Measuring teaching quality and student engagement in South Korea and The Netherlands

Figures & data

Table 1. Sample characteristics.

	South Korea n = 375	Netherlands n = 289	Significance (t test)	Effect size (Cohen’s δ)
Percentage of male teachers	49	50	.802	.020
Years of experience	11.31	16.53	.000	.510
Class size	29.11	21.70	.000	1.149

Table 2. Reliability of scales for measuring teaching skills and student engagement in South Korea and The Netherlands.

	Basic teaching skills			Advanced teaching skills
	Safe and stimulating learning climate	Efficient classroom management	Clear and structured Instruction	Intensive and activating teaching		Teaching learning strategies	Differen- tiating instruction	Student engagement
Cronbach’s α	(4)^1	(4)	(7)	(7)	(6)^2	(6)	(4)	(3)
South Korea	.82	.80	.87	.83	.83	.86	.84	.85
Netherlands	.90	.72	.86	.85	.84	.82	.73	.87

¹Number of items in the scale. ²Leaving out Item 22: “explains the lesson objectives at the start of the lesson”.

Table 3. Multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA) on 7 factors in South Korea and The Netherlands.

	35 items 7 factors			34 items 7 factors (Item 23 removed)
Model fit Norm	CFI > .90	TLI > .90	RMSEA < .08	CFI > .90	TLI > .90	RMSEA < .08
Configural	.934	.927	.072	.936	.929	.072
Metric	.930	.925	.073	.932	.927	.073
Scalar	.911	.909	.080	.916	.915	.079

Table 4. Nested model comparisons of multigroup confirmatory factor analysis.

Models comparison	ΔCFI	ΔTLI	ΔRMSEA	Decision
35 items 7 factors
Metric versus configural	–.004	–.002	.001	Accept
Scalar versus metric	–.019	–.016	.007	Accept
Scalar versus configural	–.023	–.017	.008	Accept
34 items 7 factors
Metric versus configural	–.004	–.004	.001	Accept
Scalar versus metric	–.016	–.012	.006	Accept
Scalar versus configural	–.020	–.014	.007	Accept

Norm for decrease in model fit indices: ΔCFI < 0.01, ΔTLI < 0.01, ΔRMSEA < 0.015 (Chen, 2007; Cheung & Rensvold, 2002).

Table 5. γ coefficients between latent teaching skills and student engagement in South Korea and The Netherlands.

	Basic teaching skills		Advanced teaching skills
	Safe and stimulating learning climate (4)	Efficient classroom management (4)	Clear and structured Instruction (7)	Intensive and activating teaching (6)	Teaching learning strategies (6)	Differen-tiating instruction (4)
γ with student engagement in:
South Korea	.76	.80	.86	.87	.73	.72
Netherlands	.77	.79	.77	.74	.50	.51

Table 6. Comparison of sum scores on ICALT scales in South Korea and The Netherlands.

	Basic teaching skills						Advanced teaching skills
	Safe and stimulating lear-ning climate (4)		Efficient classroom management (4)		Clear and structured instruction (7)		Intensive and activating teaching (6)		Teaching learning strategies (6)		Differentiating instruction (4)		Student engagement (3)
	Avg	SD	Avg	SD	Avg	SD	Avg	SD	Avg	SD	Avg	SD	Avg	SD
South Korea	3.04	.67	3.05	.69	2.91	.64	2.69	.67	2.57	.73	2.36	.83	3.09	.70
Netherlands	3.27	.55	3.16	.51	2.97	.52	2.82	.56	2.45	.53	2.26	.46	2.91	.62
Effect size	.37		.18		.10		.21		–.18		–.14		–.27
Significant	.000		.052		.155		.009		.024		.054		.001

Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14, 464–504.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9, 233–255.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar