steca, & Malone, 2006). However, there are also studies suggesting that this impact is only

indirect (Muijs & Reynolds, 2002) and null findings have also been reported (Driessen &

Sleegers, 2000).

Last, the instructional practices category refers to the activities teachers carry out in the

classroom. Research linking instructional practices and students’ academic performance seems to

converge in its findings: what teachers do in the classroom is a good predictor of their students’

achievement (Brophy, 2000; Seidel & Shavelson, 2007; Hattie, 2009; Creemers & Kyriakides,

2008). Instructional practices consistently predict students’ learning outcomes and their effects

have been shown to be larger than teachers’ background qualifications or their beliefs and

attitudes (Kyriakides, Campbell, & Gagatsis, 2000; Nye, Konstanopoulos, & Hedges, 2004; Muijs

& Reynolds, 2002; Palardy & Rumberger, 2008; Scheerens & Bosker, 1997; Stigler & Hiebert,

1999). Teaching practices are also one of the most malleable education-related factors (Scheerens

& Bosker, 1997; Harris & Chrispeels, 2006).

Instructional practices are often classified into two types – teacher-directed or

constructivist - depending on whether it is the teacher (direct instructional practices) or the

student (constructivist teaching practices) that plays a pivotal role in the learning process. With

respect to constructivist versus direct instructional practices, it has been suggested that a variety

of teaching practices that combine self-regulated child-initiated activities (such as spontaneous

and unstructured play) with teacher-directed adult-led activities (such as delivering content) seem

to be the most effective and adequate approach for effective classroom learning (Creemers,

Kyriakides, & Antoniou, 2013; Rowan, Correnti, & Miller, 2002), particularly for students with

learning difficulties during the primary school years (Purdie & Ellis, 2005). Nevertheless, research

also suggests that certain teaching practices seem to be more effective than others for particular

learning domains, educational levels and specific student sub-populations (Seidel & Shavelson,

2007).

First, distinct instructional practices seem to relate differently to students’

outcomes depending on the learning domain under examination. For instance, Meijnen,

Lagerweij and De Jong (2003) found that time spent on different educational goals and the

method used to assess students’ progress were associated with students’ growth in mathematics,

but results were not replicated for word reading (decoding) or reading comprehension. More

recently Boonen, van Damme and Onghena (2013) found that practices involving teaching

Soto Calvo, E.; Isac, M.M.; Araújo, L.; Costa, P. & Albergaria-Almeida, P. - Introduction

12

estimation and classification were positively related to mathematics achievement, spending time

on instruction and dividing students into homogenous reading groups were positively related to

reading achievement, and using homogenous reading groups was positively related to spelling

achievement in a large group of first graders. Nonetheless, other instructional activities such as

the amount of time spent on mathematics instruction, frequency of book projects or peer

teaching were negatively associated with achievements in mathematics, reading and spelling,

respectively.

Second, there is evidence that distinct instructional practices impact achievement

differently depending on the educational level of the students. For example, Kyriakides,

Christoforou and Charalambus (2013) conducted a meta-analysis exploring the impact of

teaching factors on students’ achievement. They found that younger students benefited more

from instructional practices such as asking them complex questions about the content of the

lessons that have been covered in the class. However, older students benefited more from

teaching practices aimed at developing higher-order thinking skills (e.g. concept mapping, critical

thinking and cross-curricular competencies) or problem solving that require comparing and

relating information that go beyond what has been directly stated.

Third, the effectiveness of certain instructional practices seems to vary depending

on other factors, such as the socio-demographic characteristics, level of achievement,

ethnic or social and cultural background of the student (Muijs, Harris, Chapman, Stoll, &

Russ, 2004). More precisely, research suggests that children from disadvantaged backgrounds

benefit more from teacher-directed and very structured instruction than students from more

advantage backgrounds for whom active learning activities seem to be very effective (Huffman &

Speer, 2000; Muijs & Reynolds, 2003; Mortimore, 1991; Scheerens, 1992; Slavin, 1996). Thus,

placing emphasis on basic skills rather than on higher-order cognitive skills seems to have a

greater positive effect on disadvantaged than on advantaged students (Brophy, 1992; Boonen,

Damme, & Onghena, 2013; Teddlie & Stringfield, 1993; Walberg, 1986). Taken together, these

findings suggest that educational effectiveness should take into consideration the specific

learning domains, school stage and contextual characteristics of the learners.

In the last decades, research on teaching has focused on holistic aspects of teaching and

on analysing teaching patterns instead of isolated teaching acts (Borko, 2004). Additionally, and

as reported by Seidel and Shavelson (2007), research has been centred on examining large-scale

surveys with statistical models that control for extraneous variables, consequently increasing

statistical power in detecting the effects of teaching on students’ learning outcomes. One of the

Soto Calvo, E.; Isac, M.M.; Araújo, L.; Costa, P. & Albergaria-Almeida, P. - Introduction

13

latest theoretical models mapping in detail factors describing teacher behaviour in the classroom

is the dynamic model of educational effectiveness developed by Creemers and Kyriakides (2008).

The model is grounded on the assumption that the effects on student achievement are multilevel

and, in this way, it refers to factors at different levels; student, classroom, school and system

level. Seven teacher factors/practices are described in this model. They include orientation,

structuring, teaching-modelling, application, management of time, teacher’s role in making the

classroom a learning environment and classroom assessment. For example, the school learning

environment, where factors such as the extent of teacher collaboration and emphasis on

academic achievement may vary, is likely to interact with and even condition classroom teaching

practices. In addition, the dynamic aspect of the model emphasizes the constantly changing

nature of these factors as they evolve, for example, trough different stages of teacher

professional development.

Creemers and Kyriakides´ (2008) dynamic model of school effectiveness also considers

teaching within a larger framework that includes factors that operate at higher levels, namely at

the school and at the educational system level. The TIMSS/PIRLS, PISA and TALIS surveys do

not follow a specific model of school effectiveness. However, they are informed by this

theoretical and research-related background and include in their assessment frameworks school

and system level factors that are likely to interact with classroom-level factors, such as tracking

students by ability level, class size, school climate and teachers´ self-efficacy. They do so because

these factors can be viewed as indicators of the quality of school systems. Accordingly, the

analyses presented in this report include school effectiveness variables with the aim of

contributing to a better understanding of the teaching practices implemented in primary and

secondary schools and their relation with others factors at different levels of the educational

process.

Soto Calvo, E.; Isac, M.M.; Araújo, L.; Costa, P. & Albergaria-Almeida, P. - Introduction

14

References

Boonen, T., Van Damme, J., & Onghena, P. (2014). Teacher effects on student achievement in

first grade: which aspects matter most? School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25(1), 126-

152.

Borko, H. (2004). Professional Development and Teacher Learning: Mapping the Terrain.

Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3-15.

Brophy, J., & McCaslin, M. (1992). Teachers' reports of how they perceive and cope with

problem students. The Elementary School Journal, 3-68.

Brophy, J. (2000). Teacher behavior and student outcomes. In N. Smelser & P. Baltes (Eds.)

International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. New York: Pergamon.

Buddin, R., & Zamarro, G. (2009). Teacher qualifications and student achievement in urban

elementary schools. Journal of Urban Economics, 66(2), 103-115.

Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P. S. (2006). Teachers' self-efficacy beliefs

as determinants of job satisfaction and students' academic achievement: A study at the

school level. Journal of school psychology, 44(6), 473-490.

Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2007, March). How and why do teacher credentials matter

for student achievement? Working Paper 2. Washington, DC: Urban Institute, National Center

for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research.

Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, F., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, F. D., &

York R L. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office.

Creemers, B.P.M., & Kyriakides, L. (2008). The dynamics of educational effectiveness: A contribution to

policy, practice and theory in contemporary schools. London: Routledge.

Creemers, B. P., Kyriakides, L., & Antoniou, P. (2013). A dynamic approach to school

improvement: main features and impact. School Leadership & Management, 33(2), 114-132.

Driessen, G., & Sleegers, P. (2000). Consistency of teaching approach and student achievement:

An empirical test. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11(1), 57-79.

Hanushek, E. A., J. F. Kain, D. M. O’Brien and S. G. Rivkin. (2005), “The Market for Teacher

Quality.” NBER Working paper no. 11154

Harris, A., & Chrispeels, J. H. (Eds.). (2006). Improving schools and educational systems: International

perspectives. Routledge.

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. Abingdon: Routledge.

Huffman, L. R., & Speer, P. W. (2000). Academic performance among at-risk children: The role

of developmentally appropriate practices. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15(2), 167-184.

Kyriakides, L., Campbell, R. J., & Gagatsis, A. (2000). The significance of the classroom effect in

primary schools: An application of Creemers' comprehensive model of educational

effectiveness. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11(4), 501-529.

Soto Calvo, E.; Isac, M.M.; Araújo, L.; Costa, P. & Albergaria-Almeida, P. - Introduction

15

Kyriakides, L., Christoforou, C., & Charalambous, C. Y. (2013). What matters for student

learning outcomes: A meta-analysis of studies exploring factors of effective teaching.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 36, 143-152.

Lee, V. E., Smith, J. B., & Croninger, R. G. (1997). How high school organization influences the

equitable distribution of learning in mathematics and science. Sociology of education, 128-150.

Meijnen, G. W., Lagerweij, N. W., & Jong, P. F. (2003). Instruction characteristics and cognitive

achievement of young children in elementary schools. School Effectiveness and School

Improvement, 14(2), 159-187

Mortimore, P. (1991). School effectiveness research: Which way at the crossroads?. School

effectiveness and school improvement, 2(3), 213-229.

Martin, M.O. & Mullis, I.V.S. (Eds.) (2013). TIMSS and PIRLS 2011: Relationships Among

Reading, Mathematics, and Science Achievement at the Fourth Grade—Implications for

Early Learning. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston

College.

Muijs, D., Harris, A., Chapman, C., Stoll, L., & Russ, J. (2004). Improving schools in

socioeconomically disadvantaged areas–a review of research evidence. School effectiveness and

school improvement, 15(2), 149-175.

Muijs, D., & Reynolds, D. (2002). Teachers' beliefs and behaviors: What really matters?. Journal of

Classroom Interaction.

Muijs, D., & Reynolds, D. (2003). Student background and teacher effects on achievement and

attainment in mathematics: A longitudinal study. Educational Research and Evaluation, 9(3),

289-3

Nye, B., Konstantopoulos, S., & Hedges, L. V. (2004). How large are teacher effects?. Educational

evaluation and policy analysis, 26(3), 237-257.

Palardy, G. J., & Rumberger, R. W. (2008). Teacher effectiveness in first grade: The importance

of background qualifications, attitudes, and instructional practices for student learning.

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(2), 111-140.

Purdie, N., & Ellis, L. (2005). A review of the empirical evidence identifying effective

interventions and teaching practices for students with learning difficulties in year 4, 5 and 6.

Teaching and Learning and Leadership, 7.

Rice, J. K. (2003). Teacher quality: Understanding the effectiveness of teacher attributes. Economic Policy

Inst.

Rowan, B., Correnti, R., & Miller, R. (2002). What Large-Scale Survey Research Tells Us About

Teacher Effects on Student Achievement: Insights from the Prospects Study of Elementary

Schools. The Teachers College Record, 104(8), 1525-1567.

Scheerens, J. (1992). Effective schooling. London: Cassell.

Scheerens, J., & Bosker, R. J. (1997). The foundations of educational effectiveness. Oxford: Pergamon.

Soto Calvo, E.; Isac, M.M.; Araújo, L.; Costa, P. & Albergaria-Almeida, P. - Introduction

16

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. Review of educational

research, 77(4), 454-499.

Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we

need to know. Contemporary educational psychology, 21(1), 43-69.

Staub, F. C., & Stern, E. (2002). The nature of teachers' pedagogical content beliefs matters for

students' achievement gains: Quasi-experimental evidence from elementary mathematics.

Journal of educational psychology, 94(2), 344.

Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The Teaching Gap New York.

Teddlie, C., & Stringfield, S. (1993). Schools Make a Difference: Lessons Learned from a 10-Year Study of

School Effects. Teachers College Press, 1234 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY 10027.

Walberg, H. J. (1986). Synthesis of research on teaching. Handbook of research on teaching, 3, 214-

229.

Wayne, A. J., & Youngs, P. (2003). Teacher characteristics and student achievement gains: A

review. Review of Educational research, 73(1), 89-122.

Isac, M.M. - Teaching Practices in Primary Schools in the EU

17

PART I

Teaching Practices in Primary Schools in the EU

Chapter 1

This chapter provides a brief introduction to the

main findings of the TIMSS and PIRLS 2011

Combined survey, describes the theoretical grounds

that informed the data collection, and details the

measurement of teaching practices and related

contextual information.

Isac, M.M. - Teaching Practices in Primary Schools in the EU

18

1. Teaching Practices. Context, Conceptualization and Measurement

1.1. A brief introduction to TIMSS and PIRLS.

The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and the Progress in

International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) are international studies directed by the

International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). With the aim of

studying the effects of educational policies and practices in a comparative perspective, the IEA

pioneered international large-scale assessments in education starting early in 1960’s

2

. Since 1995,

the IEA conducts continuous four-year assessment cycles for TIMSS focusing primarily on the

achievement of fourth and eighth grade students in Mathematics and Science. The PIRLS five-

year cycle assessments, in turn, started in 2001 and address mainly how well children read after

the first four years of primary school.

TIMSS and PIRLS are international studies comparable to the Program for International

Student Assessment (PISA) launched in 2000 by the Organization for Economic Cooperation

and Development (OECD). Both assessments offer information on students’ outcomes and

contextual information on teaching practices and home literacy activities in countries around the

globe. The characteristics of PISA are described later

3

in this report and the design of TIMSS

and PIRLS will be further detailed. Yet, to better understand the assessment frameworks of

TIMSS and PIRLS at the fourth grade level, some differences in comparison to PISA are worth

mentioning. The most obvious distinction is that PISA surveys 15 year-olds, whereas PIRLS

samples fourth grade students. The TIMSS survey has two target populations, namely, students

at the fourth grade and students at the eighth grade

4

. Still, other fundamental differences are

particularly relevant here. They are linked to the purpose of these assessments or, more precisely,

to what they intend to measure. In that respect, the two IEA studies focus on students’

achievement in Reading, Mathematics and Science with reference to an internationally agreed

curriculum in these core academic areas. Conversely, PISA is not curriculum-based but takes a

“functional literacy” perspective that aims to capture students’ ability to apply their knowledge to

real life situations in Reading, Mathematics, and Science. Moreover, TIMSS and PIRLS use

teacher questionnaires to collect information about teaching and learning together with student

achievement in order to identify potential relationships between students’ achievement and

2

The origins of large-scale assessments in education are often traced back to the First International Mathematics

Study (FIMS). See http://www.iea.nl/fims.html

3

See Part II of this report.

4

This report deals with PIRLS and TIMSS at the 4th grade only.

Isac, M.M. - Teaching Practices in Primary Schools in the EU

19

teaching practices and school characteristics. PISA’s main focus, on the other hand, is on

students’ knowledge and skills - particularly in Reading, Mathematics and Science - that are

essential for full participation in modern societies. Therefore, PISA is not designed to explicitly

address teaching practices, although it collects some related contextual information from

students and school principals

5

.

Therefore, TIMSS and PIRLS are different from PISA in that their explicit focus is on

curriculum and teaching practices. One of their main aims is to provide “high-quality data that

will increase policy-makers understanding of key school and non-school-based factors that

influence teaching and learning”

6

. Perhaps one of the most salient novelties in these IEA studies

is that they introduced the concept of “opportunities to learn”

7

. In this respect, over the years,

they have been providing data on the status and potential relationships between the intended

curriculum (what national or regional authorities adopt as programs of study), the implemented

curriculum (what is taught in schools), and the achieved curriculum (what students learn).

This information has been used by many countries to asses or initiate curricular reforms.

For example, national curricula were revised in some countries based on results of TIMSS which

indicated that higher-performing countries generally had greater levels of coverage of the

intended curricula. Similarly, reforms of pre-service and in-service teacher training programs

were also informed by IEA studies that indicated areas of relative weakness in teacher

preparation or instructional materials and strategies. For instance (see Heyneman and Lee, 2014),

some countries decreased the frequency of teacher lecturing and increase student engagement in

lessons by means of extended, deep questioning teaching practices. Other countries encouraged

teacher collaborative practices that seemed to be a feature of high-performing countries.

1.2. Some highlights of TIMSS and PIRLS 2011 combined.

In 2011, the cycles for TIMSS and PIRLS coincided for the first time and participating countries

were offered the unprecedented opportunity to conduct both TIMSS and PIRLS with the same

fourth grade students. Internationally, 34 countries

8

(17 of which EU Member States) took this

opportunity and assessed the same fourth grade students in Reading, Mathematics and Science.

The 17 EU MS that participated in TIMSS and PIRLS 2011 Combined, were: Austria (AT),

Croatia (HR), Czech Republic (CZ), Finland (FI), Germany (DE), Hungary (HU), Ireland (IE),

5

For examples of principals’ reports on teaching practices and school environment see Part II of this report.

6

See www.iea.nl

7

See www.iea.nl/studies.html

8

34 countries (and 3 benchmarking entities: Quebec, Canada; Aby Dhabi, UAE; and, Dubai, UAE).

Isac, M.M. - Teaching Practices in Primary Schools in the EU

20

Italy (IT), Lithuania (LT), Malta (MT), Poland (PL), Portugal (PT), Romania (RO), Slovak

Republic (SK), Slovenia (SI), Spain (ES), and Sweden (SE).

A special international database was created by the TIMSS and PIRLS International

Study Center

9

to include only the fourth grade students assessed in all three subjects. This was

complemented by extensive background information about home, school and classroom

contexts for teaching and learning in these three areas.

Martin & Mullis (2013) illustrate the potential of this database in the TIMSS and PIRLS

2011 Relationships Report, but mention that their work intends only to open the way for more

in-depth analyses based on the common information identified and statistically combined from

the two surveys. Accordingly, the results presented in their report do not deal explicitly with

teaching practices. However, they do bring to light several aspects of learning outcomes in

Reading, Mathematics and Science, the potential relationship between these outcomes as well the

importance of other contextual factors - meaningful for both learning and teaching - such as the

home and school environments. These aspects are worthwhile noting also in the context of

addressing teaching practices. Elements such as student achievement are one of the main

expected outcomes of teaching or the “achieved curriculum”, and other, such as a supportive

school environment is both relevant for teaching practices as well as for student achievement.

Countries Participating in TIMSS and PIRLS 2011 Combined

9

See http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timsspirls2011/international-database.html#database

Isac, M.M. - Teaching Practices in Primary Schools in the EU

21

A selection of the main internationally

10

relevant results of this report (Martin & Mullis, 2013) is

provided below to illustrate how TIMSS and PIRLS offer a unique view of the interconnection

between learning and teaching and the context in which they take place.

a) Regarding the main outcomes of teaching - student achievement in Reading, Mathematics and

Science - TIMSS and PIRLS 2011 show that:

 More than half of the TIMSS and PIRLS participating countries are successful in

ensuring a well-rounded foundation of skills in all subjects for most students (90% or

more reaching the low international benchmark in all three subjects). Yet, educating

students to high proficiency levels in all subjects seems to be overall challenging.

 Countries tend to be more successful in either one or two of the three subjects.

However, it seems that being equally successful in educating students in all three subjects

simultaneously is a difficult task. This is particularly true when it comes to educating

substantial percentages of students to high levels of achievement.

 Strengths in some subjects may be fundamental for success in the others. Overall, fourth

graders are likely to be at disadvantage in learning Mathematics and Science as well as

reaching high performance levels or benchmarks in these content areas if they lack

reading skills.

b) Regarding the influence of the home environment on student outcomes, TIMSS and PIRLS

show that:

 Students’ achievement in Reading, Mathematics and Science is not only the result of

schooling. Overall, their achievement levels in all areas are dependent on the home

environment. The educational levels of the parents, the home resources (e.g. books at

home), the home literacy and numeracy activities parents engaged in with their children

prior to compulsory school entry influence students’ attainment of numeracy and

literacy skills.

c) Regarding the school environment, TIMSS & PIRLS show that:

 The school learning environment is relevant for student achievement in all three

curriculum content areas. Overall, some of school characteristics that were found to be

associated with achievement are (ordered by the strength of the correlation): strong

10

Please note that these findings refer to all 34 countries and not only to the 17 EU MS. Many of these aspects,

relevant to the topic of teaching practices, will be addressed in detail with respect to the EU MS in Chapter 2 of this

report.

Isac, M.M. - Teaching Practices in Primary Schools in the EU

22

emphasis on academic success, strong and orderly school environment, and adequate

environment and resources.

1.3. The Conceptualization of Teaching Practices in TIMSS and PIRLS 2011.

In order to understand how teaching practices are conceptualized in the TIMSS and PIRLS 2011

joint framework, several sources of information must be considered. The overarching framework

is best described by the TIMSS and PIRLS 2011 Relationships Report (Martin & Mullis, 2013).

This framework is primarily informed by the TIMSS 2011 and PIRLS 2011 Contextual

Frameworks (Mullis, Martin, Ruddock, O’Sullivan, & Preuschoff, 2009; Mullis, Martin, Kennedy,

Trong, & Sainsbury, 2009), but also by research strands which play a role in informing the

theoretical grounds for the data collection undertaken by the IEA.

By focusing on characteristics of effective schools, Martin & Mullis (2013) clearly situate

their findings in the context of “educational effectiveness research” (EER). EER has traditionally

informed the designs of international large-scale assessments undertaken by the IEA (Klieme,

2013). EER aims to test theories that explain “why and how some schools and teachers are more

effective than others” (Creemers & Kyriakides, 2008, p.3). It seeks to investigate which “factors

in teaching, curriculum, and the learning environment at different levels such as the classroom,

the school, and the above-school levels can directly or indirectly explain the differences in the

outcomes of students, taking into account student background characteristics, such as ability,

SES

11

and prior attainment” (Creemers & Kyriakides, 2008, p.12). Research initiatives in this field

(see also Scheerens & Bosker, 1997; Reynolds, Sammons, De Fraine, Van Damme, Townsend,

Teddlie, & Stringfield, 2014) are also known to use, at times, terms such as “school

effectiveness” or “teacher effectiveness” in order to underscore the importance of either school

characteristics (e.g. school climate, teacher collaboration) or classroom factors (e.g. teacher

instructional behavior).

Although alternative, broader conceptualizations could also apply, there are the two main

concepts referring strictly to teaching practices that are measured identically in TIMSS and

PIRLS 2011. They refer to two areas of activity of the teaching staff, which are different but yet

interconnected. In this respect, consistent with theories on effective teaching, the conceptual

frameworks differentiate between what the teacher does in the classroom – teacher instructional

11

SES stands for socioeconomic status. “Socioeconomic status is commonly conceptualized as the social standing

or class of an individual or group. It is often measured as a combination of education, income and occupation” (see

American Psychological Association, 2015).

Isac, M.M. - Teaching Practices in Primary Schools in the EU

23

practices – from other, arguably equally important, teacher activities which are carried-out outside

the classroom in collaboration with peers - teacher collaborative practices.

Teacher instructional practices, which could be improved by teacher collaboration, refer to

several instructional strategies that teachers may use frequently in the classroom. Research within

the educational effectiveness tradition (Creemers, 1994; Scheerens & Bosker, 1997) has identified

several components of effective instructional strategies. At the moment, an overall agreement

has been reached that both “traditional” direct instruction

12

as well as student-centered

13

views

on teaching can serve as mapping concepts to define effective teaching practices

14

. Creemers &

Kyriakides (2008), for example, make use of such theories as well as of results of empirical

research to identify several “generic”

15

factors that best describe teachers’ role in the classroom:

a) orientation (e.g. clarifying the objectives of different learning tasks), b) structuring (e.g.

outlining the content, reviewing), c) questioning (e.g. involving students in classroom discussion),

d) teaching-modelling (e.g. helping students to self-regulate their learning), e) applications (e.g.

using seatwork or small group tasks to provide practice), f) promoting a positive classroom

leaning environment (e.g. fostering positive interactions with and between students), g)

management of time (e.g. maximizing learning time) and h) classroom assessment (e.g.

diversified, formative feedback).

The measures of instructional practices used in TIMSS and PIRLS attempt to tap into

“generic” instructional practices but also “content-specific” practices for Reading, Mathematics

and Science. Regarding “generic” strategies, the measures address elements such as structuring,

questioning and engaging feedback. For instance, teachers are asked about the frequency of

specific practices such as structuring the content by setting and communicating clear learning

goals, connecting new content to students’ prior experiences, providing interesting instructional

materials, using higher-order questioning techniques, praising students for their achievement and

encouraging them to further improve. In what concerns content-specific strategies, another set

of measures capture practices aimed at developing Reading comprehension skills and strategies

(e.g. making generalizations and drawing inferences based on a literary text), problem-solving

skills in Mathematics (e.g. working problems collaboratively with teacher guidance) and inquiry-

12

Direct instruction advocates the use of structure, questioning, monitoring and the use of informative and engaging

feedback (see, Creemers & Kyriakides, 2008; Scheerens, 2010).

13

Student – centered views are often inspired by constructivism and advocate teaching meta-cognitive skills,

cognitive activation, discovery learning, and scientific inquiry (see Scheerens, 2010).

14

For a comprehensive comparison of direct instruction and student-centered practices see Scheerens, 2010 and

Vieluf, Kaplan, Klieme, & Bayer, 2012.

15

These generic instructional practices are relevant across different subject matters.

Isac, M.M. - Teaching Practices in Primary Schools in the EU

24

based Science investigation skills (e.g. design experiments). In addition, some indicators are

concerned with the integration of digital tools in teaching and learning.

Teacher collaborative practices refer to a set of behaviours that can serve the purpose of

improving teaching. The conceptual frameworks of TIMSS and PIRLS 2011, as well as the

corresponding international reports

16

, situate the concept of teacher collaboration in close

interconnection to the concept of “professional learning communities” (PCLs). Professional

learning refers to teacher learning activities that help teachers to improve their classroom

practices. One aspect of this learning is traditional teacher professional development programs.

Yet, individual and collective learning can also take place through peer observation and

collaboration. The concept of PCLs captures such learning. The concept was originally

developed by Lave & Wenger in 1991 under “communities of practice”. Although alternative

definitions exist (Lomos, Hofman, & Bosker, 2011), educational effectiveness research (e.g. Stoll,

Bolam, McMahon, Wallace & Thomas, 2006) commonly identifies a few central features of

PCL’s: a) shared values and vision (e.g. focus on academic success for all students), b) collective

responsibility (e.g. accountability systems which put pressure on all and encourage teacher

collaboration), c) reflective professional enquiry (e.g. reflective dialogue about educational issues,

deprivatization of practice through mutual observation), d) collaboration (e.g. planning the

curriculum jointly). The measure of teacher collaborative practices used in TIMSS and PIRLS

attempts to tap into particular types of teacher collaboration. In addition to reporting on strictly

collaborative teacher behaviours such as working together to plan and prepare instructional

materials or try out new ideas, teachers are also asked about the frequency of their reflective

dialogue (e.g. discussing how to teach a topic, share insights from their teaching experience) and

deprivatization of practice (e.g visiting one another’s classes for learning and feedback purposes).

Successful teacher collaborative and instructional practices require some favourable

school conditions and resources. In that respect Martin & Mullis (2013) as well as the Contextual

Frameworks of TIMSS and PIRLS 2011 describe, from a school effectiveness perspective,

17

several characteristics of effective schools. These characteristics refer to a school environment

that is safe and orderly, that is characterized by a strong focus on academic success, and that has

adequate resources. Both instructional and collaborative teaching practices are potentially shaped

by such conditions. For example, providing effective instruction as well as learning with peers is

16

See TIMSS 2011 Results in Mathematics, Mullis, Martin, Foy, & Arora, 2012; TIMSS 2011 Results in Science,

Martin, Mullis, Foy, & Stanco, 2012; and PIRLS 2011 Results in Reading, Mullis, Martin, Foy, & Drucker, 2012

17

For a detailed review of the school effectiveness research base used to inform TIMSS & PIRLS 2011 see Martin &

Mullis, 2013.

Isac, M.M. - Teaching Practices in Primary Schools in the EU

25

likely to be facilitated if the teaching staff feels safe, has positive relationships with students and

peers, has adequate resources such as instructional materials or workspace for collaboration, and

has a common purpose of improving student achievement.

1.4. The measurement of teaching practices in TIMSS and PIRLS 2011.

Teachers’ generic instructional practices are measured with the teacher scale “Engaging Students in

Learning” addressed to teachers of Reading, Mathematics and Science. The scale contains six

items related to the frequency (on a four-point scale with the following response categories:

every or almost every lesson; about half the lessons; some lessons; never) of different teaching

practices intended to interest students and reinforce learning, namely:

 Summarize what students should have learned from the lesson;

 Relate the lesson to students’ daily lives;

 Use questioning to elicit reasons and explanations;

 Encourage all students to improve their performance;

 Praise students for good effort;

 Bring interesting materials to class.

An alternative measure for teachers’ generic instructional practices is also proposed in the

context of TIMSS 2011 and PIRLS 2011 Contextual Frameworks. It is argued that teacher

instructional practices can also be measured based on the outcome of those practices, namely

students’ engagement in learning. This proxy measure is estimated based on students’ responses

to the questions in the scale “Students Engaged in Lessons”. The scale measures separately

(students reported separately about their Mathematics and Science lessons) students’ degree of

agreement (on a four-point scale with the following response categories: agree a lot; agree a little;

disagree a little; disagree a lot) with five statements about their Mathematics and Science

instruction:

 I know what my teachers expect me to do;

 I think of things not related to the lesson (reverse coded);

 My teacher is easy to understand;

 I am interested in what my teacher says;

 My teacher gives me interesting things to do.

Isac, M.M. - Teaching Practices in Primary Schools in the EU

26

For Reading, a similar measure is used, “Students Engaged in Reading Lessons”:

 I like what I read about in school;

 My teacher gives me interesting things to read;

 I know what my teachers expect me to do;

 I think of things not related to the lesson (reverse coded);

 My teacher is easy to understand;

 I am interested in what my teacher says; and

 My teacher gives my interesting things to do.

Teachers’ content-specific instructional practices are measured with several sets of items for Reading,

Mathematics and Science. Teachers where asked to indicate to what extent (on a four-point scale:

never or almost never; 2 or 3 times per month; 1-3 times per week; daily or almost daily) they use

certain practices. The flowing items describe practices for developing reading comprehension

skills and strategies:

 Locate information within the text;

 Identify the main ideas of what they have read;

 Explain or support their understanding of what they have read;

 Compare what they have read with experiences they have had;

 Compare what they have read with other things they have read;

 Make predictions about what will happen next in the text they are reading;

 Make generalizations and draw inferences based on what they have read;

 Describe the style or structure of the text they have read;

 Determine the author’s perspective or intention.

Problem-solving skills in Mathematics were assessed with the items:

 Work problems (individually or with peers) with my guidance;

 Work problems together in the whole class with direct guidance from me;

 Work problems (individually or with peers) while I am occupied by other tasks;

 Memorize rules, procedures, and facts;

 Explain their answers.

For Science, the following inquiry-based investigation skills were reported on:

Isac, M.M. - Teaching Practices in Primary Schools in the EU

27

 Observe natural phenomena such as the weather or a plant growing and describe

what they see;

 Watch me demonstrate an experiment or investigation;

 Design or plan experiments or investigations;

 Conduct experiments or investigations;

 Give explanations about something they are studying;

 Relate what they are learning in Science to their daily lives.

The integration of digital tools in teaching and learning is measured with items enquiring on the use of

computer software (as a basis for instruction or as supplement) for Reading, Mathematics and

Science; and the frequency of activities involving instructional software and aimed at looking up

subject related information or/and at developing skills and strategies for Reading, Mathematics

and Science. The frequency is measured on a four-point scale: never or almost never; 2 or 3

times per month; 1-3 times per week; daily or almost daily.

Teachers’ collaborative practices are measured with the teacher scale “Collaborate to Improve

Teaching”. For TIMSS and PIRLS 2011, the information was collected from teachers of

Reading, Mathematics and Science. The instrument is based on the frequency (on a four-point

scale: never or almost never; 2 or 3 times per month; 1-3 times per week; daily or almost daily)

with which teachers interacted with other teachers regarding five areas of activity meant to

improve their teaching, namely:

 Discuss how to teach a particular topic;

 Collaborate in planning and preparing instructional materials;

 Share what I have learned about my teaching experiences;

 Visit another classroom to learn more about teaching;

 Work together to try out new ideas.

Teachers’ perceptions of relevant aspects of the school environment (focus on academic success,

safety, resources

18

) are captured by a set of scales:

The scale “School Emphasis on Academic Success” related to the extent (very high, high, and

medium) to which teachers perceive the focus on academic success of the school in five areas, namely:

 Teachers’ understanding of the school’s curricular goals;

18

See section 1.3.

Isac, M.M. - Teaching Practices in Primary Schools in the EU

28

 Teachers’ degree of success in implementing the school’s curriculum;

 Teachers’ expectations for student achievement;

 Parental support for student achievement;

 Students’ desire to do well in school.

The scale “Safe and Orderly School” environment measures teachers’ degree of agreement (safe

and orderly, somewhat safe and orderly, not safe and orderly) with five statements that

characterize the safety of the school environment, namely:

 This school is located in a safe neighborhood;

 I feel safe at this school;

 This school’s security policies and practices are sufficient;

 The students behave in an orderly manner;

 The students are respectful of the teachers.

The scale “Teacher Working Conditions” captures teachers’ perception (hardly any problems,

minor problems, moderate problems) concerning five potential problem areas in terms of

resources:

 The school building needs significant repair;

 Classrooms are overcrowded;

 Teachers have too many teaching hours;

 Teachers do not have adequate workspace (e.g., for preparation, collaboration, or

meeting with students); and

 Teachers do not have adequate instruction materials and supplies.

The next chapter reports on results of descriptive analyses using the information provided by all

these items/scales to describe teacher instructional and collaborative practices and their context.

Isac, M.M. - Teaching Practices in Primary Schools in the EU

29

Chapter 2

This chapter describes the prevalence of different

instructional and collaborative teaching practices

across the 17 EU MS. Chapter 2 also introduces the

premises needed to interpret the descriptive analyses

based on TIMSS and PIRLS 2011 Combined data.

Key findings are reported on four overarching topics:

Goals and outcomes of teaching and learning;

Generic and content-specific instructional practices;

Teachers’ collaborative practices; School

environment and support that shape teaching

practices.

Isac, M.M. - Teaching Practices in Primary Schools in the EU

30

2. Indicators of Teaching Practices in TIMSS & PIRLS 2011

2.1. Introduction.

This chapter provides information regarding several indicators reflecting or closely linked to

instructional and collaborative teaching practices at the fourth grade level. The analyses makes

use of the TIMSS and PIRLS combined database and aims to add to the findings reported by

Martin & Mullis (2013) in the TIMSS and PIRLS 2011 Relationships Report by focusing on a

descriptive in-depth analysis of such indicators

19

. When possible, findings are presented in

relationship with the EU priorities in this area. The information is meant to show the state of the

art and provide insights that can inform the implementation of reforms in the 17 participating

Member States. The analyses show how teaching practices vary across countries and can enable

individual European Member States to compare their policies with those in the other EU

countries.

Nevertheless, before describing these practices, some characteristics of TIMSS and PIRLS 2011

data and of the current analyses must be considered in order to clarify how the statistical results

should be interpreted.

TIMSS and PIRLS do not directly sample teachers

20

. Their objective is to obtain reliable

estimates about the population of students at the fourth grade level in each country. Therefore,

the TIMSS and PIRLS two-stage stratified cluster sample design involves first sampling schools

and afterwards sampling one or more intact classes of students from each of the sampled

schools.

21

Information about most teaching practices addressed in this report is obtained from the teachers

of Reading, Mathematics and Science of the sampled classes. This information has a valuable

descriptive power. Yet, teacher data must be treated as a characteristic of the students. Taking

this into account, the next sections of this chapter will mainly provide information on

percentages of students in classrooms where teachers report to be using certain practices. Tables

19

Most indicators on teaching practices were reported separately in the corresponding international reports (See

TIMSS 2011 Results in Mathematics, Mullis, Martin, Foy, & Arora, 2012; TIMSS 2011 Results in Science, Martin,

Mullis, Foy, & Stanco, 2012; and PIRLS 2011 Results in Reading, Mullis, Martin, Foy, & Drucker, 2012) but were

not included in the TIMSS and PIRLS 2011 Relationships Report nor reported in interconnection for Reading,

Mathematics and Science.

20

Unlike in TALIS 2013 where nationally representative samples of teachers where surveyed.

21

In this way, nationally representative samples of students and schools are represented by the data. Teacher data is

nevertheless an attribute of the students.

Isac, M.M. - Teaching Practices in Primary Schools in the EU

31

located in Annex A will accompany the graphical representations of this chapter with the actual

estimates

22

, their standard errors and reliability.

The measures used to describe teaching practices in TIMSS and PIRLS 2011 do not rely on

classroom observations

23

. They are self-reports from teachers. These instruments are of overall

good measurement quality and comparability. Nevertheless, one must take into account that this

information is subjective. Moreover, in a comparative context, such as the one presented here,

one cannot rule out that answer patterns may reflect cultural differences and/or reference to a

group standard such as specific educational policies. Therefore, cross-country comparisons must

be made with caution and additional information on country specific contexts and policies may

aid interpretation

24

.

Across the TIMSS and PIRLS 2011 combined database for the 17 EU MS, the vast majority of

teachers of Reading are also teaching Mathematics and Science at the same class. Accordingly,

estimates of generic instructional practices, teacher collaborative practices and teachers’

perceptions of the school environment are based on teachers of Reading. For all other content-

specific aspects, separate analyses are carried out for the different learning domains using

corresponding weights for teachers of Reading, Mathematics and Science.

TIMSS and PIRLS 2011 are the most up-to-date

25

comprehensive international source of

information for primary education (4th grade). However, these surveys are cross-sectional and

provide measurements for one specific point in time

26

. Readers are therefore encouraged to

consider this information in triangulation with other sources, especially from national and/or

macro-regional levels, to examine recurrent trends in TIMSS and PIRLS assessments since 1995

22

All estimates are computed with the IDB Analyzer using IEA’s guidelines, taking into account the complexity of

the sampling design and applying sampling weights. See https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/event/workshop/workshop-

using-pisa-piaac-timss-pirls-talis-datasets

23

For example, for TIMSS at the 8th grade such measures can be inferred also from classroom aggregates of student

self-reported observations of teaching practices. Although this is still not objective observation, it may provide a

stronger measurement than teachers’ reports. Nevertheless, with minor exceptions, such information was not

collected for TIMSS and PIRLS at the 4th grade due to concerns regarding students’ age and the burden of such

additional instruments.

24

See also Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Minnich, C.A., Drucker, K.T., & Ragan, M.A. (2012) PIRLS 2011

Encyclopedia: Education Policy and Curriculum in Reading, Volumes 1 and 2 Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS

International Study Center, Boston College, & Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Minnich, C.A., Stanco, G.M., Arora, A.,

Centurino, V.A.S., & Castle, C.E. (2012). TIMSS 2011 Encyclopedia: Education Policy and Curriculum in

Mathematics and Science, Volumes 1 and 2. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center,

Boston College.

25

For four EU MS (DK, FI, BE-FL and PL) information for primary education is covered by TALIS 2013.

26

TIMSS and PIRLS 2011 were carried out in 2010–2011.

Isac, M.M. - Teaching Practices in Primary Schools in the EU

32

and to be observant of the results of the next studies’ cycle in 2015 for TIMSS and 2016 for

PIRLS

27

.

2.2. Goals and outcomes of teaching and learning.

One of the main aims of teaching is to enhance student learning and the outcomes of such

learning. Research findings consistently show that teachers and teaching practices are the main

factors influencing student achievement among those that educational policies could influence

(Creemers & Kyriakides, 2008; Hattie, 2009; Seidel & Shavelson, 2007; Scheerens & Bosker,

1997). In the European context, a commitment was made to strive for achieving higher levels of

student achievement in an equitable and inclusive manner (European Council, 2010; European

Commission, 2012a). One of the Education and Training 2020 targets aims specifically at

reducing the share of low achievers in Reading, Mathematics and Science to below 15% by

2020

28

. In this context, teaching-related policies and the work of teachers has gained an

important role. Teachers are called to innovate their teaching and make efforts to improve the

key competences of students (European Commission, 2012b).

The following section gives a brief overall description of student achievement in

Reading, Mathematics and Science in the 17 analyzed EU MS with a particular emphasis on skills

that students at different proficiency levels must acquire. These particular skills represent

commonly agreed aims for teaching and learning across countries participating in TIMSS &

PIRLS and involve the use of a diversified repertoire of instructional practices. In addition, the

second part of this section will describe fourth graders’ perceptions of instructional teaching

practices for Reading, Mathematics and Science.

2.2.1.

Standards and levels of performance in Reading, Mathematics and

Science.

The TIMSS and PIRLS 2011 frameworks are based on an international consensus on what skills

students should be able to master in Reading, Mathematics and Science at the fourth grade. In

each domain, the assessments of student achievement were organized around two dimensions: a

27

In a near future, some of the information reported in this chapter may be compared with findings of TIMSS 2015

and PIRLS 2016.

28

Benchmark established on OECD PISA data for the population of 15 year-olds in each MS. Here, similar analyses

and conclusions are presented with respect to primary education (4th graders) based on TIMMS and PIRLS 2011

Combined data.

Isac, M.M. - Teaching Practices in Primary Schools in the EU

33

content dimension - specifying the subject matter or content domains to be assessed, and a

cognitive dimension - specifying the thinking processes that students are likely to use as they

engage with the content

29

. The PIRLS assessment framework for Reading specifies two content

domains or purposes for Reading: reading for literary experience and reading to acquire and use

information. These purposes aim to account for most of the reading fourth graders do in and

out of school. Half of the texts used for the assessment are literary and half are informational.

The items within each of the two reading purposes measure four processes of reading

comprehension: focus on and retrieve explicitly stated information, make straightforward

inferences, interpret and integrate ideas and information, and examine and evaluate content,

language, and textual elements.

The tasks assigned to students for the TIMSS Mathematics assessment covered three

content domains or subject matters: number (30%), geometric shapes and measures (35%), and

data display (15%). The items within each of the domains measure three cognitive domains or

cognitive processes involved in working mathematically and solving problems: knowing,

applying, and reasoning. The TIMSS Science assessment covers the content domains: Life

Science (45%), Physical Science (35%), and Earth Science (20%) and similar cognitive domains

as in Mathematics: knowing, applying, and reasoning.

In TIMSS and PIRLS 2011, as in previous assessment cycles, students’ achievement for

all three learning domains is reported according to four levels of performance

30

. These four

levels summarize the achievement reached by students at different levels of proficiency: the

“Low international benchmark”, the “Intermediate international benchmark”, the “High

international benchmark” and, the “Advanced international benchmark”. Box 1, 2 and 3 describe

the skills students must demonstrate in order to be classified at each of the four levels of

performance for Reading, Mathematics and, Science. For each domain, it is apparent that higher

order skills rely on basic skills. For example, higher Reading comprehension processes such as

making inferences or evaluating content rely on basic skills such as locating and retrieving

information. Problem solving in Mathematics or skills related to scientific inquiry in Science both

rest on the prerequisite that students have some basic Mathematical/Science knowledge (e.g.

adding and subtracting numbers; knowing and understanding facts and principles of different

content domains in Science).

29

See TIMSS 2011 Results in Mathematics, Mullis, Martin, Foy, & Arora, 2012; TIMSS 2011 Results in Science,

Martin, Mullis, Foy, & Stanco, 2012; and PIRLS 2011 Results in Reading, Mullis, Martin, Foy, & Drucker, 2012

30

In addition to average achievement.

Isac, M.M. - Teaching Practices in Primary Schools in the EU

34

Box 1. The PIRLS 2011 International Reading Benchmarks

Low

Intermediate

High

Advanced

400

475

550

625

Literary

When reading

literary texts,

students can locate

and retrieve an

explicitly stated

detail.

Informational

When reading

informational texts,

students can locate

and reproduce

explicitly stated

information that is

at the beginning of

the text.

Literary

When reading literary texts,

students can retrieve and

reproduce explicitly stated

actions, events and feelings;

make straightforward

inferences about the

attributes, feelings and

motivations of main

characters; interpret obvious

reasons and causes and give

simple explanations; and

begin to recognize language

features and styles.

Informational

When reading informational

texts, students can locate and

reproduce one or two pieces

of information from within

the text; and use subheadings,

textboxes and illustrations to

locate parts of the text.

Literary

When reading literary texts, students

can locate and distinguish significant

actions and details embedded across

the text; make inferences to explain

relationships between intentions,

actions, events and feelings, and give

text-based support; interpret and

integrate story events and character

actions and traits from different parts

of the text; evaluate the significance of

events and actions across the entire

story; and recognize the use of some

language features (e.g. metaphor, tone,

imagery).

Informational

When reading informational texts,

students can locate and distinguish

relevant information within a dense

text or a complex table; make

inferences about logical connections

to provide explanations and reasons;

integrate textual and visual

information to interpret the

relationship between ideas; and

evaluate content and textual elements

to make a generalization.

Literary

When reading literary texts,

students can integrate ideas

and evidence across a text to

appreciate overall themes; and

interpret story events and

character actions to provide

reasons, motivations, feelings

and character traits with full

text-based support.

Informational

When reading informational

texts, students can distinguish

and interpret complex

information from different

parts of text, and provide full

text-based support; integrate

information across a text to

provide explanations, interpret

significance and sequence

activities; and evaluate visual

and textual features to explain

their function.

Source: Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Foy, P., & Drucker, K.T. (2012). PIRLS 2011 international results in reading. Chestnut

Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College

Box 2. The TIMSS 2011 (4th grade) International Mathematics Benchmarks

Low

Intermediate

High

Advanced

400

475

550

625

Students have some

basic mathematical

knowledge.

Students can add

and subtract whole

numbers. They

have some

recognition of

parallel and

perpendicular lines,

familiar geometric

shapes, and

coordinate maps.

They can read and

complete simple

bar graphs and

tables.

Students can apply basic

mathematical knowledge in

straightforward situations.

Students at this level

demonstrate an understanding

of whole numbers and some

understanding of fractions.

Students can visualize three-

dimensional shapes from two-

dimensional representations.

They can interpret bar graphs,

pictographs, and tables to

solve simple problems.

Students can apply their knowledge

and understanding to solve problems.

Students can solve word problems

involving operations with whole

numbers. They can use division in a

variety of problem situations. They

can use their understanding of place

value to solve problems. Students can

extend patterns to find a later specified

term. Students demonstrate

understanding of line symmetry and

geometric properties. Students can

interpret and use data in tables and

graphs to solve problems. They can

use information in pictographs and

tally charts to complete bar graphs.

Students can apply their

understanding and knowledge

in a variety of relatively

complex situations and

explain their reasoning.

They can solve a variety of

multi-step word problems

involving whole numbers

including proportions.

Students at this level show an

increasing understanding of

fractions and decimals.

Students can apply geometric

knowledge of a range of two-

and three-dimensional shapes

in a variety of situations. They

can draw a conclusion from

data in a table and justify their

conclusion.

Source: Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Foy, P., & Arora, A. (2012). TIMSS 2011 international results in mathematics. Chestnut

Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.

Isac, M.M. - Teaching Practices in Primary Schools in the EU

35

Graph 1 presents the percentage of students not reaching the Low international

benchmark in Reading. It also shows the proportion of students reaching the Low and

Intermediate benchmarks as well as those reaching higher levels of performance, more

specifically the High and Advanced benchmarks.

On average, across the 17 European educational systems, the data indicates a high degree

of success in terms of inclusiveness, meaning that these EU MS manage to bring the vast

majority of students at least to a basic knowledge of content and skills level. Over 91% of the

students are reaching the Low, Intermediate, High and Advanced benchmarks with only about

8% of them showing low achievement in Reading. Nevertheless, results vary widely among

countries. On this metric, Finland, Croatia and Czech Republic have among the most inclusive

educational systems with a share of low achievers

31

below 5%. Conversely, some Member States

31

Low achievement is defined here as student performance below the “Low International Benchmark” of TIMSS &

PIRLS 2011.

Box 3. The TIMSS 2011(4th grade) International Science Benchmarks

Low

Intermediate

High

Advanced

400

475

550

625

Students have some

elementary knowledge

of life science and

physical science.

Students demonstrate

knowledge of some

simple facts related to

human health,

ecosystems and the

behavioral and

physical characteristics

of animals.

They also demonstrate

some basic knowledge

of energy and the

physical properties of

matter.

Students can apply basic

knowledge and

understanding to practical

situations in the sciences.

Students recognize some

basic information related

to characteristics of living

things, their reproduction

and life cycles and their

interactions with the

environment, and show

some understanding of

human biology and health.

They also show some

knowledge of properties of

matter and light, electricity

and energy and forces and

motion. Students know

some basic facts about the

solar system and show an

initial understanding of

Earth’s physical

characteristics and

resources.

Students can apply knowledge and

understanding to explain everyday

phenomena. Students demonstrate

some understanding of plant and

animal structure, life processes, life

cycles and reproduction. They also

demonstrate some understanding

of ecosystems and organisms’

interactions with their

environment, including

understanding of human responses

to outside conditions and activities.

Students demonstrate

understanding of some properties

of matter, electricity and energy

and magnetic and gravitational

forces and motion.

They show some knowledge of the

solar system, and of Earth’s

physical characteristics, processes

and resources. Students

demonstrate elementary knowledge

and skills related to scientific

inquiry.

Students can apply knowledge

and understanding of scientific

processes and relationships in

beginning scientific inquiry.

Students communicate their

understanding of characteristics

and life processes of organisms,

reproduction and development,

ecosystems and organisms’

interactions with the

environment, and factors relating

to human health. They

demonstrate understanding of

properties of light and

relationships between physical

properties of materials, apply and

communicate their understanding

of electricity and energy in

practical contexts and

demonstrate an understanding of

magnetic and gravitational forces

and motion. Students

communicate their understanding

of the solar system and of Earth’s

structure, physical characteristics,

resources, processes, cycles and

history.

Source: Martin, M.O., Mullis, I.V.S., Foy, P., & Stanco, G. (2012). TIMSS 2011 international results in science. Chestnut Hill,

MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.

Isac, M.M. - Teaching Practices in Primary Schools in the EU

36

such as Malta and Romania are still struggling. The share of students at risk in these countries

exceeds 15%.

Results also show that the 17 EU MS perform fairly well in terms of excellence, meaning

that they succeed in educating many students at high and advanced content and skills levels. On

average, nearly four in ten students (36.40%) perform at the High and Advanced benchmarks. In

Finland, Ireland and Croatia, the share exceeds 45%, while in Member States such as Malta,

Spain and Romania figures are slightly more modest (below 30%).

Similar results for Mathematics are shown in Graph 2. Here too, across the 17 EU MS

the data indicates a high degree of success in terms of inclusiveness. Over 90% of the students

are reaching the Low, Intermediate, High and Advanced benchmarks with only about 9% of

them showing low achievement. However, country differences exist. On this metric, Finland,

Germany and Portugal have a share of low achievers below 5%. On the other hand, in some EU

MS such as Romania and Poland, the share of students at risk exceeds 15%.

Graph 1. PIRLS Reading Benchmarks

Source: CRELL analysis based on TIMSS and PIRLS 2011 Combined data. See also Table 1, Annex A.

Isac, M.M. - Teaching Practices in Primary Schools in the EU

37

Graph 2. TIMSS Mathematics Benchmarks

Source: CRELL analysis based on TIMSS and PIRLS 2011 Combined data. See also Table 2, Annex A.

For Mathematics, on average, across the 17 EU MS about 30% of the students perform

at the High and Advanced benchmarks. In Finland, Lithuania and Ireland, the share exceeds

40%, while in Poland, Spain and Romania less than 20% of the students are reaching high and

advanced proficiency levels.

Graph 3 shows results for Science. Across the 17 EU MS, over 91% of the students

reach the Low, Intermediate, High and Advanced benchmarks with only about 8% of them

showing low achievement levels. Finland, Germany and Portugal have shares of low achievers

below 5%. On the other hand, in some Member States such as Romania and Poland, the share of

students at risk exceeds 15%.

Regarding Science, on average, across the 17 EU MS about 35% of the students perform

at the High and Advanced benchmarks. However, there is considerable heterogeneity among

countries. In Finland, the proportion of high achievers

32

exceeds 60%, while in Malta less than

32

High achievement is defined here as student performance at or above the “High International Benchmark” of

TIMSS & PIRLS 2011.

Isac, M.M. - Teaching Practices in Primary Schools in the EU

38

15% of the students reach high and advanced proficiency levels in Science. For all other EU MS,

values lie between 25% and 45%.

Graph 3. TIMSS Science Benchmarks

Source: CRELL analysis based on TIMSS and PIRLS 2011 Combined data. See also Table 3, Annex A.

Across learning domains, the overall pattern shows that when countries are able to

educate high proportions of students at or above the Low benchmark in Reading, they tend to

perform similarly for Mathematics and Science. A clear example is Finland where the percentages

of students not reaching the Low benchmark for Reading, Mathematics and Science range from

1.45% to 2.68% while large proportions of students have at least a well-rounded foundation of

basic skills in all subjects. In addition, Finland has nearly half of its students or more reaching

the High and Advanced proficiency levels in Reading, Mathematics and Science.

Conversely, in countries such as Romania and Malta, the share of low achievers across

learning domains is quite high. In Romania, the percentages of students not reaching the Low

benchmark for Reading, Mathematics and Science range from 16.51% to 23.06%. In Malta, low

achievement is less pronounced in Mathematics (13.34%) in comparison to the other subjects,

yet consistently high when it comes to Reading (28.80%) and Science (31.94%).

Isac, M.M. - Teaching Practices in Primary Schools in the EU

39

2.2.2.

Students’ perceptions of instructional teaching practices.

As described in Chapter 1, TIMSS and PIRLS measure students’ perceptions of instructional

teaching practices in Reading, Mathematics and Science. For each subject, students express their

agreement with several items describing instructional activities (e.g. in terms of how interesting

are the materials used or the tasks assigned).

33

Three scales were created to describe the levels of

student engagement

34

with their instruction in the different subjects. Graphs 4, 5 and 6 in the

following pages present this information for Reading, Mathematics and Science.

Graph 4. Students Engaged in Reading Lessons

Source: CRELL analysis based on TIMSS and PIRLS 2011 Combined data. See also Table 4, Annex A.

33

For the exact wording of the items, please consult Chapter 1, Section 1.4.

34

Students’ engagement was classified in three categories: “Not engaged”, “Somewhat Engaged” and, “Engaged”.

For Reading, “Not engaged” students “agreed a little” with three statements and “disagreed a little” with the other

four, on average. Students in the “Engaged” category “agreed a lot” with four of the statements and “agreed a little”

with the other three, on average, whereas all other students were considered “Somewhat Engaged”. For

Mathematics and Science, students considered to be “Not Engaged” “agreed a little” with two statements and

“disagreed a little” with the other three, on average. “Engaged students” “agreed a lot” with three of the statements

and “agreed a little” with the other two, on average, whereas all other students were considered “Somewhat

Engaged”.

Isac, M.M. - Teaching Practices in Primary Schools in the EU

40

Graph 5. Students Engaged in Mathematics Lessons

Source: CRELL analysis based on TIMSS and PIRLS 2011 Combined data. See also Table 5, Annex A.

Graph 6. Students Engaged in Science Lessons

Source: CRELL analysis based on TIMSS and PIRLS 2011 Combined data. See also Table 6, Annex A.

Isac, M.M. - Teaching Practices in Primary Schools in the EU

41

Across the participating EU MS, on average, over 39% of the fourth grade students reported

being “Engaged” during Reading lessons (see Graph 4). Over 44% reported being Engaged

during Mathematics lessons (see Graph 5) and over 41% in Science lessons (see Graph 6).

Slightly higher shares of students reported being “Somewhat Engaged”: over 51% for Reading,

over 48% for Mathematics and over 50% for Science. Overall, on average, across learning

domains and countries, 91% of the students or more reported being at least somewhat engaged

in their lessons. On average, only about 8% of the students reported being "Not Engaged" in

Reading lessons and 7% reported not being engaged in Mathematics and Science lessons.

Variability among countries is most pronounced for the “Engaged” category. Consistent outliers

across Reading, Mathematics, and Science for the category “Not Engaged” are Finland and

Portugal. In Finland about 20% of the students report not being engaged in each of the three

lesson types. In Portugal, substantially lower shares of students (about 2% on average across

Reading, Mathematics and Science) report no engagement in such lessons.

35

Such statistics may appear puzzling. Earlier in this chapter Finland was consistently pointed out as a high

achieving country. A large % of Not engaged students may seem a counterintuitive finding. Nevertheless, we remind

the reader that the information described relies on students’ self-reports and such measures may be affected by

cultural values and/or other specific reference frames such as reference to high educational standards. In addition,

the results are consistent with similar patterns for Finland regarding students’ reports on other attitudinal measures

(e.g. Students like Reading, Mathematics and Science in TIMSS and PIRLS 2011).

Isac, M.M. - Teaching Practices in Primary Schools in the EU

42

2.3. Generic and content-specific instructional practices. Teachers’ perspective.

Teacher instructional practices

36

have been consistently underscored for their important role in

student learning (Creemers & Kyriakides, 2008; Hattie, 2009; Seidel & Shavelson, 2007;

Scheerens & Bosker, 1997). They were shown to have the strongest association with student

achievement above other personal teacher characteristics such as background qualifications

(Boonen, Van Damme & Onghena, 2013; Creemers & Kyriakides, 2008; Muijs & Reynolds,

2010; Palardy & Rumberger, 2008). Some studies (Charalambous, Komitis, Papacharalambous, &

Stefanou, 2014) also report that teachers themselves prefer to be evaluated based on their daily

classroom practices rather than on the basis of other evaluation mechanisms.

For primary education, direct instruction methods (e.g. structuring the content,

questioning) have been generally found (Creemers, Kyriakides & Antoniou, 2013; Hattie, 2009;

Muijs, Campbell, Kyriakides & Robinson, 2005) to be suitable for this young age group.

36

Teacher instructional practices refer to several instructional strategies which teachers may use frequently in the

classroom. See also Chapter 1. Sections 1.3. & 1.4.

Highlights

 The different proficiency levels in TIMSS and PIRLS at the fourth grade provide

information on the knowledge and skills teachers must teach/facilitate in the

classroom as well as actual student achievement.

 On average, across subjects, over 90% of the fourth graders have at least a well-

rounded foundation of basic skills (reaching the Low Benchmark).

 The EU MS where the vast majority of students – over 95% - reach the Low

Benchmark) are also those with over 40% of the students reaching the High

Benchmark (e.g. Finland – all subjects; Czech Republic – Mathematics & Reading;

Croatia – Reading; Austria - Science).

 However, some educational systems have relatively high shares of low achievers

across learning domains (e.g. Romania – all subjects; Malta – Reading & Science).

 On average, across learning domains and countries, a large proportion (over 91%) of

fourth graders report being at least somewhat engaged with their Reading,

Mathematics and Science instruction.

 In the best performing countries (e.g. Finland), higher shares of students tend to

report not being engaged with their Reading, Mathematics and Science instruction.

Isac, M.M. - Teaching Practices in Primary Schools in the EU

43

However, they seem to be highly effective in teaching basic skills but somewhat insufficient for

addressing the development of higher order thinking skills for which more student-centered

approaches (e.g. reflecting on one’s own thinking, problem solving strategies) may be needed.

In the European context (European Commission, 2012a), teachers are called to innovate

their teaching practices and give students a central role in their learning. Yet, this should be

achieved in an inclusive way by ensuring that all students participate in education and develop at

least basic skill levels. In this context, a mix of instructional approaches combining direct

instruction with more student-centered approaches while taking into account the characteristics

of the students (e.g. ability level, social background) should be considered (see also Creemers &

Kyriakides, 2008). In most European countries, the choice of these methods is left at the

discretion of teachers (Eurydice, 2013). Accordingly, the role of professional development

programs is essential in preparing teachers for their activity.

The following section, consistent with the scientific literature (Creemers & Kyriakides,

2008; Charalambous, et al., 2014) and the frameworks of TIMSS and PIRLS 2011, lays out the

distinction

37

between “generic” and “content specific” instructional practices. Generic

instructional practices are those instructional strategies used by the teachers in the classroom that

cut across different learning domains or subject matters. Content-specific practices are those

instructional strategies that are most relevant for particular subject matters, in this case for

Reading, Mathematics and, Science. Within each category, a further distinction is made between

practices relevant for basic versus higher order skills. In addition, the last part of this section

provides information regarding the integration of ICT in teaching and learning practices for

Reading, Mathematics and Science.

2.3.1.

Generic instructional practices.

Graph 7

38

illustrates the proportion of students whose teachers report using several generic

instructional practices

39

. On both sides (right and left) of the graphical representation, solid blue

lines indicate proportions of students categorized under “Most Lessons” according to their

teachers’ responses on the TIMSS and PIRLS scale: “Engaging Students in Learning”. These

teachers use three of the six practices in “every or almost every lesson” and the other three in

“about half the lessons,” on average. The right and left sides of the graph present also

37

See also Chapter 1. Sections 1.3. & 1.4.

38

Please refer also to Tables 7.1. & 7.2. in Annex A. The estimate for FI on “bring interesting materials to the class”

is not reliable, therefore not reported.

39

Analyses based on teachers of Reading. Analyses using weights for teachers of Mathematics and Science yield

Teaching Practices in Primary and Secondary Schools in Europe: Insights from Large-scale Assessments in Education

Abstract and Figures