When educator-learner perceptions of instruction diverge: teachers’ perspectives

ABSTRACT

Background

Research suggests that students and teachers often tend to diverge in their perceptions of instructional practices that are part of their everyday classroom experience. This might include differing views about assessment and feedback, or the effectiveness of task design. Accordingly, there is a need to understand as much as possible about the reasons for such differences.

Purpose

Whilst it is important to investigate students’ and teachers’ views on the reasons for these differences, the present study aimed to contribute to the ‘why’ and ‘how’ behind student-teacher divergence in perception by specifically focusing on teachers’ perspectives.

Method

A total of 398 Austrian secondary school teachers responded to an open response question in an online survey. They were invited to reflect on the possible reasons for student–teacher divergence in terms of perceptions of instruction. The teachers’ statements written in response to the question were analysed, in detail, using qualitative content analysis. Data were grouped according to micro, meso and marcrolevel factors.

Findings

Analysis gave rise to a detailed categorisation of the reasons given by teachers, from their viewpoints, for student-teacher divergence in perception. The resultant categories and sub-categories revealed a wide range of explanations, including socio-demographic, motivational and emotional factors, and consideration of classroom features, and environmental factors.

Conclusions

As the themes that emerged were largely consistent with factors discussed in previous literature, the findings offer further in-depth insight into the possible underlying mechanisms, as well as highlighting some newly identified explanations, from teachers’ viewpoints, for student-teacher divergence in perception. The study generates some new ways to think about why teachers and students may have different perceptions of everyday instructional practices in the classroom, and draws attention to the significance of this complex area for all concerned with strengthening the quality of teaching and learning.

KEYWORDS:

• Student-teacher divergence in perception
• instructional practices
• educator-student relationship
• professional development
• pedagogy
• classroom practice

Introduction

There is evidence that students and teachers oftentimes diverge in their perceptions of common instructional features, such as efficient use of time, adequate personal learning support (Kunter and Baumert 2007), or what the purposes of assessment may be (Pat-El et al. 2015). There is a need to understand more about divergent perceptions among students and teachers on prevailing instructional practices, given that student and teacher ratings are both typically used as the basis for recommendations to improve instruction. When teachers’ and students’ perceptions diverge, recommendations based on either student or teacher data will differ considerably, presenting a dilemma for all those interested in enhancing the quality of instruction.

Given empirical evidence indicating that students’ and teachers’ perceptions oftentimes concur to a limited degree (also referred to as a lack of student-teacher agreement, e.g. Bardach et al. 2018; Deemer 2004; Kaplan, Gheen, and Midgley 2002), manifold potential explanations have been discussed. There is a wide spectrum of possible reasons, ranging from social desirability bias to sociodemographic factors such as age (e.g. Desimone, Smith, and Frisvold 2010; Kunter and Baumert 2007; Poulou 2017). Some of these explanations are based on correlations observed in empirical studies, whereas others have been inferred from research findings. However, in terms of explaining and exploring the differences, insufficient attention has been paid to the perspectives of those directly involved. In the main, studies have not asked teachers or students directly about factors they consider relevant to the explanation of student-teacher divergence in perception (for a notable exception see Könings et al. 2007). There is therefore a need to address this by researching the perspectives of students and teachers. Due to teachers’ educational expertise on the one hand, and their practical experience on the other hand (Reinke et al. 2011), investigating and analysing their perspectives is one important way that additional insights and a more precise understanding of the phenomenon might be provided. Therefore, the current study focuses attention on exploring teachers’ perspectives on reasons for divergence in perceptions of instructional practices between students and teachers. In advance of presenting our study, we seek to contextualise our research by considering literature relating to teachers’ and students’ differing perceptions of instruction.

Background

As mentioned above, student and teacher survey ratings represent a typical way of gaining views about important aspects of instruction. Empirical research speaks in favour of ratings aggregated to the school or classroom level as reliable indicators of the learning climate and correlates of student outcomes (Schweig and Felipe Martínez 2021). However, research shows that students’ and teachers’ perceptions of experiences can vary greatly. For instance, research on classroom goal structures has shown that the convergence between teacher and student ratings ranges from non-significant to, at best, moderate relations (Bardach et al. 2018; Kaplan, Gheen, and Midgley 2002). In addition, there are studies revealing significant divergence or lack of agreement between student and teacher ratings across various dimensions of instruction (e.g. the frequency of media use or distinct types of instruction; Desimone, Smith, and Frisvold 2010). Importantly, empirical evidence suggests that divergence in perception may, to a certain extent, arise for substantive reasons relating to contextual factors as well as inter-individual differences (Bardach et al. 2019; Desimone, Smith, and Frisvold 2010).

A variety of potential explanations for student-teacher differences regarding their perceptions of instructional practices has been suggested over time. In order to provide a structure through which to interpret these, the following section relies on ecological systems theory. Ecological systems theory is widely used to understand complex interrelationships in different fields of social sciences (e.g. Spiel et al. 2008), and was considered to provide a helpful approach when applied in the context of the concepts underpinning our own study. Originally proposed by Bronfenbrenner (1979), ecological system frameworks outline a multi-layered relationship between the individual and their social environment. Broadly, the microlevel refers to the immediate environment of the individual, the mesolevel refers to interactions between the individuals and their environment, and the macrolevel refers to contextual factors of the entire system (e.g. Bronfenbrenner et al. 2006; Spiel et al. 2008).

Situated on the microlevel, sociodemographic characteristics have been observed to relate to student-teacher divergence in perception. For instance, Desimone and colleagues (Desimone, Smith, and Frisvold 2010) reported that the perceptions of girls tended to be more in line with their teachers’ perceptions. In terms of students’ age, Neal and colleagues (Neal et al. 2011) observed that students and teachers tended to exhibit higher convergence at higher grade levels. Other explanations at the microlevel relate to emotional and motivational factors. In a qualitative study investigating reasons for students’ often more negative perceptions (Könings et al. 2007), students identified workload and the fact that school attendance was compulsory as explanations on the student side. Resulting negative affect (i.e. experiences of negative emotions) among students was discussed as a potential reason for student-teacher divergence in perception (i.e. put simply, students do not like going to school). Further, teachers in this study referred to students’ and teachers’ different goals and student motivational factors - for example, the trend of school becoming less important for students (Könings et al. 2007; see also e.g. Bardach et al. 2018 for a discussion of low student motivation in the context of student-teacher divergence in perception). In addition, the academic literature discusses how an individual’s perception might be affected by perception bias. Accordingly, it has been proposed that divergence in perception may result from social desirability and self-serving bias (e.g. Deemer 2004). As such, teachers’ responses in surveys might be indicative of how they would prefer to teach, instead of how they actually teach (Deemer 2004; see also Butler 2012). Moreover, the extent (or lack of extent) to which students may actually observe instructional practices has been proposed as a further explanation. In this respect, students and teachers might exhibit higher convergence in perception regarding practices that they more easily observe (Bardach et al. 2018; Desimone, Smith, and Frisvold 2010; Kunter and Baumert 2007). This could represent a basis for students and teachers to be able to evaluate the same underlying construct when providing responses in a survey. However, there is evidence that even the use of parallel survey questions does not guarantee that the same construct is assessed from each perspective, due to differing interpretations (Kunter and Baumert 2007). Accordingly, perceptions, and thus survey responses, might refer to different aspects of instruction, rather than the same underlying construct (see perspective-specific validities, Clausen 2002).

Findings from correlative studies suggest that reasons for student-teacher divergence in perception may be linked to students’ performance, with higher performing students being more aligned with their teacher’s perceptions (Bardach et al. 2018; Desimone, Smith, and Frisvold 2010). While individual performance is located at the microlevel, the mechanism suggested in this regard is the potentially more favourable treatment of high-performing students on the mesolevel. Accordingly, teachers construct different learning environments for higher- and lower-achieving students (e.g. Mingjing, Urhahne, and Rubie-Davies 2018). If teachers then rate their instructional practices with respect to the group of higher-achieving students, they will exhibit higher convergence in perception with higher-achieving students.

Another proposed explanation for student-teacher divergence in perception located on the mesolevel is a classroom climate that is characterised by high levels of disciplinary problems. Problematic circumstances might distract and create ‘noise’ in perceptions of instruction, negatively affecting perception alignment (e.g. Bardach et al. 2018). Similarly, higher levels of student aggressive behaviour and specific classroom structural features have been found to relate to greater gaps in students’ and teachers’ perceptions (e.g. a negative relation between convergence in perception and class size, due to less capacity for attention to individual students on the part of the teacher) (Neal et al. 2011). However, it should be noted that in contrast to the other studies cited, the work of Neal et al. (2011) did not focus on convergence in perception with respect to instructional features, but with respect to classroom social networks. Moreover, Neal et al. (2011) conducted research in the primary school context, while all other studies cited refer to the secondary school context.

Exploring academic literature on the potential reasons for student-teacher divergence in perception, it becomes evident that references to the macrolevel are limited. One exception is the work by Biemans et al. (1999), who proposed that in some situations students might have a more open-eyed approach due to the way schooling is organised: as they are usually taught by different teachers, they are able to compare them directly. Teachers, in contrast, usually teach their classes alone, and may not have the opportunity to be supported by ongoing professional development programmes that allow them to compare themselves directly with peers. Therefore, they may lack the opportunity to compare themselves to their fellow teachers and might find it difficult to develop a realistic self-image. Moreover, also located on the macrolevel, Könings et al. (2007) refer to the fact that school attendance is compulsory for students, possibly resulting in more negative perceptions among students.

The literature in this complex area provides valuable background. The reasons for student-teacher divergence in perception discussed are well founded and have partly been empirically supported in cross-sectional studies. However, there is a need for further investigation in order to better understand the reasons behind the differences. For example, there may be other factors, which have not been considered so far, that could aid in explaining student-teacher divergence in perception.

Purpose

Against this research landscape, the present study thus aimed to contribute further insight into the possible reasons for student-teacher divergence in perception by drawing attention to the perspectives of teachers. Specifically, we sought to understand what explanations teachers provide for student-teacher divergence in perception regarding instructional practices, and then identify to what extent their statements corresponded to reasons that have been previously suggested. The study’s explorative focus was, therefore, on whether new explanations for student-teacher divergence in perception may additionally emerge. As such, the present study aims to contribute to existing research on the complex area of student-teacher divergence in perception, and serve as an inspiration for future studies – for example, explorations of students’ perspectives or mixed methods research investigating possible reasons for student-teacher divergence in perception.

Method

Ethical considerations

Participation in the study was completely voluntary and only those who gave active consent with respect to participation and data usage took part. Participants were assured that their responses would remain confidential and only be used for scientific purposes. Full anonymity was ensured by not storing any data that would allow conclusions to be drawn about the identity of the respondents. All procedures performed were in accordance with Austrian federal law, our institution’s ethical standards and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments.

Data collection

A total of 398 Austrian secondary school teachers (68% female, mean age of 45.6 years; SD = 11.36 years) participated in this study¹. Their teaching experience ranged from 1 to 42 years (M = 18.86 years, SD = 12.13 years). Most teachers (75%) were employed in academic-track secondary schools, 22% worked in middle schools, and 3% worked in other school types. Accordingly, teachers from academic-track schools were over-represented compared to the population of secondary school teachers in Austria (75% in our sample vs. 44% in the population, Statistik Austria 2019). In terms of gender and age, the group of respondents roughly corresponded to the population (Statistik Austria 2019).

Data for this study were gathered through an online survey. A total of 3703 teachers were contacted and the response rate for the study was 11%. The link to the survey was distributed via mailing lists for secondary school teachers through various Austrian educational networks, inviting all those interested to participate. The teachers were not bound to a specific place or time when completing the online survey. In addition to closed questions on occupational experience², the questionnaire contained an open response question on student-teacher divergence in perception. It is this open response question which is the focus of the present study. Before implementing the survey, the question was piloted with experts from our research group.

As part of the survey, participants were presented with a paragraph introducing the topic of student-teacher divergence in perception regarding instructional practices. In order to explain the term ‘instructional practices’, examples were provided. Participants were then asked to reflect on possible reasons for student-teacher divergence in perception, drawing on their everyday classroom experience. The wording of the open response question was as follows (translated from German):

In some studies, students as well as their teachers are asked about how they perceive instruction. Both groups are asked to assess different aspects of instruction and teacher behaviour, e.g. the design of tasks, whether teachers promote the autonomy of students (e.g. provide opportunities for participation in lesson planning), assessment and feedback or opportunities for group work. These empirical studies show that students and their teachers often diverge in their perceptions of instructional practices - that is, teachers and students seem to perceive teaching differently. Can you think of possible reasons or explanations for these findings? You are also welcome to refer to your experience of everyday teaching!

There was no specific space limit for responses to this question.

Data analysis

Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis (Mayring 2015). Prior to the first screening of the data, a category system was designed based on prevailing explanations for student-teacher divergence in perception. These predefined categories comprised: sociodemographic factors (such as gender and age, e.g. Desimone, Smith, and Frisvold 2010); motivation (such as students’ low motivation, e.g. Bardach et al. 2018); goals (e.g. diverging goals of students and teachers, Könings et al. 2007); emotional factors (e.g. Könings et al. 2007); cognitive abilities and academic achievement (e.g. higher agreement between higher-achieving students and their teachers, e.g. Desimone, Smith, and Frisvold 2010; Bardach et al. 2018); differing perceptions and misconceptions (e.g. students and teachers simply have a different understanding of important concepts, e.g. Kunter and Baumert 2007); perception biases (such as self-serving bias, e.g. Deemer 2004); social aspects, classroom aspects and instructional strategies (such as differential teacher treatment, e.g. Bardach et al. 2018; class size, e.g. Neal et al. 2011); and external environmental factors (such as compulsory school attendance, e.g. Könings et al. 2007). We established coding rules for all categories, defining inclusion and exclusion criteria. In order to structure the categories, they were assigned to different activity levels based on prominent system frameworks (Bronfenbrenner et al. 2006; Spiel et al. 2008): namely, (a) the microlevel, referring to the immediate environment of the individual; (b) the mesolevel, referring to interactions between the individuals and their environment; and (c) the macrolevel, referring to contextual factors of the entire system that may include political guidelines, legal requirements and public opinion.

In the next step, teachers’ responses were screened to exclude any non-content-bearing statements (such as ‘I do not have time to think about that’). Of the 398 participants who responded to the qualitative part of the questionnaire, the responses of 387 participants were further processed. Many teachers provided several explanations for student-teacher divergence in perception. Therefore, all answers were segmented into smaller coding units, with each segment addressing only one thematic aspect. The segmentation was performed independently by the first and third authors. The authors then compared their respective segmentation results. If the raters disagreed on the semantic elements per segment, the individual cases were discussed until consensus was reached. This resulted in 831 segments. On average, each respondent contributed 2.14 segments to the analysis (Mdn = 2, SD = 1.55, Range = 1–10). The segments were then transferred into analysis software (MAXQDA), which we used as a tool to support our qualitative data analysis. The first and the third author assigned the segments to the predefined categories according to the established categorisation rules. Responses that did not match the categories were referred to the protocol. These cases were then discussed together with the last author and the category system was expanded based on the data. This step resulted in the inclusion of three further categories: ‘Knowledge and metacognition’ (i.e. an individual’s knowledge about favourable teaching and learning processes, and the ability to plan and monitor processes); ‘Perspective-taking’ (i.e. understanding of roles, needs and duties specific to students or teachers); and a further miscellaneous subcategory ‘Questioning the validity of studies on student-teacher divergence in perception’, containing statements that doubted the findings referred to in the introduction to the question.

The remaining segments were then assigned to the new categories independently. We calculated the interrater reliability to determine the agreement of the two independent categorisations, using Cohen’s Kappa (κ, Cohen 1960). Cohen’s Kappa measures agreement between raters who each classify a predefined set of items into a predefined number of mutually exclusive categories. If the raters are in complete agreement, then κ = 1. In the present study, the interrater reliability for the categorisation was κ = .82, indicating almost perfect agreement (Cohen 1960). In a final step, segments coded differently were discussed, and, according to the established categorisation rules, a common final solution was agreed upon. In a few cases, the wording of the coding rules was slightly adjusted to compensate for differences between the raters’ perceptions. Descriptive statistics on the number of segments per (sub)category, and overall proportions, were calculated.

Findings

The analysis described above allowed us to categorise, in detail, the reasons given by the teachers, from their viewpoints, for student-teacher divergence in perception. Table 1 provides an overview of all main and sub-categories, including whether they were formed deductively (predefined categories) or inductively (based on the data) (see Mayring 2015), as well as anonymised illustrative examples from the data, and the category frequencies and proportions.

Table 1. Categories summarising reasons for student-teacher divergence in perception.

Category and sub-category	Definition	Examples (translated from German)	Frequency of (sub)category occurrence (total N segments = 831)	Percentage of total N segments^c
I. Microlevel – Individual circumstances
I.I Sociodemographic factors^a	Sociodemographic factors that influence perceptions and preferences regarding instruction. These may include: age, life experience, puberty-related preferences and behavioural tendencies, family background, educational background. Overlap with other categories is possible; is coded if e.g. age is explicitly given as a reason for behaviours or perceptions.	15-18-year-olds are self-confident, want to determine their world themselves and perceive any rule as a constraint. Due to different parenting styles and less life experience, students often have different perceptions concerning justice, the relevance of certain learning content or their own performance.	85	10%
I.II Motivation^a	Motivation in general concerns the energisation and direction of behaviour (Pintrich 2003). This category includes motivational factors that influence perceptions and preferences regarding instruction. These may include: motivation to attend school; interest in the subject; tendency to avoid effort; teacher’s motivation to involve students in lesson planning. Overlap with “goals” is possible; is coded if motivational factors refer to (more) general conditions and not solely to narrowly defined “goals”.	A lot of students do not necessarily want to be taught anything. They see school as a necessary evil that they have to endure. Teachers are convinced of and interested in their subject. Otherwise, they would not have studied it. Students have to enrol in all subjects.	59	7%
I.III Goals^a	Goals represent desirable future end states (Austin and Vancouver 1996). This category includes concrete goals that influence perceptions and preferences regarding education. Pupils and teachers may have different goals and sometimes conflicting goals. Overlap with “motivation” is possible; is coded if statement specifically refers to goals.	Teachers and students have different goals, and therefore different perceptions of what a successful lesson is. Their goals seem different to me. Teachers are more likely to see long-term goals. Pupils often do not see the significance of the topics because they still lack an overarching perspective. As a result, lessons are perceived differently in the short run.	76	9%
I.IV Affective phenomena^a	Affective phenomena include emotions, moods, and affect dispositions (Scherer 2005). This category includes affective phenomena that influence perceptions and preferences regarding education. These may include: more generally: current mood, (negative) emotions; more specifically: anxiety, fear of change, stress, frustration.	Pupils evaluate a lot of things according to their enjoyment. Their current mood plays a role. Often, students project their emotions onto what happens in the classroom.	23	3%
I.V Cognitive abilities and academic achievement^a	Cognitive ability can be defined as a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience (Gottfredson 1997). Academic achievement is defined as a level of proficiency in scholastic work. This category includes cognitive abilities and academic achievement as factors influencing perceptions and preferences regarding instruction.	In recent years, I noticed that low-achieving students tend to portray their deficits as cool. As soon as they have to make an effort, the exercise is seen as uncool. Good pupils and pupils to be taken seriously will more often agree with the teacher’s opinion. Bad students will often seek to blame teachers for their deficits.	17	2%
I.VI Knowledge and metacognition^b	Metacognition is the awareness of one’s own cognitive processes. This category includes knowledge about favourable teaching and learning processes and ability to plan and monitor processes as factors influencing perceptions and preferences regarding instruction.	In general, students often do not have the competence (since they are not trained in the field) to understand didactic methods. Students rarely have the competence to judge the necessity of the subject matter/exercise.	41	5%
I.VII Perception^a,b
I.VII.a Differing perceptions and misconceptions^a	Different views on the meaning of terms and on ideals concerning instruction, leading to divergence in perception among teachers and students.	I think that freedom is interpreted differently by pupils and teachers. Most of the students understand participation in lesson planning simply as free choice of topic and an easy-going, relaxed lesson.	39	5%
I.VII.b Perception biases^a	Perception biases leading to divergence in perception among teachers and students. These may include: heuristics; contrast effects; confirmation biases; self-serving biases; negativity biases.	Thus, I think that students notice teachers’ rules more, whereas teachers notice the freedoms they provide within the system. Often, both sides try to portray themselves as victims of the other side. I think that it is particularly difficult for teachers who have been working for a long time, to reflect on or evaluate their teaching. Their perception of their own lessons is therefore highly distorted. Of course, as a teacher, you are often convinced that you have now planned a really good lesson. After all, you have invested a lot of time and work.	67	8%
I.VII.c Perspective-taking^b	Lack of perspective-taking on both sides (lack of understanding of roles, needs and duties specific to students/teachers), leading to different expectations among teachers and students.	Students do not know much about legal frameworks, curricula, and the like, and therefore cannot always understand why a teacher must or cannot do some things. I think that teachers are not always able to empathise with young people as much as they believe they can.	57	7%
II. Mesolevel – Interactions
II.I Social aspects^a	Social aspects that influence perceptions and preferences regarding education. These may include: social roles; distribution of power; interactions; other significant people: peers, parents; group dynamics.	Maybe students see their teacher more as an opponent than as an ally. The school system is generally dominated by asymmetrically distributed power (this is also desired by many teachers because it is more comfortable). Of course, the evaluation of lessons is related to one’s (role) position in that hierarchy.	56	7%
II.II Classroom aspects and instructional strategies^a	Class features, characteristics of the classroom environment, and teaching practices that foster or hinder student-teacher divergence in perception. These may include: class size; classroom climate; heterogeneity among pupils; communication & feedback; instructional strategies.	I also noticed that you can never please all students in a class because classes are very heterogeneous. As a teacher you hardly get any feedback. Not from students, fellow teachers or parents. You are usually alone in class and design your instruction as you think best.	125	15%
III. Macrolevel – Contextual factors			75	9%
III.I External environmental factors^a	External environmental factors influencing teaching practices, perceptions, and preferences regarding education. These may include: time constraints; legal requirements; public image of school/education; media influence.	As much as I want to promote autonomy among students, the system’s requirements (standardisation, centralised tasks) force me to do some teaching to the test. If learning and school had a better image, it might not be necessary to constantly justify the subject matter/learning goals and autonomous learning might be more possible.
IV. Miscellaneous categories			111	13%
IV.I Miscellaneous category 1 - Questioning the validity of studies on student-teacher divergence in perception^b	Respondents doubt the validity of scientific findings on student-teacher divergence in perception described in the question.	Surveys often reflect what respondents believe they have to say in order to meet certain expectations. I cannot confirm that finding. Whenever I collected feedback from my students, the results were exactly what I expected.
IV.II Miscellaneous category 2 - Not topic-related^a	Non-topic-related responses.	-

^aCategories built deductively based on findings from the literature.

^bCategories built inductively based on the data.

^cPercentages may not sum to 100, due to rounding.

In the narrative summary below, the findings of the qualitative content analysis are presented, by category. They are grouped by the three levels: microlevel factors, mesolevel factors and macrolevel factors.

Microlevel factors

Sociodemographic factors

According to the teachers, factors including age differences between students and teachers, lack of life experience among students, puberty, and family background could all help to explain the divergence of perception. In terms of age differences, teachers suggested that younger teachers might be better able to establish good relations with students, mutual understanding, and thus more likely to have concordant perceptions. As for characteristics on the student side, teachers reported that, due to less life experience, students may lack knowledge of what is important for them to learn and, thus, tend to devalue instruction. In particular, puberty was ascribed a crucial role: while younger students were described as more motivated, teenagers were regarded as more emotionally sensitive. Along with an increasing need for autonomy, they were described as lacking in self-regulation skills. Consequently, some teachers felt the need to increase pressure on adolescents, which they felt could lead to less mutual understanding. On the other hand, teachers portrayed older students as more likely to agree with them regarding factors that make a successful lesson. Finally, teachers mentioned students’ family and educational background. They pointed out that students develop perceptions of equity, relevance of learning content, and achievement in relation to family background. Thus, teachers considered that convergence in perception is more likely if teachers’ and parents’ views correspond.

Motivation

Factors mentioned included general motivation to attend school, effort avoidance, interest in the subject and attitudes towards student-centred learning. All these aspects were mentioned by the teachers in relation to students and teachers. Teachers who enjoyed their job and saw a purpose were presumed to ‘see eye to eye’ with their students more often. However, a view was held, too, that teachers exhibit higher intrinsic motivation to come to school and have greater interest in their respective subjects, in any case. The teachers explained that students, on the other hand, may face many extrinsic motivators and/or de-motivators, such as the need to achieve grades or parental pressure, which could lead to reactive and negative attitudes towards school. Consequently, teachers felt that even pedagogically well-conducted lessons might not be well received by students. Teachers further observed how student-centred learning might be evaluated differently, depending on the attitudes of teachers and students. They emphasised, in particular, that to organise student-centred learning, additional work was required which some teachers may not be willing to do, or may not consider necessary. At the same time, according to teachers, teenagers often want to get by with as little effort as possible. Teachers commented that students tended to be not fond of teachers challenging them within student-centred learning arrangements if they thought this would involve extra work.

Goals

The teachers considered that teachers and students pursue different goals, thus leading them to evaluate teaching according to different criteria: while teachers tend to pursue long-term goals, students evaluate instruction based on their current experience. Moreover, teachers emphasised that certain goals of teaching were prescribed by, for example, a curriculum that needed to be adhered to. Therefore, students’ preferences with respect to instruction could not always be taken into account. They noted that students sometimes expected them to provide ‘teaching to the test’ to get the best grades possible, while the teachers’ focus was, rather, on overarching educational goals that students may perceive as unnecessary.

Affective phenomena

Teachers referred to current mood, fear of failure, stress, frustration, and reactance among students as factors that could contribute to a divergence of perception. Among teachers, fear of change and emotional sensitivity were mentioned. As for students’ mood, teachers felt that students tended to rate lessons according to enjoyment, which would be influenced by their current mood. Moreover, emotionally negative experiences (i.e. conflicts with teachers, receiving bad grades) might affect students’ evaluation of instruction. Teachers assumed that test and performance anxiety interfered with student-teacher convergence in perception, as well as frustration, emotional stress and negative emotions stemming from out-of-school contexts. It was felt that, due to fear of causing discord, students might refrain from providing feedback about instruction. Moreover, according to the teachers, receiving student feedback might not be welcomed by every teacher, due to concern about criticism. This was associated with concerns about giving up routines as a possible consequence of implementing changes based on students’ feedback. It was reported that, for some teachers, emotional sensitivity might interfere with student-teacher convergence of perception: for example, addressing issues such as forgotten homework or lack of motivation may be taken personally.

Cognitive abilities and academic achievement

As students’ cognitive abilities and performance were mostly brought up in close connection with each other, or even used synonymously, they were combined within one category. Teachers felt that, due to some students’ higher cognitive abilities and higher subject-matter knowledge, high-performing students had a better understanding of the purposes of learning activities and corrective feedback than did low-achieving students. According to the teachers, able students’ responsibility for their own learning and willingness to achieve allowed teachers to include them in lesson planning, leading to higher student-teacher convergence in perception. Low-achieving students, on the other hand, were portrayed as frequently attributing their low performance externally, thus tending to be more critical of their teachers’ instruction. These students were perceived as less interested in school, avoiding effort, devaluing learning, and thus instruction. Moreover, as lower performing students need an increased amount of guidance, teachers commented that it was more difficult to provide them with opportunities to self-direct their learning processes, which could lead to student-teacher divergence in perception.

Knowledge and metacognition

Teachers referred to knowledge about successful teaching and learning processes, and the ability to plan and monitor processes, on the part of students and teachers alike. The teachers felt that, due to their training and experience, teachers did not necessarily question their own work routines. However, the more they were aware of successful teaching and learning processes, the more they were likely to judge their own teaching according to methodological and didactic standards. Students, on the other hand, might lack sufficient knowledge to understand underlying intentions of instruction. The teachers pointed out that, as students were used to the teachers having responsibility for planning lessons and structuring learning processes, students rarely had the opportunity to gain an understanding of underlying principles.

Perception

This category included the sub-categories of Differing perceptions and misconceptions, Perception biases and Perspective-taking. In terms of the first, the teachers thought that, in educational settings, students’ perceptions predominantly focused on peer-group-related experiences and individual experiences with the subject matter. In contrast, the teachers explained that the teacher focus was on the attainment of teaching goals located on the class level. Teachers mentioned that they were sometimes so busy teaching that they could lose sight of what is happening at the same time in the classroom. Additionally, the teachers commented that criteria and expectations about successful instruction tend to differ and often remain unspoken between students and teachers. Moreover, they emphasised how the meaning of terms such as ‘freedom’ or ‘participative decision-making’ are interpreted differently and that students and teachers set different standards – for example, regarding frequencies and extent of participation in lesson planning.

In terms of perception biases, teachers made reference to overconfidence effects, self-serving bias, confirmation bias, negativity bias, generalisations, heuristics and contrast effects. Teachers considered that teachers and students alike might have a faulty image of themselves. While overconfidence was reported to affect both students and teachers, a lack of self-reflection among teachers was particularly associated with seniority. Self-serving bias was further said to have a tendency to occur among teachers and students, as they might attribute failure to external factors. Moreover, according to the teachers, teachers who spend considerable time preparing their lessons might try to reduce their cognitive dissonance by justifying this effort. As a consequence, they might overestimate positive outcomes and overlook negative facets. The teachers thought that confirmation bias could become especially problematic when students had negative attitudes towards school and teaching in general. Moreover, the teachers mentioned that both students and teachers tended to remember unpleasant experiences more often than positive ones (i.e. negativity bias). Generalisations were reported to occur, too. For instance, students who personally like a certain teacher or subject might have more positive perceptions of instruction. Teachers referred to perceptual distortions that can be classified as heuristics: previous experiences and personal ideas of ideal teaching scenarios may serve as anchors for the evaluation of lessons. Different experiences, goals and ideals, and thus different anchors, may influence student-teacher divergence in perception. Finally, the teachers felt that that students tended to compare lessons by different teachers and, depending on how much teaching styles differ, contrast effects may occur.

According to the teachers, a lack of perspective-taking regarding teachers’ or students’ needs and duties may lead to different expectations on both sides and, thus, contribute to student-teacher divergence in perception regarding instruction. A lack of willingness by students and teachers to engage in mutual understanding was mentioned. It was considered that teachers may not always perceive students as individuals with unique interests and needs, and may overestimate their willingness and ability to learn and perform. As a consequence, lower performance might sometimes be interpreted as a lack of motivation or laziness. Students, by contrast, were portrayed as sometimes being unaware of their teachers’ effort and of the limited leeway that teachers may actually have to adjust aspects of instruction due to external requirements, and spatial and temporal resources.

Mesolevel factors

Social aspects

The social aspects mentioned by the teachers included teacher-student relationship, interactions, distribution of power, social roles and the influence of significant others. Teachers felt that a good, trustful teacher-student relationship fosters student-teacher convergence in perception, as it is helpful to address divergent views and conflicts. However, it was noted, as well, that teachers partly desire a strong hierarchy. Moreover, the teachers reported that the diverse roles teachers adopt (e.g. knowledge facilitator, examiner, coach or educator) could lead to different perceptions, depending on the teacher’s understanding of their role in a specific situation. Further, it might not always be obvious what role the teacher occupies in each situation. Teachers emphasised how differences in perception of the whole teaching process could occur if the perception of the currently-adopted role differed between students and teachers. Moreover, teachers mentioned the ways in which the roles students adopt may influence their perceptions of instruction. In this respect, the teachers referred to an example of what was regarded as a common phenomenon, in which students put themselves into the role of the victim in order not to embarrass themselves.

Classroom aspects and instructional strategies

Under this category, class size, classroom climate, heterogeneity among students, communication and feedback, as well as instructional strategies, were all mentioned by the teachers. Regarding class size, teachers considered that the higher the number of students, the harder it was to address all students’ needs. Moreover, teachers emphasised how individualised instruction may be harder to achieve if some students were behaving disruptively, as this claimed the teacher’s attention and left insufficient time to address the other students’ needs. However, a positive class climate was portrayed as decisive in terms of realising lessons that satisfy both students and teachers. In this respect, teachers referred to heterogeneity among students in terms of abilities, interests and needs. However, teachers suggested, as well, that clear communication of expectations and goals might provide insight into their perspective and into the purpose of teaching processes, thus counteracting student-teacher divergence in perception.

Providing opportunities for participation in lesson design was associated with higher student-teacher convergence in perception. However, teachers observed how participation in lesson design may not always match students’ abilities. Feedback was described as crucial in this regard, as it could reveal the steps necessary to lead students closer to their goals, while at the same time creating a basis for teachers and students to establish a shared understanding of instruction. However, according to the teachers, students sometimes tried to hide mistakes, which may make it difficult to provide adequate feedback and adapt lessons to students’ needs. In this respect, teachers felt that student-teacher divergence in perception could be lower if teachers managed to prepare student-centred lessons that aligned better with students’ interests and needs. By contrast, teacher-centred lesson design could interfere with student-teacher convergence in perception, as teachers who are always busy with teaching might not be aware that students could be bored.

Macrolevel factors

Teachers pointed to external environmental factors that could make it difficult to facilitate the open, autonomous learning, which, as mentioned above, they associated with higher levels of student-teacher convergence in perception. Teachers mainly referred to insufficient resources and reported being under time pressure to teach all required content. As a result, they felt they had to minimise communication about their perspective, goals, or the purpose of activities. The teachers reflected that this was not always well accepted by students and might interfere with student-teacher convergence in perception. Another issue that emerged was the public image of school and education. Some teachers argued that, if teachers in general had a better image, instructional aspects would be questioned less. Teachers commented that members of the teaching profession were sometimes perceived as service providers who had to act according to what students, or their parents, thought was best. Furthermore, according to the teachers, students who were accustomed to frequent media use may find it hard to manage what they regarded as unoccupied periods in school from time to time.

Discussion

In this study, we sought to understand more about the ‘why’ and ‘how’ in terms of student-teacher divergence in perception of instructional practices. By focusing on the teacher perspective and undertaking qualitative analysis of rich data, the research aimed to contribute insight into this important and complex area. In the discussion below, we consider our main findings, and their implications, with reference to the literature background.

Our analysis indicated that most of the explanations provided by the teachers in our study aligned with topics that have previously been suggested as reasons for student-teacher divergence in perception. We believe that our analysis may contribute here by providing valuable evidence and insight regarding possible underlying mechanisms. In addition, the analysis identified that over 10% of the segments referred to newly developed categories (5% knowledge and metacognition, 7% perspective-taking) that have not, to our knowledge, explicitly been considered before in this context within the body of research. In terms of the frequencies of addressed categories (see Table 1), most of the segments, as well as the greatest diversity of explanations, were identified at the microlevel. The single categories most frequently addressed were classroom aspects and instructional strategies, followed by sociodemographic factors and perception bias. Features included in these categories (e.g. students’ age, self-serving bias) have been discussed; however, they may have been less often tested in the literature on student-teacher divergence in perception (e.g. Desimone, Smith, and Frisvold 2010; Neal et al. 2011). Overall, in the current study, teachers came up with both student- and teacher-focused explanatory approaches, often referring to students and teachers in relation to the same phenomenon in many cases (e.g. motivation). The following section discusses the findings in relation to the micro, meso and macro levels.

On the microlevel, in line with the body of literature (e.g. Desimone, Smith, and Frisvold 2010) teachers referred to age as a factor and emphasised the role of critical developmental periods (puberty). Another sociodemographic aspect was students’ family and educational background. Hence, agreement among parents and teachers on more general aspects of education could affect student-teacher convergence in perception regarding instructional practices. This noteworthy finding highlights the notion that convergence in perception occurs on multiple interwoven layers. It thus supports the approach of studying student-teacher divergence in perception from a systemic perspective with different interacting agents. In addition, resonating with previous work (Bardach et al. 2018), teachers elaborated on the significance of students’ and teachers’ motivation to explain convergence in perception. In doing so, they referred to constructs and mechanisms that future studies could profitably investigate. For example, low motivation might become an interpretative filter, leading to negative perceptions by students, irrespective of teachers’ efforts. Echoing prior research (e.g. Könings et al. 2007), teachers felt that differing goals between students and teachers may possibly decrease student-teacher convergence in perception. Furthermore, our study findings align with the assumption that emotions may affect student-teacher convergence in perception regarding instruction (e.g. Könings et al. 2007). As such, teachers felt that students’ current mood would influence their ratings, and, consequently, the extent of alignment with teacher ratings. In this vein, existing quantitative work has indicated that different trajectories of student-teacher divergence in perception emerge for the period before vs. after a test (Bardach et al. 2019). Thus, the findings of the current study could provide a framework to interpret these observations.

A well-established student factor associated with divergence in perception is students’ achievement (e.g. Desimone, Smith, and Frisvold 2010; Bardach et al. 2018). Correspondingly, in the present study, teachers linked students’ higher achievement to student-teacher convergence in perception. However, a crucial contribution of the current work relates to the variety of underlying mechanisms that emerged. For example, teachers reported their view that higher-achieving students have a better understanding of teaching goals and the necessity of specific learning activities, and are better able to deal constructively with feedback. As these higher performing students tend to feel more responsible for their own learning and progress, teachers can be more willing to include them in lesson planning and decision-making, which, in turn, might foster student-teacher convergence in perception. On the other hand, teachers tend to believe that low-achieving students might be overwhelmed by too much autonomy, so they are less likely to provide them with those opportunities (e.g. Bardach et al. 2018; Peeters et al. 2016). Overall, the findings regarding achievement emphasise the complex dynamic interplay between students and teachers that occurs in classrooms, for example, with teachers reacting to specific student characteristics (e.g. Seidel 2007). It is abundantly clear that divergence in perception cannot be considered as separate from the context in which it occurs.

On a fundamental level, teachers suggested that divergence in perception might be present simply because the entire process of teaching is perceived differently by students and teachers, and relatedly, because interpretations of key terms such as ‘freedom’ may differ. These differences were attributed to, for example, students’ and teachers’ different roles or differing goals. Of course, this category must be regarded as highly interwoven with the others in our study, as perspective-related differences cannot be isolated from their origins (in factors such as roles or goals). Nonetheless, we believe that the substantive message from the findings within this category is that any attempt to study and influence student-teacher divergence in perception must necessarily keep in mind perspective-specific differences and different interpretations (e.g. Kunter and Baumert 2007). Moreover, specific perception-related biases that probably relate to student-teacher divergence in perception were identified. In addition to self-serving bias, which has commonly been emphasised in the literature on student-teacher divergence in perception (e.g. Deemer 2004), teachers referred to features relating to confirmation bias, negativity bias, generalisations, heuristics and contrast effects. A lack of ability or willingness by both teachers and students to see aspects of classroom life from the perspective of the respective other(s) was additionally held responsible for diverging perceptions.

In line with previous work (Neal et al. 2011), teachers provided explanations located on the mesolevel. In their responses, they proposed manifold mechanisms that could profitably be tested in intervention studies. For instance, teachers pointed out how a well-functioning student-teacher relationship could facilitate the resolution of contrasting views and conflicts, and thus enhance student-teacher convergence in perception. Teachers referred to the teacher’s different social roles (e.g. coach vs. examiner). Accordingly, teachers’ perceptions may vary according to their current role; however, it is possible, too, that a teacher’s switching between different roles might confuse students. Nevertheless, teachers emphasised that students have different roles as well, and felt that students might tend to anchor their ratings of instruction in whatever was their current role. Again in line with previous work (e.g. Bardach et al. 2018; see also Neal et al. 2011), teachers referred to classroom aspects. They described the difficulties of addressing all students’ needs in large classes, classes with a heterogenous student body and high levels of disruptive student behaviour, which might lead to gaps in students’ and teachers’ perceptions of the instructional practices actually implemented. On the other hand, strategies such as clear communication, mutual feedback and transparency in terms of the teacher’s expectations and the purposes of instruction were believed to enhance convergence in perception, as well as having other advantages.

Finally, teachers pointed towards external environmental factors, which we located on the macrolevel. Time constraints, and the need to assess students’ performance, were thought to affect instruction negatively and contribute to student-teacher divergence in perception – for example, due to negative student reactions. Teachers linked student demotivation to factors such as the portrayal of school/education on a societal level; moreover, teachers suspected that students’ frequent media use may negatively affect students’ expectations of school life, in that this could contribute to unrealistic expectations. These statements raise the question of cultural influences on student-teacher divergence in perception and are certainly worth further investigation.

Overall, our study highlights the complex interplay in this area and raises a wide range of factors that potentially play a role in how students and teachers might perceive instruction differently. On the one hand, teachers provided explanations that are broadly applicable and largely independent from personal features or dispositions (e.g. being subject to a distortion of perception). On the other hand, the present research suggests some inter-individual differences that may lead to systematic disadvantages for certain groups of students, as disadvantaged students might have greater difficulties in aligning with their teachers’ perspectives on instruction. In light of previous studies that resonate here (e.g. Desimone, Smith, and Frisvold 2010; Bardach et al. 2018), providing opportunities that create awareness of such findings among practitioners may be a notable implication for professional development.

Limitations and future directions

The limitations of our fine-grained, in-depth study must be considered. First, the specific educational context (i.e. the Austrian secondary school system) must be taken into account when interpreting the findings. Moreover, data were obtained from a self-selected sample in which teachers from academic-track schools were over-represented. Generalisations are not intended. Rather, we offer the insights of this study as inspiration for future studies, which could systematically test out the mechanisms and explanations identified here. Second, it must be remembered that the teacher perspective tells only one dimension of the story. To understand reasons for student-teacher divergence in perception more comprehensively, future studies might include both teacher and (matched) student data.

In terms of methodological limitations, the online survey format did not allow us to ask participants follow-up questions about their statements. Accordingly, responses that could not be interpreted clearly were assigned to the miscellaneous category. Moreover, it needs to be acknowledged that the question posed to teachers was framed quite broadly with respect to multiple facets of divergence in perception regarding instructional practices. Although this allowed the engendering of a broad range of associations among the respondents, it also meant that the teachers’ responses oftentimes did not allow conclusions to be drawn about the exact facet of the question (i.e. aspects of instruction) to which they referred. Hence, a future study could utilise an interview design to clarify, further, the links between the identified categories and aspects of instruction. Finally, our study explicitly referred to explanations for divergence in perception between students and teachers, and not to convergence in perception. Although the teachers’ responses covered a range of factors related to enhancing convergence in perception, future studies should explicitly address the issue of factors facilitating convergence in perception, to complete the picture.

Conclusion

The complex notion of student-teacher divergence in perception is a significant one for all concerned with strengthening and improving teaching and learning. It is therefore important to understand as much as possible about the reasons why teachers and students have different perceptions of everyday instructional practices in the classroom. Overall, the findings of the present study indicated a strong alignment with reasons currently discussed in the literature on student-teacher divergence in perception. Furthermore, a set of further features were identified through fine-grained analysis, offering fresh, in-depth explanations for student-teacher divergence in perception, according to the viewpoints of the teachers who participated in our research. Our study thus provides detailed analysis of the underlying mechanisms from the perspectives of teachers. As such, our work generates some new ways to think about student-teacher divergence in perception, and is offered as inspiration for future studies in this area of research.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Notes

1. The sample analysed in this study partially overlaps with the sample of Janke et al. (2019). The partial overlap is because not all teachers who provided answers to the quantitative part of the survey filled in the qualitative part and vice versa.

2. The closed questions are the subject of the publication by Janke et al. (2019).