Search

In diesem Kapitel geht es um den Beitrag der ‚Makroebene‘ des Schulsystems zur Qualität schulischer Prozesse und Ergebnisse. Nach einem Überblick über die Entwicklung des Forschungsbereiches werden im zweiten Abschnitt grundlegende Begriffe geklärt: Wie ist die Makroebene Schulsystem strukturiert und an welchen Merkmalen könnte ihre Qualität abgelesen werden? Danach wird der empirische Forschungsstand an drei Beispielen, der Erforschung von Schulstrukturen, des internationalen Vergleichs von Schüler:innenleistungen sowie der Untersuchung von Governance-Reformen diskutiert.

School improvement research is faced with a school teaching staff, which is not a simple homogeneous entity. The compositional attributes of the teaching staff – such as diversity – can have a crucial influence on school processes. Whether the teaching staff is highly fractured, consists of sharply dissociated subgroups, or has shared beliefs, affects the adoption of school improvement programs differently. However, school improvement research has not yet taken into account what different compositions of the teaching staff mean from a methodological viewpoint. It is true that the use of multilevel analysis is standard in school improvement research and that it considers nested school data. However, this method alone only takes averaged measures of teaching staffs into consideration but not their different compositions. In this contribution, we argue that school improvement research has to consider, theoretically and methodologically, how compositional attributes of the teaching staff can be conceptualized. We first discuss some advancements in the conceptualization of group composition from research on small groups and organizations. We then incorporate suggestions for different diversity typologies from small group research to describe the compositional attributes of the teaching staff. Additionally, we address how the composition of the teaching staff influences each teacher differently, depending on the specific position a teacher has within the teaching staff. We further suggest incorporating the Group Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (GAPIM; Kenny, DA, Garcia RL, Small Group Res 43:468–496, 2012) as a methodological approach for assessing these compositional influences. In addition to classic multilevel analysis, the GAPIM also considers the effects of the other teachers on staff and the similarity and dissimilarity of a teacher to the other members of the teaching staff. Finally, we illustrate the possibilities of the theoretical and methodological endorsem

Previous research has revealed that teachers’ regulation activities in schools are most relevant for sustainable school improvement. However, previous studies have severe methodological and theoretical shortcomings. This paper presents the results of a mixed-method case study at four lower secondary schools, in which we developed a framework for understanding regulation activities and processes in schools and analyzed teachers’ regulation activities by using time sampling data of teachers’ performance-related and situation-specific day-to-day activities over 3 weeks. Our results revealed that teachers engage in regulation activities only relatively seldom. Significant differences between teachers were found that are systematically related to the teachers’ specific roles in the school. Teachers rated their regulation activities as especially beneficial for teaching, student learning, and teachers’ learning but as less beneficial for team and school development. Small differences between schools were identified. Further, the results revealed significant correlations between teachers’ perceived benefit of the daily activities and teachers’ daily satisfaction. Based on the results, it can be concluded that the newly developed method appears to be suitable for recording teachers’ daily regulation activities in a (relatively) valid manner and, consequently, for use as a complement to existing instruments. Limitations are discussed, and the need for further research is described.

This book aimed to present innovative designs, measurement instruments, and analysis methods by way of illustrative studies. Through these methodology and design developments, the complexity of school improvement in the context of new governance and accountability measures can be better depicted in future research projects. In this concluding chapter, we discuss what strengths the presented methodologies and designs have and to what extent they do better justice to the multilevel, complex, and dynamic nature of school improvement than previous approaches. In addition, we outline some needs for future research in order to gain new perspectives for future studies.

Schools are continuously confronted with various forms of change, including changes in students’ demographics, large-scale educational reforms, and accountability policies aimed at improving the quality of education. On the part of the schools, this requires sustained adaptation to, and co-development with, such changes to maintain or improve educational quality. As schools are multilevel, complex, and dynamic organizations, many conditions, factors, actors, and practices, as well as the (loosely coupled) interplay between them, can be involved therein (e.g. professional learning communities, accountability systems, leadership, instruction, stakeholders, etc.). School improvement can thus be understood through theories that are based on knowledge of systematic mechanisms that lead to effective schooling in combination with knowledge of context and path dependencies in individual school improvement journeys. Moreover, because theory-building, measuring, and analysing co-develop, fully understanding the school improvement process requires basic knowledge of the latest methodological and analytical developments and corresponding conceptualizations, as well as a continuous discourse on the link between theory and methodology. The complexity places high demands on the designs and methodologies from those who are tasked with empirically assessing and fostering improvements (e.g. educational researchers, quality care departments, and educational inspectorates).

Previous research has revealed that teachers’ regulation activities in schools are most relevant for sustainable school improvement. However, previous studies have severe methodological and theoretical shortcomings. This paper presents the results of a mixed-method case study at four lower secondary schools, in which we developed a framework for understanding regulation activities and processes in schools and analyzed teachers’ regulation activities by using time sampling data of teachers’ performance-related and situation-specific day-to-day activities over 3 weeks. Our results revealed that teachers engage in regulation activities only relatively seldom. Significant differences between teachers were found that are systematically related to the teachers’ specific roles in the school. Teachers rated their regulation activities as especially beneficial for teaching, student learning, and teachers’ learning but as less beneficial for team and school development. Small differences between schools were identified. Further, the results revealed significant correlations between teachers’ perceived benefit of the daily activities and teachers’ daily satisfaction. Based on the results, it can be concluded that the newly developed method appears to be suitable for recording teachers’ daily regulation activities in a (relatively) valid manner and, consequently, for use as a complement to existing instruments. Limitations are discussed, and the need for further research is described.

This book aimed to present innovative designs, measurement instruments, and analysis methods by way of illustrative studies. Through these methodology and design developments, the complexity of school improvement in the context of new governance and accountability measures can be better depicted in future research projects. In this concluding chapter, we discuss what strengths the presented methodologies and designs have and to what extent they do better justice to the multilevel, complex, and dynamic nature of school improvement than previous approaches. In addition, we outline some needs for future research in order to gain new perspectives for future studies.

School improvement research is faced with a school teaching staff, which is not a simple homogeneous entity. The compositional attributes of the teaching staff – such as diversity – can have a crucial influence on school processes. Whether the teaching staff is highly fractured, consists of sharply dissociated subgroups, or has shared beliefs, affects the adoption of school improvement programs differently. However, school improvement research has not yet taken into account what different compositions of the teaching staff mean from a methodological viewpoint. It is true that the use of multilevel analysis is standard in school improvement research and that it considers nested school data. However, this method alone only takes averaged measures of teaching staffs into consideration but not their different compositions. In this contribution, we argue that school improvement research has to consider, theoretically and methodologically, how compositional attributes of the teaching staff can be conceptualized. We first discuss some advancements in the conceptualization of group composition from research on small groups and organizations. We then incorporate suggestions for different diversity typologies from small group research to describe the compositional attributes of the teaching staff. Additionally, we address how the composition of the teaching staff influences each teacher differently, depending on the specific position a teacher has within the teaching staff. We further suggest incorporating the Group Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (GAPIM; Kenny, DA, Garcia RL, Small Group Res 43:468–496, 2012) as a methodological approach for assessing these compositional influences. In addition to classic multilevel analysis, the GAPIM also considers the effects of the other teachers on staff and the similarity and dissimilarity of a teacher to the other members of the teaching staff. Finally, we illustrate the possibilities of the theoretical and methodological endorsem

This open access book discusses challenges in school improvement research and different methodological approaches that have the potential to foster school improvement research. Research on school improvement and accountability analysis places high demands on a study’s design and method. The potential of combining the depth of case studies with the breath of quantitative measures and analyses in a mixed-methods design seems very promising. Consequently, the focus of the book lies on innovative methodological approaches. The book chapters address design, measurement, and analysis developments as well as theoretical and conceptual developments. The relevance of the research presented in the chapters for educational accountability is discussed in the book’s discussion chapter. More specifically, authors present one specific innovative methodological approach and clarify that approach with a concrete example in the context of school improvement, based on empirical data when possible. In this way, this book helps researchers designing complex useful studies.

Schools are continuously confronted with various forms of change, including changes in students’ demographics, large-scale educational reforms, and accountability policies aimed at improving the quality of education. On the part of the schools, this requires sustained adaptation to, and co-development with, such changes to maintain or improve educational quality. As schools are multilevel, complex, and dynamic organizations, many conditions, factors, actors, and practices, as well as the (loosely coupled) interplay between them, can be involved therein (e.g. professional learning communities, accountability systems, leadership, instruction, stakeholders, etc.). School improvement can thus be understood through theories that are based on knowledge of systematic mechanisms that lead to effective schooling in combination with knowledge of context and path dependencies in individual school improvement journeys. Moreover, because theory-building, measuring, and analysing co-develop, fully understanding the school improvement process requires basic knowledge of the latest methodological and analytical developments and corresponding conceptualizations, as well as a continuous discourse on the link between theory and methodology. The complexity places high demands on the designs and methodologies from those who are tasked with empirically assessing and fostering improvements (e.g. educational researchers, quality care departments, and educational inspectorates).