Search

The academic search for principles of high-quality subject-matter teaching has been informed by different perspectives, in particular normative, epistemological, empirical, and pragmatic perspectives. While these perspectives have sometimes been treated as competing, we emphasize the need of their integration to identify sets of principles that can inform professional development programs for quality development. This paper starts from characterizing the four perspectives, and then shows how they are iteratively intertwined in providing a research base for specifying high-quality principles for teaching, in our case exemplified for the school subject mathematics. For this goal, we present the set of five principles that we have deemed as core principles for a new nationwide, ten-year professional development program in Germany: Conceptual Focus, Cognitive Demand, Student Focus and Adaptivity, Longitudinal Coherence, and Enhanced Communication. We will discuss these five principles against their backgrounds stemming from combing normative, epistemological, empirical, and pragmatic perspectives. This set of principles serves as an exemplary case to substantiate our general argumentation that contemporary educational research and professional development activities should not choose between perspectives but strive for combining them.

Teacher quality is an essential element in every school that improves student attainment as well as an important factor contributing to student learning. Understanding of quality in teaching is at a quite early stage of development in many countries. In the review of the works of literature, it was found that there is no exact definition for quality teaching and that quality teaching is a combination of good teaching and successful teaching. Good teaching is the foundation for the idea of expertise as it is associated with the effectiveness of teaching behavior while successful teaching is wholly focused on the attainment of the learner. Again, student engagement in academics was designed to link good teaching and successful teaching. Quality teaching may differ from country to country and as such, policies geared towards teaching must be in line with quality and the role of the teacher to improve student performance. Keywords: quality teaching, good teaching, successful teaching, student engagement. Title: What Makes Quality Teaching? Review of Related Literature Author: Francis Adams, Eric Atta Quainoo, Ernest Opoku International Journal of Social Science and Humanities Research ISSN 2348-3156 (Print), ISSN 2348-3164 (online) Vol. 10, Issue 2, April 2022 - June 2022 Page No: 409-413 Research Publish Journals Website: www.researchpublish.com Published Date: 01-June-2022 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6602052 Paper Download Link (Source) https://www.researchpublish.com/papers/what-makes-quality-teaching-review-of-related-literature, International Journal of Social Science and Humanities Research, ISSN 2348-3156 (Print), ISSN 2348-3164 (online), Research Publish Journals (Publisher), Website: www.researchpublish.com, {"references":["[1]\tBerliner, D. C. (2004). Expert teachers: Their characteristics, development and accomplishments. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 24(3), 200-212.","[2]\tBerliner, D. C. (2005). The near impossibility of testing for teacher quality. Journal of teacher education, 56(3), 205-213.","[3]\tBlanton, L. P., Sindelar, P. T., & Correa, V. I. (2006). Models and measures of beginning teacher quality. The Journal of Special Education, 40(2), 115-127.","[4]\tClarke, C. H. (1970). Validity of Discriminatory Nonresident Tuition Charges in Public Higher Education Under the Interstate Privileges and Immunities Clause. Neb. L. Rev., 50, 31.","[5]\tCoe, R., Aloisi, C., Higgins, S., & Major, L. E. (2014). What makes great teaching? review of the underpinning research. London: Sutton Trust.","[6]\tDarling-Hammond, L. (2010). Recognizing and Developing Effective Teaching: What Policy Makers Should Know and Do. Policy Brief, Mei, 1-12.","[7]\tElmore, R. (2005). Agency, reciprocity and accountability in democratic education. The institutions of American democracy: The public schools, 277-301.","[8]\tFenstermacher, G., & Richardson, V. (2005). On making determinations of quality in teaching. Teachers' college record, 107(1), 186-213.","[9]\tFlanders, N. A., & Amidon, E. J. (1967). The role of the teacher in the classroom. Minneapolis: Association for Productive Teaching.","[10]\tFlanders, N. A. (1976). Research on teaching and improving teacher education. British Journal of Teacher Education, 2(2), 167-174.","[11]\tGreen, T. F. (1971). The activities of teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill.","[12]\tHanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2006). Teacher Quality, Handbook of Economics of Education. Amsterdam, The Netherland: Elsevier.","[13]\tHaskins, R., & Loeb, S. (2007). A plan to improve the quality of teaching in American schools. Brookings Institution.","[14]\tIngvarson, L., & Rowe, K. (2008). Conceptualizing and evaluating teacher quality: Substantive and methodological issues. Australian journal of education, 52(1), 5-35.","[15]\tKennedy, M. M. (2008). Sorting out teacher quality. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(1), 59-63.","[16]\tLoughran, J. (2012). What expert teachers do: Enhancing professional knowledge for classroom practice. New York: Routledge.","[17]\tMorrison, H. C. (1934). Basic principles in education. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.","[18]\tSenge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization (Rev. ed.). New York, NY: Currency Doubleday.","[19]\tSmith, B. O. (1963). A Conceptual Analysis of Instructional Behavior1. Journal of Teacher Education, 14(3), 294-298.","[20]\tWechsler, M. E., & Shields, P. M. (2008). Teaching Quality in California: A New Perspective to Guide Policy. Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning."]}

In the spring of 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic induced a rapid shift to online education. University instructors promptly reinvented their teaching methods and developed digital lessons. Cooperative learning has been demonstrated to surpass lecture-based learning (LBL) regarding students’ learning processes, therefore, the question arises as to whether the perks of cooperative learning still hold when switching to online education. This study examines whether the benefits of team-based learning (TBL) regarding good teaching (i.e., perceived teaching quality), satisfaction, and performance persist when switching from face-to-face to online education. A quasi-experiment in an undergraduate advanced accounting course compared a non-COVID-19-affected semester to a COVID-19-affected semester. In both semesters, students could choose between a TBL and a LBL path for tutorial sessions. Quantitative survey data (N = 455) indicate TBL outperforms LBL, even when switching to online tools. Good teaching was perceived as even better in the COVID-19-affected semester, and even more so by students in the team-based setting, compared to the lecture-based setting. Students’ course satisfaction and performance were unaffected by the switch to online education. This paper shows that TBL still benefits students, even in a blended environment.