Malleable factors in teaching: why and how to address them from a constructivist perspective

References

• Albrechtsen, T. R. S., & Qvortrup, A. (2017). Inquiry-based teaching. A review of recent research literature from a general didactic perspective [Undersøgelsesbaseret undervisning. Et review af nyere forskningslitteratur fra et almendidaktisk perspektiv]. Retrieved April 25, 2022, from https://laeremiddel.dk/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Forundersøgelse-delrapport-1-almen.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Alvesson, M. & Kärreman, D. (2011). Qualitative research and theory development: Mystery as method. SAGE Publications Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2008). Tolkning och reflection: vetenskapsfilosofi och kvalitativ metod [Interpretation and reflection. Philosophy of science and qualitative method]. Studentlitteratur.
   Google Scholar
• Archer, J., Kerr, K. A., & Pianta, R. C. (2014). Why measure effective teaching? In T. J. Kane, K. A. Kerr, & R. C. Pianta (Eds.), Designing teacher evaluation systems: New guidance from the measures of effective teaching project (pp. 1–5). Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Blaikie, N. (2018). Confounding issues related to determining sample size in qualitative research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 21(5), 635–641. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2018.1454644
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blaikie, N., & Priest, J. (2017). Social research: Paradigms in action. John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Borman, G. D., Hewes, G. M., Overman, L. T., & Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73(2), 125–230. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543073002125
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheung, A. C. K., & Slavin, R. E. (2016). How methodological features affect effect sizes in education. Educational Researcher, 45(5), 283–292. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16656615
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Craig P., Katikireddi, S. V., Leyland A., & Popham F. (2017). Natural experiments: An overview of methods, approaches, and contributions to public health intervention research. Annual Review of Public Health, 38(1), 39–56. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031816-044327
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• de Boer, H., Donker, A. S., & van der Werf, M. P. C. (2014). Effects of the Attributes of Educational Interventions on Students’ Academic Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 84(4), 509–545. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314540006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Detterman, D. K. (2016). Education and intelligence: Pity the poor teacher because student characteristics are more significant than teachers or schools. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 19(E93), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2016.88
   Google Scholar
• Edmonds, M. S., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Reutebuch, C., Cable, A., Tackett, K. K., & Schnakenberg, J. W. (2009). A synthesis of Reading interventions and effects on Reading comprehension outcomes for older struggling readers. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 262–300. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325998
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fenstermacher, G. D., & Richardson, V. (2005). On Making Determinations of Quality Teaching. Teacher College Record, 107(1), 186–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2005.00462.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferguson, R. F., & Hirsch, E. (2014). How working conditions predict teaching quality and student outcomes. In T. J. Kane, K. A. Kerr, & R. C. Pianta (Eds.), Designing teacher evaluation systems: New guidance form the measures of effective teaching project (pp. 332–380). Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Hammersley, M. (2005). Is the evidence-based practice movement doing more good than harm? Reflections on Iain Chalmers’ case for research-based policy making and practice. Evidence and Policy, 1(1), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1332/1744264052703203
   Google Scholar
• Hammersley, M. (2007). The issue of quality in qualitative research. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 30(3), 287–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437270701614782
   Google Scholar
• Hanushek, E. A. (2011). The economic value of higher teacher quality. Economics of Education Review, 30(3), 466–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.12.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hede, A. (2007). Systematiske reviews og evidens. In L. Fuglsang, P. Hagedorn-Rasmussen, & P. Bitsch Olsen (Eds.), Teknikker i samfundsvidenskaberne (pp. 28–53). Roskilde Universitetsforlag.
   Google Scholar
• Hopmann, S. T. (2015). ‘Didaktik meets Curriculum’ revisited: Historical encounters, systematic experience, empirical limits. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 2015(1), 27007. https://doi.org/10.3402/nstep.v1.27007
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, S. M. (2006). The workplace matters: Teacher quality, retention, and effectiveness. National Education Association.
   Google Scholar
• Keiding, T. B., & Qvortrup, A. (2014). Systemteori og didaktik. Hans Reitzels Forlag.
   Google Scholar
• Kennedy, B. L. (2018). Deduction, induction, and abduction. In U. Flick (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative data collection (pp. 49–64). SAGE Publications Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Levin-Rozalis, M. (2010). Using abductive research logic: ‘The logic of discovery’, to construct a rigorous explanation of amorphous evaluation findings. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 6(13), 1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Loyens, S. M. M., & Rikers, R. M. J. P. (2011). Instruction based on inquiry. In R. E. Mayer, & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 361–381). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Standford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Luhmann, N. (1997). Autopoiesis – problemer omkring operativ lukning. In N. Luhmann (Ed.), Niklas Luhmann: Iagttagelse og paradoks. Essays om autopoietiske systemer (pp. 45–60). Gyldendalske Boghandel, Nordisk Forlag.
   Google Scholar
• Luhmann, N. (2006). Uddannelsessystemet. Hans Reitzels Forlag.
   Google Scholar
• Meyer, B. D. (1995). Natural and quasi-experiments in economics. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 13(2), 151–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/07350015.1995.10524589
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muijs, D. & Brookman, A. (2016). Quantitative methods. In D. Chapman, D. Muijs, D. Reynolds, P. Sammons & C. Teddlie (eds.). The Routledge international handbook of educational effectiveness and improvement (p. 173-201). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Mutch, D. M. (2020). The COVID-19 global pandemic: A natural experiment in the making. Lifestyle Genomics, 13(5), 135–137. https://doi.org/10.1159/000510217
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olsen, H. (2006). Guide til gode spørgeskemaer. Socialforskningsinstituttet.
   Google Scholar
• Parker, R., & Thomsen, B. (2019). Learning through play at school: A study of playful integrated pedagogies that foster children’s holistic skills development in the primary school classroom. LEGO Foundation. Retrieved July 5, 2021, from https://research.acer.edu.au/learning_processes/22.
   Google Scholar
• Phillips, D. N., & Burbules, N. C. (2000). Postpositivism and educational research. Rowman & Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Pouliot, V. (2007). “Sobjectivism”: Toward a Constructivist Methodology. International Studies Quarterly, 51(2), 359–384. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2007.00455.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qvortrup, A. (2021). Elevcentrerede og undersøgelsesbaserede undervisningsformer som god og succesfuld undervisning. In KvAN, 41(119), 33–45.
   Google Scholar
• Qvortrup, A., & Lomholt, R. (2022). Pupil-initiated or teacher-guided? Learnings from pupil-centred approaches during COVID-19. In Education 3-13 (in press).
   Google Scholar
• Qvortrup, A., Lomholt, R., Christensen, V., Lundtofte, T. E., & Nielsen, A. (2022). Playful learning during the reopening of Danish schools after COVID 19 closures. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, (E-pub ahead of print). https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2022.2042850
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rieper, O., & Hansen, F. H. (2007). Metodedebatten om evidens. Retrieved July 5, 2021, from https://www.vive.dk/media/pure/9470/2055655.
   Google Scholar
• Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2005.00584.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rockoff, J. E., Jacob, B. A., Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. O. (2011). Can you recognize an effective teacher when you recruit one? Education Finance and Policy, 6(1), 43–74. https://doi.org/10.1162/EDFP_a_00022
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scammacca, N., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., Edmonds, M., Wexler, J., Reutebuch, C. K., & Torgensen, J. K. (2007). Interventions for Adolescent Struggling Readers. A Meta-Analysis with Implications for Practice. Retrieved April 25, 2022 from https://www.centeroninstruction.org/files/Meta-analysis%20Struggling%20Readers1.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Scheerens, J. (2014). Effectiveness of time investments in education: Insights from a review and meta-analysis. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Scheerens, J. (2017). The perspective of “limited malleability” in educational effectiveness: Treatment effects in schooling. Educational Research and Evaluation, 23(5-6), 247–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2017.1455286
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scheerens, J., & Marks, G. N. (2017). Malleability in educational effectiveness: What are realistic expectations about effect sizes? Introduction to the special issue. Educational Research and Evaluation, 23(5-6), 143–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2017.1455280
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (2011). Measures inherent to treatments in program effectiveness reviews. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4(4), 370–380. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2011.558986
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Timmermans, A. C. (2012). Value added in educational accountability: Possible, fair and useful? Doctoral dissertation. GION Onderwijs/Onderzoek.
   Google Scholar
• Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ursachi, G., Horodnic, I. A., & Zait, A. (2015). How Reliable are Measurement Scales? External Factors with Indirect Influence on Reliability Estimators. Procedia Economics and Finance, 20, 679–686. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00123-9
   Google Scholar
• Yik, B. J., Raker, J. R., Apkarian, N., Stains, M., Henderson, C., Dancy, M. H., & Johnson, E. (2022). Evaluating the Impact of Malleable Factors on Percent Time Lecturing in Gateway Chemistry, Mathematics, and Physics Courses. International Journal of STEM Education, 9(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00333-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Åsvoll, H. (2014). Abduction, deduction and induction: Can these concepts be used for an understanding of methodological processes in interpretative case studies?. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 27(3): 289-307. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2012.759296
   Google Scholar