A DYNAMIC APPROACH TO SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT: MAIN FEATURES AND IMPACT ON STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES

A DYNAMIC APPROACH TO SCHOOL
IMPROVEMENT:
MAIN FEATURES AND IMPACT ON
STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES
Leonidas Kyriakides
Department of Education, University of Cyprus, Cyprus
International Conference “Improve the school”
Naples, Italy, 14th and 15th May 2015

INTRODUCTION
Educational Effectiveness Research (EER) addresses the
questions on what works in education and why.
EER has been improved considerably by the criticism on
research design, the sampling and statistical techniques.
Methodological advances have enabled more efficient
estimates of teacher and school differences in student
achievement to be obtained.
Progress was made by a more precise definition of the
concepts used and the relations between the concepts.

INTRODUCTION
The whole process has not contributed significantly to the
improvement of school effectiveness.
The dynamic model of educational effectiveness attempts to
define the dynamic relations between the multiple factors found
to be associated with effectiveness.
Teaching and learning are dynamic processes that are constantly
adapting to changing needs and opportunities. Effective
schooling should be treated as a dynamic, ongoing process.
The establishment of the dynamic model and its empirical testing
is expected to help EER to establish stronger links with
educational improvement practice.

PRESENTATION OUTLINE
1. The dynamic model of educational effectiveness: an
overview
2. Testing the validity of the dynamic model
3. Using the dynamic model to develop an evidence-based
and theory-driven approach to school improvement: A
Dynamic Approach to School Improvement (DASI)
4. Investigating the impact of DASI upon student
achievement gains
5. Conclusions and suggestions for further research

1. THE DYNAMIC MODEL OF
EDUCATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS:
AN OVERVIEW

FIGURE 1: THE
DYNAMIC
MODEL OF
EDUCATIONAL
EFFECTIVENESS

1. THE DYNAMIC MODEL OF EDUCATIONAL
EFFECTIVENESS: AN OVERVIEW
Each factor is defined and measured by taking into account five
dimensions: frequency, focus, stage, quality, and
differentiation.
Frequency refers to the quantity that an activity associated with
an effectiveness factor is present in a system, school or
classroom. This dimension may not always be related in a linear
way with student outcomes.
The other four dimensions examine qualitative characteristics of
the functioning of the factors and help us describe the complex
nature of educational effectiveness.

School Factors
Emphasis is given to two main aspects of the school policy
which affect learning at both the level of teachers and students:
a) school policy for teaching and b) school policy for creating a
learning environment at school.
The factors concerned with the school policy mainly refer to the
actions taken by the school to help teachers and other
stakeholders have a clear understanding of what is expected
from them to do.
Support offered to teachers and other stakeholders to
implement the school policy is also an aspect of these two
overarching factors.

 The processes which are used to evaluate the school policy for
teaching and the school learning environment (SLE) are
investigated.
 The following four factors at the school level are included in the
model:
1. school policy for teaching and actions taken for improving
teaching practice,
2. policy for creating the SLE and actions taken for improving
the SLE,
3. evaluation of school policy for teaching and of actions
taken to improve teaching, and
4. evaluation of the SLE

THE DYNAMIC MODEL OF EDUCATIONAL
1. School policy for teaching and actions taken for improving teaching:
I. School policy on quantity of teaching (e.g., policy on the
management of teaching time, policy on student and teacher
absenteeism, policy on lesson schedule and timetable).
II. School policy on provision of learning opportunities is measured
by looking at the extent to which the school has a mission
concerning the provision of learning opportunities, which is
reflected in its policy on curriculum. We also examine the extent to
which the school attempts to make good use of school trips and
other extra-curricular activities for teaching/learning purposes is
investigated.
III. School policy on the quality of teaching

 The way school policy for teaching is examined reveals that
effective schools are expected to:
 make decisions on maximizing the use of teaching time
and the learning opportunities offered to their
students,
 support their teachers in their attempt to help students
learn by using effective teaching practices.

2. School Policy for creating the SLE and actions taken for
improving the SLE:
 Five aspects of SLE are taken into account:
I. student behavior outside the classroom,
II. collaboration and interaction between teachers,
III. partnership policy (i.e., relations of school with
community, parents, and advisors),
IV. provision of sufficient learning resources to students
and teachers, and
V. values in favor of learning

2. TESTING THE VALIDITY OF THE
DYNAMIC MODEL

TABLE 1. EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE MAIN ASSUMPTIONS OF THE DYNAMIC MODEL EMERGED
FROM EMPIRICAL STUDIES AND META-ANALYSES
Assumptions of the dynamic model Studies Meta-analyses
1. Multilevel in nature All All
2. Five dimensions can be used to measure
a) teacher factors 1, 2, 4, 5
b) school factors 1, 3, 4 1
3. Impact of teacher factors on learning outcomes 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 2
4. Impact of school factors on learning outcomes 1, 3, 4, 6 1
5. Situational character of school factors 1
6. Relations among factors operating at the same
level: stages of effective teaching
1, 2, 5, 6 2
7. Changes in the functioning of school factors
predict changes in the effectiveness status of schools
3
Negative results in relation to any assumption None None

Table 1. Empirical evidence supporting the main assumptions of the dynamic model
emerged from empirical studies and meta-analyses
Studies:
1. A longitudinal study measuring teacher and school effectiveness in different subjects
(Kyriakides & Creemers, 2008).
2. A study investigating the impact of teacher factors on achievement of Cypriot students
at the end of pre-primary school (Kyriakides & Creemers, 2009).
3. A follow-up study testing the validity of the model at the school level (Creemers &
Kyriakides, 2010a).
4. A European study testing the validity of the dynamic model (Panayiotou et al., 2013).
5. A study in Canada searching for grouping of teacher factors (Kyriakides, Archambault, &
Janosz, 2013).
6. An experimental study investigating the impact upon student achievement of a teacher
professional development approach based on DASI (Antoniou & Kyriakides, 2011).
Meta-analyses:
1. A quantitative synthesis of 67 studies exploring the impact of school factors on student
achievement (Kyriakides, Creemers, Antoniou, & Demetriou, 2010).
2. A quantitative synthesis of 167 studies searching for the impact of generic teaching skills
on student achievement (Kyriakides, Christoforou, & Charalambous, 2013).

3. USING THE DYNAMIC MODEL TO DEVELOP AN
EVIDENCE-BASED AND THEORY-DRIVEN APPROACH
TO SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT: A DYNAMIC APPROACH
TO SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT (DASI)

3. USING THE DYNAMIC MODEL TO DEVELOP AN EVIDENCE-BASED AND
THEORY-DRIVEN APPROACH TO SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT: A DYNAMIC
APPROACH TO SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT (DASI)
A. Main features
 The Dynamic Approach to School Improvement (DASI) promotes the design
of school improvement projects that are based on a theory which has been
tested.
 The DASI has its own theoretical framework which refers to school factors
that need to be considered in introducing a change.
 School stakeholders are those who take decisions on which improvement
actions and tasks should be carried out.
 The Advisory and Research Team (A&RTeam) is expected to share its
expertise and knowledge with practitioners and help them develop
strategies and action plans that are in line with the knowledge-base of EER.
 DASI emphasizes the role of school evaluation (especially its formative
function) in improving the effectiveness status of the school.

FIGURE 2:
THE
DYNAMIC
APPROACH
TO SCHOOL
IMPROVEMENT

1. Establishing clarity and consensus about the general aims of school
improvement: considering student learning as the main function of
the school
 It is important to start with a clear understanding of the destination
and how improvement of quality in education will be achieved.
 Commitment to collaborative work needs to be established but people
have different perceptions of change.
 It is difficult to reach consensus among the participants in school
reform efforts, albeit this may be crucial in its success.
 Student learning should be considered as the ultimate aim of any
school improvement effort.

2. Establishing clarity and consensus about the aims of school
improvement by addressing school factors which influence
learning and teaching
 Presenting the dynamic model can assist school stakeholders’
understanding of the necessity of developing a School Self-
Evaluation (SSE) mechanism, which will collect data about each
school factor and its dimension.
 School stakeholders should not only be aware of the factors that
need to be addressed but they should also understand that
addressing them can help them achieve better learning outcomes.

3. Collecting evaluation data and identifying priorities for
improvement
 Drawing on the expertise of the A&RTeam, analysis of the data can
be conducted and its results will help school stakeholders identify
priorities for improving the functioning of specific factors and/or
grouping of factors.
 The improvement area has to be announced to the whole school
community and comments/reactions should be considered in
defining the area in a way that helps not only the teachers but also
parents and students understand the factors that are addressed.

4. Designing school improvement strategies and action plans by
considering the available knowledge-base about the factor(s) addressed
 The dynamic model refers to qualitative characteristics of the functioning of
factors which increase their impact on learning.
 Members of the A&RTeam share their expertise and knowledge with school
stakeholders, providing additional input to existing ideas, experiences and
knowledge.
 Effective policies are not only those which are clear to the stakeholders but
also take into account the ability of the stakeholders to implement the policy.
 The final decisions are taken by the school, as development of action plans
does not only require putting into practice what is available in the literature,
but also adopting the guidelines to the needs of the stakeholders of each
school.

5. Monitoring the implementation of the improvement project
through establishing formative evaluation mechanisms
 The role of the A&RTeam is important, as their expertise in
conducting evaluation is shared with school stakeholders.
 School stakeholders develop internal evaluation mechanisms to
monitor the progress of their improvement efforts.
 Exchange of ideas and experiences between stakeholders and the
A&RTeam may help school stakeholders agree on how to improve
their action plans.

6. Conduct a summative evaluation to measure the impact of
DASI
 Positive findings are expected to increase the commitment of a
school to the DASI.
 Summative evaluation may help school stakeholders decide
whether the factor(s) addressed have been substantially
improved, and resultantly if a new priority for improvement and
new action plans need to be developed.

4. INVESTIGATING THE IMPACT OF DASI
UPON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT GAINS

TABLE 2. EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES INVESTIGATING THE IMPACT OF USING DASI RATHER THAN PARTICIPATORY
APPROACHES THAT ARE BASED ON PRACTITIONER’S EXPERTISE
Area of investigation Impact on factors Ultimate aims
1. Using DASI rather than HA to offer
INSET to primary teachers (n=130)
Only teachers employing DASI
managed to improve their
teaching skills
DASI had an impact on
student achievement
2. Using DASI rather than CBA to offer
INSET course on assessment (n=240)
DASI had a stronger impact than
CBA on improving assessment
skills of teachers at stages 2, 3 and
4
student achievement
3. Using DASI to establish school self-
evaluation mechanisms in primary
schools (n=60)
Not examined since schools had
to deal with different
improvement areas
student achievement
4. Integrating DASI with research on
bullying to help schools (n=79) in five
European countries to establish
strategies to face and reduce bullying
DASI had an impact on school
factors
reducing bullying
5. Using DASI to promote quality and
equity in socially disadvantaged
schools (n=40)
DASI had an impact on school
factors.
DASI had an impact not
only on student
achievement, but also on
reducing unjustifiable
differences between
students’ achievement.

Table 2. Experimental studies investigating the impact of using DASI rather than
participatory approaches that are based on practitioner’s expertise
Studies:
1. The impact of a dynamic approach to professional development on teacher
instruction and student learning: results from an experimental study
(Antoniou & Kyriakides, 2011).
2. Searching for stages of teacher skills in assessment (Christoforidou, 2013).
3. The impact of school self-evaluation upon student achievement: a group
randomisation study (Demetriou & Kyriakides, 2012).
4. Using the dynamic model of educational effectiveness to design strategies
and actions to face bullying (Kyriakides, Creemers, Muijs, Rekers-Mombarg,
Papastylianou, Van Petegem, & Pearson, 2013).
5. Kyriakides, L., Charalambous, E., Michaelidou, A., & Creemers, B.P.M. (2014).
Promoting student learning outcomes in socially disadvantaged schools: The
impact of the dynamic approach to school improvement. Paper presented at
the 4th Meeting of the EARLI SIG Educational Effectiveness "Marrying rigour
and relevance: Towards effective education for all“. University of
Southampton, UK, 27-29 August, 2014.

5. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

5. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER
RESEARCH
 The research agenda of EER should be expanded and cover
issues associated not only with modeling and evaluating
effectiveness but also with the development of a theory-
driven and evidence-based approach to school improvement.
 We need to investigate the role of the A&RTeam in
supporting schools to improve their effectiveness and the
impact of formative evaluation in school improvement efforts
next to the role of summative evaluation.
 Only few studies investigated the impact of effectiveness
factors on promoting equity.

5. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER
RESEARCH
 Further research is needed to identify whether factors
included in the dynamic model are associated both with the
quality and the equity dimension of educational
effectiveness.
 Since there is some evidence showing that schools can
achieve both dimensions of educational effectiveness
(Kyriakides & Creemers, 2011), we need to develop further
the dynamic model and examine whether DASI can promote
both quality and equity in education.

 For more information on how the studies were
conducted, please visit our websites below.
Information on specific references is also
provided.
 www.ucy.ac.cy/jls
 www.ucy.ac.cy/esf
 www.ucy.ac.cy/equality

Thank you for your attention!
_______________________________________________________
Leonidas Kyriakides
Department of Education, University of Cyprus,
P.O. Box 20537, 1678 Nicosia, CYPRUS
Tel. 00357-22892947, Fax: 00357-22894488
Email: kyriakid@ucy.ac.cy

A DYNAMIC APPROACH TO SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT: MAIN FEATURES AND IMPACT ON STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (20)

Destacado

Destacado (18)

Similar a A DYNAMIC APPROACH TO SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT: MAIN FEATURES AND IMPACT ON STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES

Similar a A DYNAMIC APPROACH TO SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT: MAIN FEATURES AND IMPACT ON STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES (20)

Más de Istituto Nazionale di Documentazione, Innovazione e Ricerca Educativa

Más de Istituto Nazionale di Documentazione, Innovazione e Ricerca Educativa (20)

Último

Último (20)

A DYNAMIC APPROACH TO SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT: MAIN FEATURES AND IMPACT ON STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES

Notas del editor