The Pennsylvania State University
The Graduate School
College of Education
TEACHER AUTONOMY AND RESPONSIBILITY VARIATION
AND THEIR ASSOCIATION WITH STUDENT SCIENCE
PERFORMANCE IN DIDAKTIK AND CURRICULUM
TRADITIONS IN PISA 2009
A Dissertation in
Educational Theory and Policy
by
Armend Tahirsylaj
© 2015 Armend Tahirsylaj
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
May 2015
ii
The dissertation of Armend Tahirsylaj was reviewed and approved* by the
following:
David Baker
Professor of Education and Sociology
Dissertation Co-Adviser
Co-Chair of Committee
Richard Duschl
Kenneth B. Waterbury Chaired Professor in Secondary Education
Dissertation Co-Adviser
Co-Chair of Committee
Liang Zhang
Associate Professor of Education and Labor Studies
Soo-yong Byun Assistant Professor of Education
Gerald LeTendre
Professor of Education
Department Head, Education Policy Studies
*Signatures are on file in the Graduate School
iii
ABSTRACT
This study is a cross-national analysis of teacher autonomy and responsibility in 12
countries representing curriculum (Australia, Canada, United Kingdom, Ireland, New Zealand
and United States) and didaktik (Austria, Germany, Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden)
traditions. It addresses two main research questions. First, what is the variation of teacher
autonomy and responsibility across schools in curriculum and didaktik countries? And second,
what is the association of teacher autonomy and responsibility measures with students’ science
performance? Nationally representative data from 2009 Programme for International Student
Assessment (PISA) are used to address the two questions. Overall, teachers in didaktik countries
enjoy more autonomy than teachers in curriculum countries as measured through three
autonomy-specific variables pertaining to the use of standardized tests, teacher-developed tests
and teacher judgments. On the other hand, more teachers, on average, enjoy responsibility in
curriculum than in didaktik countries as measured through the proportion of teachers who were
responsible for assessment policies, textbooks to be used, course content and courses offered at
school level. However, the differences were statistically significant but substantively weak.
Further, within-country associations of autonomy and responsibility measures with students’
science performance were found in a few countries. Most notably, the findings suggest that the
use of standardized tests is negatively associated with science performance in some of the
within-country models, while the use of teacher-developed tests was positively associated with
science performance in some sample countries in PISA 2009. Responsibility measures had less
predictive power of science performance, and relationships existed only in few countries as per
the analytical models and covariates accounted for. Cross-sectional nature of the data limits the
extent of causal arguments to be made. However, the findings suggest that global push towards
iv
more standardized testing at national level is harming student science performance in some of the
nations in curriculum and didaktik countries, while teacher-developed tests tend to be positively
associated with science performance. Therefore, policy-makers might reconsider the support for
standardized testing, which limits teacher autonomy, in favor of more teacher-driven assessment
practices that increase autonomy. Further research is recommended to address teacher
responsibility and complexities that accompany it in current stakeholder-crowded school
contexts. Also, further studies on how teacher autonomy and teacher responsibility are negotiated
with school principals and other educational authorities could provide valuable insights to better
understand how teacher autonomy and responsibility could be enhanced for the benefit of
improving student learning and performance.
v
Table of Contents
LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................................viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS....................................................................................................................... ix
Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1
Statement of Purpose ................................................................................................................................... 5
Chapter 2. LITERATURE REVIEW, CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND RESEARCH
HYPOTHESES........................................................................................................................................... 9
Didaktik and Curriculum – Past to Present ................................................................................................... 9
Emergence of didaktik tradition.............................................................................................................. 11
Perspectives on curriculum tradition and how the field developed .......................................................... 20
Humanists/scholar academic .................................................................................................................. 23
Child study/learner centered group ........................................................................................................ 24
Social meliorists/social reconstruction group ......................................................................................... 26
Social Efficiency ....................................................................................................................................... 28
Internal influences on curriculum making............................................................................................... 30
Comparison of didaktik and curriculum orientations ................................................................................. 37
Overlap of didaktik and curriculum frameworks with sociology of education theories ............................ 45
Functional Theory.................................................................................................................................... 46
Conflict Theory ........................................................................................................................................ 49
Neo-institutional Theory ......................................................................................................................... 51
Cross-national Student Achievement and Teacher Characteristics Studies ............................................... 57
Teacher Autonomy and Teacher Responsibility ......................................................................................... 61
Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................................................... 63
Research Questions and Hypotheses.......................................................................................................... 65
Chapter 3. KEY COMPONENTS OF EDUCATION SYSTEMS IN SAMPLE COUNTRIES ....... 67
K-12 Education Structure ............................................................................................................................ 68
Teacher Education and Certification and Teacher Professional Development .......................................... 69
Teacher education and certification ....................................................................................................... 70
Teacher professional development ......................................................................................................... 71
Assessment Systems ................................................................................................................................... 72
Funding Mechanisms .................................................................................................................................. 74
Chapter 4. DATA AND METHODS ................................................................................................... 75
Data ............................................................................................................................................................. 75
Sampling and Sample .................................................................................................................................. 76
Rationale for selection of countries for the study ................................................................................... 77
Measures..................................................................................................................................................... 81
Descriptive Statistics ................................................................................................................................... 85
vi
Methods ...................................................................................................................................................... 89
Chapter 5. RESULTS AND ANALYSES ............................................................................................. 93
Means of Teacher Autonomy Measures Across Sample Countries ............................................................ 93
Proportions of Teacher Responsibility Measures Across Sample Countries .............................................. 99
Association of Teacher Autonomy and Responsibility with Student Science Performance in PISA 2009 105
Chapter 6. CONCLUSIONS, DICUSSION, AND IMPLICATIONS ............................................. 114
Teacher Autonomy and Responsibility in Schools in Didaktik and Curriculum Countries ........................ 114
Association of Teacher Autonomy and Responsibility Measures with Student Science Performance .... 121
Implications ............................................................................................................................................... 123
Educational theory ................................................................................................................................ 124
Educational policy and practice ............................................................................................................ 126
Educational research............................................................................................................................. 130
Delimitations and Limitations ................................................................................................................... 135
Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................... 135
References .......................................................................................................................................... 140
Appendices ......................................................................................................................................... 169
Appendix A: Key Components of Education Systems in Didaktik Countries.......................................... 169
Appendix B: Key Components of Education Systems in Didaktik Countries .......................................... 175
Appendix C: Science Proficiency in Participating Countries in PISA 2009............................................. 181
Appendix D: Description for levels of proficiency on science scale ......................................................... 182
Appendix E: Percent of missing data in study variables ........................................................................... 183
Appendix F: Correlation tables for curriculum countries ......................................................................... 184
Appendix G: Correlation tables for didaktik countries ............................................................................. 190
Appendix H: Descriptive statistics for teacher autonomy items ............................................................... 196
Appendix I: Descriptive statistics for teacher autonomy scale by country............................................... 197
Appendix J: Descriptive statistics for teacher responsibility items .......................................................... 198
Appendix K: Descriptive statistics for teacher responsibility scale by country........................................ 200
Appendix L: Maximum likelihood estimates for science performance in curriculum countries in PISA
2009 .......................................................................................................................................................... 201
Appendix M: Maximum likelihood estimates for science performance in didaktik countries in PISA 2009
.................................................................................................................................................................. 207
Appendix N: Innovation in education, 2000-2011 .................................................................................... 213
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Classification schemes of curriculum tradition .............................................................................. 21
Table 2 Comparison of Klafki’s and Tyler’s questions................................................................................. 38
Table 3 Logic Model of Didaktik and Curriculum traditions ....................................................................... 43
Table 4 PISA science processes and scientific competencies 2000-present............................................... 59
Table 5 School and student sample size for didaktik and curriculum countries ........................................ 76
Table 6 Didaktik and curriculum countries’ PISA 2009 performance in reading, mathematics and science
............................................................................................................................................................ 79
Table 7 Main study measures and their original scales .............................................................................. 81
Table 8 Descriptive statistics of main student-level variables .................................................................... 87
Table 9 Maximum likelihood estimates for science performance in curriculum countries ...................... 107
Table 10 Maximum likelihood estimates for science performance in didaktik countries......................... 111
Table 11 Maximum likelihood estimates for student science performance in Canada ............................. 202
Table 12 Maximum likelihood estimates for student science performance in United Kingdom .............. 203
Table 13 Maximum likelihood estimates for student science performance in Ireland ............................. 204
Table 14 Maximum likelihood estimates for student science performance in New Zealand ................... 205
Table 15 Maximum likelihood estimates for student science performance in United States ................... 206
Table 16 Maximum likelihood estimates for student science performance in Austria ............................. 207
Table 17 Maximum likelihood estimates for student science performance in Germany .......................... 208
Table 18 Maximum likelihood estimates for student science performance in Finland............................. 210
Table 19 Maximum likelihood estimates for student science performance in Norway ............................ 211
Table 20 Maximum likelihood estimates for student science performance in Sweden ............................ 212
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Continuum of three sociological and two educational theories................................................... 55
Figure 2 A diagram of logic rationale .......................................................................................................... 63
Figure 3 Geographic distribution of countries in the sample ..................................................................... 78
Figure 4 Means of use of standardized tests by country ............................................................................. 94
Figure 5 Means of use of teacher-developed tests by country .................................................................... 95
Figure 6 Means of use of teacher judgments by country ............................................................................ 96
Figure 7 Means of teacher autonomy scale by country............................................................................... 98
Figure 8 Proportion of teachers deciding about assessment policies by country ........................................ 99
Figure 9 Proportion of teachers deciding about textbooks to be used by country .................................... 100
Figure 10 Proportion of teachers deciding about course content by country ............................................ 101
Figure 11 Proportion of teachers deciding about courses offered by country .......................................... 102
Figure 12 Means of teacher responsibility scale by country ..................................................................... 104
Figure 13 Revised continuum of three sociological and two educational theories .................................. 126
ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge and thank Waterbury Chair Professor and my dissertation
advisor Richard Duschl both for his academic advice and financial support through Waterbury
Fund for my studies at Penn State. Dr. Duschl’s guidance allowed me to explore and develop
ideas presented in this dissertation, and his valuable advice extends beyond the context of
research and will stay with me for the rest of my life. I could not have asked for a more
supportive adviser. I would also like to thank committee co-chair David Baker, and committee
members Liang Zhang and Soo-yong Byun for making their expertise and advice available to
guide my work.
Next, I would like to acknowledge and thank a long list of professors, students and staff
members at Educational Theory & Policy program and entire College of Education for providing
a stimulating academic environment that made it possible to expand my knowledge and skills
and further my education. I have benefited tremendously from this unique intellectually
enriching prestigious institution. I also want to acknowledge my past advisors, professors and
colleagues at the University of Prishtina, Kosovo, University of Calgary, Canada, University of
Vienna, Austria, and University of Gothenburg, Sweden for their contribution and support during
my academic journey.
In addition, I would like to thank another long list of colleagues and friends I have met on
and off-campus during past five years, first as part of the Humphrey Fellowship Program during
2010-2011, and then during the PhD program since 2011. In particular, Jack Matson was
incredibly helpful in every single step along the way. I am thankful I have had the chance to
x
know him and learn from him and with him during these past few years, and his wisdom will
continue to make a difference wherever the journey takes me next! Also, I want to thank family,
friends and colleagues in Kosovo and across Europe, who have been supportive for many years
prior to coming to Penn State, and have contributed to bring me closer to this achievement.
Finally, I cannot end this list of acknowledgments without mentioning my wife Leonora,
my daughter Arsea, my mother Shahe, my brothers Alkend, Alferd, and Argjent, including his
wife Naida, son Anik and daughter Alea. Also, I am forever grateful to advice of my late father
Selman. He continues to be the source of motivation and inspiration in every step. It is
impossible to express how much you all mean to me. Thank you for your unconditional love and
support – now and forever!
1
Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION
Intensification of global cross-national cooperation in almost any field, not least in
education, has been attractive and inspiring for educational theorists and practitioners to look
‘over’ the borders of their nations for exchange and transfer of ideas for educational
improvement. But for exchange and transfer to occur, some level of understanding is required to
enable the flow of ideas in a two- or multi-way direction. In efforts to reach that level of
understanding, European and US scholars initiated an intensive dialogue to discuss and
understand similarities and differences between German-based didaktik and US-based
curriculum traditions during the 1990s. The spark for that intensified dialogue, after some earlier
exchanges between two traditions starting from 1960s, came from the interest of US educational
scholars to better understand what was this concept called ‘Didaktik’? (Hopmann & Riquarts,
2000). Of course, the underlying objectives and intentions were much broader and the dialogue
tried to address questions, such as: How did the two traditions compare and contrast? Could, and
to what extent, one tradition inform the other? Is there something that they can learn from one
another? etc. Theoretical exchanges that emerged from this dialogue as well as extended
theoretical contributions from many scholars to didaktik and curriculum orientations dominating
K-12 education system provide the framework for this study.
Brief background to Didaktik and Curriculum
First, what is Didaktik theory? German Didaktik theory is central to curriculum, teaching
and learning in Continental and Nordic Europe generally and German speaking world
specifically, but is mostly unknown in the English-speaking world (Hopmann, 2007; Hudson,
2003; Westbury et al., 2000; Kansanen, 1999). The German term Didaktik is well established in
2
post-1990s English literature, and to avoid the use of more negatively loaded concept of
didactics as teacher-centered and controlled instruction (Kansanen, 2002), I use the original
spelling didaktik throughout the study. In its original conceptualization, “Didaktik is about how
teaching can instigate learning, but learning as a content-based student activity not as swallowing
a sermon or a monologue or otherwise one-sided distribution of knowledge by a teacher”
(Hopmann, 2007, p. 113). The interpretation of didaktik across Europe led to a variety of modes
but Hopmann points out they shared three common aspects, "(a) the concept of Bildung, (b) the
embedded differential of matter and meaning, and (c) a concept of the necessary autonomy of
teaching” to address “problems of order, sequence, and choice within their respective frames of
reference" (Hopmann, 2007, p. 115). Bildung, will be discussed more in depth later, but in
classical sense, it encompasses the contents of assisting individuals to achieve their selfdetermination by developing and using their reason without others’ guidance and acquiring the
cultural objects of the world in which those individuals are born into and situated in (Klafki,
2000a; Hudson, 2003).
Curriculum, on the other hand, is a widely used theory amongst many countries,
primarily in the English-speaking world. While there are numerous definitions and constructs on
curriculum, varying largely from one period of time to the other, what is referred to as
curriculum here, is the prevailing curriculum model that has been in place in the U.S. since early
1900s, when the so-called social efficiency model of curriculum promoted by Franklin Bobbit
and largely perpetuated by US industrial forces of the time, won the American education battle
against humanistic-based models of curriculum, who were mainly led and supported by John
Dewey (Kliebard, 2004). According to Kliebard (2004), ideas outside the realm of education,
such as those of Frederick Taylor, an engineer from scientific management, which gave birth to
3
social efficiency as a social ideal and educational doctrine, and ideas of Edward Thorndike from
psychology, who introduced educational or “intelligence” measurement into American
education, led to social efficiency curriculum models within the U.S. education. Such models
have shaped US education curriculum and educational thinking and practice to the present days.
Social efficiency models suggested that students would learn in schools only what they needed to
know in order to perform as an adult member of social order, that is, “To go beyond what
someone had to know in order to perform that role successfully was simply wasteful” (Kliebard,
2004, p. 77). Further, it has been noted that the Tyler rationale has been a recurring theme in the
American curriculum tradition serving as the technocratic model that has dominated American
schools to this day (Luke, 2004). More recently the criticism against so-called ‘business-driven’
educational policies in the U.S. have mounted to such heights where it is argued that “the
common school became first a factory, then a corporation, now a cram school, but always a
business” (Pinar, 2012, p. 15). However, with advancement of the learning sciences in the last
several decades, curriculum has seen a shift towards cognitive and constructive models of
curriculum, but the driving assumptions embedded in social efficiency models about education
goals have not been challenged.
The study aims to contribute further to the debates between didaktik and curriculum that
took place during the 20th century. During 1960s, there was an export of curriculum ideas from
the U.S. curriculum to Germany (Gundem & Hopmann, 1998), during 1990s, there was a
dialogue for the benefit of better understanding between traditions (Westbury, Hopmann, &
Riquarts, 2000a), while more recently there is renewed interest in cross-cultural comparisons and
scholarly exchanges between the US curriculum and German didaktik (Duschl, Maeng & Sezen,
2011). Duschl et al. (2011) concluded that didaktik framework provided an alternative to
4
development of learning progressions with its emphasis on order, sequence and choice about
curriculum and instructional design decisions. This rekindled interest is an opportunity for both
traditions to reflect upon their recent past and current developments and identify areas in which
they could be strengthened if they become more open to reflective practices about educational
changes and more willing to learn from one another. Indeed, the cross-national exchanges and
learning between the German didaktik and Anglo-American curriculum have been in place for
more than a century, as the curriculum in the U.S. during 19th century adopted heavily from the
didaktik theory of teaching and learning in Germany, and most continental Europe, that was
based on idealism of German philosophers such as Immanuel Kant, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich
Hegel, Wilhelm Dilthey, and Wilhelm von Humboldt (Reid, 1997).
However, similarities and differences between curriculum and didaktik have not been
tested empirically until very recently (Tahirsylaj, Brezicha & Ikoma, In press), and the crossnational discussion around these two traditions was mainly at the theoretical level (Hudson,
2003). Using Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2003, 2007 and
2011 data, Tahirsylaj et al. found clear empirical differences among a set of countries
representing curriculum and didaktik systems pertaining to duration of professional
development, years of teaching, completion of formal education, and to a lesser degree, teacher
instructional activities. Still, no studies had been undertaken to specifically examine how
educational systems under didaktik and curriculum systems perform in international student
assessment programs, nor how individual variables affect student performance. This study
aimed to fill that gap in the literature by exploring empirically similarities and differences
between Didaktik and curriculum systems in a select group of 12 countries in terms of teacher
and school characteristics on one hand, and examining the associations of teacher characteristics
5
with student science performance in The Programme for International Student Assessment
(PISA) 2009. The analysis provides insights as to whether differences emphasized by literature
as well as by recent research with TIMSS data are backed by empirical data collected through
PISA 2009 assessment. Therefore, the study bridges the gap between theoretical and empirical
understanding of didaktik and curriculum and how the two inform us in better understanding
their respective frameworks, and indeed themselves as two dominant educational orientations
worldwide.
Statement of Purpose
Purposes for this study were manifold. One purpose was to empirically test theoretical
claims made about didaktik and curriculum in previous literature. For example, one of the core
claims in prior didaktik/curriculum exchanges was that there is more teacher autonomy and
professionalism in didaktik systems than in curriculum systems (Westbury, 2000; Hopmann,
2007). This study explored this argument in depth to clarify whether the claim was supported by
empirical data. Further, the purpose was to understand and further extend cross-national and
cross-cultural educational dialogues and exchanges between didaktik and curriculum theorists,
educational practitioners, researchers, and policy makers. A more intensive and extensive
educational exchange between nations’ scholars could potentially lead to 1) a deeper and better
understanding of respective pedagogical traditions, and 2) better informed decision-makers and
policy makers to help avoid challenges in policy development and program implementation.
The ongoing international student assessments provide rich student performance and
student and school background data that make possible the dialogue between and among
countries all around the world pertaining to relevant and complex educational policy issues in K-
6
12 education systems. They also offer opportunities for researchers to examine different
questions of interest that could have not been possible to be addressed otherwise due to
limitations in data collection capacities. To that end, another purpose of the study was to track
whether and how the didaktik and curriculum traditions in two sets of selected countries
represented align within own group, and how cohesive the didaktik-curriculum division is. In
addition, the purpose was to investigate how key measures based on data collected by PISA in
2009 are associated with student science achievement data for two sets of countries.
Ultimately, the purpose of this cross-national study was not to simply compare and
contrast countries but to discern the similarities and differences in national educational practices
so that individual countries get to a deeper understanding of their own national educational
orientations and practices. It has been argued that international comparative studies provide for a
rich set of understandings for national scholars, policy-makers, and practitioners to help,
[…] define what is achievable […] observe and characterize consequences of different
practices and policies for different groups under different circumstances […] bring to
light concepts for understanding education that have been overlooked […] identify and
question beliefs and assumptions that are taken for granted. (National Research Council
[NRC], 2003, pp. 8-9, emphasis in the original).
To a considerable extent, this study is at the intersection of all these goals of international
comparative studies as put forth by NRC as it aimed to, first, theoretically explore similarities
and differences between didaktik and curriculum orientations and key concepts and constructs
that define respective fields, and, second, to empirically examine how different teacher and
school practices are associated with student achievement under different national contexts.
7
Furthermore, reviewing the types of international comparative studies in education from
the US perspective, NRC (2003) distinguished among Type I, Type II and Type III international
studies as per their primary purposes. NRC (2003) defined Type I international comparative
studies, primarily large-scale survey assessments, as ones that aim to compare educational
outcomes cross-nationally and listed TIMSS and PISA as examples. Type II studies were
designed to research specific educational policies and their implementation with the aims to
inform educational policy in the US. These studies were based on mixed-methods approaches,
including quantitative, qualitative, descriptive and interpretative studies and were primarily
conducted at a lower scale, and studying high school tracking in a couple of countries was listed
as an example. Lastly, NRC (2003) defined Type III studies as ones that aim to understand
education more broadly, as well as to increase general understanding about education systems
and processes. These studies could be either large- or small-scale and also mixed-methods
oriented as Type II studies, and a study of culture and pedagogy in a set of five countries was
listed as an example. Here too, the present study sat at the intersection of these three NRCdefined broad types of international comparative studies as it entailed getting a better
understanding of educational issues, such as teacher autonomy and responsibility, in a set of
countries representing didaktik and curriculum educational systems (Type III), utilizing data
from PISA 2009 (itself a Type I study), to reach a better cross-national understanding and
informing national policy makers in each national contexts of implications the studied constructs
might have for their school settings (Type II). To this end, the present study aimed to make a
small contribution to the ongoing and growing worldwide research efforts in the field of
international comparative education.
8
Next, in Chapter 2, I elaborate on literature review, conceptual framework and research
hypothesis, where I present an extended discussion on historical development of didaktik and
curriculum as two educational traditions. In Chapter 3, I provide an analysis of education
systems in 12 countries included with an emphasis on education structure, teacher education and
certification, teacher professional development, assessment systems and funding mechanisms. In
Chapter 4, I present data, sample, variables and methods employed to conduct the study. In
Chapter 5, main results and findings are presented, and Chapter 6 concludes with discussion of
the findings, conclusions reached and recommendations for further research.
9
Chapter 2. LITERATURE REVIEW, CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
AND RESEARCH HYPOTHESES
This study drew heavily from the literature on didaktik and curriculum traditions. These
two educational orientations constituted the core theoretical frameworks that provided the
thinking for the entire design of the study. As mentioned, a more recent dialogue between the
two educational traditions was initiated during 1990s and has been on and off ever since.
However, exchanges between the two traditions have existed ever since the public education
systems were introduced in Europe in 18th century - first in Prussia (part of present Germany)
and then France and England. In efforts to bring the dialogue among scholars over the two
traditions forefront, a review of the educational thought from the ancient to modern times as well
as that of the didaktik-curriculum dialogue is presented here, with additional arguments that
portray both didaktik and curriculum as two educational orientations in their own right.
Didaktik and Curriculum – Past to Present
The current didaktik and curriculum orientations are grounded in their historicity. What is
known today about them is an extension of the educational thought that has been passed from
generation to generation in the written historical accounts. To view both didaktik and curriculum
traditions as ahistorical is to run the risk of inappropriately crediting scholars for later
developments in these scholarly domains. To that end, crediting 20th century educational
philosophers and scholars for developing modern educational theories without considering the
educational thought that preceded them prior to 20th century is a disservice to the human
endeavors that contributed to the betterment of world societies through education for many
centuries.
10
A quick review of the history of education shows that questions of how to best help the
young grow and mature were perennial. Considering the far antiquity and the early part of
Egypt’s six-thousand-year history, we find that education was primarily vocational in the form of
apprenticeship where sons were taught by their fathers. In ancient China, there were two
dominant educational orientations, attributed to Lao-Tse (6th century B.C.) and Confucius (5th
century B.C.) respectively (Schubert, 1986). Lao-Tse emphasized the role of education for
spiritual enrichment, which was to be achieved through contemplation. Confucius emphasized
the role of education for preserving society and institutions and put less emphasis on the
individual (Schubert, 1986). In ancient Greece, leisure time was emphasized as an opportunity
for individuals to develop educationally. The omnipresent word school comes from Greek scole
meaning leisure (Adler, 1951). However, leisure did not mean spare time but “an opportunity to
contemplate the significance, worth, meaning, and aesthetic value of ones life and contributions”
(Schubert, 1986, p. 56). The three greatest ancient Greek contributors to the educational thought
were Socrates, Plato and Aristotle who lived roughly between 5th and 3rd century B.C. Their
contributions, especially of Plato in his Republic, and Aristotle in The Politics constitute the
roots of a liberal education – their curriculum ideas included education of both boys and girls
from age six to eighteen in a number of disciplines such as music, mathematics and gymnastics
and the goals should be broad and not directed to vocations (Schubert, 1986). However, these
three domains were broader, for example, music included literature and history, while
gymnastics included the study of dance, rhythm, athletics and military arts. In ancient Rome,
education was influenced by Greek ideas, and the curriculum consisted of philosophy, literature
and rhetoric, but “as this was assimilated into the Roman life-style, it became more Latinoriented, eventually creating the Latin grammar school, which was the model for the Western
11
education” (Schubert, 1986, p. 58). During the early years of Christianity and up until the
renaissance period, the curriculum was dominated by teachings of Jesus, and value was placed
on knowledge since knowledge was instrumental in propagation of Christianity. During the
renaissance period, toward the end of the 15th century, Western scholars returned to ideas
developed in ancient Greece and Rome, which for education meant reviving Socratic questioning
and humanistic pedagogy, and emphasizing liberal arts education around dialectic, rhetoric,
grammar, astronomy, arithmetic, geometry and music as well as Greek and Latin languages,
history and fine arts (Schubert, 1986).
Emergence of didaktik tradition
It was during the renaissance and enlightenment periods that the roots of modern didaktik
were established. John Amos Comenius (1592-1670) with his Didactica Magna/The Great
Didactic is considered to be the first truly European educator and the father of modern education
(Hopmann, 2007; Schubert, 1986). Comenius emphasized the understanding of how students
meet the knowledge of disciplines on their own beings more than what knowledge is valid within
the structure, and he argued that there should be a sequence of knowledge from the microcosmos of students to the macro-cosmos of the world (Hopmann, 2007). During the
enlightenment period, a number of key philosophers advanced their theories about educational
thought, including French Jean Jacque Rousseau, Swiss Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi, and
Germans Immanuel Kant, Georg Wilhelm Hegel, Johann Friedrich Herbart, Friedrich Froebel
and Wilhelm von Humboldt. Rousseau laid the foundation for the child-centered education with
his emphasis on education of children apart from adults and as much as possible in their natural
settings in order to avoid the corrupted states and adult society. Pestalozzi’s work built on that of
Rousseau by promoting a balanced development of children’s head, heart and hand, and
12
implementing his ideas into practice in his own experimental school in Switzerland. Kant called
for the curriculum to be adapted to students’ needs and abilities, while Hegel was among the first
to promote lifelong learning with his emphasis on continued education to increase the
sophistication of reason. He maintained that it was state’s responsibility to provide public
education. Herbart is known as the father of science of education and of modern psychology and
he continued to influence educators into the twentieth century. He put forth that the goal of
education should be development of cultured human beings who are guided by highest ethical
values. Further, he argued from a psychological base that children’s development follows the
evolution of human culture – from primitive to civilized – and noted that it was teachers’
responsibility to assist students in their path towards greater civilization. Froebel, in turn, is
known for introducing kindergarten to the world of education in 1837, where the curriculum was
truly child-centered, which paved the way for progressive education in the next century
(Schubert, 1986).
Didaktik scholars view Humboldt as the first educationist that initiated the development
of the theory of Bildung or cultivation of humankind as the core of didaktik tradition (Gundem &
Hopmann, 1998; Hopmann & Riquarts, 1995; Lüth, 1998). In von Humboldt’s own words,
It is the ultimate task of our existence to achieve as much substance as possible for the
concept of humanity in our person, both during the span of our life and beyond it, through
the traces we leave by means of our vital activity. This can be fulfilled only by the linking
of the self to the world to achieve the most general, most animated, and most unrestrained
interplay. (Humboldt, 1793/2000, p. 58)
Humboldt considered that individuals needed to be cultivated and elevated into higher
beings so that they are able to transform themselves, as well as the world around them so that
13
they become significant to the world with the traces they leave behind. According to him, to fully
achieve the goals of Bildung meant grasping a completely fresh view of the world as well as selfdetermination. Bildung, as explicated by Humboldt, meant ‘grasping as much world as possible’
and as ‘contributing to human kind’ by development of one’s own unique self. In the process of
acquiring Bildung, he argued, two sources of resistance try to interrupt it – the changes that any
intellectual activity acquires as it proceeds and the nation where one is situated and the
occupation that one is involved within that context. To him, the geniuses, the ones who manage
to overcome these two interruptions are viewed as disturbances in the society but are the ones
who move their nations to new positive directions (Humboldt, 1793/2000). He also emphasized
that one can understand the mind only through deep reflection and continued observation, which
are cornerstones of what later become didaktik theory. However, Humboldt noted that education
alone is not sufficient and discerned social relations and ones’ circumstance as other sources of
enrichment of individuality, i.e. acquiring inner Bildung (Lüth, 1998). Still, Humboldt’s
definition of Bildung was but one of the many developed during the classic theories of Bildung
(Bildungstheorie). Klafki (2000a), referring to Immanuel Kant, describes Bildung as capacity for
reasonable self-determination,
[…] which presupposes and includes emancipation from determination by others. It is a
qualification for autonomy, for freedom, for individual thought, and for individual moral
decisions. Precisely because of this, creative self-activity is the central form in which the
process of Bildung is carried out. (Klafki, 2000a, p. 87)
According to Klafki, this definition of Bildung derives directly from the ideal of
enlightenment. Quoting Kant, Klafki (2000a) argues that the enlightenment itself meant man’s
departure from an immaturity, while immaturity in turn is the incapacity to make use of one’s
14
own reason without guidance of another. Bildung was not limited only to this sense of
subjectivism, Klafki argues, noting that a second group of core concepts attached to Bildung
included “humanity, humankind and humanness, world, objectivity, the general” (Klafki, 2000a,
p. 88, emphasis in original). Thus, the process of self-determination is to be achieved within
ones’ national, cultural and moral context, i.e. as part of the humankind or the world that one is
situated in. Klafki (2000a) emphasizes that according to classical theories of Bildung, the
processes and outcomes of Bildung are not limited to any specific group in society or any
specific class or intellectual elite – Bildung is Allgemeinbildung or Bildung for all. This
conception of Bildung for all persists to present days where Bildung applies to both general and
vocational education programs (Klafki, 2000a). However, it is the students themselves that have
to develop their reasoning and transform their views of the world, while teachers can only assist
them in their pursuits of acquiring Bildung (Hudson & Meyer, 2011).
German concept Bildung is a noun meaning something like “being educated,
educatedness.” It also carries the connotations of the word bilden “to form, to shape”. Other
terms used to translate term Bildung include ‘formation’, ‘self-formation’, ‘cultivation’, ‘selfdevelopment’, and ‘cultural process’ (Siljander & Sutinen, 2012). Tracing historical roots of the
term Bildung, Schwenk (1996), as referred to by Siljander and Sutinen (2012), distinguished two
historical tradition of Bildung reflected into the modern Bildung, including cultura animi of
ancient Hellenism and Christian doctrine of Imago Dei (Schwenk, 1996, p. 210), where cultura
animi means spiritual cultivation, while Imago Dei literally means God’s image. Linguistically,
German term Bildung follows the doctrine of Imago Dei, since the root of the word Bildung is
Bild, which means image (Siljander & Sutinen, 2012, p. 3). Based on these two historical
traditions, Bildung is defined, first, as a creative process where the person shapes and develops
15
himself or herself as well as his or her cultural environment, and second, “[…] in the processes
of Bildung, a person seeks a more advanced form of life” (Siljander & Sutinen, 2012, p. 4).
In Bildung, whatever is done or learned is done or learned to develop one’s own
individuality, to unfold the capabilities of the I (Hopmann, 2007). The notion of Bildung, as
developed in the Didaktik perspective, sees Bildung as an individual outcome, not as a program
for education. This is in opposition to testing-driven education systems and international testing
programs where the meaning of the subject matter content is fixed, and in most cases only one
right solution is sought from everyone. Furthermore, competence-based curricula are problematic
as it is not possible to match a certain competence with a certain content matter, and also gaining
competence is but one of the many potential meanings which can be achieved by a given content
matter (Hopmann, 2007). Bildung is seen as an ideal aspiring to be mastered by students with
teacher’s support and something to hold on to and work towards throughout a personal life
journey. In other words, it means preparing students for lifelong learning beyond formal
education, for the sake of transforming themselves as human beings, and to the extent possible,
extend that transformation to what the person does (occupation) and to society at large (context).
Furthermore, Bildung is not only about preparing students to participate in society and economy
but it is about developing students’ significance in the world (Pinar, 2011).
In the broadest sense, didaktik encompasses the dimension of objectives and contents and
the dimension of methods (Klafki, 2000b). In Anglo-American terms, these two dimensions
could be referred to as Curriculum and Instruction, however the terms are not completely
equivalent across two traditions. Didaktik was defined also “as a relation between teachers and
learners (the who), subject matter (the what) and instructional methods (the how)” (Klette, 2007,
p.147). In more simplistic definition and relying on didaktik triangle, Didaktik is about teachers,
16
students and subject matter, where teachers enable the access of students to the given subject
matter (Künzli, 1998). Similarly, Didaktik “provides teachers with ways of considering the
essential what, how and why questions around their teaching of their students in their
classrooms” (Westbury, 2000, p. 17, emphasis in the original). Hopmann (2007) stated that
Didaktik is a matter of order, sequence and choice. Within the frame of order, sequence, and
choice, Hopmann noted that “Didaktik became the main tool for creating space for local teaching
by providing interpretative tools for dealing with state guidelines on a local basis” (p. 113).
Order here deals with the order of knowledge that is to be introduced to students, sequence
pertains to how and when the given content is unveiled to students following a progression from
simple to more complex knowledge, and choice relates to selection of contents for the school
curriculum. The syllabi or Lehrplan developed at the state level in Germany provided the broad
curriculum guidelines while teachers at the local level translated those guidelines into lesson
plans, a process facilitated by didaktik and enabled by teachers ‘pedagogical freedom’
(Hopmann (2007). According to Hopmann (2007) didaktik is based on Socratic dialectic-based
teaching methods where teaching is restrained, allowing the opportunity for students’ individual
growth. Further, Hopmann identifies three commonplaces of Didaktik, namely Bildung, matter
and meaning, and autonomy. Bildung is the outcome of the encounter of the student with the
content facilitated by the teacher. Within didaktik, there is no separation between the matter and
meaning as they cannot exist without one another (Hopmann, 2007), and teachers define ‘What
knowledge is of most worth?’ as part of their professional autonomy (Pinar, 2011). Künzli
(1998) explicates that the primary focus of a didactician is the object of learning, and what that
object can and should signify to students and how students experience the significance, while,
17
All other questions and problems – other than the significance of the learning content –
such as class management, individual and social learning, learning control, individual
learning speed, appropriate representation, etc. – are subordinate to this central concern
and gain significances only when the question of educative substance (Bildungsgehalt) is
at issue. Educational psychology and instruction research tend to be peripheral
phenomena. (p. 40)
Lastly, the common place of autonomy means the autonomy of both teachers and learners in
going through their encounters over certain subject matter, and it specifically pertains to
flexibility in terms of outcome of Bildung,
“[…] which is often not visible at all, at least not right away. It depends on what remains
after the hurly burly of teaching is done, the battle of minds is lost or won, and the
student comes to terms with his or her own world. (Hopmann, 2007, p. 117)
This conceptualization of teaching and learning process and outcomes is in sharp contradiction
with neo-liberal educational policies that rely on clear ‘objective’ definition of educational
standards and measures to evaluate the progress towards achieving those standards.
While both rooted on the theories of Bildung, two didaktik models developed during the
20th century, namely the human science-oriented pedagogy during the first part of the 20th
century and critical-constructive didaktik from 1960s to the present days (Klafki, 1998; Künzli,
1998). Klafki (1998) attributed three characteristics to the human science pedagogy, including,
first, the close relationship between the pedagogical theory and pedagogical practice, second, the
relative autonomy of education from external political, social, and cultural influences, and third,
conceptualizing and understanding human science pedagogy in a historical context. Klafki
credits philosopher Wilhelm Dilthey and educationist Erich Weniger as contributors to and
18
promoters of human science pedagogy. Critical-constructive didaktik, in turn, was advanced by
Klafki himself in an article in 1963. He positioned that the concept ‘critical’ pertains to the
interest of knowledge “[…] insofar as this approach to Didaktik is oriented towards the goal of
guiding all children and adolescents to greater capacity for self-determination, co-determination
and solidarity” (Klafki, 1998, p. 311). The concept of ‘constructive’ is used to mean the interplay
between the theory and practice and to allow for an ongoing reformed or reforming practice for a
humane and democratic schooling. Klafki also argued, in almost sociology of education terms,
that education-society connection was a two-way relationship, claiming that education has both
the opportunity and responsibility not only to be reactive to societal needs but also to influence
social developments for the benefit of entire society.
Another characteristic of critical-constructive didaktik deals with elements that Bildung
needs to promote, namely self-determination, co-determination, and solidarity, which in Klafki’s
words are defined as follows:
Self-determination: Each and every member of society is to be enabled to make
independent responsible decisions about her or his individual relationships and
interpretations of an interpersonal, vocational, ethical or religious nature.
Co-determination: Each and every member of society has the right but also the
responsibility to contribute together with others to the cultural, economic, social and
political development of the community.
Solidarity: […] means that the individual right to self-determination and opportunities
for co-determination can only be represented and justified if it is associated not only with
the recognition of equal rights but also with active help for those whose opportunities for
self-determination and co-determination are limited or non-existent due to social
19
conditions, lack of privilege, political restrictions or oppression. (Klafki, 1998, p. 314,
emphasis added)
Indeed, these three elements of Bildung put forth by Klafki underline the key
opportunities as well as challenges that educational processes offer and are faced with to the
present days. At the institutional level, didaktik has seen a division into general didaktik
(Allgemeine Didaktik) and subject matter didaktik (Fachdidaktik) where the first centers around
broader issues of teaching and learning while the second deals with analysis, organization and
preparation of subjects of teaching (Künzli, 1998). Further development of subject matter
didaktiks as well as the relationship between the general didaktik and subject matter didaktik is
considered to be the challenge facing the fields (Seel, 1999).
Klafki’s didaktik analysis has been at the core of instructional planning as part of the
critical constructive didaktik. It relies on five questions, including,
1. What wider or general sense or reality do these contents exemplify and open up for the
learner? What basic phenomenon or fundamental principle, what law, criterion, problem,
method, technique or attitude can be grasped by dealing with this content as an
‘example’?
2. What significance does the content in question or the experience, knowledge, ability or
skill to be acquired through this topic already possess in the minds of the children in my
class? What significance should it have from a pedagogical point of view?
3. What constitutes the topic’s significance for the children’s future?
4. How is the content structured [which has been placed into a specifically pedagogical
perspective by questions 1, 2 and 3]?
5. What are the special cases, phenomena, situations, experiments, persons, elements of
20
aesthetic experience, and so forth, in terms of which the structure of the content in
question can become interesting, stimulating, approachable, conceivable or vivid for
children of the stage of development of this class? (Klafki, 2000b, pp. 151-155)
These five questions enable the design of learning opportunities that set up conditions for
teachers and students to work together towards meeting the three elements or abilities of Bildung
in the form of self-determination, co-determination and solidarity.
Despite being heavily situated in the German speaking world in the Continental Europe,
Didaktik has been influential to other geographic locations, most prominently in the Nordic
Europe, where didaktik orientations has been central to the development of education throughout
the 20th century up to present (Kansanen, 1999; Uljens, 1997, 2009; Hudson & Meyer, 2011).
However, Hudson & Meyer (2011) had observed that Nordic educational scholars were also
open to the Anglo-American curriculum theory as evidenced in a significant number of
references to Anglo-American scholars used in their published scholarly work, compared to a
lower rate of such references among Continental Europe educators. Still, Kansanen (1999)
emphasized that didaktik constituted the central theory for running educational systems and
selecting curriculum and instructional methods in Nordic countries.
Perspectives on curriculum tradition and how the field developed
Curriculum scholars have long been at work to dissect curriculum tradition. The notions
vary as to what the tradition can be categorized into – some scholars refer to sub-components of
curriculum tradition as ideologies (Schubert, 1986; Schubert, 1996; Schiro, 2013), others refer to
them as models (Ellis, 2004), traditions of practice (Zeichner, 1993) and orientations (Eisner &
Vallance, 1974) among else. Schiro (2013, p. 8) defined ideology as a “[…] collection of ideas, a
comprehensive vision, a way of looking at things, a worldview that embodies the way a person
21
or a group of people believes the world should be organized and function.” In line with
numerous curriculum scholars who used varied notions of how to refer to seemingly same
education processes and problems, the present study uses ideologies, theories, frameworks,
orientations and models interchangeably to refer to curriculum sub-components as well as when
referring to didaktik and curriculum broadly, recognizing that there are inherent differences in
these theoretical concepts. Table 1 provides a comparison of varied notions that curriculum has
been classified into by a number or curriculum scholars.
Table 1 Classification schemes of curriculum tradition
Eisner &
Vallance
(1974)
academic
rationalism
technology
&cognitive
processes
self
actualization
Schubert
(1986)
Schubert
(1996)
Zeichner
(1993)
Ellis (2004) Kliebard
(2004)
Schiro (2013)
intellectual
traditionalist
social
behaviorist
intellectual
traditionalist
social
behaviorist
academic
knowledge
centered
social
efficiency
scholar
academic
social
efficiency
child
study
learner
centered
socialmeliorist
social
reconstruction
experientialist experientialist
social
reconstructionism
critical
reconstructionist
social
efficiency
developmentalist
social
reconstructionist
progressive
& learner
centered
society
centered
humanist
Adapted from Schiro (2013).
Most curriculum theorists agree that there are primarily four distinct ideologies humanists/scholar academic, child study/learner centered, social meliorists/social reconstruction,
and social efficiency – within the curriculum tradition, and even when different labels are used to
describe them, the underlying positions and assumptions are the same. Schiro (2013) noted that
when considering Learner Centered ideology in the US, for example, it has been labeled as
“…child study (1890s), progressive education (1910-1950), open education (1965-1980),
developmentalist (1970-1990), and constructivist (1990-present)” (p.10). To further elaborate
22
these four curriculum ideologies, I first provide an extended discussion on how they came to be
established as such in the U.S. at the turn of the 20th century, and what influences played
significant roles on proponents of each of them. Then, I review the developments in the
curriculum field to present days and offer a condensed summary of key arguments put forth by
major curriculum theorists in the respective periods of time.
The curriculum thinking in progressive era, roughly 1890 to 1930, evolved into
discussions around four key ideologies, such as scholar academic, social efficiency, learnercentered, and social reconstruction (Schiro, 2013), while Kliebard (2004), taking a historical
approach, distinguished four main interest groups competing with their ideas over curriculum
control during the initial struggle towards curriculum making. Putting these two classifications
together, we get the following four competing groups pushing their visions forward to win the
battle for American curriculum:
1. Humanists/scholar academic (for example, Charles W. Eliot, William Torey Harris)
2. Child study/learner centered (for example, G. Stanley Hall, William Heard Kilpatrick)
3. Social meliorists/social reconstruction (George Counts, Harold Rugg, Lester Frank Ward,
etc.), and
4. Social efficiency (for example, John Franklin Bobbit, Charles Ellewood, Ross Finney,
David Snedden).
Progressive era cannot be discussed without considering John Dewey’s role in shaping
curriculum thinking and developments of the time. Dewey’s work in designing school practices
in his Laboratory School at University of Chicago as well as his theoretical insights over
23
educational issues in the US at the turn of the 20th century contributed largely to educational
developments that took place in the US for nearly half of the 20th century. However, as a
prominent figure, he did not fully side with any of the four groups, but shared more in his ideals
and principles with child study/learner centered group and reconstructionists or social meliorists.
Both local national forces and developments at the time (incoming emigrants, industrial
revolution, etc.) and external forces (primarily European influences) were at play during the
formation of these four competing groups.
Humanists/scholar academic
Humanists promoted a curriculum model that pushed for liberal education or a more
general academic curriculum that focused on reading, writing, and arithmetic, but also required
taking other courses such history, geography, arts, Greek and Latin classes in high school
(Ravitch, 2000). Humanistic curriculum was dominant throughout 19th century, but by the end
of it, around 1890s, proponents like Charles Eliot and William Torrey Harris, felt the mounting
pressure of other developments in the country, and started to talk about ‘new education’.
However, as Ravitch (2000) noted, what they meant by ‘new education’ was introduction of
science into the academic curriculum. At the heart of humanistic approach was the belief that the
role of the curriculum was to improve society by advancing academic achievement of
individuals.
Humanists were heavily influenced by European philosophical and psychological
developments. They were strong supporters of the doctrine based on mental discipline that
derived from the work of German psychologist Christian Wolf. Mental disciplinarians believed
that “certain subjects of study had the power to strengthen faculties such as memory, reasoning,
will, and imagination” (Kliebard, 2004, p. 4). In this regard, the curriculum in the U.S. during
24
19th century adopted heavily from the didaktik theory of teaching and learning in Germany, and
most continental Europe, that was based on idealism of German philosophers such as Immanuel
Kant, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Wilhelm Dilthey, and Wilhelm von Humboldt (Reid,
1997). Specifically, key proponents of humanistic education, Eliot and Harris, were considered
to be America’s leading Hegelians, who contributed in educational developments during the
1890s as part of the Committee of Ten, amongst else, since Eliot was also president of Harvard
University, while Harris was the U.S. Commissioner of Education (Kliebard, 2004). Both Eliot
and Harris studied educational thought developed in Europe, where Eliot event spent years in
visiting France and Germany studying their educational systems to detail, interviewing policymakers as well as school leaders and teachers in school settings. Nevertheless, the 19th century
curriculum dominated by humanistic approaches started to be viewed as outdated and traditional,
and three other ideologies lined up to challenge it.
Child study/learner centered group
Child study/learner centered group or developmentalists as they were also referred to
came into American curriculum debate with the initiation of child study movement in 1880s by
G. Stanley Hall (1844-1924), a movement that “encouraged educators to study children as they
were – to watch them carefully, to listen to them intently, and to collect data about them so that
instruction could be designed based on observations of children’s nature, needs and interests”
(Schiro, 2008, p. 113). The movement gave birth to what is widely known to date as child- or
learner-centered instruction, a concept strongly associated with the work and teachings of
American philosopher and educator John Dewey. Kliebard (2004) discussed John Dewey as
separate from the four interest groups, but other authors associate him primarily with two of the
four groups, namely, developmentalists and social reconstructionists (Pinar, 1995; Ravitch, 2001;
25
Schiro, 2008). The movement promoted some aspects of Herbartian curriculum, which focused
on subjects being taught, with emphasis on history and literature and later science, instruction
methods, and steps that would make curriculum accessible to learners (Pinar, 1995). In addition
to Dewey, G. Stanley Hall, Francis Parker, and William Heard Kilpatrick are referred to as
developmentalists in their approaches to curriculum.
The heaviest influence on developmentalists was German pedagogue Johann Friedrich
Herbart (1776-1841), who himself was influenced by Kant, Hegel and Pestalozzi, (Pinar,
Reynolds, Slattery and Taubman, 1995). In addition, many American educators and
psychologists travelled to Europe to study Herbartians, Froebelians and Pestalozzians (Schubert,
1986). Again, as in humanists’ case, there is a presence of German philosophers and educators
on American educational leaders and experimenters thinking, but drawing from Herbartianism,
developmentalists tried to break away from ‘mental discipline’ into building educational
experiences that have the learner at its core. Reportedly, Dewey, a student of Hall at Johns
Hopkins University was advised to turn to German idealists and disregard British empiricism,
which led to Dewey writing his dissertation on “Psychology of Kant” in 1884 (Schubert, 1986).
In addition to Herbart, four more European philosophers and educators influenced
developmentalists or learner-centered instruction movement in the U.S, including: Johan Amos
Comenius (1592-1670) who viewed education as developmental, progressing from concrete
experience to abstract thought; Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), French philosopher, who
viewed children as naturally good and society as corrupt and contended that the role of education
should be to maintain children’s goodness free from corruptions of the society, and to create
environments in which they live their childhood fully and involve in rich experiences that
facilitate their growth; Johann Hein Pestalozzi (1746-1827), Swiss educator, credited with
26
putting Rousseau’s ideas into practice, supported the idea that children should be enabled to
explore their interests in spontaneity and play-based learning. Dewey seems to have adopted his
ideas for learning by doing approaches he promoted in the U.S. from Pestalozzi; and lastly,
Friedrich Froebel (1782-1852), a German educator and student of Pestalozzi, who invented
kindergarten and pushed for play-based learning, in which children can use toys and other
materials to shape and manipulate them as they desire (Schiro, 2008).
The educational ideas generated in Europe influenced the thinking of developmentalists
such as Hall, Francis, Dewey, Kilpatrick and others. These influences were obvious in the work
these educators engaged with in the U.S. in directly implementing those ideas into different
contexts and projects. For example, developmentalists reiterated that children and not content
should be the focus of teaching, teachers should create an experiential environment that
encourages learners to create personal meaning, and school subjects should be integrated through
project learning (Dewey & Dewey, 1915). Dewey together with his wife established Laboratory
School at the University of Chicago, which was entirely based on child-centered model of
education (Ravitch, 2000). In addition, Kilpatrick’s work on project method was an actual
implementation of borrowed ideas from Europe. He concluded that children are naturally social
and that they require a skillful teacher to guide their purpose, who in turn engages in ‘projects’ to
stimulate and guide learners’ learning and character building (Kilpatrick, 1918).
Social meliorists/social reconstruction group
Social meliorists were another group of enthusiasts who challenged the traditional
curriculum of 19th century by putting forward a vision of education that saw schools as principal
force for social change and social justice (Kliebard, 2004). Pinar et al. (1995) viewed social
reconstruction as the best reform movement during the progressive era, and associated, as the
27
majority of the other historians, Lester Frank Ward, John Dewey, Harold Rugg and George
Counts, as most prominent proponents of the movement. The social meliorists view “human
experience, education, truth, and knowledge as socially defined” (Schiro, 2008, p. 143), and they
did not believe that there could be a good individual apart from a good society (Counts, 1932).
All these educators considered education as an engine that will resolve all social ills and believed
in the power of education to renew and transform society. “The continuity of any experience
through renewing of the social group is a literal fact. Education, in its broadest sense, is the
means of this social continuity of life” (Dewey, 1916, p. 3). In other words, Dewey considered
that education can be a catalyst for ensuring continuity of life through renewing social structures.
Commenting on Dewey’s vision for education with regard to social reconstructionist movement,
Kliebard (2004) noted that implementing such a vision required sweeping changes not only in
curriculum but in the way the schools were run. Dewey’s conceptualization of education asked
for changing not only the elements of education, such as curriculum and instructional methods,
but also the process under which those elements made their way into the classroom affecting
learners’ experiences and lives.
Influences over social meliorists were more diverse. Schiro (2008) argued that ideas of
social reconstruction were as old as establishment of American nation when Americans started to
reject British rule and worked on building their own economic, political and social system. These
deep-rooted ideas were first voiced by Lester Frank Ward during 1880s, when he opposed social
Darwinism, which asserted that “the best” of the race would rise to the top in line with Darwin’s
theory of survival of the fittest (Pinar et al., 1995). Ward believed that “status quo of the human
affairs was not ‘natural’ and thus changeable” (Pinar et al., 1995, p. 104). Ward’s ideas were
further developed by Dewey, Rugg and Counts. Dewey and Counts were also heavily influenced
28
by European philosophers, primarily Marxist ideas, as a result of visits they took to Western
Europe and Russia. Naively, both Dewey and Counts believed that Russian education system
was the best in the world and saw it as a model to be adopted in the U.S. (Ravitch, 2000). Rugg,
on the other hand, had a background in engineering and believed that a new social order would
have to eliminate subject-centered schooling with more child-centered practices supported by
technology integration (Ravitch, 2000).
Social Efficiency
Lastly, social efficiency group appeared in the US curriculum debate at the turn of the
20th century. Kliebard (2004) elaborated that ideas outside the realm of education gained much
attention within educational community – in particular ideas of Frederick Taylor, an engineer
from scientific management, that gave birth to social efficiency as a social ideal and educational
doctrine, and ideas of Edward Thorndike from psychology, who introduced educational or
“intelligence” measurement into American education. Drawing from the work of Edward Ross,
Frederick Taylor, Franklin Bobbit, Edward Thorndike, and David Snedden, Kliebard (2004)
interpreted the arguments that lead to social efficiency model within the U.S. education, a model
that shaped to a large extent the U.S. education curriculum and educational thinking and practice
to present days (Luke, 2004). Social efficiency model suggested that students would learn in
schools only what they needed to know in order to perform as adult members of social order, and
“To go beyond what someone had to know in order to perform that role successfully was simply
wasteful” (Kliebard, 2004, p. 77). Kliebard further argued that social efficiency educational
model came into being, on one hand as a response to the flourishing of industrialism, and as
antithesis of Dewey’s ideas on the other.
29
To see the contrast with regard to the vision of education between social efficiency model
and the other three competing models, one has to examine the work of Franklin Bobbit, who is
credited for establishing the curriculum field with his publication The Curriculum in 1918 (Pinar
et al., 1995). Arguing in favor of scientific management and against tradition model of
curriculum, Bobbit wrote:
The old education, except as it conferred the tools of knowledge, was mainly devoted to
filling the memory with facts. The new age is more in need of facts than the old; and of
more facts; and it must find more effective methods of teaching. (Bobbitt, 1918, pp. 10–
11)
The quote shows that the goal of scientific management model was not to change the content of
old education as much as to make such a model more efficient by putting more facts into
learners’ minds in shorter period of time.
Social efficiency model not only rejected other educational models but also brought to
light the idea of curriculum differentiation, an idea attributed to sociologist David Snedden
(Ravitch, 2000). Curricular differentiation marked the beginning of implementation of vocational
education in the U.S. education system, which was to lead to tracking of students shortly after.
Ideas from industrial revolution transformed into ideas for industrial education so that learners’
skills at the end of schooling met the needs of employers in factory assembly lines.
To facilitate the line of argument for the influences that led to social efficiency to become
the dominant curriculum model, two types of influences are presented here: internal and external.
By internal influences I mean forces that shaped decision-making in a larger scale of how the
country is run in general, and how education is organized in particular. These forces include
30
increasing number of incoming emigrants, mass education, and industrial revolution occurring at
the time. The second group includes external influences that primarily relate to European
philosophical, psychological and pedagogical influences that directly or indirectly contributed to
emergence of social efficiency model in the U.S. curriculum.
Internal influences on curriculum making
Schiro (2008), paraphrasing Callahan (1962), emphasized that social efficiency model
had its origin in four movements, namely, social reform, utilitarian education, behavioral
psychology, and scientific methodology, which according to Schiro, are still active to date.
Social reform was fired up by muckraking journalism during first two decades of 20th century,
which helped create a reform-conscious population “that put social needs above all else” (Schiro,
2008, p. 72). The idea behind utilitarian education was to emphasize the relevance of making
schools useful for the life of individuals and the nation, while behavioral psychology enabled
social efficiency model to frame its endeavors into a psychological context. John Watson,
Edward Thorndike, and later B. F. Skinner created that psychological base for the social
efficiency (Schiro, 2008). Finally, scientific methodology with its techniques and methods for
accurate measurement and eliminating waste gave social efficiency the tools to overcome the
inefficiency its proponents had identified in old education (Schiro, 2008).
Oakes (1985) listed millions of incoming immigrants, initiation of mass public schooling
at high school that suddenly at the turn of 20th century had to educate far more children as before,
as well as growing needs of industry for better skilled workforce as problems that needed to be
addressed by the nation, and that enabled social efficiency model to emerge as best tool to fix the
problems effectively and efficiently. In her words:
31
Social Darwinism had provided the “scientific” justification for the schools to treat the
children of various groups differently. The Americanization movement provided much of
the content of the schooling to be offered the children of the poor and immigrant. It was
left to American industry to provide the form this new kind of education would take.
(Oakes, 1985, p. 27, emphasis in the original)
Katz (1987) criticized the educational policy reform from a historical perspective and concluded
that systemic wide reforms that attempt to change the quality of schooling almost always fail.
However, the success of social efficiency model and its institutionalization in a nation-wide scale
seems to prove his conclusion invalid. Still, Katz built his argument around the notion that
external societal order and developments are the true forces that shape educational experiences
as those forces are more powerful than any educational planning or policy. It seems, in the case
of social efficiency, efforts of policy makers to change educational system matched with the
vision of external societal forces. Arguably, alignment of these visions constitutes the core
explication why social efficiency model was successful.
Social efficiency model was the most American-made curriculum idea, but it still was
influenced by three major developments in Europe. First, as noted above, social Darwinism ideas
justified curricular differentiation into general and vocational tracks. Second, the very idea of
tracking/curriculum differentiation through vocational education was borrowed from Germany,
which had already put in place such a model of education. Third, the idea of intelligence quotient
(IQ) testing was borrowed from French psychologist Alfred Binet (Ravitch, 2000).
Perhaps one of the ways to understand why social efficiency model of curriculum won
the competition over American curriculum against three other competing models – humanists,
32
developmentalists, and social reconstructionists – is to ask the question: What problems did
educators in the U.S. at the end of 19th and beginning of 20th century have to resolve? As noted
above, education system was under a trifold pressure, including increased numbers of incoming
immigrants, mass schooling, and industrial revolution. While humanists seemed to have been
outsiders in the competition from the very beginning as all three other groups were challenging
them at the core, it is still less clear why developmentalists and social reconstructionists, who
shared some similar ideas and principles, and indeed, united through the figure of John Dewey,
failed to occupy a more prominent place in American curriculum field. Kliebard (2004) provided
some insight as to why social efficiency model won the day:
And, insofar as the effect on actual school practice is concerned, the prominence and
persistence of the basic ideas of the scientific curriculum-makers indicates that someone
like relatively obscure Bobbit may have been far more in touch with the true temper of
his times than the world-renowned Dewey. (p. 104).
Hlebowitsh and Wraga (1995) concluded that Dewey was celebrated more as a theorist and
philosopher of education but had less success in implementing his ideas into practice because he
did not side with class and cultural struggle by ignoring the ‘strong’ and siding with vulnerable
groups, i.e. children and marginalized communities. Social efficiency group, on the other hand,
seems to have been at the nexus of converging interests at the early part of 20th century in the
U.S. to win the American battle over curriculum.
One of the most influential curriculum scholars to the present days is Ralph Tyler, whose
four questions in his Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction pertaining to development
33
of curriculum and instruction program have reached almost a status of revealed doctrine
(Kliebard, 1970). Tyler’s (1949, p. 51) four questions are the following:
1. What educational purposes should the school seek to attain?
2. How can learning experiences be selected which are likely to be useful in attaining
these objectives?
3. How can learning experiences be organized for effective instruction?
4. How can the effectiveness of learning experiences be evaluated?
In short, the questions focus on stating the educational objectives, selecting learning experiences,
organizing learning experiences and finally evaluating them. From the four questions, the first
one is the most important since the other three will follow based on what educational objectives
will be pursued (Kliebard, 1970). According to Tyler, the educational objectives should be drawn
from three sources, including studies of the learners, studies of society and suggestions from the
subject-matter specialists, while filtering the sources through philosophical and psychological
screening. Tyler’s rationale assumes that one can easily match objectives and outcomes through
the evaluation process, and it is based on the idea of education system as an input-output model.
The Tyler Rationale operates under the assumptions of the educational philosophy of social
efficiency, and serves as a technocratic model that dominated American schools to present day
(Deng and Luke, 2008). Despite subsequent curriculum theories and educational models, “key
epistemological, psychological, pedagogical, cultural and political questions continue to be
deferred under the assumption, pace Tyler, that neutral, consensually-driven statements of
outcomes are the common building blocks of any programmatic approach to curriculum” (Deng
34
& Luke, 2008, p. 74). Indeed, the persistence of Tyler rationale situated in social efficiency
curriculum ideology throughout the 20th century to present days has been evidenced by both
curriculum scholars as well as historians of education (Kliebard, 2004; Ellis, 2004; Labaree,
2005; Pinar, 2011, 2012; Ravitch, 2001).
During the second part of the 20th century, two educationists – Jerome Bruner and Joseph
Schwab – occupied a prominent role in the curriculum field, with Bruner advocating for
organizing the subject matter according to academic disciplines, thus promoting the doctrine of
disciplinarity within the curriculum tradition, and Schwab emphasizing the understanding of
learners as the starting point for translating academic discipline into subject matter (Deng &
Luke, 2008). According to Bruner, academic knowledge should be derived from the structure of
the respective academic discipline. Bruner initiated a curriculum reform movement in the US in
the 1960s to respond to the post-Sputnik calls for advancing scientific and technological
expertise. Bruner emphasized that intellectual activity is the same both in third-grade as well as
the most advanced level, and highlighted that “Grasping the structure of a subject is
understanding it in a way that permits many other things to be related to it meaningfully. To
learn structure, in short, is to learn how things are related” (Bruner, 2009, p. 7). Bruner was an
advocate of the knowledge-centered (or academic rationalism or intellectual traditionalist)
ideology of curriculum and in his work put emphasis on the process and concepts of the
academic disciplines rather than the products – in other words, the process of education should
result in understanding rather than performance (Ellis, 2004). Further, efforts to reform
curriculum, and science education specifically, during the post-Sputnik period focused on getting
students to think like scientists in the academic disciplines so that they would be set on the path
to engage in science careers (Duschl, 2008).
35
With the focus on the practical inquiry, Schwab (1969), after he declared the curriculum
field moribund, announced that there would be a renaissance in the field only when the emphasis
was shifted from the theoretic to the practical – practical in the sense of “[…] complex
discipline, relatively unfamiliar to the academic and differing radically from the disciplines of
the theoretic” (Schwab, 1969, p. 1). Schwab advocated for a new form of curriculum
development that would assist in translating the academic knowledge into subject matter. The
new curriculum making would rely on a process of collaborative deliberation that would include
a number of what Schwab termed ‘commonplaces’ or ‘agents of translation’ – subject matter,
learners, milieu, teachers – assisted by curriculum specialists (Schwab, 1973). According to him,
subject matter commonplace refers to someone who knows the materials and academic discipline
for the given subject; learners refers to someone who understands the learners as primary
beneficiaries of curriculum, and in that aspect, that someone should have deep understanding of
learners’ minds and hearts as well as probabilities for their future economic status and function;
milieu refers to the classroom, school and community where learning will take place, and it
would require someone who understands the values, attitudes towards education and aspirations
of the stakeholders in the milieu that might affect children’s learning; teachers refers to someone
that has an understanding of teachers and how ready they are to engage in new learning and new
ways of teaching; and curriculum specialists, who are required to enable the curriculum making
process taking into consideration the relevant experiences of the four commonplaces (Schwab,
1973). Schwab’s commonplaces expand the triad of commonplaces emphasized by Dewey at the
turn of the 20th century pertaining to the learners, society and specialized knowledge, which if
viewed from the curriculum ideologies’ perspectives, relate to learner-centered, social efficiency,
academic rationalism and to a lesser extent to social reconstructionism (Deng & Luke, 2008).
36
From this perspective, it can be argued that Dewey and Schwab were the most prominent
educators who advocated for tightly integrated curriculum approaches that tried to overcome
ideology divide across the four common ideologies that span curriculum field to this day. Also,
to some extent, the concerns raised and aspirations promoted by Dewey and Schwab resemble
the more established didaktik theory in Europe, where the goals of education are embodied into
the unified and integrated concept of Bildung.
During the later part of the 20th century and early 21st century, social reconstructionist
groups reemerged in the curriculum field calling for social justice and criticizing the curriculum
for maintaining the social injustices in the society (Pinar et al., 1995; Apple, 2004; Pinar, 2011,
2012). During this period, curriculum field expanded to include diverse challenges of the society
such as poverty, racism, sexism, marginalized groups and so forth. As such, curriculum was
defined as a complicated conversation (Pinar et al., 1998) as well as an interdisciplinary study of
educational experience (Pinar, 2012). Pinar, especially during the first part of the 20th century,
became very critical of educational system in the US, arguing that curriculum theorists are
suspicious of the policy talk around ‘standards’ and ‘accountability’ and ‘business thinking’ in
curriculum making, from which perspective curriculum is offered as a product from producers to
consumers (Pinar, 2012). Indeed, Pinar (2004) complained that due to anti-intellectual culture in
the US of the predominantly white culture and history now politically hegemonic in the US the
field of education has remained underdeveloped. According to social reconstructionists, the
solution to the social injustices relies on educating social activists who will carefully act to right
the wrongs inflicted on the ‘oppressed’. They view the continued emphasis on standards-based
education and accountability models as everlasting social efficiency model of education, which
only pressed for efficiency in education delivery.
37
Comparison of didaktik and curriculum orientations
Comparison of didaktik and curriculum orientations has been a topic for discussion and
source of inspiration for numerous books, volumes and articles (Autio, 2013; Gundem &
Hopmann, 1998; Siljander, Kivelä, & Sutinen, 2012; Uljens, 1997; Westbury, Hopmann, &
Riquarts, 2000). Scholars have argued that while both didaktik and curriculum orientations deal
with the same issues and concerns in principle in terms of educating children, clear differences
persist as to how they go about doing the school business. To show how striking the differences
are between the two traditions, let’s turn again to the key questions (see Table 2) that guide
preparing and selecting curriculum and instruction for the classroom practices as shown in the
previous sections in the form of questions raised by Wolfgang Klafki in didaktik and Ralph Tyler
in curriculum orientations.
As shown earlier in this chapter, Klafki’s questions for didaktik analysis and Tyler’s
questions as part of Tyler Rationale for selection of curriculum and instruction have been and
still are influential in educational systems in respective traditions. An examination of these
questions reveals the most striking difference between the two sets of questions, and indeed,
between the two traditions, i.e. the complete lack of content focus on Tyler’s questions and
complete lack of assessment/evaluation in Klafki’s questions. Second, Klafki’s questions are
addressed to teachers and what content and examples and experiences they will select and teach
to their students, thus making didaktik a teacher-oriented tradition that relies on teacher
professionalism, responsibility and autonomy, while Tyler’s questions are addressed at least at
the school-level, thus making curriculum an institutional- or system-oriented tradition where
teachers implement what schools/system require them to.
38
Table 2 Comparison of Klafki’s and Tyler’s questions
Didaktik Orientation
Curriculum Orientation
Klafki’s five question for didaktik analysis
1. What wider or general sense or reality do
these contents exemplify and open up for
the learner? What basic phenomenon or
fundamental principle, what law, criterion,
problem, method, technique or attitude can
be grasped by dealing with this content as
an ‘example’?
2. What significance does the content in
question or the experience, knowledge,
ability or skill to be acquired through this
topic already possess in the minds of the
children in my class? What significance
should it have from a pedagogical point of
view?
Tyler’s four questions for curriculum and
instruction
1. What educational purposes should the
school seek to attain?
2. How can learning experiences be
selected which are likely to be useful in
attaining these objectives?
3. How can learning experiences be
organized for effective instruction?
4. How can the effectiveness of learning
experiences be evaluated?
3. What constitutes the topic’s significance
for the children’s future?
4. How is the content structured [which has
been placed into a specifically pedagogical
perspective by questions 1, 2 and 3]?
5. What are the special cases, phenomena,
situations, experiments, persons, elements
of aesthetic experience, and so forth, in
terms of which the structure of the content
in question can become interesting,
stimulating, approachable, conceivable or
vivid for children of the stage of
development of this class?
Third, Tyler’s questions are about efficiency of the system, and they require an evaluation of
learning experiences so that there is an empirical base as to how efficient the system is in terms
of learning outcomes. Klafki’s questions emphasize idiosyncrasies of individual classrooms,
teachers and students allowing for the learning outcomes to vary as well as to be determined by
39
specific encounters of students with content and teachers in specific classrooms, which
ultimately will have a different significance educationally, emotionally and culturally. Lastly,
Tyler’s questions in a more narrow sense, and the Anglo-American curriculum framework in a
broader sense, operate focusing on questions 4 and 5 in Klafki’s didaktik analysis which are
pedagogical in nature in the sense that they are concerned with how learning should take place,
while questions 1, 2 and 3 that are curricular in nature in the sense that they deal with content
have received far less attention in curriculum field (Deng & Luke, 2008).
Didaktik and curriculum traditions have been referred to as two educational
“superdiscourses” in the Western world (Autio, 2006), while in other cases, it has been stated
that the two traditions are “[…] incommensurable as they operate on the basis of fundamentally
different assumptions and ideas” (Biesta, 2011, p. 176). According to Biesta (2011), didaktik
theory was established as an academic field of its own in the Continental Europe, while
curriculum theory in Anglo-American world was not. Referring to British scholars (Tibble, 1966;
Hirst, 1966), Biesta (2011) noted that education in the Anglo-American context was constructed
as an interdisciplinary field with theoretical input from other foundational disciplines such as
philosophy, history, psychology and sociology. According to Hirst (1966), curriculum theory
cannot generate any unique understanding about education in addition to what is generated
through ‘fundamental’ disciplines of philosophy, history, psychology and sociology. On the
other hand, Biesta (2011) argued, educational sciences in Continental Europe developed into a
discipline of its own because it made the distinction between the natural and social sciences. He
attributed this distinction to German educationist Wilhelm Dilthey.
Dilthey argued that there was a fundamental distinction between the study of natural
phenomena and the study of social and historical phenomena. While the world of natural
40
phenomena is a world of cause and effect which for that reason is amenable to
explanation, the socio-historical world is a world in which human beings pursue aims and
plan actions in order to achieve these aims. The main objective of the study of the
sociohistorical world should therefore be to clarify the aims people pursue. This is not a
question of explanation but requires understanding. Moreover, such understanding
cannot be generated through observation from the ‘outside’ but needs interpretation and
an insider perspective. (Biesta, 2011, p. 186, emphasis in the original)
Biesta noted that the insider perspective is developed only when there is a clear conception of
education and what the object of study of such field is. In his view, there is nothing wrong asking
philosophical, historical, psychological, and sociological questions of education, but what is
further needed is asking educational questions about education, which according to him include
questions about the processes and practices of education. In other words, according to Biesta
(2011), educational questions about education are asked and addressed in Continental Europebased didaktik tradition but not in Anglo-American-based curriculum tradition. Still, the lacking
of a clear independent educational theory in Anglo-American context does not constitute the end
of comparison and dialogue between the two traditions.
In the meantime, on the other side of the Atlantic, the US curriculum scholars have their
dilemmas about the curriculum field. For example, Connelly and Xu (2008) posit that there were
two types of progressive scholars during the progressive era of education at the turn of 20th
century in the US, namely pedagogical progressives represented by John Dewey and
administrative progressive represented by psychologist Edward Thorndike. The first had most
impact on curriculum rhetoric, and the latter on curriculum structure and practice, a scenario
often referred to as a battle between Dewey and Thorndike where Thorndike won and Dewey
41
lost (Connelly & Xu, 2008; Lagemann, 1989).
Comparing didaktik and curriculum, Westbury (2000) argued that under curriculum
theory, the social and cultural world is an objective structure and the task of the curriculum is to
present the structure to students, and help them determine what place they will occupy in it.
Within curriculum tradition the teacher role is the one of an invisible agent of the system, “seen
as “animated” and directed by the system and not as a source of animation for the system”
(Westbury, 2000, p. 21). On the other hand, under didaktik, the world that education should help
create is presented as subjectified and the question is not how students learn or how to lead
students towards a body of knowledge, but the question is about the object of learning in terms of
Bildung, what it should signify to the student, and how students themselves experience this
significance. Didaktik theory is a teacher- rather than system-centered system, where the role of
the teacher is “forming” rather “instructing” his or her students and in so doing, celebrates the
individuality of each teacher as an active and reflective curriculum and decision maker rather
than seeing the teacher as implementing a workplace manual of best practices, that is, a
curriculum or a curriculum package (Westbury, 2000). Under Didaktik, teachers enjoy autonomy
because “[…] nothing is decided by the choice of the matter itself, but by how the teacher
chooses to enact a given content for a given audience of students under given circumstances”
(Hopmann, 2007, p. 117). Furthermore, Hopmann argued, Didaktik is the necessarily restrained
effort to make certain substantive outcomes possible, while knowing that it can always turn out
completely different from what was intended. Hopmann (2007) writes that: “The purpose of
teaching and schooling is in this perspective . . . the use of knowledge as a transformative tool of
unfolding the learner’s individuality and sociability, in short: the Bildung of the learners by
teaching” (p. 115).
42
To a large extent, Didaktik relies heavily on the notions of teacher autonomy and teacher
responsibility. As I put forth in the measures for the study, these constitute the core constructs
that will be examined with the data available from PISA. In particular, teacher autonomy and
teacher responsibility allow for Didaktik reflection to take place and be used by teachers in their
respective classroom settings in Didaktik systems. “Through and by way of Didaktik reflection
each and every teacher must determine, as an expert professional, what must be done in this
setting, with this material, with these students, in the light of the values associated with Bildung”
(Westbury, 2000, p. 29, emphasis in original). Subsequently, the lack of teacher autonomy and
responsibility limits the opportunities to design instructional practices that best fit the needs,
abilities and interests of specific students in specific classrooms.
Utilizing an innovative approach based on logic models framework, Tahirsylaj, Niebert
and Duschl (under review) compared and contrasted didaktik and curriculum traditions to elicit
their key features as well as similarities and differences. Logic Models are tools primarily
developed and used by program managers and evaluators to describe programs in terms of their
assumptions, inputs, activities, outputs and outcomes (McLaughlin & Jordan, 1999). The result
of that logic model-based comparative work is presented in Table 3.
Table 3 offers a quick summary of how the two systems compare and contrast. As one
examines the list of elements representing didaktik and curriculum under Assumptions, Inputs,
Activities, Outputs and Outcomes, it quickly becomes clear that these are two quite different
systems despite the fact that they are primarily in the same business – that of educating students.
One way to easily spot the differences is to follow the dashes, or the missing category, in the
respective system. For example, under Inputs, there is a category for Teacher autonomy in
Didaktik, but it is missing under the curriculum theory, or there are categories of Curriculum
43
implementation and evaluation under curriculum under Activities, but they are missing under
didaktik as those are perceived as sole responsibilities of individual teachers under their specific
circumstances with specific students.
Table 3 Logic Model of Didaktik and Curriculum traditions
ASSUMPTIONS
INPUTS
ACTIVITIES
Didaktik
Curriculum-InstructionAssessment
- Education creates a world as
subjectified
- Hermeneutics
- Humanistic / Romantic
- Education creates a world as objectified
- National Bildungs-standards
(Competencies + Bildung)
- Core curricula on the federal state
level
- Empiricism
- Positivist / Formalist / Cognitivist /
Constructivist
- National common core standards
----
- School curricula based on federal
state curricula (developed and
enacted by within school subject
matter teachers)
- District and/or school curricula
based on national common core
standards
- Teachers as professionals/
curriculum makers
- Teacher autonomy
- Students (Students’ conceptions
as relevant aspects of classrooms)
- Subject matters/objects of learning in
terms of Bildung/content of teaching
---- Reflective practice of teaching
- Teaching as licensed
- Didaktik reflection
- Observation based on
competencies defined in
Bildungsstandards
- External state assessments of
Bildungsstandards after grade 10
and 12 (state assessment counts
for approx. 30% of students’ final
grade)
- Teachers as system’s agents
---- Students
- Subject matters/learning for deep
understanding
Accountability
- Effective teaching
- Teaching as certified/in-serviced
- Adaptive instruction
---- Assessments aligned to common
core standards
- Peer-teacher evaluation / selfprofessionalism
- Systemic teacher performance
evaluation
-School evaluation – consequences
are recommendations
-------Teacher education exceeds subject
orientation (psychology,
-School evaluation – consequences
are high-stakes
- Curriculum implementation
- Curriculum evaluation
-Teacher education exceeds subject
44
OUTPUTS
Short-term
O
U
T
C
O
M
E
S
Medium-term
Long-term
educational sciences,
FachDidaktik), includes 7 years of
education (3 years undergraduate+2
years master+2 years in-service
training)
- Mandated advanced training on
the job
- Initiation of learning to help
students achieve competencies
- Unfolding of individuality/creativity
- Meaning-making
- Reflection
- Bildung
orientation (psychology, educational
sciences, subject matter-oriented
methods)
- Professional development relevant
to content to be taught
- Learning outcomes
- Test scores/Student performances
- Deeper understanding
---- Mastery of knowledge and skills/deeper
learning for deeper understanding
- Self-determination
----
- Co-determination
----
- Solidarity
----Application of competencies for an
active participation in society
---STEM literacy
- Increased productivity and
consumerism in the society
- Diversity
- Conformity
- Increased commitment to Bildung
- Maintained competitive advantage over
other nations
Notes: The dashes in the table above indicate that no corresponding concept was found for that
tradition. Words in bold indicate changes during 2000s in Didaktik and curriculum as departures
from their traditional.
Following the concepts in bold in Table 3, it is evident that both Didaktik and curriculum
evolved during the post-2000 period. Tahirsylaj et al. (under review) argued that these changes
were introduced in both systems due to overall global education trends in general, and as a result
of both internal and external pressure deriving from results in international assessments such as
PISA. Specific documents from both traditions were consulted to identify the changes
highlighted in Table 3 (Baumert, Bos & Lehmann, 2000; Weinert, 2001; Köller, 2009; National
Research Council, 2007; Carnegie Corporation of New York, & Institute for Advanced Study,
45
2009). Introduction of standards-based curricula and external standardized assessments in
didaktik, and efforts to create curriculum, instruction and assessment and introduction of
common core standards in mathematics, English and sciences were the major sea changes
identified when examining how Didaktik and curriculum evolved during the first decade of the
21st century. While there are indications that the two traditions are moving towards one another’s
territories and converging, the differences rooted in their national histories and culture still hold
and make them distinctly unique. The presentation and portrayal of these two traditions here
relies on how key scholars view their respective fields internally – in other words, the description
here is an insider’s perspective of didaktik and curriculum traditions and how they affect
education in their respective geographies. Next, I turn to how education is viewed from the
sociology of education theories rooted in Western culture.
Overlap of didaktik and curriculum frameworks with sociology of education
theories
Nowadays, from a sociological lens at least, education is considered to be one of the key
public functions and domains that any society in the world invests in and cares about, making
education ever more ubiquitous (Baker, 2009). However, the expansion of mass schooling,
particularly in the Western world, to the current levels only started during 19th century and
radically accelerated during the 20th century ‘world education revolution’ (Boli, Ramirez, &
Meyer, 1985; Meyer, Ramirez, Rubinson, & Boli-Bennett, 1977; Meyer, Ramirez, & Soysal,
1992). The expansion of education, amongst else, created opportunities for sociologists and other
scholars to ask new questions as to how it affects society from the sociological perspective. To
this end, three main theoretical sociological outlooks, namely, functional theory, conflict theory,
and neo-institutional theory were forwarded to provide theoretical and empirical explanations,
46
interpretations, and understandings on the interplay between education and society at a macro
perspective. In that sense, theories of sociology of education might be viewed as having a
broader scope than educational frameworks, whose theoretical reach is narrower and more
limited, although there are clear overlaps among them. Also, the summary of the theories below
are presented as viewed from their proponents, but it must be noted that arguments shared by one
group are fervently contested by those representing a competing theory (see for example Carney,
Rappleye, & Silova, 2012).
Functional Theory
One of the core distinctions between three prevailing sociological theories is whether
they view education’s role as a primary or secondary institution in the society. Functional theory
considers that education is a secondary institution that plays the role of the socializer, i.e.
students going through the education system are socialized into the meritocratic society (Collins,
1971). From this perspective, one of the core functions of education is to provide students with
technical skill requirements that are needed in the job market (Collins, 1971). While doing so,
education provides individuals with the opportunity to achieve educational attainment and social
mobility based on their own meritocratic values. For this model, functional theory relies on a
number of assumptions. The core one is that the society is stable. There are no major fluctuations
in the society. Institutions have their own functions, and they all are interdependent. In turn,
there is generally a fixed set of positions in the society and education’s role is to prepare
individuals to fill those positions.
French Emile Durkheim is considered as the founder of the functional theory. Durkheim
considered that “modern educational system came to replace church as the central integrative
institution of society and a crucial aspect of the maintenance of the social order through its
47
socialization functions” (Morrow & Torres, 1995, p. 12). Furthermore, Durkheim noted that a
major role of education in society was to create a unity by providing a common moral code
necessary for social cohesion (Ballantine & Spade, 2007). Based on Durkheim’s work on
sociological theory of education, sociologists see the transmission of moral and occupational
education, discipline and values as necessary for the survival of the society. In this regard,
schools play a very important role in carrying out the functions that education provides for the
larger society. Durkheim was concerned primarily with the value transmission for the stability of
society (Ballantine & Spade, 2007). Durkheim’s views seem to have been limited in the sense
that he didn’t provide an explanation of how and why society changed as a result of the emerging
industrial societies during the 20th century.
One of the main early functionalists in the U.S. was Talcott Parsons, who contended that
there are four main functions played by education in a society, namely, academic, distribute,
economic and political socialization (Parsons, 1959). He saw education as performing certain
important tasks or “functioning” for society, such as preparing young people for roles in a
democratic society. In this regard, Parsons’ views do not differ much from Durkheim’s, as both
envision a fixed number of positions in the society that needs to be filled by individuals, while
society remains largely stable at the same time. In this line of arguments, other sociologists have
considered the social organization of schools and how values taught in schools lead to greater
societal consensus and preparation for one’s role in society (Dreeben, 1968).
More recently, Ballantine and Spade (2007) have argued that there are five functions that
are played by education and which need to be taken into consideration from the functionalist
perspective, including 1. Socialization, meaning teaching children to be productive members of
society; 2. School organization enhances personal and social development; 3. Education helps
48
selection and training of individuals for positions in society; 4. Education promotes innovation
and change; and 5. There are latent functions of education. These arguments extend to some
extent the notion of functional theory in the sense that education can bring change and
innovation, which challenges Durkheim’s and Parsons’ views that society is stable and there are
fixed positions in the society. Baker (2014) argued that from functional perspective formal
education reproduces society at the hands of various external forces. According to him,
schooling socializes students through teaching curricula and credentials them for adult positions,
while the institutional unidirectional influence flows from society to schooling.
Furthermore, scholars have argued that individuals invest on education themselves so that
they become more employable by possessing skills that are needed and valued in the job market
(Becker, 1962; Schultz, 1961). These propositions were developed and put forward as part of the
human capital theory, which considers that students and people in general acquire knowledge
and skills but those skills are a form of capital, namely, human capital, to differentiate it from
other forms of capital. Schultz (1961) argued that investment in human capital was associated
with national economic output. Human capital theory was developed by economists who were
trying to find out why states differ in terms of the economic output. However, the focus on more
skills and knowledge and primarily on technical skills that made individuals employable also
brought the fears that society was going to experience over-education or credential inflation.
According to this argument, the society and job market would not be able to absorb all the
individuals with advanced skills, therefore leading to a potential crisis.
Functional theory contributed to an understanding of how education systems work and
what purpose education serves in societies (Ballantine & Spade, 2007). However, on the
downside, functional theory assumes a passive role of schooling, where individuals leaving
49
education fill in a generally fixed set of positions in society (Collins, 1971). In this sense,
functional analysis fails to state the conditions under which a particular pattern holds rather than
others. In other words, it does not explain well how did education came to play specific functions
functionalists ascribe to it and why this, rather than some other models, will continue to be the
same model in which education functions will be fulfilled, i.e. education as a secondary
institution will ensure reproduction of skills needed by the society.
Conflict Theory
Conflict theory shares one common feature with functional theory – viewing education as
a secondary institution – but it is fundamentally different in all other aspects. The core
assumption of the conflict theory is that society is unstable due to conflicts between the
stratification or classes and there is everlasting struggle among status groups (Collins, 1971).
Based on this perspective, the main activity of education is to teach particular status cultures,
both in and outside the classroom. Furthermore, education is viewed as a field in which people
compete against each other in order to win in class competition. This perspective assumes that
districts, school leaders and teachers decide to teach students certain skills to maintain and
reproduce existing social order, while students are assumed to have no agency as the system
itself prepares the path for students of different backgrounds to move ahead to the extent that
their existing social status allows. Also same as functional theory, conflict theory considers that
one of the functions of the education is to serve as a mechanism of occupational placement.
The founder of conflict theory German Karl Marx argued that economy determines
education and put forth his concept of “economic determinant” (Marx & Engels, 1971). Marx
was concerned with the growth of capitalism during 20th century as well as with the social
conditions of the exploited workers in the class system. He argued that schools create and
50
maintain inequality by teaching students an ideology that serves the interest of the rich and
instills students a sense of the false consciousness. Max Weber (1961) also contributed to
conflict theory with his concept of power, but had a different view about the role of economy on
society. He considered that conflict in society was not based solely in economic relations.
According to him, inequalities and potential conflict were sustained in different distributions of
status, power and class.
Other theorists contributed to the conflict theory argument in different ways. For
example, one idea that emerged was the correspondence theory, which assumes that education
prepares individuals to fit within their corresponding social status, thus ensuring the reproduction
of society (Bowles & Gintis, 1976). According to them, “The educational system, perhaps more
than any other contemporary institution, has become the laboratory in which competing solutions
to the problems of personal liberation and social equality are tested and the arena in which social
struggles are fought” (Bowles & Gintis, 1976, p. 5). In line with Marxian thinking for education
to be an arena for fighting social struggles, they are also similar to Marx in the belief that the
corporate world, i.e. capitalism, determines what happens in education. Thus, they are
completely in line with the “economic determinant” concept that was initially developed by
Marx.
French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu was the one to advance conflict theory beyond
economic determinant argument. He argued that education system favored students who
possessed a certain level of cultural and social capital (Bourdieu, 1977). Cultural capital refers to
the cultural practices, including language patterns and experiences such as visits to museums,
that provide knowledge of middle- and upper-class culture, which is also the dominant culture in
schools. According to him, the schooling enables social reproduction based on the cultural and
51
social capital that each student possessed and brought in with them to the school settings. Those
without the cultural capital that is dominant in the school contexts are disadvantaged and thus
have thinner chances to succeed. Cultural capital allows students from middle and upper classes
to convert home and school advantages into economic advantage (Lareau, 1989).
In this regard, conflict theory changed the functional theory’s assumption that the schools
are ideologically and politically neutral and that schools operate based on meritocracy. Conflict
theorists argue that inequality is based on one’s position in the social system, not merit, and that
schooling privileges some children and disadvantages others. The theory focuses on the tensions
created by power and conflict that ultimately cause change. Furthermore, conflict theorists see
education as a tool of capitalist society, controlling the entrance into higher levels of education
through selection and allocation function and manipulating the public. It is argued that until
society’s economic and political systems are changed, school reform providing equal access and
opportunity to all children will be impossible (Bowles & Gintis, 1976).
Conflict theory is more in accord with evidence than functional theory (Collins, 1971),
but still, same as functional theory assumes a passive role of schooling and also considers that
states are fixed. Scholars have argued that from conflict theory perspective, schooling reproduces
and even validates existing social inequalities (Baker, 2014).
Neo-institutional Theory
Neo-institutional theory brought a fresh perspective in the field of sociology and how
education is viewed from sociological perspectives. First of all, contrary to previous prevailing
theories, in neo-institutional theory perspective education plays the role as a primary institution
in the society. It operates on the assumption that education as a primary institution influences
52
society in multi-directional ways owing to the rise of the Western university (Baker, 2014). The
theory emerged from the work of American John Meyer who put forth the legitimation theory,
which treats education as constructing or altering roles in society and authoritatively allocating
personnel to these roles (Meyer & Rowan, 1977). Meyer and Rowan argued that education
consists of allocation rules and initiation of ceremonies designating which persons possess the
authority and competence for various elite roles, thus providing legitimacy to individuals to
occupy certain roles.
One key argument of the neo-institutional theory is that education not only changes
individuals, but it also transforms other institutions and modern society entirely (Baker &
LeTendre, 2005; Baker, 2011; Meyer & Rowan, 1977). It is noted that educational revolution has
strengthened transformative role of education, and that as a result individuals attend long period
of formal schooling and adult status is mostly determined by academic outcome (Baker, 2014).
In addition, Baker argued that in post-industrial society all institutions are increasingly
influenced by ideas, values, and norms originating from education as a social institution. Given
this context, individuals acknowledge the results of formal schooling, i.e. they understand that
where they end-up in the social ladder is a result of their cognitive abilities and academic
achievement during the schooling process.
Education in the schooled society is omnipresent; furthermore, providing widespread
educational opportunity is desirable and is even formally recognized as a basic human right
(Baker, 2014). As an institution, formal education has come to be one of only a few institutions
dominating modern society. Meyer and Rowan (1977) emphasized that schools are
fundamentally normative, rule-conforming institutions whose work is only loosely coupled with
the technical demands and efficiency requirements found in some other institutional fields. Neo-
53
institutional theorists challenged the notion that the rise and spread of modern schooling
occurred as a functional response to demands of polity or economy (Meyer, Boli, Thomas, &
Ramirez, 1997). Their contention is that the modern institution of schooling spreads because it
becomes cognitively normative. Baker (2011) noted that the education revolution is a cultural
phenomenon more than a material or political one, although it has major material and political
consequences. Widespread education in a postindustrial society creates cultural ideas about new
types of knowledge, new types of experts, new definitions of personal success and failure, a new
workplace and conception of jobs and new definitions of intelligence and human talent.
Educational achievement and degree attainment have come to dominate social stratification and
social mobility, superseding and delegitimizing forms of status attainment left over from the past
(Baker, 2014).
Discussing the role of education as a loosely coupled system, Meyer and Rowan (1977,
p. 340-1) contend that “institutionalized products, services, techniques, policies, and programs
function as powerful myths and many organizations adopt them ceremonially. But conformity to
institutionalized rules often conflicts sharply with efficiency criteria and, conversely, to
coordinate and control activity in order to promote efficiency undermines and organization’s
ceremonial formal structures form the uncertainties of technical activities by becoming loosely
coupled, building gaps between their formal structures and actual work activities”. Furthermore,
they argue that “Organizational structures are created and made more elaborate with the rise of
institutionalized myths, and, in highly institutionalized contexts, organizational action must
support these myths. But an organization must also attend to practical activity. The two
requirements are at odds. A stable solution is to maintain the organization in a loosely coupled
54
state. No position is taken here on the overall social effectiveness of isomorphic and loosely
coupled organization” (Meyer & Rowan, 1977, pp. 359-60).
Scholars note that the schooled society followed the educational revolution that took
place during the 20th century. According to them, education revolution has created a worldwide
environment where institutions tend to become more isomorphic. In other words, the core values
and social meanings behind education have become remarkably similar worldwide as a result of
similar mode of formal education (Baker, 2014; Baker & LeTendre, 2005). Along with the
diffusion of mass education, the normative standard of educational attainment has risen with
each new generation of schooled parents (Baker, 2011). Education performance will be the
singular dominant factor in social status attainment, and education will be one of the most
transforming of social institutions (Baker, 2014). Furthermore, allocative and cognitive functions
of schooling will reinforce one another and form a significant ideology about the centrality of
formal education, which in turn will intensify each function’s legitimacy. One of the merits of
education is that the effects of education on modern society open up a much wider appreciation
of how education transforms everyday lives (Baker, 2014; Baker & LeTendre, 2005).
Given this brief sketch of the three main sociological perspectives on the relationship
between education and society, namely functional, conflict and neo-institutional theories, and
considering their founders, key assumptions, and main arguments in contrast with key
assumptions of didaktik and curriculum orientations as described above, a number of overlaps
are observed. The continuum and overlap of three sociological and two educational theories is
provided in Figure 1.
55
Figure 1 Continuum of three sociological and two educational theories
In this representation, both sociological and educational theories fall within the same continuum
as all of them occupy the same problem space – education. However, theories are both limiting
and enabling at the same time since when one is situated within any single one of them, all others
are automatically excluded. However, if we follow Dilthey’s argumentation that social sciences
enhance our understanding of social phenomena then we might consider sociological and
educational theories as lenses that contribute to our understanding and sense-making of
education as a social endeavor and as a social institution. In turn, if we rely on key assumptions
of curriculum tradition as dominated by the social efficiency ideology, and key assumptions of
didaktik tradition as dominated by Klafki’s critical-constructive didaktik, then curriculum is
placed between critical theory and functional theory and didaktik between functional and neoinstitutional theory in the continuum of the sociology of education theories. This does not
necessarily exclude influences of critical theory on didaktik and of neo-institutional theory on
curriculum completely but only emphasizes the dominant ideologies behind didaktik and
curriculum traditions and how they fit within the assumptions of each of the three dominant
theories of sociology of education. To some extent this representation might be misunderstood as
inversed and even paradoxical given that American-developed neo-institutional theory shares
more assumptions with Continental Europe-based didaktik than homegrown curriculum tradition.
However, when the transformational power of education as highlighted by neo-institutional
theory through the education revolution and didaktik theory through the tenets of Bildung are
56
considered, parallels between the two are not hard to be drawn. If didaktik and curriculum
traditions, as revealed here based on this extended literature review, precisely capture what goes
on in respective education systems, and sociological theories precisely capture the effects and
roles of education on society, it could be argued that didaktik orientation produces the effects
emphasized by the neo-institutional theory, while curriculum orientation produces those
emphasized in functional and to a lesser extent critical theory. Conversely, if educational and
sociological theories operate at two different levels of abstraction and foci, where educational
theories’ units of analysis are individual players situated in and acting in confined spaces of
classrooms within schools, and sociological theories’ units of analysis are institutional players
situated in and acting on open spaces of nations and even cross-nationally and internationally,
then any parallels between the two are far-fetched.
Finally, if we maintain only a sociological outlook based on neo-institutional thinking at
the role and effects of education on society then it can be argued that didaktik is only an
exception to and variation of the world culture enhanced by the education revolution and the
schooled society as usually from the neo-institutional perspective the tracking practice in a
number of Continental Europe countries where didaktik is dominant, such as Austria,
Switzerland, and Germany, is viewed as a relict of the past and also as a measure through which
the society controls education and uses it for its own needs. On the other hand, neo-institutional
theorists herald the rise of accountability measures in the form of standardized student testing,
primarily in the US, as a tool to differentiate among those who are cognitively capable to move
ahead in the social ladder, and as a result, upward social mobility relies on own individual
abilities, thus making differentiations in social status attainment meritocratic-based. However,
neither tracking in Continental Europe nor accountability measures in US and other curriculum
57
countries constitute the whole story, and they do not represent the whole enterprise of what goes
on in education systems in respective countries and how what goes on in schools affect societies
in the long run. The fact that all countries in both curriculum and didaktik systems belong to
“Western” culture, defined more broadly, and that all of them operate in a capitalistic economic
systems might provide clues to conclude that there are different routes to becoming an advanced
developed society in terms of economic output and productivity and that salient differences in
respective didaktik and curriculum educational systems do not inhibit them to perform well as
developed societies – in other words, countries in respective education traditions seem to
achieves similar advanced societal objectives via varied set of means and processes,
educationally speaking.
Cross-national Student Achievement and Teacher Characteristics Studies
Research on cross-national comparisons as well as within individual countries with
regard to predictors of student achievement is abundant. Many researchers have undertaken
studies to investigate the factors that contribute to student achievement. Three main groups of
factors are usually associated with student achievement in past research, namely, family SES,
teacher and school characteristics, and national level investments into education system.
Hanushek and Wößmann (2010) found in a cross-national analysis of student achievement that
institutional structures and the quality of teaching forces accounted for a significant portion of
international differences in the level and equity of student achievement. Other researchers have
found that late tracking and long-pre-school cycle contributed to equality of opportunity with
regard to educational performance (Schütz, Ursprung, & Wößmann, 2008). On the other hand,
teacher related characteristics, such as teacher autonomy and responsibility are not often used as
58
predictors of student achievement as they seem to be more discussed within the context of
teacher education relying more on qualitative research methods (Smith, 2001).
One characteristic of international large-scale assessments such as TIMSS and PISA is
that they are usually focused on assessing a very narrow scope of human learning – mathematics
and sciences in TIMSS case and reading, mathematics and science in PISA’s case (Alexander,
2012). TIMSS has a longer history than PISA – TIMSS started to be developed by the
International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) in 1960s and the
first assessment took place in 1970/1971, Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development’s (OECD) PISA started to be developed in 1997 and first assessment took place in
2000 and rolls in a cycle of every three years ever since (Kind, 2013). Analyzing science
assessment frameworks in place for large-scale assessments, Kind (2013) observed three
successive trends, namely the emergence of cognitive psychology defining achievement as
mental structures and processes (or science processes) as a counter-reaction to behaviorism; next,
the second trend pertained to conceptual change, defining learning less as logical and abstract
thinking and more about developing and understanding domain-specific knowledge, and lastly, a
new view of learning based on socio-cultural perspective of science and learning inspired by
Vygotsky (1978) and Bakhtin (1981). The most influential academics and science educators
contributed to the development and revision processes of these assessment frameworks for the
large-scale assessments being implemented – as a result often being labeled as “world class
standards” (DeBoer, 2011).
Focusing specifically on PISA assessment frameworks, Kind (2013) noted that the
framework shifted from being focused on science processes in 2000 and 2003 and then in
scientific competencies from 2006 onwards (see Table 4). Kind positioned that the shift towards
59
scientific competencies in 2006 was a result of the OECD’s DeSeCo project on definition of key
competencies for the future (OECD, 2003a). Arguably, PISA has become a more relevant source
for international comparisons among science educators for defining scientific literacy (DeBoer,
2011). This present study used PISA 2009 data and students’ science performance was set as
outcome variable in the analytical models, where teacher related constructs are the main
predicting variables.
Table 4 PISA science processes and scientific competencies 2000-present
PISA 2000 science processes
PISA 2003 science processes
PISA 2006-present scientific
competencies
1. recognizing scientifically
investigable questions
1. describing, explaining,
and predicting scientific
phenomena
- Identify scientific issues
2. identifying evidence
needed in a scientific
investigation
2. understanding scientific
investigation, and
3. drawing or evaluating
conclusions
3. interpreting scientific
evidence and conclusions.
- Explain phenomena
scientifically
- Use scientific evidence
4. communicating valid
conclusions, and
5. demonstrating
understanding of scientific
concepts.
Source: OECD (1999), OECD (2003b), and OECD (2006)
In cases when teacher related variables were examined, especially in econometric
methods-based research, almost always they are examined in the context of teacher quality and
its relationship with student achievement (Hanushek, 1971; Hanushek & Rivkin, 2006; Meghir &
Rivkin, 2011; Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2005). A review of teacher quality related research
revealed that the empirical research follows three distinct avenues, including, first, teacher
salaries, since teachers constitute the largest budgetary line in schools; second, the extent to
60
which specific teacher characteristics account for student achievement; and third, the total effects
of teachers on student achievement without specifying any measurable teacher characteristic
(Hanushek & Rivkin, 2006). This present study falls into the second line of teacher related
research as it examined, at the analytical level, the relationship among teachers’ characteristics –
autonomy and responsibility – to student achievement. According to Hanushek and Rivkin
(2006) these studies follow what is referred to as educational production function and its history
may be traced back to “The Coleman Report” (Coleman et al., 1966). One challenge with these
studies consists of the difficulty to separate teacher effects from other sources of influence such
as parents, administrators and policymakers (Hanushek & Rivkin, 2006). As result, the
interrelated choices of all these stakeholders make it difficult to establish causal relationships, in
addition to the ongoing challenge of omitted variable bias, that may relate to own teacher
choices, for example, pertaining to the tendency of experienced more effective teachers to move
to districts where student achievement is higher (Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 2004; Hanushek &
Rivkin, 2006). Despite the emphasis on the importance of teacher quality among the research
community, the evidence from studies that utilized econometric methods to identify causal
relationships between teacher characteristics and student achievement are weak, and in cases
where those relationships were established, larger teacher effect variance was found in lower
than in higher SES schools (Nye, Konstantopoulos & Hedges, 2004).
Overall, comparative education scholarship is divided over usability and validity of crossnational education research due to national cultural and historical differences. Indeed, scholars
participating in didaktik-curriculum debate during 1990s noted that educational issues “[…] are
always rooted in the particularities of national histories, of national habits, and of national
aspirations” (Reid, 1998, p. 11-12). In addition, considering the complexities of the 21st century
61
advanced societies, even under heavy influence of internationalization and globalization
processes, there always seem to be some incomparability within the comparable (or
comparability within the incomparable) (Depaepe, 2002). However, constructive insights and
deeper understandings may emerge while disentangling global and cross-national educational
developments and practices and differences and similarities therein. It is argued that educational
policy discourse has largely been standardized globally (Schriewer, 2000), still, cross-country
educational differences in didaktik and curriculum systems may serve as relevant potential
research-based understandings of themselves and one another.
Teacher Autonomy and Teacher Responsibility
In cases where literature addresses teacher autonomy and teacher responsibility, their
definition seems to vary from author to author, especially regarding autonomy, while there are
quite few sources that address responsibility. For example, after his review, Smith (2001)
identified three main definitions for teacher autonomy in the related literature: 1) (Capacity for)
self-directed professional action, where [Teachers may be] “autonomous in the sense of having a
strong sense of personal responsibility for their teaching, exercising via continuous reflection and
analysis . . . affective and cognitive control of the teaching process” (Little, 1995); 2) (Capacity
for) self-directed professional development, where [The autonomous teacher is] “one who is
aware of why, when, where and how pedagogical skills can be acquired in the self-conscious
awareness of teaching practice itself” (Tort-Moloney, 1997); and 3) Freedom from control by
others over professional action or development. Smith (2001) argues that it is the third definition
that dominates the literature on teacher autonomy, and it is also adopted for the present study. In
other words, teacher autonomy is defined here as teacher freedom from control by others over
62
professional action or development, in particular with regard to the type of assessments used in
school settings.
A number of studies have examined the rate at which teacher enjoy teacher autonomy. In
the United States, for example, it was argued that teacher autonomy has been on the decline
during the 1980s:
This decline can be attributed in large part to three factors. First, uniform staff
development programs based on research on effective teaching have become widespread.
Second, classroom observations have become an integral part of imposed teacher
evaluations. Third, school principals have been called on to assume the role of
‘instructional leader” (Anderson, 1987, p. 357).
As the quote indicates, the decline of teacher autonomy in the US during 1980s was a result of
intervening professional development and accountability practices as well as placing
instructional leadership roles to school principals, thus making them more prone to interfere with
instructional autonomy and responsibility of teachers. A comparative study in Sweden and
Norway on teacher autonomy found that teachers enjoyed much individual autonomy at the
school level, more so in Sweden than in Norway due to earlier introduction of decentralization
reforms there, but teacher had less influence on national level policies (Helgøy & Homme,
2007).
Regarding teacher responsibility, the study relies on the definition provided by OECD
(2009) in its assessment framework, where teacher responsibility was taken to mean
responsibility over decisions pertaining to school management, financial and instructional issues.
In this study, items related to teacher’s responsibility over assessment policies, textbooks used,
course content and courses offered are utilized. Corcoran (1995) also refers to teacher
63
responsibility as their capacity to make curriculum- and assessment-related decisions. In another
case, teacher responsibility over curriculum and assessment matters is presented as part of the
skill set of effective teachers (Stronge, 2007).
Conceptual Framework
The research on how student and school factors are associated with student achievement
is not new. The impetus was created with the publication of the report on The Equality of
Educational Opportunity or as often referred to Coleman report (Coleman et al., 1966) that
found that outside-of school factors had a larger effect on student achievement than school
factors. Ever since, more and more studies have tried to either confirm or disconfirm those
findings under different circumstances and at different contexts (Baker, Goesling, & LeTendre,
2002, Heyneman & Loxley, 1982). More than 400 similar studies have been undertaken since
then (Hanushek &Rivkin, 2006).
Student Characteristics
(SES)
(Girl)
Teacher and School
Characteristics
(Teacher autonomy)
(Teacher responsibility)
Figure 2 A diagram of logic rationale
D
I
D
A
K
T
I
K
C
U
R
R
I
C
U
L
U
M
Student achievement in
PISA 2009
(Science)
64
However, most of these studies have explored the association of school and out-of-school factors
to student achievement under sociological and economic frameworks. This study took a different
approach as it analyzed the student and teacher and school characteristics under educational
frameworks, i.e. under the Didaktik and curriculum orientations. A rough sketch of this logic is
given in Figure 2.
The diagram of logic for rationale is based on the assumptions that first, both student and
teacher and school characteristics contribute to student achievement and between themselves,
and second, that those associations are mediated by the educational orientations in which they
are embedded, in this case under didaktik and curriculum. There is no prior research that has
used this framework to test student and school characteristics’ associations with student
achievement, and in that regard, the study promised to make value-added contribution to the
literature of the field.
Based on this model and in relation to the hypotheses of this study, the student
achievement in science in PISA 2009 was the dependent variable, while student and teacher and
school characteristics were the independent variables. More specifically, the two measures listed
under teacher and school characteristics, namely teacher autonomy and teacher responsibility
items were the main independent variables of interest, both in testing hypothesis one and
addressing question two given below, while variables listed under student characteristics,
including SES and girl were control variables for addressing question two only. A more detailed
table of dependent and independent variables is given in Chapter 4.
As noted above, a number of prior studies have tried to explain student achievement by
looking into external factors, such as socio-economic status and parent education, however,
65
recent research agendas are more focused into classroom practices and instruction/teaching as a
proximal cause to student learning and achievement (Black & William, 2006; Cohen,
Raudenbush & Ball, 2003; Raudenbush, 2008). Cohen, Raudenbush and Ball (2003) defined
teaching as a collection of practices including pedagogy, learning, instructional design and
managing organization. Raudenbush (2008) argued that conventional resources such as per pupil
expenditures, teacher credentials, physical facilities or class size have small effects on student
outcomes, and contended that student outcomes are affected by the resources only to the extent
they are used by specific educators pursuing specific aims under a specific ‘instructional regime’.
In this study, the instructional regime is used to represent two different educational orientations.
In other words, in a narrower sense in the micro-level of classroom, didaktik and curriculum
frameworks represent two different instructional regimes under which teaching and learning, as
well as student achievement is mediated and affected by.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
Didaktik and curriculum similarities and differences are multifaceted and complex, but
the data available in PISA allowed for testing only a few of the claims that are made about
didaktik and curriculum respectively. The study addressed two overarching questions that
pertained to two types of analysis, i.e. descriptive and analytical. At the descriptive level, the
main question was:
1. How do schools in didaktik and curriculum countries compare across the core
constructs representing teacher and school characteristics, namely teacher autonomy
and teacher responsibility using PISA 2009 data?
66
a. Hypothesis: Schools in didaktik countries will show higher levels of teacher
autonomy, and teacher responsibility than curriculum countries.
The question was broken down to individual constructs used and respective dataset from PISA
2009.
At the analytical level, and given the findings from the first question, the study examined
the relationship between teacher and school characteristics and student science test scores in
PISA 2009. The question was:
2. What is the association of teacher and school characteristics with student science
performance in PISA 2009 in representing didaktik and curriculum countries?
Since the didaktik-curriculum framework did not make any claim about the association of
teacher and school characteristics with student achievement and since there was no other study
that tested this relationship for didaktik and curriculum countries using didaktik and curriculum
frameworks, there was no hypothesis developed for the second question. Therefore, the second
research question was exploratory in nature and extended understanding about and the role of
didaktik and curriculum frameworks on student performance. On the other hand, if research
findings from other studies involving teacher related characteristics are considered, it was
hypothesized that associations between teacher variables and student performance do exist,
however relatively moderate if not weak.
67
Chapter 3. KEY COMPONENTS OF EDUCATION SYSTEMS IN
SAMPLE COUNTRIES
Chapter 3 offers an overview of the education for the countries included in this study.
Austria, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland represent didaktik countries, and
Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada and United States represent
curriculum countries. The discussion concentrates on an inconclusive list of five key components
of education systems: K-12 Education Structure; Teacher Education and Certification; Teacher
Professional Development; Assessment Systems; and Funding. A sketch of each country along
these components is presented in table form in Appendix A for didaktik nations and Appendix B
for curriculum nations. The main distinctions of the key components in respective countries are
summarized below.
One overarching feature of the national education systems in the study pertains to a type
of paradoxical stance – all countries are both seemingly similar and different at the same time!
Examined from a macro-perspective they are all similar since none of them deviates from the
‘norm’ that has already been established for many decades, in the sense of organizing education
along age-groups over a certain period of time. However, the devil is in the details and when
each national system is explored in-depth, there are striking variations. For example, even
within the single state system of United Kingdom, which participates as one nation in PISA
assessments, the four constituting countries – England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales –
show elements of diversity with regard to how they structure the system, how they educate and
train teachers and the assessment systems put into place. The information on education systems
for European Union member states was obtained from Eurydice Network sources. For non-EU
68
countries the information was collected from respective national departments or ministries of
education.
K-12 Education Structure
Structurally, all education systems follow more or less the same format: all countries are
expanding their education downward towards forms of early-childhood education. Many start
with 3 year olds; all have K-12 systems divided into three parts: (1) elementary or primary
education, usually grades 1-4/5, (2) lower secondary or middle school – usually Grades 5/6-8/9,
and (3) upper secondary or high school – usually 9/10-12/13. The exception here is Ireland,
which divides its education into two phases only – primary schooling including ages 4-12 years,
and post-primary schooling including 12-17/18 years. All have regulations for compulsory
education in place, usually covering ages between 5/6/7 to 16. There seems to be a trend towards
adding a pre-primary grade as part of the compulsory education.
Content-wise, there are some clear differences between the didaktik and curriculum
countries, most notably with regard to tracking – tracking understood as separate organization of
education into academic and vocational types of education. While K-12 education systems in
curriculum countries are almost always comprehensive with little or no tracking at all, those in
didaktik countries vary from little tracking in Sweden and Denmark to ‘heavy’ tracking in
Austria and Germany. All four Nordic countries included in the didaktik sample organize their
high schools along academic and vocational tracks, and taking students interests wherever
possible as a the basis for choosing one track over the other, while Austria, and especially
Germany initiate tracking as early as grade 5.
69
Germany is an interesting case since past local beliefs of having one of the best
educational systems in the world were shattered after PISA 2000 results were released and
rocked the country with ‘PISA shock’. Subsequently, German states or Länder undertook a
number of reforms to address system weaknesses such as the wide variation of student
achievement across different tracks – Gymnasium, Realschule and Hauptschule - and socioeconomic backgrounds. Gymnasium is the academic track for students deemed of high-ability,
Realschule mixes general and vocational education that allows for opportunities for further postsecondary and higher education programs leading to lower-civil servant jobs and technicians,
while Hauptschule is a dead-end purely vocational track with its students destined to workingclass jobs or “[…] a road to nowhere” (OECD, 2011, p. 206). However, by 2009, most German
states increased the number of gymnasium schools and are merging Realschule and Hauptschule
thus reducing number of Hauptschule, and introduced comprehensive schools. The goal is that
Realschule and Hauptschule will completely merge by 2020 (OECD, 2011). Even though the
German-tripartite system still remains in place, Germany increased its performance in every
PISA assessment since 2000, indicating that the reforms undertaken at the state and national
level with regard to development of national education standards (Bildungstandards) and
introduction of external standardized tests to track student achievement have translated into
improved student performance in international assessments such as PISA (OECD, 2011).
Teacher Education and Certification and Teacher Professional Development
The countries were most diverse with regard to their systems of pre-service and inservice teacher education and professional development. The variation occurs both within and
across didaktik and curriculum traditions. However, there are some overarching themes that are
distinctive to each tradition. For, example didaktik countries recruit teachers from the highest
70
ability student groups, train them longer before they are placed as teachers, and have extended
periods of induction training. Curriculum countries are generally less selective in the recruitment
process, but do require teachers to obtain masters degrees to enter the profession. Similarities and
differences with regard to teacher education and certification and professional development are
discussed separately in the next sections.
Teacher education and certification
Austria aside, didaktik countries – Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland –
require a masters’ degree for their teachers to teach in upper-secondary (high school) education.
For elementary and lower secondary education, all require at least a bachelor’s degree, while
there are less strict requirements for those teaching in early childhood education. In particular,
Germany, Finland and Sweden require 5 or 6 years of education for becoming a subject teacher
in upper secondary education. In some of the didaktik countries, teachers are on probation for
12-24 months during the initial teaching phase and have to pass additional state examinations
before they are granted the license to teach.
Curriculum countries also require a bachelor’s degree as a minimum to be a teacher and
some require a master’s degree to teach at upper secondary education. Ireland is an exception
again as it is more similar to didaktik countries regarding this component – it requires postprimary teachers to complete a one year post-graduate program while both primary and postprimary teachers are on probation for three years when they start teaching, during which period
they need to fulfill the requirements for what is referred to as Post-Qualification Employment.
71
Teacher professional development
Teacher professional development (TPD) is understood here as specific training for
teachers to update their skills from teacher education program or programs that enhance
teachers’ pedagogical skill set but not training that would lead to re-training for teaching new
subjects or teaching at another level of education. Here two, there are differences between
didaktik and curriculum systems. TPD is present in all countries, but while only recommended or
not mandatory in didaktik countries TPD is required in curriculum countries, with exception of
Ireland, where TPD is voluntary and up to teachers. Another difference between the two systems
pertains to TPD providers – in didaktik countries it is usually university colleges for teacher
education or state-run in-service teacher training institutes. In curriculum countries the providers
include both university and non-university providers such as teacher-focused professional
organizations.
Individual national systems organize TPD in varied ways and there is more diversity
among curriculum countries than didaktik countries. Among didaktik countries, TPD is strictly
required only in Austria and Germany, while in the four Nordic countries there is no strict
requirement and it is usually a responsibility of schools or local authorities. Among curriculum
countries, New Zealand provides extensive TPD during the first two years of teaching and it is
part of the induction program. In Ireland, when demand for TPD is requested by teachers
voluntarily it is usually provided by teacher unions or subject-based teacher associations. Within
United Kingdom, England is most strict with professional development as it is tied to
accountability measures related to school development and evaluation process administered by
OfSTED (The Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills). In Scotland,
Teaching Scotland’s Future is responsible for provision of TPD. In Australia, TPD is tied to
72
accountability and Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) develops
professional standards for teachers and provides TPD opportunities for them to meet those
standards. In Canada and the US, TPD is decentralized at province/state level and then further to
school districts, which are responsible for TPD provision.
Assessment Systems
Assessment systems constitute another point of divergence between didaktik and
curriculum systems, but there is also variation within systems as well. Overall, students in
curriculum countries have to take far more external assessments during their K-12 education
experience than in didaktik countries.
In didaktik countries, only Austria has a high school matriculation exam (Matura) that
tests German, mathematics and a foreign language. Matura is a two-part exam – in writing and
oral – and it is organized and administered by teachers themselves in line with Bildungstandards.
Germany has a high school exit exam (in Gymnasium it is called the Abitur) while external
standardized tests have been developed after the 2000 PISA shock. The external tests are
administered at the state/Länder level in grades 4 and 8 and they are diagnostic tests to track the
progress of schools without any stakes to students and teachers. Denmark organizes different
national tests at different frequency – Danish language is tested every year between grades 1 and
10, mathematics every two years, and English, geography, biology and physics once. These tests
are computer-based and adaptive to students’ input to every question.
In Finland and Sweden all assessments are done at the school level and there are no highstakes standardized tests in place - any national test is done for diagnostic purposes only to track
the progress of education system. Norway among didaktik countries tests students the most: there
73
are national tests of students’ skills (reading in Norwegian, and English and Mathematics) for
students in grade 5 in primary and grade 8 and 9 in lower secondary schools. Final examinations
(Norwegian, Mathematics, English) for students occur in grade 10 in lower secondary schools. In
addition, there are examinations (Norwegian, Mathematics, English and other major subjects) for
students in upper secondary school.
In curriculum countries, with the exception of New Zealand, where assessments are
school-based and national tests are administered for diagnostic purposes, students are tested
heavily throughout K-12 education. Ireland has only two key examinations, one leading to
Junior Certificate (at age 15-16) and one leading to Leaving Certificate (at age 17-18). Australia
administers bi-annual summative tests in Years 3, 5, 7 and 9 and two external examinations in
Years 11 and 12. Canada has a number of provincial and national standardized test at grades 3, 4
5 and Grades 9 and 10 depending on the province. In United Kingdom, England administers tests
at the end of key stages 1, 2 and 4 (ages 7, 11 and 16), but there is less standardized testing in
Wales and there is no standardized testing in Scotland, where quality assurance and assessment
decision are made at the school level. The US also tests its students heavily as part of the
accountability measures – there are annual standardized tests at the state level, while ‘No Child
Left Behind’ (NCLB) legislations requires tracking students through tests in grades 3 through 8
and then grade 10 with implications for both students and teachers. In addition, National
Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) is administered at least every two years in reading,
mathematics and science in grades 4 and 8.
74
Funding Mechanisms
Funding sources for public education systems in didaktik and curriculum countries follow
the within-country governance structures and division of power among those structures. Overall,
with some variations, national governments cover educational expenditures in didaktik countries,
while in curriculum countries those costs are shared between states and municipalities. In terms
of government expenditure on education as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), with
the exception of Canada where the percentage in 2011 was only 2.32%, the other didaktik and
curriculum countries fall in the range from 5.10% in Germany (in 2010) to 8.73% in Denmark
(in 2009) (UNESCO, 2014).
Among didaktik countries, for Austria, Finland and Norway all the funding for education
comes from the central government; for Germany funding is shared between states and federal
government; for Denmark, municipalities pay for K-10 education and the national government
pays for upper secondary education; and for Sweden, education costs are shared between state
and municipalities. Among curriculum countries, for Ireland and New Zealand, the national
governments provide funding for K-12 education. For Australia and Canada, public funding
comes from states and provinces respectively; for United Kingdom, the UK government is the
source of funding for England, Northern Ireland and Wales, while Scotland provides education
funding on its own; and for the US, education funding is typically shared between states and
school districts.
75
Chapter 4. DATA AND METHODS
Data
This study utilized the data from the 2009 PISA survey. The Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) initiated its work on developing PISA surveys around
mid-1990s and administered the first PISA survey in 2000 (OECD, 2002). The survey aimed to
investigate whether 15-year olds across nations, irrespective of their grade, are ready for posthigh school life in terms of further work and education opportunities. PISA tests students’ skills
in three cognitive domains including mathematics, science and reading. It tests both knowledge
and skills in any of these domains. PISA dataset fit best with the framework used for the study
since the dialogue on Didaktik and curriculum was primarily focused on high school level.
One of the research goals of PISA is to provide participating countries with information
on how well their schools prepare young adults to meet challenges of the future. The survey is
administered in a three-year cycle, focusing more on one of the tested domains in each cycle.
The first survey was administered in 2000 and it focused on reading literacy, then the second
round was administered in 2003 and it focused on mathematical literacy, the third in 2006
focusing on science literacy, the fourth in 2009 started over focusing on reading literacy. The
fifth cycle was administered in 2012 and results became available in December 2013. However,
since the key teacher constructs of interest of this study were not measured by collecting data on
teachers alone, the decision was made to use PISA 2009 instead. The number of participating
countries in PISA varies from year to year and includes both OECD and non-OECD member
countries. In 2000, 28 OECD and four non-OECD countries participated. By 2009, the number
of participating countries and economies grew to 65, including 34 OECD and 31 non-OECD
76
countries and economies. In 2012, the survey was administered in 67 countries – 33 OECD and
34 non-OECD countries and economies.
Sampling and Sample
A two-step sample selection process is followed in each country. In the first step, the
participating educational systems are broken down by key characteristics such as regions (federal
states, provinces, cantons, etc.) and school types. Within these subdivisions, schools are then
sampled at random. In the second step of the sampling process, 15-year-old students are sampled
at random within the sampled schools (OECD, 2002). In all OECD countries, 15-year-old
students are nearing the end of compulsory education.
Table 5 School and student sample size for didaktik and curriculum countries
PISA 2009
School
Overall
Average
sample
student
within-
size
sample
school
size
sample size
Didaktik Countries
Denmark (DNK)
Finland (FIN)
Norway (NOR)
Sweden (SWE)
Austria (AUT)
Germany (DEU)
N=1381
285
203
197
189
281
226
n=32530
5924
5810
4660
4567
6590
4979
Curriculum Countries
N=2285
n=63450
353
978
144
163
482
165
14251
23207
3937
4643
12179
5233
3858
95980
Australia (AUS)
Canada (CAN)
Ireland (IRL)
New Zealand (NZL)
United Kingdom (GBR)
United States (USA)
Total
Source: OECD (2012).
20.8
28.6
23.7
24.2
23.4
22
40.4
23.7
27.3
28.5
25.3
31.7
77
In addition to testing students’ knowledge and skills, PISA also collects background data by
administering questionnaires to students, parents, and schools. Most often the school
questionnaires are completed by school principals or administrators.
The total school sample in PISA 2009 cycle for both didaktik and curriculum countries is
N=3858, and the total number of student sample is N=95980. In PISA 2009, both school and
student samples are larger for curriculum countries than didaktik countries mainly due to large
school and student samples in Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom. Table 5 gives a
detailed breakdown of the school sample size, student sample size, and average within-school
sample size per representing country in the study.
Rationale for selection of countries for the study
A representative sample of countries from didaktik and curriculum systems were
examined in the study. The so-called Germanic and Nordic countries were included in the
didaktik system and Anglo countries in the curriculum system. Table 5 above shows the selected
countries for data analysis, that includes six countries representing didaktik and another six
representing curriculum. The rationale for the selection of countries was based on a number of
criteria that justified this particular grouping.
First, there is the historical development of education systems. Didaktik emerged from
the German-speaking world more broadly, and from 19th century Prussia (today’s Germany) and
it quickly spread to most of Continental Europe, and particularly to the Nordic countries, as one
of the regions in proximity to German-speaking areas (Westbury et al., 2000; Kansanen, 1999).
On the other hand, curriculum developed among Anglo-Saxon countries, primarily in United
78
Kingdom and United States, and due to historical as well as linguistic ties permeates Englishspeaking countries around the world.
Figure 3 Geographic distribution of countries in the sample
Second, there is a cultural element. Prior studies on world cultures, and more specifically
Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness Research Project (GLOBE)
grouped world countries into ten cultural clusters based on data from the surveys that tried to
understand organizational behavior in respective societies (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, &
Gupta, 2004). Didaktik countries below fall into two cultural clusters. Denmark, Finland,
Norway and Sweden form the Nordic Europe Cluster while Austria and Germany fall into
Germanic Europe cluster that also includes other regions and countries that speak German or
Dutch in Europe. Curriculum countries selected for this study belong to the cluster called Anglo
Cultures.
Third, there is empirical evidence from educational studies that the cultural clusters
referred to above could be a potential way to differentiate these clusters in terms of withincountry school differentiation (Zhang, Khan & Tahirsylaj, forthcoming). Research findings from
79
that study used PISA data suggests that countries within Nordic, Germanic and Anglo cultures
are similar to one another as to how much of the variance in student achievement can be
explained by the differentiation among schools within respective countries.
Table 6 Didaktik and curriculum countries’ PISA 2009 performance in reading,
mathematics and science
Statistically significantly above the OECD average
Not statistically significantly different fro the OECD
average
Statistically significantly above the OECD average
On the overall
On the
On the science
reading scale
mathematics scale
scale
Finland
536
541
554
Canada
524
527
529
New Zealand
521
519
532
Australia
515
514
527
Norway
503
498
500
United States
500
487
502
Sweden
497
494
495
Germany
497
513
520
Ireland
496
487
508
Denmark
495
503
499
United Kingdom
494
492
514
Austria
470
496
494
Source: OECD PISA 2009 database.
Note: Didaktik countries are in red, Curriculum countries in blue
The OECD average test score is 500 for all three tested subject areas.
Lastly and maybe most importantly, there is a practical element that pertains to the
didaktik-curriculum dialogue taking place during the 1990s. The main issue under discussion
was how similar or different are the didaktik and curriculum educational traditions. Two groups
of scholars were involved. On one hand, there were scholars and researchers representing
didaktik that included both German and Nordic scholars, and on the other hand, there were
80
curriculum experts that included scholars mainly from UK and US (Gundem & Hopmann, 1998).
Indeed, most of the meetings and symposia took place during either in United States, Germany
or Norway.
In terms of student achievement on PISA assessments (see Table 6), all twelve countries
score from high to higher as almost all of them score above the OECD average or are not
statistically significantly below the OECD average, with exceptions of Austria for the overall
reading scale, Sweden and Ireland for the mathematics scale and Sweden and Austria for the
science scale. Also, economically, all the countries in both groups are OECD members, meaning
they are part of developed countries, constituting some of the most developed economies in the
world.
In terms of the level of achievement, PISA differentiates among six levels of proficiency
for all three scales. Appendix C shows the descriptions for the six levels of proficiency on the
science scale. Comparing Appendix C and Table 6 it is observed that all countries in the sample
score at proficiency level 3 as all their overall sciences scores fall above 484 and below 559.
Appendix D shows the distribution of student science scores in all PISA 2009 participating
countries across six proficiency levels, and the countries in the sample of present study follow
the overall trend in all participating countries where those that score higher, also have more
students scoring in higher proficiency levels. For example, Finland and Canada are the highest
scoring countries among the 12 in the study and they also have the smallest proportion of
students scoring below level 2, which is set as a baseline level by PISA, where students start to
demonstrate scientific competencies that enable them to fully participate in life (OECD, 2010).
81
Measures
All measures and variables for the study came from PISA 2009 dataset. The following table and
ensuing elaboration offer a detailed discussion on measures used here.
Elaboration on study variables
Dependent variable – for the analytical models includes student science test scores in
PISA 2009. It is measured and scaled based on student achievement in PISA 2009 assessment
taken by students in the 12 representing countries. The OECD average is 500 points in each of
the three scales for three content areas, namely science, math and reading. Five plausible values
are given for each content area.
Table 7 Main study measures and their original scales
Study measures
Short description
Full description (Original scale)
Dependent variables
Science Test
Scores
Five plausible values of science test scores in PISA 2009
Independent Measures
Level-1 (student) measures
Index of Economic, Social and Cultural Status created on the basis of
the following variables: the International Socio-Economic Index of
Occupational Status (ISEI); the highest level of education of the
Socio-Economic Status
student’s parents, converted into years of schooling; the PISA index of
(SES)
family wealth; the PISA index of home educational resources; and the
PISA index of possessions related to “classical” culture in the family
home
Gender
Are you female or male? (female=1, male=0)
Age
Age of the student
Grade
Grade compared to the modal grade in the country
First generation immigrant
(first generation immigrant=1, 0 otherwise)
Second generation
immigrant
(second generation immigrant=1, 0 otherwise)
82
Home language other than
the test language
Level-2 (school) measures
Teacher Autonomy
(home language other than test language =1, home language same as
test language=0)
Generally, in your school, how often 15 year olds are assessed using:
a. standardized tests
b. teacher developed tests, and
c. teacher judgmental ratings.
(Scale: 1=Never, 2=1-2 times a year, 3=3-5 times a year, 4=Monthly,
5=More than once a month)
Teacher Responsibility
Regarding your school, who has considerable responsibility for the
following tasks?
a. Establishing student assessment policies
b. Choosing which textbooks are used
c. Determining course content, and
d. Deciding which courses are offered
(1=Teachers, 0=Otherwise (Principals, School governing board,
Regional or local education authority, National education authority)
your school, who has considerable responsibility for the following
tasks?
School type
Is your school a public or private school? (public=1, private=0)
Note: Items under the main questions for teacher autonomy and teacher responsibility are only a
few selected from a larger number of items that are listed under those specific questions in the
PISA school questionnaire.
Independent variables include primarily teacher and school characteristics that are
associated with the Didaktik/curriculum tradition framework, as well as school type, and a
number of control variables representing student characteristics, namely socio-economic status
(SES), gender, age, grade, immigration status and if home language is different from the test
language. The main teacher and school characteristics measures of teacher autonomy and teacher
responsibility utilized as main independent variables include specific variables that serve as
proxies for the respective constructs, such as:
Teacher autonomy / Assessment – measured through three variables answering the question:
Generally, in your school, how often are 15 year olds assessed using: a. standardized tests, b.
83
teacher developed tests, and c. teacher judgmental ratings. The answers range from Never, to 1-2
times a year, 3-5 times a year, Monthly, and More than once a month. In the present study, these
were recorded into 0=Never, 1=1-2 times a year, 2=3-5 times a year, 3=Monthly, 4=More than
once a month. In the case of standardized tests, a higher value means lower autonomy, and this
variable was reverse coded when constructing teacher autonomy scale so that a higher value
indicated higher teacher autonomy in line with two other items in the scale. Based on the
didaktik/curriculum framework schools in didaktik countries were expected to use standardized
tests less in favor of teacher developed tests and teacher judgmental ratings due to larger teacher
autonomy teachers in didaktik countries enjoy. In turn, it was investigated whether any of these
variables are associated with student science achievement in PISA 2009.
The teacher autonomy measure here is both similar and different from measures
developed by other educational researchers. As noted in Chapter 2, this study adopted the
definition of teacher autonomy as put forth by Smith (2001), where autonomy means teachers’
autonomy to take professional action with regard to teaching and classroom practices free of
external control. To some extent, the measure constructed here of variables that show the
autonomy of teachers in selection of assessment practices follows the same argument as indeed
the autonomy here also relates to teacher’s autonomy in selection of a classroom practice, in this
case, assessment practices. The measure is different from those developed by Pearson and
Moomaw (2005) who developed a curriculum autonomy and a general teaching autonomy
measure. In their work curriculum autonomy “[…] was defined by the items that measured
selection of activities and materials and instructional planning and sequencing […], and general
teaching autonomy was defined by the items that measured classroom standards of conduct and
personal on-the-job decision making […]” (Pearson & Moomaw, 2005, p. 44). They found that
84
lack of teacher autonomy pushes teachers to leave the profession. However, the literature is not
clear with regard to teacher autonomy as what in some cases or what some teachers view as
autonomy, others view as isolation or alienation from the rest of school context. One way to
further explore the issue is to address the question whether teachers are technicians that
implement ideas, rules and practices presented and suggested to them by others or autonomous
professional individuals that are able to make professional school-related decisions on their own?
Teacher responsibility / Curriculum-Instruction-Assessment – is measured by a question that
asks whether principals, teachers, school board, regional education authority, or national
education authority decide on the following: (a) Establishing student assessment policies; (b)
Choosing which textbooks are used; (c) Determining course content; and (d) Deciding which
courses are offered. In line with the didaktik/curriculum framework, teachers in didaktik
countries were expected to show higher levels of responsibility on these aspects more than
teachers in curriculum countries. However, no direction of association is meant for the analytical
models since no hypothesis is made about the effects of these constructs on student science
achievement.
Here, teacher responsibility measure follows the definition provided by PISA, where
responsibility is about teachers’ decision-making responsibility over issues related to courses
offered and their content, assessment policies and textbooks to be used. However, this definition
is different from responsibility measures present in the existing literature, which primarily relate
teacher responsibility to teachers being responsible for students’ learning as part of teacher
accountability (Del Schalock, 1998).
85
Prior to the data analysis, data were checked for any anomalies, in particular with regard
to missing data. A description of missing data is provided in Appendix E. Overall, none of the
key variables had more than 4 percent of data missing for N=9580, while some of the schooland student-controls had a higher percentage of missing data. To address the first research
question on variation of school-level items across curriculum and didaktik countries, the
complete case analysis was employed, i.e., only the observations with complete data were
utilized for analysis. To address the second research question on relationships between teacher
autonomy and responsibility items with student science scores, two approaches were employed,
namely mean substitution and dummy variable adjustment. The mean substitution method made
possible using all information for all cases in the samples, while the missing dummy variable
adjustment requires creation of a new variable indicating missing data for the given variable and
including it in the statistical model when conducting analyses and the approach eliminates the
variance in the dependent variable that is attributable to missing data (McKnight, McKnight,
Sidani, & Figueredo, 2007). In addition, for the two key scales pertaining to teacher autonomy
and responsibility, factor analysis using varimax-rotated method was conducted to test whether
overall all items together show any variation between curriculum and didaktik schools. PISA
dataset provides five plausible values for student achievement in each of the three content areas
and final student weights and school weights to correct for the design effects were used when
conducting statistical analysis.
Descriptive Statistics
Table 8 shows the descriptive statistics only for the dependent variable (student science
test scores) and the list independent student-level variables (SES, gender, age, grade,
immigration status, and test language other than home language) and on independent school
86
school-level variable (Public schools). Since the means of the main independent school-level
variables (teacher autonomy and teacher responsibility items) constitute the focus of the first
research question about variation, their means are presented in detail in Chapter 5.
Correlations tables of the variables in the study employing pairwise correlations with listwise deletion are provided in Appendix F for curriculum countries and Appendix G for didaktik
countries, only for ten of the variables used in the analytical models, including the main
independent variables of teacher autonomy and responsibility and three student level variables
(science scores, SES and gender). The majority of correlations at within-country level using
school weights were statistically significant but substantively weak. The strongest correlations
both statistically and substantively were found between economic, social and cultural status
(ESCS) and student science scores. Most teacher autonomy (items 2-4 in the correlation tables)
and teacher responsibility (items 5-8 in the correlation tables) were statistically significant but
substantively weak with a few being substantively moderate at about r=0.3. The dummy variable
for Gender was almost in all cases for all countries statistically insignificant indicating that girls’
relationship with the variables in the study was not much different from that of boys as per the
correlation results with the variables in the study. The remaining six school- and student-controls
followed the same correlation patterns of being substantively weak even when statistically
significant.
87
Table 8 Descriptive statistics of main student-level variables
Country
Science Scores
Mean
527.27
Austria
494.33
Australia
528.71
Canada
520.41
Germany
499.34
Denmark
554.08
Finland
Great Britain 513.71
507.98
Ireland
499.88
Norway
New Zealand 532.01
495.11
Sweden
United States 502
Age
Mean
Austria
15.77
Australia
15.81
Canada
15.83
Germany
15.83
Denmark
15.73
Finland
15.72
Great Britain 15.71
Ireland
15.71
Norway
15.80
New Zealand 15.76
Sweden
15.75
United States 15.79
SD
97.57
98.43
85.76
97.34
88.25
84.53
94.99
93.41
85.37
103.73
95.51
93.88
Economic, social and cultural status (ESCS)
Min
76.41
196.14
145.97
186.91
140.94
218.05
129.28
104.75
188.68
96.36
135.71
131.61
Max
839.74
756.94
787.34
794.33
752.28
799.46
792.56
785.29
738.2
824.45
770.18
757.68
N
14251
6590
23207
4979
5924
5810
12179
3937
4660
4643
4567
5233
Mean
0.34
0.06
0.5
0.18
0.3
0.37
0.2
0.05
0.47
0.09
0.33
0.17
N
14251
6590
23207
4979
5924
5810
12179
3937
4660
4643
4567
5233
Grade
Mean
0.08
-0.57
-0.15
0.20
-0.13
-0.12
0.00
0.50
0.00
-0.01
-0.02
0.09
Country
SD
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.28
0.28
0.29
0.28
0.28
0.29
0.28
0.30
Min
15.25
15.33
15.33
15.33
15.25
15.25
15.25
15.25
15.25
15.25
15.25
15.25
Max
16.33
16.33
16.33
16.33
16.25
16.25
16.25
16.25
16.33
16.33
16.25
16.33
SD
0.75
0.84
0.83
0.9
0.87
0.78
0.79
0.85
0.74
0.79
0.81
0.93
SD
0.54
0.64
0.42
0.68
0.39
0.37
0.14
0.77
0.08
0.34
0.23
0.56
Min
-3.4
-5.66
-4.77
-4.81
-3.87
-3.56
-3.43
-3.22
-2.83
-3.23
-6.04
-3.42
Min
-3
-3
-3
-2
-2
-2
-1
-2
-1
-2
-2
-2
Max
2.98
3
3.1
3.16
3.29
3.06
2.9
2.86
2.57
2.71
2.99
2.89
Max
2
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
N
13933
6420
22616
4561
5797
5776
11936
3841
4620
4553
4512
5190
Proportion of
girls
Percent N
0.51
14251
0.51
6590
0.5
23207
0.49
4979
0.51
5924
0.5
5810
0.51
12179
0.49
3937
0.49
4660
0.49
4643
0.49
4567
0.49
5233
N
14251
6590
23207
4802
5924
5810
12179
3937
4660
4643
4567
5233
% of 1st Im. Ge.
Percent N
0.11
14251
0.05
6590
0.10
23207
0.05
4979
0.03
5924
0.01
5810
0.05
12179
0.07
3937
0.03
4660
0.16
4643
0.04
4567
0.06
5233
88
Country
% of Second Immigration Generation
Percent
SD
N
Australia
0.12
0.32
14251
Austria
0.10
0.30
6590
Canada
0.13
0.34
23207
Germany
0.11
0.31
4979
Denmark
0.06
0.23
5924
Finland
0.01
0.11
5810
Great Britain 0.06
0.23
12179
Ireland
0.01
0.12
3937
Norway
0.04
0.19
4660
New Zealand 0.08
0.27
4643
Sweden
0.08
0.27
4567
United States 0.13
0.33
5233
Source: OECD PISA 2009 database.
Other than test language
Percent SD
N
0.09
0.29
14251
0.10
0.30
6590
0.14
0.34
23207
0.09
0.29
4979
0.04
0.20
5924
0.04
0.19
5810
0.06
0.24
12179
0.06
0.23
3937
0.07
0.26
4660
0.14
0.35
4643
0.08
0.27
4567
0.13
0.33
5233
% of Public schools
Percent SD
N
0.54
0.50
14251
0.79
0.41
6590
0.87
0.34
23207
0.89
0.31
4979
0.73
0.44
5924
0.95
0.21
5810
0.77
0.42
12179
0.39
0.49
3937
0.95
0.21
4660
0.92
0.27
4643
0.85
0.36
4567
0.78
0.42
5233
89
Methods
First, to address the first research question on How do schools in didaktik and curriculum
countries compare across the core constructs representing teacher and school characteristics,
namely teacher autonomy and teacher responsibility using PISA 2009 data? A t-test procedure
was conducted to assess whether the means of autonomy and responsibility scales of the two
groups of schools were statistically different from one another. This procedure was helpful to
test the first hypothesis whether schools in didaktik countries will show higher levels of teacher
autonomy and teacher responsibility than schools in curriculum countries. For teacher autonomy
individual items Mann-Whitney rank-sum test was employed to examine the differences between
the schools in two traditions as the items were measured on an ordinal scale, while a difference
of proportion test was used for teacher responsibility items to examine the differences.
Second – given the results from the first question – to examine the relationship between
teacher and school characteristics and student science test scores in PISA 2009 and to address the
question on ‘What is the association of teacher and school characteristics with student science
achievement in PISA 2009?’ a hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) procedure was conducted.
Due to the lack of any past research to address this question using didaktik/curriculum
framework, there was no hypothesis generated, and in that regard the analysis was more
exploratory rather than confirmatory or dis-confirmatory.
HLM was a more useful method for this study considering that PISA datasets have a
nested structure of data with students nested in schools and schools nested in regions and/or
countries, which arguably provides more precise estimates given that structure (Raudenbush &
Bryk, 2002). Furthermore, HLM is preferred over simple ordinary least square (OLS) method
90
since the latter assumes independence of observations which is rather misleading in nested data
where variance within group tends to remain dependent.
To develop the HLM models, first an unconditional model was run for each country
using the dependent variable. Here is the specified equation for science achievement.
(1)
Each school’s intercept, β0j, is then set equal to a grand mean, γ00, and a random error u0j.
β 0 j = γ 00 + u0 j
(2)
where j represents schools and i represents students with a given country.
Substituting (2) into (1) produces
(3)
where:
ß0j = mean science achievement for school j
γ 00 = grand mean for science achievement
Var (eij ) = θ= within school variance in science achievement
Var (u0j ) = τ00 = between school variance in science achievement
This model explains whether there is variation in student’s standardized science scores across j
schools for the given country.
From here, a linear random-intercept model with covariates was set up. This model is an
example of linear mixed effects model that splits the total residual or error into two error
components. It starts with a multiple-regression model, as follows:
Science scoresij = ß1 + ß2j x2ij+ …+ ßp xpij+ ξij
(4)
91
Here ß1 is the constant for the model, while ß2j x2ij to ßp xpij represent covariates included in the
given model. ξ is the total residual that is split into two error components:
ij
ξij Ξ uj + eij
(5)
where uj is a school specific error component representing the combined effects of omitted
school characteristics or unobserved heterogeneity. It is a random intercept or the level-2 residual
that remains constant across students, while level-1 residual eij is a student-specific error
component, which varies across students i as well as schools j. Substituting ξ into the multipleij
linear regression model (4), we obtain the linear random-intercept model with covariates
Science scoresij = ß1 + ß2j x2ij+ …+ ßp xpij+ uj + eij
(6)
Again, ß x to ß x represent the covariates included in the model, and they vary depending
2j 2ij
p pij
on how many covariates are included in a specific model. Three linear random-intercept models
are fit for each country in the study, where the first model includes three level-2 covariates
representing teacher autonomy items, namely the use of standardized tests, the use teacherdeveloped tests and the use of teacher judgments. The second model adds another four level-2
covariates representing teacher responsibility items whether teachers were responsible for
assessment policies, textbooks to be used, course content and courses offered. The final model is
a full model that introduces one school-level covariates of school type (public vs. private) and a
number of student level-1 covariates including SES, age, grade, immigration status (native vs.
first generation vs. second generation), test language (native vs. another), and a dummy variable
for gender, where female=1 and male=0, into the model with teacher autonomy and
92
responsibility items, and controlling for dummy missing variables. The same models are run for
each of the twelve countries in the study.
The linear random-intercept model is viewed as a regression model with a school-specific
intercept ß1 + uj (Rabe-Hesketh & Skrondal, 2008). The model assumes that uj are independent
over schools, the eij are independent over schools and students, and that the two error terms are
independent of each other. Further, the model assumes that both uj and eij are uncorrelated with
covariates. Regarding distributional assumptions, it is assumed that level-2 error component uj is
normally distributed with a mean of zero and variance τθθ; and each eij is independent and
normally distributed with a mean of zero and variance θ for every level-1 unit i within each
level-2 unit j (i.e., constant variance in level-1 residuals across units).
93
Chapter 5. RESULTS AND ANALYSES
Here the results found during the examination of the two main overarching research
questions are presented. The research questions are:
1. What is the variation of teacher autonomy and responsibility across schools in
curriculum and didaktik countries?
2. What is the association of teacher autonomy and responsibility items with students’
science performance?
First, variation with regard to teacher autonomy items and scale is presented, followed by
variation in teacher responsibility items and scale, and concluding this chapter with associations
of variables representing the two constructs and other school- and student-level covariates with
student performance applying within-country hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) statistical
models.
Means of Teacher Autonomy Measures Across Sample Countries
The results for means of teacher autonomy measures, including use of standardized
assessments, teacher-developed tests and teacher judgments across sample countries are
presented in graph form in the following sections while detailed descriptive statistics are
provided in Appendix H.
Figure 4 shows the mean use of standardized tests for each country, a variable coded on a
scale from 0 to 4. On this scale, a higher mean indicates lower teacher autonomy, as we expect
less use of standardized tests in countries where teachers have more autonomy regarding
employing student assessments instruments.
94
Use of standardized tests (by country)
0=Never, 1=1-2 a year, 2=3-5 a year, 3=monthly, 4=more than once a
month
Curriculum | Didaktik | OECD
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1.47
1.40
1.38
1.21
1.20
1.19
1.06
0.95
0.92
0.90
0.80
0.45
0.43
Figure 4 Means of use of standardized tests by country
Based on didaktik-curriculum framework, teachers in didaktik countries were expected to enjoy
higher autonomy, thus the mean use on standardized tests were expected to be lower. As the
graph shows, there are more didaktik countries on the upper side of the scale than curriculum
countries. Within didaktik countries themselves there is a clear separation between the four
Nordic countries (Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Finland) and those from Continental Europe
(Austria and Germany) with Nordic countries having the highest means. The OECD average for
this scale is at 1.19 and only two of the curriculum countries (New Zealand and United States)
are above the OECD average and the other four below it. A Mann-Whitney two-sample ranksum test was used to compare curriculum and didaktik countries as two groups. The overall
analysis resulted with didaktik countries having a higher sum of ranks compared to the expected
rank sums under the null hypothesis than curriculum countries and there was a significant
difference of z = 3.306 with p<0.001. Since on this scale a higher mean indicates lower teacher
autonomy, results show that taken together didaktik countries have a higher mean on the use of
95
standardized tests than curriculum countries thus indicating that teacher autonomy is higher in
curriculum than didaktik.
The next item on teacher autonomy scale was the use of teacher-developed tests. Here, a
higher mean indicates higher teacher autonomy as the locus of control for student assessment
purposes lies with teachers. Figure 5 shows the results for curriculum and didaktik countries.
Here, the means for didaktik countries are around the OECD average, while those of curriculum
countries are spread out on both ends of the continuum.
Use of teacher-developed tests (by country)
0=Never, 1=1-2 a year, 2=3-5 a year, 3=monthly, 4=more than once a
month
Curriculum | Didaktik | OECD
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
3.57
3.52
3.33
3.31
3.18
2.94
2.89
2.75
2.73
2.70
2.28
2.28
2.18
Figure 5 Means of use of teacher-developed tests by country
On average, apart from Ireland, United Kingdom and Denmark, all other countries have a mean
close to 3, meaning teachers in those countries are reported to use tests developed by them on a
monthly basis during the school year. In United States and Canada the mean is close to 4
indicating that in their schools teacher-developed tests are used more than once a month.
96
To test the difference between the two groups overall, the Mann-Whitney rank-sum test
was employed. The results indicated that curriculum countries in total had a higher sum of ranks
than the expected sum of ranks, while for didaktik countries the sum of ranks was lower than
expected and there was a significant statistical difference of z = -6.533, with p<0.001. Here,
teachers in curriculum countries enjoy higher autonomy, however, if teacher-developed tests
represent a form of preparation for students to take standardized tests than, indirectly, a higher
mean on this item might indicate less teacher autonomy.
Use of teacher judgements (by country)
0=Never, 1=1-2 a year, 2=3-5 a year, 3=monthly, 4=more than once a
month
Curriculum | Didaktik | OECD
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
3.56
3.49
3.42
3.30
3.09
2.83
2.62
2.59
2.49
2.41
2.40
2.38
2.21
Figure 6 Means of use of teacher judgments by country
The third item in teacher autonomy scale is the use of teacher judgments for ranking
students as part of student assessment practices in respective countries. Figure 6 shows the
means for each country, and here a clear separation between curriculum and didaktik countries is
observed with all didaktik countries but Denmark positioned above the OECD average, and all
curriculum countries but New Zealand falling below the OECD average.
97
The Mann-Whitney rank-sum test confirmed the statistical difference of z = 12.158 at p<0.001
between the curriculum and didaktik countries, with didaktik countries having higher sums of
ranks than expected while curriculum countries’ sums of ranks were lower than expected.
In summary, examining the three previous graphs, it is observed that since all of the
countries in the study are OECD member states, their average is around the OECD and the
differences from OECD are not large either for curriculum or didaktik countries. Second, all
three forms of assessments are employed in all countries, but there is variation to the frequency
of use of each form. Overall, it is observed that teachers in didaktik countries report using
teacher judgments more than teacher-developed tests, while teachers in curriculum countries rely
more on teacher developed tests than their judgments. This indicates that teachers in curriculum
countries tend to rely more on objectiveness of their tests, while teachers in didaktik countries on
subjectiveness of their judgments. Lastly, there are two sets of outliers with two countries each.
One – the low reporting of the use of standardized tests in Austria and Germany, and two, high
reporting of teacher-developed tests in Canada and United States.
Next, an autonomy scale was created using varimax-rotated method out of three items
related to the use of three different assessment practices. The scale reliability coefficient of
Cronbach’s alpha was α = 0.31, which is lower than the expected value of α = .70 for a reliable
scale, but not surprising considering that only three items were used. The item on the use of
standardized tests was reverse coded prior to the analysis so that a higher value indicated higher
teacher autonomy in line with two other items. The graph with means of each country is shown
in Figure 7, and descriptive statistics for the scale are given in Appendix I. The standardized
scale shows that when considering all three items together, teachers in didaktik countries enjoy
higher autonomy than their counterparts in curriculum countries, however there is no clear
98
separation between curriculum and didaktik countries. United States, Canada and New Zealand
have positive means, while Austria and Denmark from didaktik countries has negative means.
Figure 7 Means of teacher autonomy scale by country
A two-sample t-test for curriculum and didaktik groups was employed and the mean was higher
for didaktik than curriculum countries with t(3450) = 4.97, p < 0.001. However, the strength of
the difference between means was weak, since calculating R2 = t2/(t2+df) and plugging in t-value
and degrees of freedom from above the result was R2= 0.007. So while statistically significant,
the effect size for the difference between curriculum and didaktik was close to being small.
Reportedly, values of 0.01 to 0.09 are considered small effect, 0.10 to 0.25 are medium effect,
and over 0.25 are a large effect (Acock, 2008).
99
Proportions of Teacher Responsibility Measures Across Sample Countries
The results for proportions of teacher responsibility measures across sample countries are
presented in graph form in the following section while detailed descriptive statistics are provided
in Appendix J.
Proportion of teachers deciding about
assessment policies (by country)
Curriculum | Didaktik | OECD
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
85.5% 84.0%
81.4% 81.1% 78.9%
77.7% 75.4%
72.4%
67.6%
61.2% 58.5% 57.9%
44.3%
Figure 8 Proportion of teachers deciding about assessment policies by country
Figure 8 shows the proportions of schools where teachers are reported to be responsible
for making decisions about student assessment policies in respective countries. As per
curriculum-didaktik framework, the hypothesis was that more schools report teachers to be
responsible in didaktik than in curriculum countries. The graph shows that Austria (85.5%) and
Ireland (84.0%) have the highest proportion of schools where teachers are responsible for
assessment policies. United States has the lowest proportion of schools that have teachers who
are responsible for assessment policies as reported by school principals with 44.3%. Most
countries in the sample are above the OECD average. No clear separation is observed between
100
curriculum and didaktik countries. A difference-of-proportion test showed that didaktik countries
together had a mean of 0.69 (overall 69% of teachers in didaktik countries are reported to be
responsible for deciding about assessment policies) while curriculum countries had a mean of
0.74. The z statistic was z = -3.048, p < 0.01 indicating that the difference between the two
groups was statistically significant. On average, there were about 5% more teachers reported to
be responsible for assessment policies in curriculum than in didaktik countries.
Proportion of teachers deciding about
textbook use (by country)
Curriculum | Didaktik | OECD
120%
100%
80%
99.9% 99.1% 97.9% 96.5% 96.2% 96.0%
91.7% 89.3%
84.0%
74.6% 70.9%
67.3% 64.4%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Figure 9 Proportion of teachers deciding about textbooks to be used by country
Figure 9 shows the proportion of schools with teachers reported to be responsible for
deciding about textbooks used in their respective countries. Overall, the proportions are quite
high and above 60% for all countries, and all but United States are above OECD average of
67.3%. In United Kingdom, Sweden, Ireland, Finland, New Zealand and Australia close to a
100% of schools are reported to have teachers who decide about textbooks to be used. Overall,
there is no clear separation between the two groups. This was also confirmed by the proportionof-differences test, which showed that in both didaktik and curriculum countries in their total
101
school samples about 86% of teachers are reported to decide about textbooks used. The z statistic
z = 0.245, p > 0.05 indicated that the difference in proportions between the two groups was not
statistically significant.
Proportion of teachers deciding about course
content (by country)
Curriculum | Didaktik | OECD
120%
100%
80%
60%
96.5% 93.4%
90.9% 87.1%
83.9% 80.6% 79.6%
74.3%
69.3% 67.7%
62.2%
55.0% 55.0%
40%
20%
0%
Figure 10 Proportion of teachers deciding about course content by country
Figure 10 shows the proportion of schools reported by principals to have teachers who
decide about course content in their respective countries. Again there is no clear separation of
curriculum and didaktik countries, and all countries in the sample are above the OECD average
of 0.55. United Kingdom, New Zealand and Sweden have more than 90% of schools where
teachers are reported to decide about course content. In other countries, the range is from a low
of 55% in Canada to a high of 87% in Finland. The proportion-of-differences tests showed that
on average about 77% of teachers in didaktik countries decide about course content compared to
about 72% of teachers doing the same in curriculum countries. The z statistic was z = 3.619 and
102
p < 0.001 indicating that the difference in proportions between the two groups was statistically
significant, with didaktik countries having higher proportions.
Proportion of teachers deciding about
courses offered (by country)
Curriculum | Didaktik | OECD
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
82.9%
73.8%
69.2% 67.7% 67.2%
56.9% 55.6%
49.7%
44.5% 44.4% 44.0%
36.6%
30%
21.5%
20%
10%
0%
Figure 11 Proportion of teachers deciding about courses offered by country
Lastly, Figure 11 shows the proportion of schools where school principals reported that
teachers decide about courses offered in their schools. The separation of didaktik and curriculum
countries is most visible with regard to the proportions between the two groups, where all
didaktik countries, apart from Finland, show that less than 50% of teachers decide about courses
offered. Curriculum countries on the other hand show that the proportions vary from 55.6% in
United States to 82.9% in United Kingdom. The OECD average for this item was 36.6%
indicating that proportions in curriculum countries were significantly higher. Only Norway
(21.5%) was below OECD average on this item. The proportion-of-differences test showed the
proportion of teachers in curriculum countries was higher at 0.66 while that of didaktik countries
was at 0.42, indicating that on average about 24% more teachers in curriculum countries are
103
reported to decide about courses offered than their colleagues in didaktik countries. The z
statistic was z = -14.30 and p < 0.001, indicating that the difference in proportions between the
two groups was statistically significant.
Overall, out of four teacher responsibility items, the proportion was significantly higher
in curriculum countries on two of them (deciding about student assessment policies and courses
offered), the proportion was statistically higher in didaktik countries with regard to teachers who
decide about course content, and there was no statistically significant difference between
didaktik and curriculum countries with regard to choosing textbooks to be used.
The overall picture across the four responsibility items shows that high proportions of
teachers have decision-making power with regard to assessment policies, textbooks to be used
and course content, and less power regarding course content. Also, the pattern shows that on
average teachers enjoy more teacher responsibility in curriculum countries than didaktik
countries, with New Zealand and United Kingdom among curriculum countries having the
highest teacher responsibility in course content and courses offered items. Also the graphs show
both curriculum and didaktik countries are above the OECD average across the four items.
Next, a responsibility scale was created using varimax-rotated method out of four items
related to teacher’s responsibility over assessment policies, textbooks used, course content and
courses offered. The scale reliability coefficient of Cronbach’s alpha was α = 0.61, which was
close to the expected value of α = .70 for a reliable scale. The graph with means of each country
is shown in Figure 12, and descriptive statistics for the scale are given in Appendix K.
104
Figure 12 Means of teacher responsibility scale by country
The standardized scale shows that when considering all four items together, teachers in
curriculum countries enjoy higher responsibility than their counterparts in didaktik countries,
however there is no clear separation between curriculum and didaktik countries. United
Kingdom has the highest positive mean, while United States has the lowest negative mean.
A two-sample t-test for curriculum and didaktik groups was employed and the mean was
higher for curriculum than didaktik countries with t(3582) = -4.68, p < 0.001. However, the
strength of the difference between means was weak, since calculating R2 = t2/(t2+df) and
plugging in t-value and degrees of freedom from above the result was R2= 0.006. So while
statistically significant, the effect size for the difference between curriculum and didaktik
regarding teacher responsibility scale - same as in the teacher autonomy scale - was
105
comparatively small. Next, the association of autonomy and responsibility items, controlling for
covariates, with within-country student science performance is examined.
Association of Teacher Autonomy and Responsibility with Student Science
Performance in PISA 2009
The second research question of the study pertained to the ‘so what’ question, i.e. given
the variation in teacher autonomy and responsibility items across schools in curriculum and
didaktik countries, the objective was to examine whether those items are associated with student
science performance in PISA 2009. As no hypothesis was stated as to whether autonomy and
responsibility items are associated with student scores, the question was entirely exploratory in
nature. Linear random-intercept models were used to examine the relationship among autonomy
and responsibility items with student science performance and to decompose the variance into
between-school and within-school components. Initially, a null model for each country was run
to estimate the intra-class correlation (ICC), which represents the variation in science
achievement across schools within every given country. The ICC results, which are consistent
with those of previous studies (for example Zhang et al., forthcoming), varied from a low of 0.09
in Finland to highs of 0.57 in Austria and 0.65 in Germany. A low ICC of 0.09 in Finland to high
ICCs of 0.57 in Austria and 0.65 in Germany suggests that schools in Finland performed the
same in PISA 2009 assessment, while in Austria and Germany there is a large variation in
students’ science performance across schools. These variations in Austria and Germany are
usually attributed to the tracking orientations within K-12 educational systems. In the other 9
countries, the ICC range was from 0.12 in Norway to 0.29 in United Kingdom and United States.
106
Next, three linear random-intercept models were fit: first, one with teacher autonomy
items only; the second including both teacher autonomy (TA) and teacher responsibility (TR)
items; and third, a full model that included both level-2 TA and TR items and level-2 and level-1
covariates. Tables 9 and 10 show estimates of the full model for curriculum and didaktik
countries. Detailed results for each curriculum country are provided in Appendix L, and for
didaktik countries in Appendix M.
Overall, the results from the linear random intercept models show that only a few of the
teacher autonomy and teacher responsibility items from 12 countries were statistically significant
predictors of student science performance on PISA 2009. Tables 11 through 22 that appear in
Appendix L and Appendix M provide the results for individual countries for the null model as
well as three linear random-intercept models, which show fixed estimates, random estimates and
derived estimates. Tables 9 and 10 show summary results for the full model only (TA + TR +
Level-2 and Level-1 covariates) that are presented in three sections – “Fixed part”, “Random
part” and “Derived estimates”.
The main interest of the study pertains to the “Fixed part” estimated regression
coefficients as the objective is to examine the association of covariates to student science
performance. Across curriculum countries, in the full model with level-1 and level-2 covariates,
there are significant coefficients of TA and TR items in Ireland, New Zealand and United States.
The coefficients of the use of standardized test (β₂) were mostly negative in the full model, but
not significant in any of the curriculum countries. However, β₂ was negative and significant in
the United States in first (-31.8) and second (-23.86) random intercept models that included only
107
Table 9 Maximum likelihood estimates for science performance in curriculum countries
Australia
Fixed part
Canada
United
Kingdom
Ireland
New
Zealand
United
States
Est.
Est.
Est.
Est.
Est.
Est.
725.86***
767.09***
353.52***
745.95***
424.62***
885.82***
β₂ (stand. tests)
1.06
-1.36
-2.97
1.67
-2.92
-12.98
β₃(teacher tests)
3.62
-0.86
-2.01
-7.28
8.25*
29.60***
β₄(teach. judgments)
-0.57
0.17
5.03
2.66
0.99
-2.12
β5(assess. policies)
1.83
0.15
10.15
-5.17
1.36
-10.99
β6(text. used)
-0.73
2.78
23.11
-48.21*
-106.37***
11.27
β7(course content)
4.43
-2.59
-4.47
-11.06
95.72***
-26.23
β8(courses offered)
-2.43
-3.60
-11.18
1.87
15.49***
10.65
β9(SES)
32.85***
22.13***
30.83***
30.02***
38.52***
22.39***
β10(gender)
β11(age)
β12(grade)
β13(1st immigration
gen.)
β14(2nd immigration
gen.)
β15 (Other test lang.)
β16 (public school)
-4.15***
-13.06***
39.62***
-6.69***
-13.14***
48.53***
-10.12***
11.49***
33.99***
-2.42
-10.76
19.80***
7.17
6.19
29.87***
-14.70***
-26.63**
43.06***
-4.59
-11.22**
5.75
-3.28
0.25
-4.33
2.85
-13.47***
14.26*
12.17
-3.45
-2.34
-19.92***
-26.21***
mixed
-12.10***
-25.94**
mixed
-16.25*
-46.59***
mixed
-27.65**
-25.77**
mixed
-42.51***
-18.35**
mixed
-6.72
-38.00**
mixed
1188.83
1103.28
1489.69
1464.74
724.61
1297.04
6481.58
5124.95
5559.13
6033.58
6722.36
5008.22
0.29
806.47
-623957.37
12179(482)
0.24
1257.68
-92189.75
3937(144)
0.23
1678.6
-57752.06
4643(163)
0.29
1785.35
4095343.4
5233(165)
β₁ (_cons)
Random part
Var. (random
intercept)
Var. (level-1
residual)
ICC(rho)/xtreg
Wald chi2(21^)
Log likelihood
Students(Schools)
0.24
0.23
1827.01
1498.44
-83124.87 -379026.79
14251(353) 23207(978)
Derived estimates
R2 (total variance)
R12 (level-1 var.)
0.23
0.14
0.19
0.13
0.21
0.13
0.15
0.1
0.31
0.19
0.28
0.2
R22 (level-2 var.)
0.51
0.39
0.41
0.32
0.71
0.49
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. Controlling for dummy missing variables. “^”
indicates degrees of freedom for Wald chi-squared tests, which varied from country to country
depending on how many variables were kept in the model.
108
level-2 covariates (see Table 16 in Appendix L), but it lost significance in the full model after
adding level-1 covariates. The coefficients for United States in the models with level-2
covariates indicate that the use of standardized tests is expected to decrease student science
performance significantly in United States.
The coefficients for teacher-developed tests (β₃) were significant and positive only in
New Zealand (8.25) and United States (29.6) in the full model controlling for other covariates
and missing dummies among curriculum countries. The coefficient of teacher-developed tests for
United States is particularly interesting as it is higher than SES coefficient (22.39) controlling for
other covariates. At least in New Zealand and the United States, the monthly use of teacherdeveloped tests is estimated to increase student science performance. The US had the highest
mean in the variable of teacher-developed tests. The third item representing teacher autonomy,
the use of teacher judgments (β₄) was not significant in any of the curriculum countries.
Among teacher responsibility items, textbooks used (β6) was significant and negative in
Ireland (-48.21), while textbooks used and course content (β7) were significant and unexpectedly
high in New Zealand, where if teachers were responsible for the textbooks to be used in schools
then it was associated with a coefficient of -106.37 decrease of student performance. When
teachers were responsible for the course content in New Zealand, it had a positive coefficient of
95.72, and courses offered variable (β8) was also significant and positive (15.49) in New
Zealand. When teachers had responsibility for assessment policies (β5) it was not significant in
any of the curriculum countries. Regarding level-1 covariates – SES (β9), as expected, was
significant and positive in all curriculum countries, while gender (β10) was statistically
significant and negative in five countries – Australia, Canada, United Kingdom, Ireland, and
109
United States – significant and positive only in New Zealand, in the model controlling for other
covariates. From among the remaining level-1 covariates, age (β11) was significant and negative
in Australia, Canada, and United States, significant and positive in United Kingdom, and not
significant in Ireland and New Zealand. Grade (β12) was significant and positive in all six
curriculum countries, while variables representing first immigration generation students (β13) and
second immigration students (β14) were significant and negative in Canada, significant and
positive in United Kingdom, and not significant in other countries. The results suggest that
students with immigration background are expected to perform better than native students in
United Kingdom and worse than native students in Canada. When the home language of the
student is different than test language (β15) was significant and negative in all countries but
United States. Lastly, level-2 covariate representing public schools (β16) was significant and
negative in all six curriculum countries, indicating that within each respective country, students
attending public schools are expected to perform worse than those in private schools, as per the
model employed and covariates used here.
The “Random part” section of the table shows the unexplained variance for level-2
(random intercept) and unexplained variance for level-1 after controlling for explanatory
variables and missing dummies. The ICC shows variation across schools in science performance,
while Wald chi-squared and Log likelihood estimates are tests of the null hypothesis that
coefficients used in the model are equal to zero. The number of students and schools per country
is also given under the “Random part”. Lastly, coefficients of determination or “R-squared” are
provided in the “Derived estimates” section. Total R-squared indicates how much variation the
model of interest explains. First, total variance of the null model and of two out of three target
models (TA, and full model) was calculated as follows:
110
𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣−𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣
R2 (total) =
𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣
R-squared were not calculated for the TA-TR model as it didn’t differ substantively from TA
model. Then, following Raudenbush and Bryk (2002) suggestion, the same procedure to partition
the between-school and within-school level variance is applied for calculating R-squared for
level-1 and level-2. As Table 9 shows, the proportion of variance explained by covariates in the
full model was larger for level-2, i.e. variance across schools, than for level-1 or within-schools
variance.
Table 10 provides maximum likelihood estimates for science performance in didaktik
countries controlling for the covariates and missing dummies based on the same models as for
curriculum countries. Among, the variables of interest representing teacher autonomy, the use of
standardized tests (β₂) was negative in all didaktik countries but Denmark and Finland. In
Finland, the coefficient for use of standardized tests was significant and positive (16.74).
However, it was significant and negative in Austria (-19.38) and Germany (-30.83), indicating
that the use of standardized tests in these two countries was associated with lower student
science performance in PISA 2009 after controlling for covariates. The use of teacher-developed
tests (β₃) was significant only in Norway (6.07), while the use of teacher judgments (β₄) was
significant only in Sweden (7.07).
Regarding teacher responsibility items, when teachers were responsible for assessment
policies (β5) it was negative and statistically significant in Austria (-30.97), positive and
significant in Finland (12.90) and Norway (11.63), and it was not significant in other countries.
When teachers were responsible for textbooks to be used (β6) and course content (β7) they were
111
Table 10 Maximum likelihood estimates for science performance in didaktik countries
Fixed part
β₁ (_cons)
Austria
Est.
Germany
Est.
Denmark
Est.
Finland
Est.
Norway
Est.
Sweden
Est.
693.63***
763.21***
650.94***
685.43***
199.60***
572.18***
β₂ (stand. tests)
-19.38**
-25.97*
4.42
16.74***
-2.89
-10.41
β₃(teacher tests)
1.17
0.62
1.64
-4.82
6.07*
2.5
8.03
-1.48
1.99
3.41
0.12
-7.07*
-30.97*
-5.05
7
12.90*
11.63*
8.35
β6(text. used)
0.12
11.57
14.74
-0.03
-2.32
-15.72
β7(course content)
-3.55
-6.97
1.14
-0.99
-0.58
0.34
β8(courses offered)
5.09
-36.16**
-6.03
-0.67
14.28
2.65
β9(SES)
11.85***
10.26***
28.47***
27.03***
30.24***
32.84***
β10(gender)
-25.71***
-10.45*
39.50***
-20.37***
-13.35***
37.32***
-15.15***
-10.94
40.19***
13.98***
-9.68
39.17***
4.48
15.90**
14.15
2.7
-1.24
57.10***
-21.21***
-12.78**
-37.28***
-29.22
-7.68
-30.26**
-30.58***
-18.48***
-34.82***
-27.88*
-19.63
-28.67***
-12.91**
-16.12***
-22.99***
-35.76***
-47.46***
-15.07
-13.04
mixed
-23.27
mixed
-2.17
mixed
-17.16
mixed
14.77
mixed
-21.31
mixed
3073.84
4332.85
618.4
410.45
624.45
873.57
3614.06
2634.14
5329.18
5707.73
5653.72
6361.53
0.57
2057.46
-259127.77
6590(282)
0.65
1222.86
-1454987.5
4979(226)
0.21
1312.38
-185910.1
5924(285)
0.09
--121355.85
5810(203)
0.12
--123893.3
4660(197)
0.17
909.21
-233090.04
4576(189)
0.33
0.16
0.31
0.25
0.31
0.22
0.15
0.12
0.14
0.12
0.21
0.17
0.46
0.35
0.66
0.39
0.3
0.44
β₄(teach.
judgments)
β5(assess. policies)
β11(age)
β12(grade)
β13(1st immigration
gen.)
β14(2nd immigration
gen.)
β15 (Other test
lang.)
β16 (public school)
Random part
Var. (random
intercept)
Var. (level-1
residual)
ICC(rho)/xtreg
Wald chi2(22^)
Log likelihood
Students(Schools)
Derived estimates
R2 (Total variance)
R12 (level-1 var.)
R22 (level-2 var.)
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. "--" indicates estimate not reported by model.
Controlling for dummy missing variables. “^” degrees of freedom for Wald chi-squared tests
varied from country to country depending on how many variables were kept in the model.
112
not significant in any of the didaktik countries after controlling for covariates, while when
teachers were responsible for courses offered (β8) it was significant only in Germany with a
negative coefficient of -36.16. The same as in curriculum countries SES (β9) was significant and
positive in all didaktik countries, while gender (β10) was significant and negative in Austria,
Germany and Denmark, significant and positive in Finland, and not significant in Norway and
Sweden.
From the rest of level-1 covariates, age (β11) was significant and negative in Austria and
Germany, significant and positive in Norway, and not significant in Denmark, Finland and
Sweden. Grade (β12) was significant and positive in all countries but Norway. The variable of the
first immigration generation students (β13) was significant and negative in all didaktik countries
but Finland and Norway, where it was not significant. The variable of second immigration
students (β14) was significant and negative in all countries but Norway. Differently from
curriculum countries, the results suggest that students with immigration background are expected
to perform worse than native students in the majority of didaktik countries, and in no country
they are expected to performer better than native students. When the home language of the
student is different than test language (β15) was significant and negative in all countries but
Sweden. Lastly and interestingly, the level-2 covariate representing public schools (β16) was not
significant in any of the didaktik countries, indicating that there are no significant differences in
student science performance between public and private schools within each respective didaktik
country, as per the model and covariates used in the study.
The “random part” provides the unexplained variance for the random intercept and level1 residual, ICC values, Wald chi-squared and log likelihood estimates, and the number of
113
students and schools. The R-squared values, under Derived estimates, for didaktik countries are
lower than for curriculum countries with exception of Denmark, suggesting that the randomintercept models were a better fit for curriculum than for didaktik countries.
In Chapter 6, the results will be discussed in light of education structures and educational
traditions in curriculum and didaktik countries. It addresses the findings pertaining to autonomy
and responsibility variation and their association to science performance against national
educational systems discussed in Chapter 3. Further, claims are made about implications of the
findings with regard to teacher education policy, assessment systems and use of standardized
tests, and education innovation. Next, I outline potential research ideas to deepen understanding
of didaktik and curriculum traditions and how they might affect student performance. I conclude
that blending of assessments for diagnostic purposes from curriculum empiricism with higher
teacher autonomy in didaktik tradition could potentially lead to increased student science
performance.
114
Chapter 6. CONCLUSIONS, DICUSSION, AND IMPLICATIONS
A nationally representative sample of 12 nations from PISA 2009 data was used to
address two research questions. First, what is teacher autonomy and responsibility variation in
schools in 12 countries representing curriculum and didaktik education traditions? And second,
what is the association of teacher autonomy and responsibility measures with student science
performance? Applying mean comparison across countries to address the first and hierarchical
linear modeling (HLM) to address the second question, the study compared schools in
curriculum and didaktik nations along a set of teacher autonomy and teacher responsibility
measures, and explored the relationships of those measures with student science performance in
PISA 2009. The didaktik-curriculum framework guided the selection of variables with the
purpose to narrow down the focus to teacher-specific items so that theoretical claims about
teacher autonomy and responsibility could be empirically tested. In this Chapter, conclusions for
the two research questions are presented first. Next, policy implications are outlined, recognizing
the cross-sectional nature of the data and limitations for drawing causal inferences. Lastly, the
chapter ends with a set of recommendations for further research and final conclusions.
Teacher Autonomy and Responsibility in Schools in Didaktik and Curriculum
Countries
The findings for the first research question were mixed, since taken together as one
sample, teachers in schools in didaktik countries seem to enjoy more autonomy, while teachers in
schools in curriculum countries seem to enjoy more responsibility as shown through autonomy
and responsibility scales. Also, the variation was not as large as expected. The differences
between didaktik and curriculum countries were statistically significant, but substantively weak.
115
A more nuanced story and not as clear-cut division between the two groups of countries was
found when examining individual variables, selected as proxies for teacher autonomy and
responsibility constructs. Three variables – the use of standardized tests, teacher-developed tests
and teacher judgments – were proxies for autonomy, and four variables – responsibility over
assessment policies, textbooks to be used, course content and courses offered – were proxies for
teacher responsibility.
Schools in curriculum countries had a higher mean in the use of standardized tests, but a
higher mean on this measure meant lower teacher autonomy. If standardized tests are more
frequently used, it means that a country’s education system aims to track the quality of learning
externally, which in turn indicates lower involvement of teachers and limited professional
autonomy. Examining the findings individually for each country, it was surprising to find that
more didaktik than curriculum countries were above the OECD mean of 1.15 for this measure.
Those didaktik countries included the four Nordic countries in the sample – Sweden, which had
the highest mean of entire sample at 1.51, then Denmark, Norway and Finland. New Zealand and
the United States were also above the OECD average. The overall higher mean on this measure
for curriculum nations over didaktik nations is explained by the significantly lower means of
Austria (0.44) and Germany (0.42).
Overall, the findings indicate that none of the countries has more than one or two
standardized tests a year, on average. Considering the findings from the perspective of the
assessment systems in the countries, it becomes clear that mean use of standardized tests could
be misleading in interpreting them at the face value. For example, Sweden and New Zealand
have the highest means while Denmark and the United States have third and fourth higher means
and the means of all four are close to one another. However, in Sweden and New Zealand
116
standardized tests are used for diagnostic purposes only while in Denmark and the United States
they become high-stakes tests with implications for evaluation of teachers and schools.
Therefore, despite having a higher mean use of standardized tests, teachers in Sweden and New
Zealand might in fact enjoy more autonomy, as they are not affected by standardized tests in the
same way that teachers in Denmark and the United States might be. The same applies to Norway
and Finland, which have about the same mean on the measure, but standardized tests are used for
accountability purposes in Norway and only for diagnostic purposes in Finland.
From the didaktik-curriculum framework lens, then, there is no clear division of didaktik
and curriculum countries both in terms of mean use of standardized tests and the purpose of such
tests. Theoretically, we expected that teachers in schools of didaktik countries would be far less
affected by standardized tests, and taken together that is the case. However, when individual
countries are considered, we find that Denmark and Norway are more similar to curriculum
countries, both in terms of mean use of standardized tests and the purposes of those tests than
with didaktik countries on the measure. Clearly, these two are outliers among didaktik countries.
On the other hand, Ireland and New Zealand are outliers among curriculum nations as they only
rely on standardized tests for diagnostic purposes, similar to the majority of didaktik countries in
the study.
The use of teacher-developed tests manifested the same complexities as the use of
standardized tests. At group level, there was statistically significant higher mean in schools of
curriculum than didaktik nations, but the picture is more complex at the individual country level.
A higher mean is taken to represent higher teacher autonomy. Interestingly, the countries that
had a higher mean use of standardized tests also tended to have a higher mean use of teacherdeveloped tests, suggesting a potential interaction between the two. Overall, in all countries use
117
of teacher-developed tests ranged from a low of 3-5 times a year in Denmark to a high of more
than once a month in the United States and Canada. OECD average was 2.94/year, suggesting
that teacher-developed tests are a frequent assessment practice in all OECD countries as a mean
close to 3 indicates these tests are used by teachers on monthly basis, as per the scale used to
measure this variable in PISA 2009.
Comparatively higher means for United States and Canada, which indicate a more than
once a month use of teacher-developed tests, could be interpreted as a result of the pressure
teachers or schools experience to prepare students for standardized tests. If that is the case, the
higher mean for United States and Canada, as well as for Norway, could imply lower instead of
higher teacher autonomy. In these three countries, teachers’ professional actions might be
affected by an external assessment practice that pressures them to use more teacher-developed
tests than they would otherwise, if high-stakes standardized testing was not in place.
The findings regarding the use of teacher judgments showed a clear division between
didaktik and curriculum countries, both as groups and as individual countries, where didaktik
countries had statistically significant higher mean. Arguably, the use of this assessment practice
is the most representative expression of teacher autonomy and professional action as individual
teachers rely on their understanding of learners and learning to judge learners’ progress. The
findings here could be an outcome of didaktik and curriculum frameworks that guide teacher
education in didaktik and curriculum countries in the sense that in didaktik countries teachers are
educated to rely on and use their own professional autonomy in classroom practices. Conversely,
in curriculum countries teachers are educated to implement externally-set educational standards
that tend to be objectively measured through specific tests, while teacher judgments, as results on
118
this measure show, are used less as an assessment practice compared to its use in didaktik
countries.
The findings from analysis of teacher responsibility measures revealed that relatively
high proportions of teachers are responsible for deciding about assessment policies, textbooks to
be used, course content and courses offered. Still the variation between didaktik and curriculum
nations shows that the proportions are lower for didaktik than curriculum countries; if we rely on
the teacher responsibility scale with all four measures. However, examining the measures
individually reveals that out of four teacher responsibility items, curriculum nations had larger
proportions of teachers deciding about student assessment policies and courses offered; didaktik
nations had larger proportions of teachers deciding course content; and there was no statistically
significant difference between didaktik and curriculum nations with regard to proportion of
teachers who decide about textbooks to be use.
Scrutinized from a didaktik-curriculum framework perspective as well as from the
educational structures in sample countries, the findings pertaining to teacher responsibility
measures indicate that more teachers in curriculum than in didaktik countries have a say on
decisions that affect daily teaching practice. This was a surprising finding and not in the direction
of the initial hypothesis. Under didaktik systems, teachers are trained to be professionally
responsible and autonomous on decisions that affect their classroom interactions with students
depending on the meaning and matter of the courses they teach. While the results show that
didaktik teachers are responsible about the practices examined in the study, their colleagues in
curriculum countries are more so. On the other hand, considering the numerous policy-makers
and stakeholders in every educational system in the world (e.g. school principals, school boards,
local, regional, and national educational authorities) that are in charge of making decisions about
119
provision of educational programs, it is surprising how high some of the proportions of teachers
reported to decide about responsibility measures are, as in some countries those proportions were
close to a 100%. With regard to assessment policies, for example, 85.5% of teachers in Austria,
84% in Ireland and 81% in Finland and Australia are reported to decide about assessment
policies in their schools. The lowest proportion was found in United States, and considering that
the use of standardized tests for accountability measures is prevalent in United States, it could be
worthwhile for future research to explore why such proportion is lower and in case of US
teachers who design assessment policies to examine how those are adapted to fit into their
standards- and testing-driven educational system.
Regarding textbook use, course content, and courses offered, the most striking finding
was the high percentage of teachers that have a say in New Zealand and United Kingdom as
reported by school principals. Close to 100% of teachers in these two countries are reported to
decide about textbooks to be used and course content, and about 80% are reported to have a say
about courses offered respectively. On average, the proportions of teachers across responsibility
items in in schools of didaktik and curriculum nations were higher than OECD average.
The findings reveal the variability along the responsibility measures across countries that
transcend didaktik-curriculum borders, except for courses offered, where curriculum countries
are in clear advantage compared to teachers in didaktik countries. The graphs on TR measures
show this variability with didaktik and curriculum countries mixing up along the continuum.
Indeed, while on average, teachers in schools of curriculum countries seem to enjoy more
responsibility, there are quite a few outliers on both ends of the continuum. Future research
should examine how and why some of the proportions are so high in some nations, and lower in
others. One way to undertake this research would be to make an in-depth analysis of single
120
country case studies and pair-country comparisons that explore national education systems
systematically, both in terms of policies in place to recruit, educate and train teachers and
practices as to how policies are implemented at the school level and how teachers are engaged or
disengaged in school-level decision-making process.
One critical question to ask here is why there were no substantive differences between
teacher autonomy and responsibility practices across schools in didaktik and curriculum
countries in PISA 2009, when the theory strongly suggested that would be the case. One
plausible explanation for the lack of differences could be the global trends in education promoted
by highly influential global education players such as OECD with PISA study or International
Association for the Evaluation of Education (IEA) with TIMSS. As noted earlier, the sample
countries in the study have been consistently participating in international assessments during the
past 30 years, and, as shown with Germany’s example, they have introduced educational policies
to align their educational systems with international assessments such as PISA. Same as when
what gets tested gets taught at the classroom level, what gets tested in international assessments
drives what countries do in order to keep up with the ranking race associated with international
assessments. As a result, while the rhetoric and theory behind curriculum and didaktik
frameworks may indeed be valid, the school practices follow a pattern of their own that is more
international than national - where the borders between local and global become thin and school
practices around the world become similar. Ultimately, there is more variation in school
practices within countries than between countries. Therefore, while the study relied on clearly
theoretical divide between curriculum and didaktik, it revealed practice convergence in teacher
autonomy and responsibility. To some extent, the study adds more evidence to the isomorphic
nature of educational practices around the world and further expansion of world culture of
121
schooling, where countries continue to adopt similar practices in hopes to get similar better
results.
Association of Teacher Autonomy and Responsibility Measures with Student
Science Performance
Findings from the analytical models provide evidence for the predictive power of teacher
autonomy and responsibility items in explaining within-country students’ science performance.
Relationships between autonomy and responsibility items were only found in a small number of
countries using within-country models. The findings suggest that the use of standardized tests
negatively affects students’ science performance in Austria and Germany. The use of
standardized tests in United States was also negatively and significantly associated with science
performance in the model with TA measures (-31.18) as well as in the model with TA and TR
measures (-23.86). Furthermore, evidence was found to suggest that teacher-developed tests are
positively associated with science performance in New Zealand, United States and Norway. With
respect to teacher responsibility measures, the association of teachers being responsible for
assessment policies was found to be significant and negative in Austria, and significant and
positive in Finland and Norway. Textbooks used and course content coefficients were
abnormally high and significant in New Zealand, and significant and negative in Ireland. With
respect to responsibility over courses offered, the findings show that there was a significant and
negative association with science performance in Germany, and significant and positive in New
Zealand, while there was no significant association in any of the other countries, accounting for
school- and student-level covariates.
122
The analytical models were exploratory in nature, without any directional hypothesis with
regard to how teacher autonomy (TA) and responsibility (TR) measures would be associated
with science performance in didaktik versus curriculum countries. The findings do not reveal any
particular trend to suggest that TA and TR items are associated differently with science
performance in didaktik versus curriculum traditions, but they confirm that there is crossnational variation overall. Indeed, in the majority of countries representing both groups of
countries, the analytical models did not identify any association among TA and TR measures
with science performance. One plausible explanation for this finding, at least with regard to TR
measures, could be related to the fact TR items are only a small part of total proportion of
responsibility shared among numerous stakeholders affecting school policies and practices as
part of school autonomy. Teachers represent one group of stakeholders who are involved in
making decisions about such important school issues as assessment policies, textbooks to be
uses, course content and courses offered. The same justification might apply to teacher
autonomy. OECD itself emphasizes school autonomy as one of the features of educational
systems that produce better performance results, but only when there is collaboration between
school principals and teachers within the school (OECD, 2013). Therefore, teacher autonomy is
also part of the broader definition of school autonomy that includes both other players (e.g.
school principals) and other practices (e.g. autonomy in formulating school budget, allocating
resources, etc.). To that end, the development of new and better measures and methods that
capture TA and TR and that are distinguished from school autonomy measures would be
valuable in examining the relationship of these constructs with students’ performance.
The findings of second research question confirmed prior conclusions that when it comes
to variation in national student performance, the largest variation exists between students, then
123
less variation between schools, and least variation between countries (Baker & LeTendre, 2005).
In this study, this is shown by ICC values for within-country models. Indeed, for the sample of
countries included in this study, the cross-national variation in science performance as indicated
by an ICC value of 0.3 was dramatically low, meaning that between-country variation in science
performance was only 3%. Therefore, as noted already, the findings here provide further
evidence for the world culture of schooling, and the lack of single strong factors that explain
cross-national variation.
However, cross-national differences in how education systems are organized and run, or
how teachers are educated, for example, with respect to how much autonomy and responsibility
they enjoy, might have other effects on students non-cognitive skills that are not captured by
measurement of cognitive skills in student performance tests such as PISA. In didaktik nations,
the non-cognitive as well as cognitive skills are part of the contents of Bildung that aspire to
educate students not only for the workplace or higher education but also to contribute to
transformation of the workplace and advancement of themselves and whatever they are engaged
in during their life trajectory. Furthermore, the contents of Bildung enable students not only to
develop skills for certain professions, but also to gain significance and meaning about their place
in the world as they engage in and with professions and others (Pinar, 2011; Hopmann, 2007).
Implications
In this section, I first discuss the frameworks used for the study and how they could
potentially be consolidated into well-established educational theories. Then, I turn to
implications for educational policy, practice, and research, and end with conclusions.
124
Educational theory
Didaktik-curriculum frameworks served as guiding theories for the study. The extended
review of the two frameworks in Chapter 2 shows that Bildung-centered didaktik theory is wellestablished in Continental Europe and that curriculum field in English speaking world is
balkanized into several ideologies and furthermore dominated by theories of other disciplines,
namely philosophy, history, psychology and sociology, which consider education as a field to be
studied but not a field on its own (Biesta, 2011). However, as the review for this study revealed,
curriculum as theory has been in place since early-20th century, despite complexities that have
followed it and its fragmentation along several ideologies, most dominating of which was and is
social efficiency (Deng & Luke, 2008).
Many influential educators and curriculum scholars - most notably John Dewey and
Joseph Schwab during the 20th century – have theorized about education and curriculum as a
field and what its object of study might be. Dewey maintained that curriculum should focus on
learners, society, and specialized knowledge. Schwab put forth a curriculum framework of
common places that included subject matter, learners, milieu and teachers. Decades after
Dewey’s and Schwab’s contributions, the curriculum field is still evolving into an integrated
discipline that overcomes fragmentations along ideology lines. Both Dewey and Schwab
emphasized the subject matter, an element that is missing from the current curriculum discourse.
Subject matter, on the other hand, is central to the didaktik-influenced disciplines in Continental
Europe. Current curriculum scholarship and research needs to revive ideals like those promoted
by Dewey and Schwab, that advocate for tightly integrated curriculum approaches that overcome
ideological divides. This research study demonstrated that educational frameworks might help us
analyze and evaluate educational practices such as teacher autonomy and teacher responsibility.
125
Additionally, the research suggests that further development of curriculum theory and didaktik
theory in their own right or as integrated would enhance opportunities to better understand
educational practice and processes through educational frameworks.
In Chapter 2 educational theories were cross-examined with theories from sociology of
education. The initial review indicates that sociological theories of education capture very well
the global education trends and the role of education for society. Also sociological theories seem
to operate at a macro-level (i.e. societal) and educational theories seem to operate more at the
micro-level (i.e. schools and classrooms). This dichotomy is an area that requires further analysis
and revision to explore whether sociological and educational theories intersect at any point or
operate independent of one another. Of particular importance is the need for research on
curriculum/educational theory in English speaking nations, where sociological theories of
education seem to be taken to mean “the” educational theories in absence of an established
“educational” educational theory. For example, the sociological theories of education seem to
constitute the main theoretical base for the educational theory and policy graduate programs
across US universities.
However, based on the findings of this study as per the dataset, variables and analyses
employed, the continuum presented in Chapter 2 seems to be reversed in practice. Figure 13
shows the revised continuum that places curriculum closer to neo-institutional theory and
didaktik closer to functional theory and conflict theory. This practice-based positioning of
curriculum and didaktik theories across the continuum of sociological theories of education is the
reverse of the theoretically-based one in Figure 1 of Chapter 2.
126
Figure 13 Revised continuum of three sociological and two educational theories
Educational policy and practice
OECD through PISA survey results provides the best available educational data for
comparative research. Yet, it seems that educational researchers have had a love-hate
relationship with PISA. On the one hand, there are scholars who criticize OECD/PISA for
tending to promote neo-liberal ideas and operating as a “New Public Government”, and the other
hand are those who laud PISA for making available such comprehensive educational datasets
(Hopmann, Brinek, & Retzl, 2007, p. 9). Nevertheless, PISA has become an influential
instrument for benchmarking student performance worldwide. A recent study found that PISA
results have pushed many participating countries and economies to initiate policy reforms
(Breakspear, 2012). One example is Germany, which undertook major policy reforms after low
PISA 2000 results disturbed Germans - ‘PISA Shock’ - into action (OECD, 2011). One change
the Germans introduced was integrating PISA assessment items into national assessments. By
2009 Germany’s scores in PISA improved significantly (OECD, 2011).
Another area for further research is testing the hypothesis as to whether the rate of
improvement in student performance was higher in countries that participate in international
assessment programs such as PISA, TIMSS or PIRLS versus in the countries that have yet to
participate in any of these assessments. While this comparison could reveal the potential “PISA
effect” on national student performance across different years, it would be difficult to isolate
127
those effects and compare student performance cross-nationally if students did not take the same
test, or at least comparably demanding and challenging assessment items.
One major implication of this study with respect to understanding national student
performance pertains to the way external assessments are used within nations. The review of
assessment systems in participating countries revealed that didaktik countries use less
standardized tests. This finding was also confirmed empirically through the first research
question. The review also showed that even when standardized tests are used, they are usually
part of gateway to the next educational level. For example, Austria, Germany, and Finland use
national assessments at the end of middle school and at the end of high school, which do not
interfere with teachers professional autonomy as is the case with countries where standardized
tests are used every year, such as United States. Finland has been heralded as the exemplar for a
successful educational system during past decade. However, this study reveals that Finland’s
story is not only Finland’s story as other didaktik countries share key features of Finland’s
system. Most notable are the minimum use of standardized tests, and teacher recruitment and
education.
Policies pertaining to teacher recruitment is another area for additional research. The
review of teacher education and certification systems revealed that didaktik countries are more
selective in recruiting future teachers and training them to be autonomous professionals with
strong preparation in content matter. In Germany, for example, only students who have
completed high school exit exams, Abitur, are allowed to apply for a teaching degree. In Finland
future teachers are recruited from the top high school performers. With respect to teacher
education programs, didaktik nations, in line with didaktik theory, focus on discipline specific
preparation, while less emphasis is placed on the methods, which are considered of secondary
128
priority (Weniger, 2000). The empirical findings from this study suggest that teacher education
policies in didaktik countries translate into more teacher autonomy, but not as much
responsibility, on average, compared to curriculum countries. In that sense, curriculum countries
could further examine teacher education policies in didaktik countries to identify long-term
strategies that contribute to higher teacher autonomy, while didaktik countries could review how
teacher education policies in curriculum countries lead to higher teacher responsibility.
Higher teacher autonomy and responsibility might serve countries well in one key aspect
of their education systems – innovation in education. In a recent study, OECD (2014) measured
innovation in education covering a period from 2000 to 2011 in 28 countries and territories,
relying on data from international educational assessments such as TIMSS, PISA and PIRLS.
The findings suggested that education sector is fairly innovative when compared to other sectors,
as the rate of changes introduced in education is as high as in other sectors. In the case of higher
education, education is even more innovative than economy, which usually is perceived as most
innovative sector. Within primary and secondary education, the study found innovative
approaches in pedagogic practices through which teachers related lessons to higher order
thinking skills, personalized learning, and integration of data and text interpretation (OECD,
2014). In the overall innovation index, Denmark scored the highest (see Appendix M for ranking
of countries on overall innovation index and classroom and school practice innovation index).
One key finding of the study was that the rate of innovation at classroom level was higher than at
school level. Unquestionably, teachers have the potential to contribute most directly to classroom
innovation. With more emphasis on the need for innovation in every sector, and considering that
schooling is often called upon to solve societal problems and meet societal needs, we might
expect that the rate of innovation in education will be accelerated. A better trained and
129
professionally autonomous teaching force could contribute to increased innovation in education
systems.
The revision of PISA Assessment Framework for 2015 and onwards will potentially have
implications for science education across many countries around the world. Since 2006, PISA
scientific literacy was defined – as also shown in Table 4 of Chapter 2 – by the following three
competencies: (1) Identify scientific issues; (2) Explain phenomena scientifically; and (3) Use
scientific evidence. However the revised framework lists the following three competencies to
define scientific literacy: (1) Explain phenomena scientifically; (2) Evaluate and design scientific
enquiry; and (3) Interpret data and evidence scientifically (OECD, 2012). In PISA 2015
Framework, competence no. 2 from 2006 was retained as competence no. 1, while competences
no. 2 and 3 use different action verbs that belong to the higher level if considered from the
Bloom’s Taxonomy perspective.
Mastering these competences will require a different knowledge base. Osborne (In press)
notes that students will need to develop specific, preferably domain-specific scientific reasoning
that encapsulates content, procedural, and epistemic knowledge. Osborne argues that second
and third competence in particular require not only knowledge of science, but also an
understanding of how scientific knowledge is established and the degree of confidence with
which it is held. Procedural knowledge is about standards procedures and methods used to
establish scientific knowledge, while epistemic knowledge pertains to the rationale for the
common practices of scientific inquiry (Osborne, In press). In other words, if content knowledge
is about the ‘what’ question, procedural knowledge is about ‘how’ and epistemic knowledge
about ‘why’ questions. If and when individual countries adopt the same competences to be
mastered by their students in their K-16 education systems, it will have implications for
130
curriculum, instruction and assessment systems in place as well as for teacher education and
teacher professional development programs, which in turn will transform the teaching and
learning that takes place in school settings.
Educational research
The answers generated by the main research questions of the study shed light as to
whether theoretical claims about teacher autonomy and responsibility in didaktik and curriculum
traditions survive the empirical tests, and to what extent autonomy and responsibility measures
contribute to students’ science performance in PISA 2009. However, this research study raises
new questions concerning future research avenues, and how OECD through PISA might collect
specific teacher data. In turn, the new teacher data could provide opportunities for researchers to
get a richer understanding of teacher practices and characteristics among participating in
OECD/PISA endeavors.
Learning progression research in the US has gained momentum in efforts to achieve
curriculum, instruction and assessment alignment and coherence in science education. Learning
progressions (LPs) have been defined as research-based descriptions of how students construct
their knowledge, and gain more expertise within and across a discipline over a broad span of
time (Schweingruber, Duschl, & Shouse, 2007). The issues highlighted by the present study with
respect to importance placed on order, choice and sequence of content for use in school settings
as defined under didaktik theory (Hopmann, 2007) could complement efforts for developing
effective LPs in science education. Specifically, LPs should consider the importance placed on
the content matter and meaning attached to it for students’ present and future in didaktik theory
so that students understand why specific content is relevant for them. On the other hand, didaktik
nations seem to have already adopted some of the features of curriculum systems, such as
131
introduction of standardized assessments, which are adapted for domestic use and dominantly for
diagnostic purposes to track effectiveness of their educational programs.
A recurring theme in this study was variation. It set out to track variation across
traditions, than countries within those traditions, than schools within those countries, and finally
teaching practices within those schools. At the national level, it was intriguing to find examples
of countries that behave contrary to the expected norm. For example, Ireland and New Zealand
among curriculum nations were outliers in terms of non-use of standardized tests. Similarly,
Denmark and Norway among didaktik countries were outliers for the opposite reason – they use
standardized tests when expectation was they would not. From this perspective, one future
research directions that could be explored is getting deeper into analysis of these pairs of
countries in terms of either the types of standardized tests they use, or why they don’t use them.
Further, it would be insightful to compare Denmark or Norway to any of the curriculum
countries that use standardized tests heavily, such as the US or Australia. In turn, exploring how
specific standardized tests affect student achievement in a small number of nations would
provide valuable information on how countries could improve their assessment systems. Further,
examining how standardized tests affect teachers and their sense of professional autonomy
through a qualitative study is another intriguing research project.
Another potential and promising research area is to examine students’ opportunities to
learn (OTL) across curriculum and didaktik countries. OTLs indicate actual opportunities
students have to learn what they will be assessed on (Schmidt, Zoido, & Cogan, 2014). PISA
2012 collected data on some OTL items for the first time and further exploration of those items
and their relationship with teacher autonomy and responsibility as well as with student
performance could be valuable. These OTL items collect data, for example, on what
132
opportunities students have in their school experiences to learn through word problems if later on
word problems will be among assessed items. This line of research could provide further
understanding about the intersection of educational traditions and teacher education programs in
a country, teacher practices, OTL, and student performance.
Yet another research domain that arguably will become relevant in the near future has to
do with ways in which educational systems design educational interventions and policies with
goals to increase creativity and innovation potential of students and teachers. As noted above,
OECD has already collected data and developed innovation indices that indicate that contrary to
public perception, education as a public system is quite innovative. Also, the OECD (2014)
finding that educational systems have been more innovative at classroom change than school
change reinvigorates the need for more strategic teacher autonomy and paints a more optimistic
picture of the future of teaching and learning.
Reportedly, teachers are capable of innovating their classroom practices – more so in
some countries than others – and those capabilities need to be further utilized to enhance
students’ creativity and innovation. OECD has already shown interest in measuring innovation in
education across educational systems (OECD, 2014a) and in innovating assessments in education
(Looney, 2009), and possibly it might extend that interest to initiate programs and surveys that
measure students’ creativity and innovation skills, either through PISA or through a new separate
survey. Creativity and innovation are deemed important outcomes of education and some work
has been done to develop frameworks to assess creativity in schools (see for example Lucas,
Claxton, & Spencer, 2013), however the expertise the OECD has developed through PISA and
resources and network infrastructure it possesses to engage in major assessment activities could
133
be further utilized to start developing and administering a survey for assessing students’
creativity and innovation skills.
One way that educational systems can start integrating creativity and innovation
education in their curricula is to provide opportunities for both teachers and students to engage in
frequent small scale experiments and projects so that students learn about risk-taking, failure as a
knowledge-generation tool, and their creative and innovative potential (Tahirsylaj, 2012;
Matson, 1996; 1992). Considering how influential PISA survey has been in initiating educational
reforms cross-nationally, simply having a survey that measures creativity and innovation skills
might directly or indirectly push nations to integrate these skills into their educational programs.
Provision of such opportunities for students could potentially enhance their and their nations’
creativity and innovation output as well as educational achievement overall.
Another issue OECD might consider regarding PISA survey pertains to how school-level
and teacher data are collected. Currently, PISA school questionnaires are completed by school
principals or a designate. OECD already collects teacher data through Teaching and Learning
Survey (TALIS), administered in 2008 and 2013 (OECD, 2014b). However, far more countries
and economies participate in PISA survey than in TALIS survey – only 34 countries and
economies participated in TALIS 2013, while 65 participated in PISA 2012 and 71 are signed up
to participate in PISA 2015 – and thus, far more teacher data would be collected if OECD added
a teacher-specific questionnaire to PISA survey. Sample questions for such a survey could be
focused on how school or other local, regional or national policies affect teachers day-to-day
teaching practice; how they cope with externally-mandated requirements such as standardized
tests; how they overcome challenges they face in implementing curriculum requirements; what
challenges they face in enhancing students’ learning; what is their sense of autonomy and
134
responsibility; what opportunities do they have for professional development; and what
approaches they follow to enhance their sense of success in their profession.
Other research ideas researchers might tackle as per the findings of this study pertain to
teacher responsibility. The findings of this study show that, overall, there is a high proportion of
teachers who are responsible for crucial teaching and learning matters. On the other hand, only a
few of responsibility measures were found to be significantly associated to student’s science
performance. One way to explore this issue could be to view responsibility from a broader
perspective, by examining the proportion of responsibility of other educational stakeholders,
such as school principles and other local or national authorities, who are responsible for making
decisions relevant to important issues such as assessment policies, textbooks to be used, course
content and courses offered. Further, exploring the interactions of these stakeholders and how
responsibility for decision-making is shared could provide further valuable insights as to how
teachers are positioned in prevailing complex hierarchical decision-making structures within
national educational systems.
Finally, applying some of the more recent quasi-experimental quantitative research
methods such as propensity score matching (PSM) or regression discontinuity (RD) and using
other datasets in addition to PISA, such as TIMMS or TALIS, wherever applicable, would
provide more precise estimates of teacher-specific effects on student performance. PSM in
particular could be more applicable when using current international education datasets such as
PISA and TIMSS since PSM in combination with multi-level modeling might isolate teacher
autonomy (TA) causal effects if schools with high TA versus schools with low TA within a
country are balanced based on a number of school-level characteristics that are considered as
135
pretreatment covariates (Hong & Raudenbush, 2005). Such models would yield average causal
effect of schools with high TA on students’ performance.
Delimitations and Limitations
The findings of this study may be generalized to specific countries that were examined
more thoroughly here as well as to schools within them. In particular, the study provides a set of
policy recommendations that may apply at different levels of decision-making, such as national
governments, regional and district level educational authorities, school governing boards and
teacher education and teacher training institutions. However, there were a number of limitations
to the study. First, the data to be used is cross-sectional and no causality is meant with the
findings. Also, this is a secondary-data analysis, so it was not possible to control what data is
collected. The items used were derived from variables available on the PISA 2009 dataset, which
served as proxies to the constructs that the study examined. Variables that were selected
attempted to narrow down teacher-specific items only. The analytical models employed were
specifically focused on relationships of teacher autonomy and responsibility measures with
student science performance, controlling for two student-specific variables, and the list of
variables used for predicting science achievement is selective and in no way exhaustive.
Conclusions
The twelve participating countries in this study represent some of the most developed
nations in the world. Australia, Canada, United Kingdom, Ireland, New Zealand and United
States constituted the curriculum sample, and Austria, Germany, Denmark, Finland, Norway and
Sweden constituted didaktik sample. Clearly, these nations are doing a lot of things right in their
education systems, otherwise they would not have been esteemed as some of the most powerful
136
economies in the world. They do quite well in PISA rankings too – the majority of them
consistently score at or above the OECD average in PISA science, mathematics and reading
surveys. No need to declare a state of emergency!
At the same time, these countries are at the forefront of technological developments and
otherwise, pushing boundaries of the possible further. They are clearly committed to education.
As shown through the funding mechanisms’ review, they allocate considerable portions of their
high GDPs to education sector. Their very participation in PISA indicates that they want to find
out both how their students are performing within country, and how they compare to other
nations. They already share a sense of urgency to improve, to help their students perform higher
on national as well as international assessments.
To this end, this comparative study serves as an opportunity for these countries to find
out to what extent their teachers enjoy autonomy and responsibility, and how they compare to
other advanced nations. Furthermore, it showed to what extent these two constructs matter when
it comes to student performance. In line with aspirations to improve, therefore, the study presents
an opportunity for these countries to understand their national positioning and learn from other
systems.
Cross-national educational research and subsequent exchanges in education policy have
been around since 1950s, when some of these twelve countries were major players in such initial
undertakings. Indeed, the first international comparative education organization emerged after a
visit of Torsten Husen from the University of Stockholm at the University of Chicago in the mid1950s, where among others he met with the famous Benjamin Bloom “ […] whose view was that
the whole world should be seen as a single educational laboratory. From this meeting emerged
137
the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), which, for
diplomatic reasons was managed from Sweden” (Baker, Lee, & Heyneman, 2003, p. 332). We
are witnesses of how far the world has come to become the educational laboratory that Bloom
envisioned!
However, as the review of American battle over curriculum showed in Chapter 2, the
exchange of educational ideas, at least between United States and Germany, had occurred
intensively more than a century ago. Reminiscent of that period, one of the current most vocal
curriculum theorists reconfirmed it and wrote, “One hundred years ago, Americans traveled to
Germany […] to study concepts of education. It seems to me it is time again to selectively
incorporate German concepts in North American practices of education” (Pinar, 2011, p. xiv).
Pinar primarily refers to elements of Bildung as German concepts that should be incorporated
into American education.
This is not to suggest that Germany should be the go-to destination to import education
policies or concepts from. I bring this point up to evoke Joseph Schwab’s idea of “the eclectic
curriculum” that picks and chooses what works best. In the same vein, the countries in this study,
as well as any other country that participates in international assessments in particular, have the
advantage of benchmarking themselves against the best performing nations in the world, and can
eclectically pick and choose foreign policies and what to incorporate in their educational
systems. To this end, this study offers a contribution on better understanding didaktik and
curriculum traditions in their own right, and it enables countries to pick and choose what they
might consider best of these two educational “superdiscourses”. In particular, this study offers an
opportunity to countries to consider specific constructs of autonomy and responsibility, and
depending on the country or when desirable, to adopt ways to advance them.
138
Arguably, teachers enjoy autonomy by default! When they close classroom doors and
lessons start, they are in charge and responsible for everything that happens inside classrooms.
The challenge and opportunity for national systems is to equip teachers with, what for the sake of
argument I will refer to as, “strategic and transparent autonomy and responsibility”. What I mean
here entails the idea that teachers’ autonomy and responsibility should be guaranteed and at the
same time overt to educational stakeholders and general public. This almost generates a
paradoxical, yet crucially necessary, scenario where teachers have to exercise their guaranteed
autonomy and responsibility, always making transparent to the public the ways in which they use
such autonomy and responsibility. In turn, this scenario could inadequately be viewed as too
much public oversight, but in fact it should be a tacit contract between teachers and the public,
where public means both the general public and educational-specific authorities.
Returning to the idea of “the eclectic” and based on the findings of this study as well as
on understanding of educational systems examined here, it seems that Nordic countries –
Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden – have been eclectic with respect to educational models
for quite some time, more so since they engaged in system-wide reforms during 1980s. Being
close to Continental Europe, they had already adopted didaktik theory as guiding philosophy and
framework to organize their educational systems and especially to educate their teachers. But
that didn’t stop them from being open to educational developments in Anglo-American world,
from where they seem to have adopted and adapted new modes of system-wide assessments,
local control, and to a lesser degree comprehensive compulsory schooling. For one Nordic
country, to improve the education system means “[…] improving the teaching force, limiting
student testing to a necessary minimum, placing responsibility and trust before accountability,
and handing over school- and district-level leadership to educational professionals” (Sahlberg,
139
2010, p. 5). The country the quote refers to is Finland, but to some extent, the other three Nordic
countries seem to have followed the same agenda. The eclectic education model has been tried
and considering Nordic countries’ educational performance and overall welfare of their citizens,
it has also delivered. The message for English and German speaking nations in the study is to
book trips to Scandinavia and bring back their initially-home-grown-now-transformed
educational policies and practices.
140
References
Acock, A. C. (2008). A gentle introduction to Stata. Stata press.
Adler, M. J. (1951). Labor, leisure, and liberal education. The Journal of General Education,
6(1), 35–45.
Alexander, R. J. (2012). Moral Panic, Miracle Cures and Educational Policy: what can we really
learn from international comparison? Scottish Educational Review, 4–21.
Anderson, L. W. (1987). The decline of teacher autonomy: Tears or cheers? International
Review of Education, 33(3), 357–373.
Apple, M. W. (2004). Ideology and Curriculum (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge Falmer.
Australian Government (2014). Australian education system. Retrieved from:
http://www.studyinaustralia.gov.au/global/australian-education/education-system
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (2014). Australian Professional
Standards for Teachers. Retrieved from: http://www.aitsl.edu.au/australian-professionalstandards-for-teachers
Autio, T. (2013). Subjectivity, curriculum, and society: Between and beyond the German
Didaktik and Anglo-American curriculum studies. Routledge.
Baker, D. P., Goesling, B., & LeTendre, G. K. (2002). Socioeconomic Status, School Quality,
141
and National Economic Development: A Cross-National Analysis of the “HeynemanLoxley Effect” on Mathematics and Science Achievement. Comparative Education
Review, 46(3), 291–312.
Baker, D. P., Lee, J., & Heyneman, S. P. (2003). Should America be more like them?
Cross-national high school achievement and US policy. Brookings Papers on Education
Policy, 309-338.
Baker, D.P., & LeTendre, G.K. (2005). National differences, global similarities: World culture
and the future of schooling. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Baker, D.P. (2009). The schooled society and beyond: the modernizing role of formal education
as an institution. Retrieved from http://www.beyondcurrenthorizons.org.uk/wpcontent/uploads/ch3_final_baker_modernizingroleformaleducation_20081218-new.pdf
Baker, D.P. (2011). Forward and backward, horizontal and vertical: Transformation of
occupational credentialing in the schooled society. Research in Social Stratification and
Mobility, 29(1), 5–29.
Baker, D.P. (2014). The Schooled Society: The Educational Transformation of Culture.
Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (C. Emerson & M.
Holquist, Transl.). Austin: University of Texas Press.
Ballantine, J. H., & Spade, J. Z. (2007). Understanding Education Through Sociological Theory.
142
Schools and Society: A Sociological Approach to Education, 5.
Baumert, J., Bos, W., Lehmann, R. (Eds.) (2000): Dritte Internationale Mathematik- und
Naturwissenschaftsstudie: Mathematische und naturwissenschaftliche Bildung am Ende
der Schullaufbahn. Bd. 1: Mathematisch-naturwissenschaftliche Grundbildung am Ende
der Pflichtschulzeit. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.
Becker, G. S. (1962). Investment in human capital: a theoretical analysis. The Journal of
Political Economy, 9–49.
Biesta, G. (2011). Disciplines and theory in the academic study of education: A comparative
analysis of the Anglo-American and Continental construction of the field. Pedagogy,
Culture & Society, 19(2), 175–192.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2006). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom
assessment. Granada Learning.
Bobbitt, F. (1918). Scientific method in curriculum-making. The curriculum studies reader, 2.
Boli, J., Ramirez, F. O., & Meyer, J. W. (1985). Explaining the origins and expansion of mass
education. Comparative Education Review, 29(2), 145–170.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). 29. Cultural Reproduction and Social Reproduction. Power and ideology in
education, 485.
Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America: Educational reform and the
143
contradictions of American life. New York: Basic Books.
Breakspear, S. (2012). “The Policy Impact of PISA: An Exploration of the Normative
Effects of International Benchmarking in School System Performance”, OECD
Education Working Papers, No. 71, OECD Publishing.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k9fdfqffr28-en
Bruner, J. S. (2009). The process of education. Harvard University Press.
Byun, S., & Kim, K. (2010). Educational inequality in South Korea: The widening
socioeconomic gap in student achievement. Research in the Sociology of Education, 17,
155–182.
Carney, S., Rappleye, Jeremy, & Silova, I. (2012). Between Faith and Science: World Culture
Theory and Comparative Education. Comparative Education Review, 56(3), 366–393.
doi:10.1086/665708
Carnegie Corporation of New York, & Institute for Advanced Study. (2009). The
Opportunity Equation: Transforming Mathematics and Science Education for
Citizenship and the Global Economy. Retrieved from:
http://opportunityequation.org/uploads/files/oe_report.pdf.
Cohen, D. K., Raudenbush, S. W., & Ball, D. L. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 119–142.
144
Coleman, J.S., Campbell, E.Q., Hobson, C.J., McPartland, J.,Mood, A.M.,Weinfeld, F.D.,
York, R.L. (1966). Equality of Educational Opportunity. U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, DC.
Collins, R. (1971). Functional and conflict theories of educational stratification. American
Sociological Review, 1002–1019.
Collins, R. (1979). The Credentialist Society. New York: Academic.
Connelly, M.F., Xu, S. (2008). The Landscape of curriculum and instruction: Diversity
and Continuity. In F. M. Connelly, M. F. He & J. Phillion (Eds.), The Sage handbook of
curriculum and instruction (pp. 514-533). Sage.
Corcoran, T.B. (1995). Transforming professional development for teachers. A guide for
state policymakers. Washington, DC: National Governors Association.
Council of Ministers of Education Canada (n.d.). The Pan-Canadian Assessment
Program (PCAP). Retrieved from: http://www.cmec.ca/240/
Counts, G. (1932). Dare the School Build a New Social Order. New York: John Day Co, 9–10.
DeBoer, G. E. (2011). The globalization of science education. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 48(6), 567 – 591.
Del Schalock, H. (1998). Student progress in learning: Teacher responsibility, accountability,
and reality. Journal of personnel Evaluation in Education, 12(3), 237-246.
145
Deng, Z., & Luke, A. (2008). Subject Matter: Defining and Theorizing School Subjects.
In F. M. Connelly, M. F. He & J. Phillion (Eds.), The Sage handbook of curriculum and
instruction (pp. 66-87). Sage.
Depaepe, M. (2002). A Comparative History of Educational Sciences: the comparability
of the incomparable?. European Educational Research Journal, 1(1), 118-122.
Dewey, J., & Dewey, E. (1915). Schools of to-morrow. EP Dutton & Company.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education.
The Macmillan Company.
Dreeben, R. (1968). On what is learned in school. Addison-Wesley Reading, MA. Retrieved
from http://en.scientificcommons.org/6882154
Durkheim, E. (1956). Education and sociology. Simon and Schuster.
Durkheim, E. (2002). Moral education. Dover Publications.
Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic,
and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 268–291.
Duschl, R., Maeng, S., & Sezen, A. (2011). Learning progressions and teaching sequences: A
review and analysis. Studies in Science Education, 47(2), 123-182.
Ellis, A. K. (2004). Exemplars of curriculum theory. Routledge.
Eisner, E. W., & Vallance, E. (1974). Conflicting concepts of curriculum. Berkeley: McCutchan.
146
Eurydice (2015a). Austria: Organisation of the education system and of its structure. Retrieved
from:
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php?title=Austria:Organisation
_of_the_Education_System_and_of_its_Structure&oldid=104129
Eurydice (2015b). Austria: Teachers and education staff. Retrieved from:
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Austria:Teachers_and_Edu
cation_Staff
Eurydice (2015c). Austria: Organisation and governance. Retrieved from:
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Austria:Organisation_and_
Governance
Eurydice (2015d). Austria: Funding in education. Retrieved from:
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Austria:Funding_in_Educa
tion
Eurydice (2015e). Germany: Organisation and governance. Retrieved from:
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Germany:Organisation_an
d_Governance
Eurydice (2015f). Germany: Teachers and education staff. Retrieved from:
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Germany:Teachers_and_E
ducation_Staff
147
Eurydice (2015g). Germany: Continuing professional development for teachers working
in early childhood and school education. Retrieved from:
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Germany:Continuing_Prof
essional_Development_for_Teachers_Working_in_Early_Childhood_and_School_Educa
tion
Eurydice (2015h). Germany: Funding in education. Retrieved from:
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Germany:Funding_in_Edu
cation
Eurydice (2015i). Denmark: Organisation and governance. Retrieved from:
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Denmark:Organisation_an
d_Governance
Eurydice (2015j). Denmark: Teachers and education staff. Retrieved from:
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Denmark:Teachers_and_E
ducation_Staff
Eurydice (2015k). Denmark: Continuing professional development for teachers working in early
childhood education and school education. Retrieved from:
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Denmark:Continuing_Prof
essional_Development_for_Teachers_Working_in_Early_Childhood_and_School_Educa
tion
Eurydice (2015l). Denmark: Quality assurance in early childhood and school education.
148
Retrieved from:
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Denmark:Quality_Assuran
ce_in_Early_Childhood_and_School_Education
Eurydice (2015m). Denmark: Funding in education. Retrieved from:
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Denmark:Funding_in_Edu
cation
Eurydice (2015n). Finland: Organisation and governance. Retrieved from:
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Finland:Organisation_and_
Governance
Eurydice (2015o). Finland: Teachers and education staff. Retrieved from:
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Finland:Teachers_and_Edu
cation_Staff
Eurydice (2015p). Finland: Continuing professional development for teachers working in
early childhood and school education. Retrieved from:
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Finland:Continuing_Profes
sional_Development_for_Teachers_Working_in_Early_Childhood_and_School_Educati
on
Eurydice (2015q). Finland: Early childhood and school education funding. Retrieved
149
from:
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Finland:Early_Childhood_
and_School_Education_Funding
Eurydice (2015r). Finland: Quality assurance in early childhood and school education.
Retrieved from:
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Finland:Quality_Assurance
_in_Early_Childhood_and_School_Education
Eurydice (2015s). Norway: Organisation and governance. Retrieved from:
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Norway:Organisation_and
_Governance
Eurydice (2015t). Norway: Teachers and education staff. Retrieved from:
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Norway:Teachers_and_Ed
ucation_Staff
Eurydice (2015u). Norway: Continuing professional development for teachers working in early
childhood and school education. Retrieved from:
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Norway:Continuing_Profe
ssional_Development_for_Teachers_Working_in_Early_Childhood_and_School_Educati
on
Eurydice (2015v). Norway: Quality assurance in early childhood and school education.
150
Retrieved from:
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Norway:Quality_Assuranc
e_in_Early_Childhood_and_School_Education
Eurydice (2015x). Norway: Early childhood and school education funding. Retrieved from:
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Norway:Early_Childhood_
and_School_Education_Funding
Eurydice (2015y). Sweden: Organisation and governance. Retrieved from:
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Sweden:Organisation_and
_Governance
Eurydice (2015z). Sweden: Teachers and education staff. Retrieved from:
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Sweden:Teachers_and_Ed
ucation_Staff
Eurydice (2015aa). Sweden: Continuing professional development for teachers working in early
childhood and school education. Retrieved from:
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Sweden:Continuing_Profes
sional_Development_for_Teachers_Working_in_Early_Childhood_and_School_Educati
on
Eurydice (2015ab). Sweden: Quality assurance in early childhood and school education.
151
Retrieved from:
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Sweden:Quality_Assuranc
e_in_Early_Childhood_and_School_Education
Eurydice (2015ac). Sweden: Early childhood and school education funding. Retrieved from:
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Sweden:Early_Childhood_
and_School_Education_Funding
Eurydice (2015ad). United Kingdom (England): Organisation and governance. Retrieved from:
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Sweden:Organisation_and
_Governance
Eurydice (2015ae). United Kingdom (England): Teachers and education staff. Retrieved from:
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/United-KingdomEngland:Teachers_and_Education_Staff
Eurydice (2015af). United Kingdom (Scotland): Organisation and governance. Retrieved from:
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/United-KingdomScotland:Organisation_and_Governance
Eurydice (2015ag). United Kingdom (Scotland): Teachers and education staff.
Retrieved from: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/UnitedKingdom-Scotland:Teachers_and_Education_Staff
Eurydice (2015ah). United Kingdom (Scotland): Quality assurance. Retrieved from:
152
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/United-KingdomScotland:Quality_Assurance
Eurydice (2015ai). United Kingdom (England): Quality assurance. Retrieved from:
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/United-KingdomEngland:Quality_Assurance
Eurydice (2015aj). Ireland: Organization of the education system and its structure.
Retrieved from:
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Ireland:Organisation_of_th
e_Education_System_and_of_its_Structure
Eurydice (2015ak). Ireland: Teachers and education stuff. Retrieved from:
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Ireland:Teachers_and_Edu
cation_Staff
Eurydice (2015al). Ireland: Funding in education. Retrieved from:
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Ireland:Funding_in_Educat
ion
Gundem, B. B., & Hopmann, S. (1998). Didaktik and/or curriculum. New York: Peter
Lang.
Hanushek, E. (1971). Teacher Characteristics and Gains in Student Achievement: Estimation
Using Micro Data. The American Economic Review, 61(2), 280 – 288.
153
Hanushek, E. A. (1986). The economics of schooling: Production and efficiency in public
schools. Journal of Economic Literature, 1141–1177.
Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., & Rivkin, S. G. (2004). Why public schools lose teachers. Journal
of Human Resources, 39(2), 326–354.
Hanushek, E. A., & Raymond, M. E. (2005). Does school accountability lead to improved
student performance? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24(2), 297–327.
Hanushek, E. A. (2006). Does Educational Tracking Affect Performance and Inequality?
Differences-in-Differences Evidence Across Countries. The Economic Journal, 116(510),
C63–C76.
Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2006). Chapter 18 Teacher Quality. In E. H. and F. Welch
(Ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Education (Vol. 2, pp. 1051–1078). Elsevier.
Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1574069206020186
Hanushek, E. A., & Woessmann, L. (2010). The economics of international differences in
educational achievement. National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from
http://www.nber.org/papers/w15949
Helgøy, I., & Homme, A. (2007). Towards a new professionalism in school? A comparative
study of teacher autonomy in Norway and Sweden. European Educational Research
Journal, 6(3), 232–249.
154
Hirst, P.H. (1966). Educational theory. In J.W. Tibble (Ed.), The study of education (pp.
29–58). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Hlebowitsh, P. S., & Wraga, W. G. (1995). Social class analysis in the early progressive
tradition. Curriculum Inquiry, 7–21.
Hong, G., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2005). Effects of kindergarten retention policy on children’s
cognitive growth in reading and mathematics. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 27(3), 205-224.
Hopmann, S., & Riquarts, K. (1995). Didaktik and/or Curriculum (Vol. 147). Institut für die
Pädagogik der Naturwissenschaften Kiel, Germany.
Hopmann, S. (2007). Restrained teaching: The common core of Didaktik. European Educational
Research Journal, 6(2), 109-124.
Hopmann, S. T., Brinek, G., & Retzl, M. (2007). Pisa zufolge Pisa–Pisa According to
Pisa. Wien: Lit-Verlag.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture,
leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 cultures. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Hudson, B. (2003). Approaching educational research from the tradition of critical-constructive
Didaktik. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 11(2), 173–187.
Hudson, B., & Meyer, M.A. (Eds.). (2011). Beyond fragmentation. Didactics, learning
155
and teaching in Europe. Opladen: Barbara Budrich Publishers.
Humboldt, v. W. (1793/2000). Theory of Bildung. In I. Westbury, S. Hopmann, &
K. Riquarts (Eds.), Teaching as a Reflective Practice: The German Didaktik Tradition
(pp. 57-61). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kansanen, P. (1999). The Deutsche Didaktik and the American Research on Teaching. In
B. Hudson, F. Buchberger, P. Kansanen & H. Seel (Eds.), Didaktik/Fachdidaktik as
Science(-s) of the Teaching Profession? (pp. 21–36). Umeå, Sweden: Thematic Network
of Teacher Education in Europe.
Kansanen, P. (2002). Didactics and its relation to educational psychology: Problems in
translating a key concept across research communities. International review of education,
48(6), 427-441.
Katz, M. B. (1987). Reconstructing American Education. Harvard University Press: Cambridge,
MA.
Kilpatrick, W. (1918). The project method. The Teachers College Record, 19(4), 319–335.
Kind, P. M. (2013). Conceptualizing the Science Curriculum: 40 Years of Developing
Assessment Frameworks in Three Large-Scale Assessments. Science Education, 97(5),
671–694.
Klafki, W. (1998). Characteristics of critical-constructive didaktik. In B. Gundem &
S. Hopmann (Eds.), Didaktik and/or Curriculum (pp. 29-46). New York: Peter Lang.
156
Klafki, W. (2000a). The significance of classical theories of bildung for a contemporary
concept of allgemeinbildung. In I. Westbury, S. Hopmann & K. Riquarts (Eds.),
Teaching as a Reflective Practice: The German Didaktik Tradition (pp. 85-107).
Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Klafki, W. (2000b). Didaktik analysis as the core preparation of instruction. In I.
Westbury, S. Hopmann & K. Riquarts (Eds.), Teaching as a Reflective Practice: The
German Didaktik Tradition (pp. 139-159). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Klette, K. (2007). Trends in Research on Teaching and Learning in Schools: didactics meets
classroom studies. European Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 147–160.
Kliebard, H. M. (1970). The Tyler rationale. The School Review, 259–272.
Kliebard, H. M. (2004). The struggle for the American curriculum, 1893-1958. Routledge.
Künzli, R. (1998). The common frame and places of Didaktik. In B. Gundem &
S. Hopmann (Eds.), Didaktik and/or Curriculum (pp. 29-46). New York: Peter Lang.
Lagemann, E.C. (1989). The plural worlds of educational research. History of Education
Quarterly, 29(2), 185-214.
Lareau, A. (1989). Home advantage: Social class and parental involvement in elementary
education. London: Falmer.
157
Labaree, D. F. (2005). Progressivism, schools and schools of education: An American romance.
Paedagogica Historica, 41(1-2), 275–288.
Little, D. (1995). Learning as dialogue: The dependence of learner autonomy on teacher
autonomy. System, 23(2), 175–181.
Looney, J. W. (2009), “Assessment and Innovation in Education”, OECD Education
Working Papers, No. 24, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/222814543073
Lucas, B., G. Claxton and E. Spencer (2013), “Progression in Student Creativity in
School: First Steps Towards New Forms of Formative Assessments”, OECD Education
Working Papers, No. 86, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k4dp59msdwk-en
Luke, A. (2004). Teaching after the market: From commodity to cosmopolitan. The Teachers
College Record, 106(7), 1422–1443.
Lüth, C. (1998). On Wilhelm von Humboldt’s Theory of Bildung. Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 30(1), 43–59.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1971). Capital: 3 Vol. Progress.
Matson, J. V. (1992). The art of innovation: Using intelligent fast failure. Pennsylvania
State University Press.
Matson, J. V. (1996). Innovate or die: A personal perspective on the art of innovation.
Paradigm Press.
158
Meghir, C., & Rivkin, S. (2011). Chapter 1 - Econometric Methods for Research in Education. In
S. M. and L. W. Eric A. Hanushek (Ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Education (Vol.
3, pp. 1–87). Elsevier. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780444534293000016
Meyer, J. W., Boli, J., Thomas, G. M., & Ramirez, F. O. (1997). World society and the nationstate. American Journal of Sociology, 103(1), 144–181.
Meyer, J. W., Ramirez, F. O., Rubinson, R., & Boli-Bennett, J. (1977). The world educational
revolution, 1950-1970. Sociology of Education, 242–258.
Meyer, J. W., Ramirez, F. O., & Soysal, Y. N. (1992). World expansion of mass education,
1870-1980. Sociology of Education, 128–149.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and
ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 340–363.
McKnight, P. E., McKnight, K. M., Sidani, S., & Figueredo, A. J. (2007). Missing data:
A gentle introduction. Guilford Press.
Morrow, R. A., & Torres, C. A. (1995). Social theory and education: A critique of theories of
social and cultural reproduction. SUNY Press.
National Center on Education and the Economy (2014a). Teacher and principal quality:
159
Australia. Retrieved from: http://www.ncee.org/programs-affiliates/center-oninternational-education-benchmarking/top-performing-countries/australiaoverview/australia-teacher-and-principal-quality/
National Center on Education and the Economy (2014b). Teacher and principal quality:
Canada. Retrieved from: http://www.ncee.org/programs-affiliates/center-oninternational-education-benchmarking/top-performing-countries/canadaoverview/canada-teacher-and-principal-quality/
National Center on Education and the Economy (2014c). Teacher and principal quality: New
Zealand. Retrieved from: http://www.ncee.org/programs-affiliates/center-oninternational-education-benchmarking/top-performing-countries/new-zealandoverview/3866-2/
National Research Council (NRC). (2003). Understanding Others, Educating Ourselves:
Getting More from International Comparative Studies in Education. Committee on a
Framework and Long-term Research Agenda for International Comparative Education
Studies. C. Chabbott and E. J. Elliott, editors. Board on International Comparative
Studies in Education, Board on Testing and Assessment, Center for Education, Division
of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press.
New Zealand Ministry of Education (2014). Parents and whanau. Retrieved from:
http://www.minedu.govt.nz/Parents.aspx
160
New Zealand Teachers Council (2014). Studying to be a teacher. Retrieved from:
http://www.teacherscouncil.govt.nz/content/studying-be-teacher
Nye, B., Konstantopoulos, S., & Hedges, L. V. (2004). How large are teacher effects?
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(3), 237-257.
Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequalities. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
OECD. (1999). Measuring student knowledge and skills. A new framework for
assessment. Paris: Author.
OECD. (2003a). Definition and selection of competencies: Theoretical and conceptual
foundations (DeSeCo), summary of the final report “Key competencies for a successful
life and a well-functioning society. Paris: Author.
OECD. (2003b). The PISA 2003 assessment framework—Mathematics, reading, science
and problem solving knowledge and skills. Paris: Author.
OECD. (2006). Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy: A framework for
PISA 2006. Paris: Author.
OECD. (2009). PISA 2009 Assessment Framework: Key competencies in reading,
mathematics and science. Paris: Author.
OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 Results: What Students Know and Can Do – Student
161
Performance in Reading, Mathematics and Science (Volume I). Available at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264091450-en
OECD. (2011). Lessons from PISA for the United States, Strong Performers and
Successful Reformers in Education. OECD Publishing.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264096660-en
OECD. (2012). The PISA 2015 Assessment Framework: Key competencies in reading,
mathematics and science.
http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/pisa2015draftframeworks.htm
OECD. (2013). Lessons from PISA 2012 for the United States, Strong Performers and
Successful Reformers in Education, OECD Publishing.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264207585-en
OECD. (2014a). Measuring Innovation in Education: A New Perspective. OECD
Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264215696-en
OECD. (2014b). TALIS 2013 results: An international perspective on teaching and learning.
TALIS, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/97899264196261-en
Osborne, J. (In Press). Defining a knowledge base for reasoning in science: The role of
procedural and epistemic knowledge. In R. A. Duschl & A. S. Bismack (Eds),
Reconceptualizing STEM Education: The central role of practices. New York:
Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
162
Parsons, T. (1959). General theory in sociology. Basic Books.
Pearson, L. C., & Moomaw, W. (2005). The Relationship between Teacher Autonomy and
Stress, Work Satisfaction, Empowerment, and Professionalism. Educational research
quarterly, 29(1), 38-54.
Pinar, W. (1995). Understanding curriculum: An introduction to the study of historical and
contemporary curriculum discourses (Vol. 17). Peter Lang Pub Inc.
Pinar, W., Reynolds, W., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. (1995). Understanding curriculum:
An Introduction to the study of historical and contemporary curriculum discourses. New
York, NY: Peter Lang.
Pinar, W. (2004). What is curriculum theory? Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates Inc.
Pinar, W. F. (2011). The character of curriculum studies: Bildung, currere, and the recurring
question of the subject. Palgrave Macmillan.
Pinar, W. F. (2012). What is curriculum theory?. Routledge.
Rabe-Hesketh, S., & Skrondal, A. (2008). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using
Stata. STATA press.
Raudenbush, S. W. (2008). Advancing educational policy by advancing research on instruction.
American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 206–230.
163
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data
analysis methods (Vol. 1). Sage Publications, Inc.
Ravitch, D. (2000). Left back: A century of failed school reforms. Simon and Schuster.
Reid, W. A. (1997). Principle and pragmatism in English curriculum making 1868-1918. Journal
of curriculum studies, 29(6), 667–682.
Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic
achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417–458.
Sahlberg, P. (2010). Finnish Lessons: What Can the World Learn from Educational Change in
Finland?. New York: Teachers College Press.
Schiro, M. (2008). Curriculum theory: Conflicting visions and enduring concerns. Sage
Publications, Inc.
Schiro, M. S. (2nd ed.) (2013). Curriculum theory: Conflicting visions and enduring
concerns. Sage.
Schmidt, W. H., Zoido, P., & Cogan, L. (2014). Schooling matters: Opportunity to learn
in PISA 2012. OECD.
Schubert, W. H. (1986). Curriculum: Perspective, paradigm, and possibility. Macmillan Pub.
Co.
Schubert, W. H. (1996). Perspectives on Four Curriculum Traditions. Educational Horizons,
164
74(4), 169–76.
Schultz, T. W. (1961). Investment in human capital. The American Economic Review, 1–17.
Schütz, G., Ursprung, H. W., & Wößmann, L. (2008). Education policy and equality of
opportunity. Kyklos, 61(2), 279–308.
Schwab, J. J. (1969). The practical: A language for curriculum. The School Review, 1–23.
Schwab, J. J. (1973). The practical 3: Translation into curriculum. The School Review, 501–522.
Schweingruber, H. A., Duschl, R. A., & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.). (2007). Taking Science to School:
Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8. National Academies Press.
Schwenk, B. (1996). Bildung. In D. Lenzen (Hg.), Pädagogische Grundbegriffe. Band 1
(pp. 208-221). Hamburg: Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag.
Seel, H. (1999). “Allgemeine Didaktik” (“General Didactics”) and “Fachdidaktik”
(“Subject Didactics”). In B. Hudson, F. Buchberger, P. Kansanen & H. Seel (Eds.),
Didaktik/Fachdidaktik as Science(-s) of the Teaching Profession? (pp. 13–20). Umeå,
Sweden: Thematic Network of Teacher Education in Europe.
Siljander, P., & Sutinen (2012). Introduction. In P. Siljander, A. Kivelä & A. Sutinen
(Eds.), Theories of Bildung and growth: Connections and controversies between
continental educational thinking and American pragmatism (pp. 1-18). Springer.
Smith, R. C. (2001). Teacher education for teacher-learner autonomy. Language in Language
165
Teacher Education. Retrieved from
http://homepages.warwick.ac.uk/~elsdr/Teacher_autonomy.pdf
Statistics Canada (2010). Structure of education and training in Canada. Retrieved from:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81-582-g/2010001/app-ann/app-ann1-eng.htm
Stronge, J. H. (2007). Qualities of effective teachers. ASCD.
Tucker, M. S. (2011). Surpassing Shanghai: An agenda for American education built on
the world's leading systems. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Tahirsylaj, A. S. (2012). Stimulating creativity and innovation through Intelligent Fast
Failure. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7(3), 265-270.
Tahirsylaj, A., Brezicha, K., & Ikoma, S. (forthcoming). Unpacking teacher differences
in Didaktik and Curriculum Traditions: Trends from TIMSS 2003, 2007, and 2011. In G.
LeTendre & A. Wiseman (Eds.), Promoting and Sustaining a Quality Teaching
Workforce. UK: Emerald Group Publishing.
Tertiary Education Commission (2009). Types of tertiary education. Retrieved from:
http://www.tec.govt.nz/Tertiary-Sector/Types-of-Tertiary-Education/
Tibble, J.W. (1966) Introduction. In J.W. Tibble (Ed.), The study of education (pp. vii-x).
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Tort-Moloney, D. (1997). Teacher Autonomy: A Vygotskian Theoretical Framework. CLCS
166
Occasional Paper No. 48. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED412741
Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Uljens, M. (1997). School didactics and learning. A School Didactic Model Framing an Analysis
of Pedagogical Implications of Learning Theory. Retrieved from
http://samples.sainsburysebooks.co.uk/9781135481209_sample_525212.pdf
Uljens, M. (2009). Critical School Didaktik–A theory and its features. Abo Akademi University.
Retrieved from http://www.vasa.abo.fi/users/muljens/pdf/Uljens__Critical_School_Didactics_-_A_theory_and_its_features,_1.11_2009%20.pdf
UNESCO (2014). Education finance. Retrieved from:
http://www.uis.unesco.org/Education/Pages/education-finance.aspx
UNESCO-IBE (2011). World Data on Education 2010/2011: Australia. Retrieved from:
http://www.ibe.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/WDE/2010/pdfversions/Australia.pdf
U.S. Department of Education (2008). Structure of U.S. education. Retrieved from:
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ous/international/usnei/us/edlite-structure-us.html
U.S. Department of Education (2014). Become a teacher. Retrieved from:
167
https://www.teach.org/pathway
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Weber, M. (1961). Ethnic groups. Theories of society, 1, 305–309.
Weniger, E. (2000). Didaktik as a theory of education. In I. Westbury, S. Hopmann & K.
Riquarts (Eds.), Teaching as a Reflective Practice: The German Didaktik Tradition (pp.
85-107). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Westbury, I. (2000). Teaching as a reflective practice: What might didaktik teach curriculum?
In I. Westbury, S. Hopmann & K. Riquarts (Eds.), Teaching as a Reflective Practice:
The German Didaktik Tradition (pp. 85-107). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Westbury, I., Hopmann, S., & Riquarts, K. (2000). Teaching as a reflective practice: the German
didaktik tradition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wössmann, L., & West, M. (2006). Class-size effects in school systems around the world:
Evidence from between-grade variation in TIMSS. European Economic Review, 50(3),
695–736.
Wössmann, L. (2011). Cross-country evidence on teacher performance pay. Economics of
Education Review, 30(3), 404–418.
168
Zeichner, K. M. (1993). Traditions of practice in US preservice teacher education programs.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 9(1), 1–13.
Zhang, L., Khan, G., & Tahirsylaj, A. (forthcoming). Student performance, school
differentiation, and world cultures: Evidence from PISA 2009. International Journal of
Educational Development.
169
Appendices
Appendix A: Key Components of Education Systems in Didaktik Countries
Austria
Age/Grades
3 to 6 year-old
G1 to G4
Education
Structure
Teacher
Education &
Certification
Teacher
Professional
Development
Assessments
Funding
G5 to G8
School Option
Kindergarten
Primary School
Lower Secondary (choice
based on interest and/or
ability)
G9 to G13
Upper Secondary
Undergraduate to
Professional
Tertiary Education
Level
Primary School
Lower and upper
secondary
Vocational School
All levels
Requirement
Required for all teachers
Type
High school
matriculation exit exam
(Matura) / recently
revised into
competence-, learning
outcomes-based
Source
Federal government
Notes
Mandatory after age 5
Common for all
General Secondary School/ New Secondary School/ Academic
Secondary School
Pre-vocational school; upper academic secondary school or vocational
schools. The type of schools vary in length and degree received.
Universities (public and private)/ Universities of Applied Sciences/
University Colleges of Teacher Education (Pädagogische Hochschulen
(PH))
Requirements
Teacher training college
Teacher training college/University
Teacher training college
Unterrichtspraktikum—a year of concurrent courses with first year of teaching
Providers
University colleges for teacher education (PH)
Notes
German and Mathematics plus a foreign language are required
Two-part exam in writing and oral a month apart (usually May and June)
Organized and administered at the school level by teachers themselves in line with
Bildungstandards/educational standards (teacher autonomy)
Notes
Total government expenditure on education in 2010: EUR 19.25 bn
Government expenditure on education as % of GDP (%) 5.915 (2010)
Note: Adapted from Eurydice (2015a, 2015b, 2015c, 2015d) and UNESCO (2014).
170
Germany
Age/Grades
Education
Structure
3 to 6 year olds
1st to 4th grade
5th to 10th grade
10th to 12th grade onward
13th grade onward
Level
Early Childhood
Teacher
Education &
Certification
Teacher
Professional
Development
Assessments
Funding
Grundschule
Grundschule & all
lower secondary school
Upper Secondary
Schools
Vocational teacher
All levels
Requirement
Required for all
teachers by ordnance or
law at Länder
(provinces) level
Type
Gr. 3 & Gr. 8 Länder
level comparative
assessments
High school exit exam
(Abitur)
Source
Länder and federal
funding
School Option
Notes
Kindergarten
Primary School
Not Compulsory
Compulsory from age 6 to 16 years old
Options include basic general education, vocational education and
Lower Secondary School
academic education
Upper Secondary
Academic tracks with numerous vocational options
Traditional universities; college of arts and music; universities of
Higher Education
applied sciences
Requirements
Training in Upper Secondary School / Pedagogical stuff for this level do not have the status of teachers
7 Semester training program at a Teachers College / 210 ECTS (European Credit Transfer System and
First State Examination
At least 7 Semester training program with emphasis in two subject areas at a Teachers College / 210
ECTS and First State Examination
Bachelors + Masters / The course of study ends with 270 ECTS and First State Examination
Bachelors + Masters with 12 months practical experience / 270 ECTS and First State Examination
12 to 24 months preparatory service which involves in classroom work coupled with continuing course
work / Second State Examination
Providers
State-run in-service teacher training is organised in the Länder at central, regional and local level by staterun in-service training institutes which for the most part are subordinate to the Ministries of Education
and Cultural Affairs as dependent Länder institutions.
Notes
Länder level assessments are diagnostic in nature to track the progress of all schools within a Länder,
without any stake to students and teachers
Abitur implemented at the school level based national Bildungstandards (educational standards) for
German, Math and French/English
Notes
Total government expenditure on primary and secondary education in 2010: EUR 70 bn
Government expenditure on education as % of GDP (%) 5.1 (2010)
Note: Adapted from Eurydice (2015e, 2015f, 2015g, 2015h) and UNESCO (2014).
171
Denmark
Education
Structure
Age/Grades
3 to 6 year olds
School Option
Kindergarten
K to 10th grade
Folkeskole
11th grade onward
Upper Secondary
13th grade onward
Higher Education
Level
Pre-primary
Teacher
Education &
Certification
Folkeskole
Notes
Compulsory only for 6 years old
Consists of 1 year of kindergarten; 9 years of primary and lower
secondary and 1 year 10th grade form
4 academic tracks with numerous vocational options
Professional schools; University colleges; Universities; Arts
Universities
Requirements
Bachelors of science degree
Bachelors of science degree with specialization in either Danish, math, nature/technology or
physics/chemistry and 1 or 2 other subjects
Academic Upper
Secondary
Bachelors + Masters and year-long paedagogikum
Vocational Upper
Secondary
Bachelors or Masters plus professional experience
Teacher
Requirement
Providers
Professional Recommended / Not
University colleges for teacher education
Development required by any
Danish School of Education
legislation
Danish Union of Teachers
Assessments
Type
Notes
A number of frequent
The Danish Evaluation Institute monitors the quality of teaching and learning by designing
national tests
national assessments
throughout
In Folkeskole, Danish is tested frequently every other year, mathematics twice and English,
Folkeskole and upper
Geography, Biology and Physics once each / Tests are computer based and adaptive
secondary level
Funding
Source
Notes
Municipalities pay
Government expenditure on education as % of GDP (%) 8.73 (2009)
for Folkeskole (KPublic education is free
10th grade)
State pays for upper
secondary education
Note: Adapted from Eurydice (2015i, 2015j, 2015k, 2015l, 2015m) and UNESCO (2014).
172
Finland
Age/Grades
0 to 7 years
Education
Structure
Teacher
Education &
Certification
Teacher
Professional
Development
Assessments
6-15 years
9th to 12th grade
13th grade onward
Level
Early Childhood
Education and
Primary Teachers
Basic Education and
Upper Secondary
Teachers
Upper Secondary
Vocational Teachers
Requirement
No strict requirement
School Option
Early childhood education
Pre-primary and basic
education
Secondary education
Higher Education
Notes
Local authorities are obligated to provide education and care for
all children
Comprehensive education
Separate tracks for general and vocational education
Universities and Polytechnics
Requirements
A Bachelor’s degree in social pedagogy required
A Master’s degree is required, with practical pedagogical training either during or after
completion of the degree
Subject teachers are trained at teacher education universities pedagogically and in subjectspecific departments for the content part
Length of subject-teacher education is 5-6 years (300 ECTS)
A Master’s or a Bachelor’s degree is required and length is usually 4 years (240 ECTS)
Providers
1 to 5 days a year might be required depending on collective agreements
Employers might assign teachers to PD opportunities offered by education providers (local
authorities, universities, polytechnics)
Notes
All national assessments are implemented for data collection purposes to ensure equity and
equality of education
Type
All assessments done
at school level
National exams
Funding
Source
Notes
About 99% of
Government expenditure on education as % of GDP (%) 6.76 (2011)
funding comes from
the federal
government
Note: Adapted from Eurydice (2015n, 2015o, 2015p, 2015q, 2015r) and UNESCO (2014).
173
Norway
Age/Grades
1st to 7th grade
8th to 10th grade
School Option
Nursery School and
Kindergarten available
Primary school
Lower Secondary School
11th grade onward
Upper Secondary School
13th grade onward
Level
Pre-primary
Primary
Primary or Lower
Secondary
Vocational Teacher
Upper Secondary
Teachers
Requirement
No strict
requirements
Higher Education
0 to 6 years old
Education
Structure
Teacher
Education &
Certification
Teacher
Professional
Development
Assessments
Notes
Compulsory school starts at age 6
Provided as a single structure system
No divisions between primary and lower secondary
General education, vocational education and academic education
and arts focused education
Universities; Universities Colleges; Specialized Universities
Requirements
3 year program
4 year program which includes one year of specialization in Math, Norwegian or English
4 year program which includes two year of specialization in Math, Norwegian or English
3 year program
Integrated Masters Program
Providers
School owners at municipal level decide about in-service teacher education
Local education authorities, teachers' associations, associations for special subjects in higher
education institutions, regional officer’s educational departments, County Education
Committees, national councils or national education authorities.
Notes
National tests of students’ skills (reading in Norwegian, and English and Mathematics) for
students in grade 5 in primary and grade 8 and 9 in lower secondary school. Final examinations
(Norwegian, Mathematics, English) for students in grade 10 in lower secondary schools.
Examinations (Norwegian, Mathematics, English and other major subjects) for students in upper
secondary school. Trade- and journeyman’s examinations for apprentices.
Type
National tests and
final examinations in
primary, lower
secondary, upper
secondary, and
vocational education
Funding
Source
Notes
All education
Government expenditure on education as % of GDP (%) 6.87 (2010)
funding from the
central government
Note: Adapted from Eurydice (2015s, 2015t, 2015u, 2015v, 2015x) and UNESCO (2014).
174
Sweden
Education
Structure
Teacher
Education &
Certification
Age/Grades
Age 1 to 5
1st to 10th Grade
11th grade onward
13th grade onward
Level
Pre-primary
Primary Grades 1-3
School Option
Pre-school class
Primary School
Upper Secondary
Higher Education
Notes
Not mandatory
Compulsory between age 7 and 16
Programs based on students’ interests and needs
Universities; Universities Colleges; Post-Secondary Vocational
Requirements
2 year program at pre-school training program
240 credit hours focus on math, reading and writing for young students
Teachers specialize between social subjects, natural science subjects and technology, or one or
more practical or artistic subjects.
270 Credits with specialization in three subject areas
330 credits with specialization in two subject areas
Providers
The Swedish National Agency for Education
Higher education institutions and regional development centers
Primary Grades 4-6
Primary Grades 7-9
Upper Secondary
Teacher
Requirement
Professional No strict
Development requirement, a school
responsibility to
ensure continued
development
Assessments
Type
Notes
No exit exams for
The Swedish National Agency for Education (Skolverket) is responsible for the national test
compulsory and
system.
upper secondary
education
National diagnostic
tests in grades 3, 6
and 9
Funding
Source
Notes
Shared between state
Government expenditure on education as % of GDP (%) 6.98 (2010)
and municipalities
Note: Adapted from Eurydice (2015y, 2015z, 2015aa, 2015ab, 2015ac) and UNESCO (2014).
175
Appendix B: Key Components of Education Systems in Didaktik Countries
Australia
Education
Structure
Age/Grades
5 and younger
Grade K to 6/7
Grades 7/8 to 10
Grades 11 to 12
School Option
Pre-school options
Primary School
Secondary School
Senior Secondary School
Notes
Neither compulsory or regulated by the government
Compulsory school begins at age 6
Compulsory school ends at age 16
Universities, Technical Schools and Vocational Education
Grades 13 onward
Tertiary Education
Options
Level
Requirements
Teacher
Primary School
Bachelors or Masters in Education – all teachers must have bachelors at least
Education &
Teachers
An induction period for teachers follows after completion of formal education
Certification
Secondary School
Teacher training at universities or accredited non-government college
Teacher
Requirement
Providers
Professional Required and tied to
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) develops professional
Development accountability
standards for teachers and provides PD opportunities for teachers to meet those standards
Assessments
Type
Notes
Bi-annual summative
States have system-wide assessments to track student achievement
assessments
Annual tests in Years 3, 5, 7 and 9 include literacy and numeracy tests
Annual testing in Years 3, The Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) helps to develop
5, 7 and 9 at school level national tests
External examination in
Years 11 and 12
Funding
Source
Notes
Most funding for
Government expenditure on education as % of GDP (%) 5.12 (2011)
school education
comes from state
level, Federal
government covers
higher education
Note: Adapted from Australian Government (2014), Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (2014), National Center on
Education and the Economy (2014a), UNESCO-IBE (2011) and UNESCO (2014).
176
Canada
Age/Grades
4 or 5 years
Education
Structure
Teacher
Education &
Certification
1st to 12th
13th Grade Onward
Level
School Option
Pre-Grade 1 education
Notes
Mandatory only in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick
Quebec is an exception with 6 years of elementary and 5 years of
secondary education
Elementary to secondary
Some forms of vocational education offered in some provinces
Degree-granting (primarily universities) and non-degree granting
institutions (such as community colleges, regional colleges,
Tertiary School
centers, institutes, etc.)
Requirements
4 year bachelor degree required
Those teaching in secondary education need qualifications beyond bachelors
Induction training during the first year of teaching
Providers
Decentralized and varies from province to province
Elementary and
secondary teachers
Teacher
Requirement
Professional Required in all
Development provinces
Assessments
Type
Notes
Large scale
Provinces have standardized tests at different grades
standardized testing
at province and
Pan-Canadian Assessment Program (PSAP) tests students across the nation to track student
nation-wide level
achievement
Funding
Source
Notes
Primarily provinces
Government expenditure on education as % of GDP (%) 2.39 (2011)
responsibility
Note: Adapted from Statistics Canada (2010), National Center on Education and the Economy (2014b), The Council of Ministers of Education,
Canada (n.d.), and UNESCO (2014)
177
United Kingdom (including England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales / Scotland’s education is somewhat different)
Age/Grades
School Option
Notes
3 to 5 years
Early years foundations
Not compulsory before age 5
Primary and Secondary offered by a variety of providers,
5 to 11 years
Primary School
compulsory till 16
Compulsory school ends at age 16
Education
In Scotland: At13/14 years old students choose subjects to
Structure
continuing study. At 15, decide to enter Upper Secondary or
11 to 16 years
Secondary School
workforce
16 to 19 years
Upper Secondary School
Offered in both vocational and academic courses
Universities, Higher education institutions, and Vocational
Age 19 Onward
Tertiary Education
Education Options
Level
Requirements
Primary School
Undergraduate degree
Teacher
Four-year bachelors degree (Scotland)
Education & Teachers
Certification Secondary School
Postgraduate degree + school experience
Note: Any teacher who holds the highly qualified status can teach any child or level (England)
Teacher
Requirement
Providers
Professional Required and
Higher education institutions and regional development centers
Development organized within
The National College for Teaching and Leadership
school, local level
Tied to school development and evaluation
and nationally
In Scotland: Teaching Scotland’s Future
Assessments
Type
Notes
Standardized tests at
Department of Education and OFSTED (The Office for Standards in Education, Children’s
key stages 1, 2 and 4
Services and Skills) monitor school and student performance / There are less standardized tests
(ages 7, 11 and 16)
in Wales
In Scotland, quality assurance responsibility rests with schools themselves and no standardized
tests are administered
Funding
Source
Notes
UK government
Government expenditure on education as % of GDP (%) 6.22 (2010) / Total for all four
(England, Northern
countries constituting UK
Ireland, Wales)
Scotland
Government
Note: Adapted from Eurydice (2015ad, 2015ae, 2015af, 2015ag, 2015ah, 2015ai) and UNESCO (2014)
178
Ireland
Age/Grades
4 to 12 years
Education
Structure
12 -17/18
18 years onward
Level
Teacher
Education &
Certification
Teacher
Professional
Development
Assessments
Funding
Primary teachers
Post-primary
teachers
Requirement
Not required,
voluntary
Type
Two key external
examinations
Source
State funding
School Option
Primary schools
Notes
Compulsory age from 6 to 16
Three types: Secondary schools / Schools/community colleges /
Post-primary schools
Comprehensive and community schools
Leaving Certificate required to get to higher education
Tertiary School
institutions
Requirements
Four-year Bachelor of Education degree required
Induction and probation requirements need to be fulfilled within first 3 years of teaching
Three/Four-year Bachelor of Education degree required + university one year post-graduate
program leading to Professional Diploma in Education
Post-Qualification Employment requirements must be fulfilled within 3 years
Providers
Teacher unions, universities and colleges of education, subject-based teachers, etc.
Notes
Exam leading to Junior Certificate (age15-16)
Exam leading to Leaving Certificate (age 17-18)
The State Examinations Commission by the Department of Education and Skills administers
exams
Notes
Government expenditure on education as % of GDP (%) 6.15 (2011)
Note: Adapted from Eurydice (2015aj, 2015ak, 2015al) and UNESCO (2014).
179
New Zealand
Age/Grades
Education
Structure
1 to 5 years old
1st to 8th Grade (Year)
9th to 13th Grade (Year
13th onward
Teacher
Education &
Certification
Teacher
Professional
Development
Assessments
Funding
Level
1 to 5 years old
Primary to High
school
Requirement
Part of the induction
program
Type
School-based
assessment
National diagnostic
assessments
School Option
Teacher and parent led
options
Primary/Middle School
Notes
1 to 5 years old
Differing schools provide varying grade levels
Year 9 & 10 study the same curricula while 11 and 12th grade
High School/College
choose courses based on interests
Universities, vocational programs, and transitional training
Tertiary Education
programs
Requirements
Three year undergraduate program
3 to 4 year undergraduate program and/or one year graduate program
Providers
Ministry of Education manages the professional development and provides guidelines for inservice teacher training
All teachers undergo heavy professional development during their first two years of teaching
career
Notes
National Education Monitoring Project (NEMP) is New Zealand’s national diagnostic
assessment with a sample of students in grades 4 and 8
Source
Notes
National government
Government expenditure on education as % of GDP (%) 7.38 (2012)
funding
Note: Adapted from New Zealand Ministry of Education (2014); Tertiary Education Commission (2009); New Zealand Teachers Council (2014);
National Center on Education and the Economy (2014c) and UNESCO (2014).
180
United States
Education
Structure
Teacher
Education &
Certification
Teacher
Professional
Development
Assessments
Funding
Age/Grades
3 to 5 years
1st to 5th grade
6th to 8th
9th to 12th grade
School Option
Pre-school options
Elementary school
Middle school
High School
13th Grade Onward
Level
Primary, Secondary
School teachers of
technology, physical
education and music
Secondary School
teacher
Requirement
Required at the state
level
Type
State standardized
Annual achievement
tests
National tests
Tertiary School
Notes
Vary by state and local districts
Compulsory age of attendance varies by state
May be combined with elementary school
Differing schools provide varying tracks
Community colleges, colleges, universities and vocational
education
Requirements
4 year bachelor degree
States set their certification requirements to get into teaching profession
Bachelors degree plus school experience
Providers
Higher education institutions and teacher professional organizations
Notes
NCLB related tests to track annual progress of students in reading and math in Grades 3 through
8 and Grade 10 with implications for schools and teachers as part of accountability measures
National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) administered at least every two years in
reading and math in grades 4 and 8
Source
Notes
State/local district
Government expenditure on education as % of GDP (%) 5.42 (2010)
funding
Note: Adapted from U.S. Department of Education (2008); U.S. Department of Education (2014); and UNESCO (2014).
181
Appendix C: Science Proficiency in Participating Countries in PISA 2009
Countries are ranked in descending order of the percentage of students at Levels 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
Didaktik countries are squared and curriculum countries are circled.
Source: OECD PISA 2009 Database, Table I.3.4.
182
Appendix D: Description for levels of proficiency on science scale
Source: OECD
183
Appendix E: Percent of missing data in study variables
Variable
Missing
Percent
Missing
Science scores
Standardized tests
Teacher tests
Teacher judgments
Assessment policies
Textbooks used
Course content
Courses offered
School type
ESCS
Girl
Age
Grade
Immigration status
0
3,562
2,861
3,707
1,838
1,838
1,838
1,838
1,332
2,225
0
0
177
2,709
0
3.71
2.98
3.86
1.91
1.91
1.91
1.91
1.39
2.32
0
0
0.18
2.82
Home language other
than test language
3,883
4.05
184
Appendix F: Correlation tables for curriculum countries
Australia
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
-(1) Science scores
(2) Use of
standardized tests
-0.0382***
(3) Use of teacher
developed tests
0.0647***
0.0437***
--
(4) Use of teacher
judgments
(5) Teachers
responsible for
assessment policies
(6) Teachers
responsible for
choosing textbooks
(7) Teachers
responsible for course
content
(8) Teachers
responsible for
courses offered
(9) Gender
-0.0068
0.1030***
0.3604***
--
-0.0009
0.0106
0.0716***
0.0160
(10) ESCS
--
--
0.0007
0.0100
0.1086***
0.0406***
0.3818***
--
0.0371***
-0.0626***
0.1650***
0.0770***
0.1932***
0.4040***
--
-0.0334***
-0.0514***
0.1064***
0.1877***
0.3278***
0.2544***
0.4064***
--
0.0322
-0.0185*
0.0567***
0.0672***
0.0354***
-0.0137
-0.0296***
-0.0239**
--
0.3867***
-0.0187*
0.0971***
-0.0504***
-0.0178
-0.0155
-0.0077
-0.0554***
0.0044
*p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. Weighted.
--
185
Canada
(1) Science scores
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(9)
(10)
--
(2) Use of standardized
tests
0.0029
(3) Use of teacher
developed tests
0.0276***
0.0069
(4) Use of teacher
judgments
-0.0397***
0.1485***
0.0002
(5) Teachers responsible
for assessment policies
0.0349***
0.0425***
0.0109
---0.0373***
--
(6) Teachers responsible
for choosing textbooks
0.0579***
0.0719***
-0.0830***
0.0541***
0.3766***
--
(7) Teachers responsible
for course content
0.0422***
0.1288***
-0.0341***
0.1052***
0.2146***
0.4248***
--
(8) Teachers responsible
for courses offered
-0.0255***
0.0023
-0.0713***
0.0457***
0.3028***
0.2578***
0.2238***
(9) Gender
-0.0087
(10) ESCS
(8)
0.3121***
-0.0107
-0.0380***
0.0328***
0.0294***
0.0250***
-0.0128
*p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. Weighted.
0.0210**
0.0193**
0.0019
0.0300***
0.0034
0.0706***
-0.0139*
-0.0126
--0.0203**
--
186
United Kingdom
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(1) Science scores
--
(2) Use of standardized
tests
-0.0151
--
(3) Use of teacher
developed tests
0.0219*
0.1547***
--
(4) Use of teacher
judgments
0.0436***
0.1417***
0.4154***
--
(5) Teachers responsible
for assessment policies
-0.0140
0.0348***
-0.0547***
-0.0275**
--
(6) Teachers responsible
for choosing textbooks
0.0004
0.0325***
-0.0507***
-0.0409***
0.0668***
--
(7) Teachers responsible
for course content
0.0049
0.1210***
0.1291***
0.0708***
-0.0247**
0.1877***
--
(8) Teachers responsible
for courses offered
-0.1329***
-0.0084
-0.1330***
-0.0893***
0.2371***
0.0772***
0.0016
--
(9) Gender
-0.0063
0.0386***
0.0056
-0.0420***
-0.1351***
0.0051
0.0176
-0.0769***
--
(10) ESCS
0.4334***
-0.0520***
0.0349***
0.0261**
-0.0412***
-0.0077
0.0103
-0.1430***
0.0150
*p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. Weighted.
(10)
--
187
Ireland
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(1) Science scores
--
(2) Use of standardized
tests
0.0077
--
(3) Use of teacher
developed tests
-0.0222
0.1569***
--
(4) Use of teacher
judgments
0.0226
0.1383***
0.0870***
--
(5) Teachers responsible
for assessment policies
0.0697***
-0.1169***
-0.0818***
-0.2230***
--
(6) Teachers responsible
for choosing textbooks
-0.0232
-0.0773***
-0.0598***
-0.0978***
0.0740***
--
(7) Teachers responsible
for course content
-0.0257
0.0564**
-0.0830***
0.2016***
0.1094***
0.1463***
--
(8) Teachers responsible
for courses offered
-0.0565***
0.0261
-0.0291
-0.0495**
0.3642***
0.1419***
0.2202***
--
(9) Gender
0.0093
-0.1083***
0.1521***
0.0227
-0.0615***
-0.0025
-0.0341*
-0.0779***
--
(10) ESCS
0.3389***
0.0421*
0.0084
-0.0090
-0.0565***
0.0195
0.0144
-0.0559**
-0.0243
*p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. Weighted.
(10)
--
188
New Zealand
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(1) Science scores
--
(2) Use of standardized
tests
-0.03218
--
(3) Use of teacher
developed tests
0.1550***
0.0687***
--
(4) Use of teacher
judgments
0.0519***
0.1537***
0.2499***
--
(5) Teachers responsible
for assessment policies
0.0507***
0.1170***
0.0655***
0.1682***
--
(6) Teachers responsible
for choosing textbooks
0.0045
-0.0583***
-0.0539***
0.0082
0.1605***
--
(7) Teachers responsible
for course content
0.2305***
-0.1158***
0.2625***
0.1010***
0.0949***
0.4627***
--
(8) Teachers responsible
for courses offered
0.1584***
-0.0031
0.1115***
0.0363*
0.3083***
0.1725***
0.3728***
--
(9) Gender
0.0747***
0.0120
0.1504***
0.0385*
0.0328*
0.0290
0.1642***
0.0375*
(10) ESCS
0.4035***
-0.0175
0.0562***
-0.0208
0.0405**
0.0089
0.0527***
0.1268*** -0.0014
(10)
---
*p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. Weighted.
United States
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
189
(1) Science scores
--
(2) Use of standardized
tests
-0.1457***
--
(3) Use of teacher
developed tests
0.2002***
0.0156
--
(4) Use of teacher
judgments
-0.0060
0.0642***
0.1631***
--
(5) Teachers responsible
for assessment policies
-0.1247***
0.2266***
-0.0298*
0.0451**
--
(6) Teachers responsible
for choosing textbooks
-0.0757***
0.1398***
0.0938***
0.0474***
0.4530***
--
(7) Teachers responsible
for course content
-0.0885***
0.0559***
-0.0859***
0.3016***
0.3488***
0.5020***
--
(8) Teachers responsible
for courses offered
-0.0382**
0.1331***
-0.1394***
0.2133***
0.4325***
0.5267***
0.6500***
--
(9) Gender
-0.1035***
0.0110
-0.0253
0.0692***
0.0108
0.0687***
0.0860***
0.0546*** --
(10) ESCS
0.4522***
-0.1640***
0.1486***
0.0386**
-0.1713***
-0.1815***
-0.0651***
-0.0808***
*p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. Weighted.
-0.0602*** --
190
Appendix G: Correlation tables for didaktik countries
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
Austria
-(1) Science scores
(2) Use of
standardized tests
-0.0630***
(3) Use of teacher
developed tests
0.0205
-0.0998***
(4) Use of teacher
judgments
(5) Teachers
responsible for
assessment policies
(6) Teachers
responsible for
choosing textbooks
(7) Teachers
responsible for
course content
(8) Teachers
responsible for
courses offered
0.0981***
0.0055
0.3932***
-0.1316***
-0.0154
0.0338**
0.0091
-0.0083
0.0368**
0.1776***
0.1630***
0.1925***
-0.1038***
0.0944***
0.1884***
0.0806***
0.2681***
0.3014***
--
-0.0170
0.1323***
-0.0631***
0.1418***
0.2655***
0.1439***
0.1745***
-0.0224
-0.0918***
0.0989***
0.0859***
0.0209
0.0959***
0.0230
-0.0555***
--
0.4382***
-0.0361***
0.0126
0.0747***
-0.1231***
-0.0139
-0.0962***
-0.0708***
-0.0005
(9) Gender
(10) ESCS
---
*p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. Weighted.
--
--
--
--
--
191
Germany
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(1) Science scores
--
(2) Use of standardized
tests
-0.1711***
--
(3) Use of teacher
developed tests
-0.0160
0.0109
--
(4) Use of teacher
judgments
-0.0101
-0.0056
0.4366***
--
(5) Teachers responsible
for assessment policies
-0.0458**
-0.0583***
0.0638***
0.1217***
--
(6) Teachers responsible
for choosing textbooks
-0.0362*
-0.0969***
0.0940***
0.0684***
0.3277***
--
(7) Teachers responsible
for course content
-0.0987***
0.0192
-0.0525***
0.0380*
0.3245***
0.3187***
--
(8) Teachers responsible
for courses offered
-0.1659***
0.0428**
-0.0864***
-0.0655***
0.2881***
0.3131***
0.3279***
--
(9) Gender
-0.0047
-0.0224
0.0019
-0.0221
-0.0231
-0.0462**
-0.0093
-0.0037
--
(10) ESCS
0.4350***
-0.1378***
0.0066
0.0074
0.0025
-0.0087
-0.0371*
-0.1036***
-0.0009
*p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. Weighted.
(10)
--
192
Denmark
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(1) Science scores
--
(2) Use of standardized
tests
0.0180
--
(3) Use of teacher
developed tests
0.0127
0.4005***
--
(4) Use of teacher
judgments
0.0191
0.2465***
0.2881***
--
(5) Teachers responsible
for assessment policies
0.0680***
-0.1376***
-0.1562***
0.0444***
--
(6) Teachers responsible
for choosing textbooks
0.0710***
-0.0492***
-0.0798***
-0.0386**
0.2853***
--
(7) Teachers responsible
for course content
0.0437***
-0.1224***
-0.0097
-0.0886***
0.2579***
0.3189***
--
(8) Teachers responsible
for courses offered
0.0348**
-0.1311***
-0.1923***
-0.0565***
0.4617***
0.2485***
0.2317***
--
(9) Gender
-0.0624***
0.0127
0.0118
0.0309*
-0.0096
-0.0115
-0.0029
-0.0182
--
(10) ESCS
0.3916***
-0.0164
-0.0450***
-0.0030
0.0644***
0.0521***
0.0446***
0.0594***
-0.024
*p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. Weighted.
(10)
--
193
Finland
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(1) Science scores
--
(2) Use of standardized
tests
0.0396**
--
(3) Use of teacher
developed tests
-0.0074
0.3832***
--
(4) Use of teacher
judgments
0.0490***
0.1651***
0.2084***
--
(5) Teachers responsible
for assessment policies
0.0578***
-0.0720***
0.1259***
0.1529***
--
(6) Teachers responsible
for choosing textbooks
0.0036
0.0088
0.0833***
-0.0595***
0.1573***
--
(7) Teachers responsible
for course content
0.0111
0.0018
0.1975***
0.0655***
0.2604***
0.0406**
--
(8) Teachers responsible
for courses offered
0.0179
0.0135
0.1361***
0.1116***
0.2312***
-0.0039
0.3668***
--
(9) Gender
0.1059***
0.0138
0.0151
0.0087
0.0098
0.0050
0.0135
0.0125
(10) ESCS
0.2719***
-0.0120
-0.0236
-0.0138
0.0448***
-0.0070
0.0246
0.0465*** 0.0123
*p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. Weighted.
(10)
---
194
Norway
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(1) Science scores
--
(2) Use of standardized
tests
-0.0326*
--
(3) Use of teacher
developed tests
0.0515***
0.0113
--
(4) Use of teacher
judgments
0.0177
-0.1074***
0.1595***
--
(5) Teachers responsible
for assessment policies
0.0444**
-0.0254
-0.0056
0.0694***
--
(6) Teachers responsible
for choosing textbooks
-0.0067
0.1646***
0.0784***
-0.0862***
0.1590***
--
(7) Teachers responsible
for course content
0.0133
0.1485***
-0.0491***
-0.1260***
0.2846***
0.3060***
--
(8) Teachers responsible
for courses offered
0.0268
-0.0728***
0.0037
-0.0179
0.0235
0.1558***
0.2003***
--
(9) Gender
0.0205
-0.0125
-0.0147
-0.0087
-0.0118
-0.0071
-0.0192
-0.0233
--
(10) ESCS
0.2937***
0.0189
-0.0044
-0.0092
-0.0330*
-0.0168
-0.0174
-0.0746***
-0.0286
*p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. Weighted.
(10)
--
195
Sweden
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(1) Science scores
--
(2) Use of standardized
tests
-0.0456**
--
(3) Use of teacher
developed tests
-0.0127
0.0583***
--
(4) Use of teacher
judgments
-0.0306*
0.0845***
0.3542***
--
(5) Teachers responsible
for assessment policies
-0.0004
0.0765***
0.0843***
-0.0251
--
(6) Teachers responsible
for choosing textbooks
-0.0394**
0.0136
-0.0340*
0.1227***
0.0182
--
(7) Teachers responsible
for course content
-0.0394**
-0.0444**
-0.1222***
-0.0513***
0.0840***
0.0791***
--
(8) Teachers responsible
for courses offered
0.0508***
0.0052
-0.0668***
-0.1202***
0.2252***
-0.0408**
0.2730***
--
(9) Gender
0.0303
0.0031
0.0025
-0.0029
-0.0025
-0.0175
-0.0209
-0.0019
--
(10) ESCS
0.3881***
-0.0394**
-0.0088
0.0273
-0.0778***
-0.0490***
-0.0712***
0.0312*
0.0002
*p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. Weighted.
(10)
--
196
Appendix H: Descriptive statistics for teacher autonomy items
1) Use of standardized tests / Higher value here means less teacher autonomy
Country
Mean
SD
Min Max
N
SWE
DNK
NZL
USA
NOR
OECD
FIN
CAN
AUS
IRL
GBR
AUT
1.473644
1.398434
1.375387
1.212103
1.196681
1.191897
1.063328
0.9470986
0.9195504
0.8956996
0.8035691
0.4469886
0.6393583
0.8017181
1.093501
0.5021535
0.5979463
0.959375
0.6331885
0.635598
0.7721146
0.8681785
0.6004895
0.7182859
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
185
276
156
164
189
10364
200
949
353
123
447
260
DEU
0.4342686
0.5227085
0
2
198
Max
N
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
164
955
186
190
205
157
10534
265
353
201
125
454
274
Country
USA
CAN
SWE
NOR
DEU
NZL
OECD
AUT
AUS
FIN
IRL
GBR
DNK
2) Use of teacher developed tests
Mean
SD
Min
3.572816
3.523757
3.32627
3.311003
3.178582
2.944607
2.887775
2.750226
2.727661
2.698096
2.282017
2.275016
2.180358
0.7151496
0.7087081
0.8044478
0.8192112
0.9345095
0.8791524
1.009039
0.9476882
1.081928
0.7906053
0.9652089
0.8326167
0.924615
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
197
Country
SWE
AUT
FIN
DEU
NOR
NZL
OECD
USA
CAN
GBR
IRL
AUS
DNK
3) Use of teacher judgments
Mean
SD
3.558783
3.489333
3.417115
3.300511
3.089203
2.833118
2.615704
2.587243
2.489609
2.414119
2.395453
2.383385
2.214317
0.834302
0.8146811
0.8822086
0.988247
0.9914069
1.099833
1.34737
1.494752
1.414863
0.9425681
1.049423
1.344235
1.040375
Min
Max
N
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
186
266
200
205
189
152
10431
161
932
451
125
353
276
Appendix I: Descriptive statistics for teacher autonomy scale by country
Descriptive statistics for teacher autonomy scale by country/weighted
Country
Mean
SD
Min
Max
N
Sweden
0.8065781
0.777753
-1.933588 2.132128
185
Norway
0.45159
0.7368017
-1.593086 1.719472
188
United States
0.3815064
0.9103744
-2.968056 2.613285
161
Canada
0.1939432
0.8709955
-2.861651 2.613285
920
New Zealand
0.1920103
1.012672
-2.521149 2.613285
152
Finland
0.1732547
0.7737676
-1.827184 2.613285
199
Germany
0.1087924
0.8743737
-2.414745 1.650972
197
Austria
-0.0427982
0.8154978
-3.449213 2.613285
257
Australia
-0.3389469
1.138171
-3.449213 2.613285
353
Denmark
-0.5054214
1.077931
-3.449213 2.613285
274
Ireland
-0.5936942
0.938241
-2.861651 2.613285
121
United Kingdom
-0.6360779
0.8659084
-2.861651 2.613285
445
Total for 12
countries
0.171952
0.9588621
-3.449213 2.613285
3452
198
Appendix J: Descriptive statistics for teacher responsibility items
Country
AUT
IRL
FIN
AUS
DEU
GBR
SWE
NZL
CAN
OECD
DNK
NOR
USA
0.8548958
0.8397869
0.8140017
0.8113101
0.7890914
0.7772794
0.7539656
0.7237349
0.6761022
0.6122743
0.5851464
0.5790078
0.4433837
Country
GBR
SWE
IRL
FIN
NZL
AUS
DNK
AUT
NOR
CAN
DEU
OECD
USA
1) Teachers decide about assessment policies
Proportion
SD
Min Max
0.3528503
0.3682562
0.3900672
0.3918175
0.4089146
0.4165272
0.4318428
0.4485623
0.4682025
0.4872542
0.4935758
0.4950227
0.4982965
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2) Teachers decide about textbook use
Proportion
SD
Min
0.9989129
0.9908896
0.9792743
0.9651008
0.9623687
0.9599674
0.9172678
0.89327
0.8399381
0.7463463
0.709136
0.6727282
0.6442658
0.0329894
0.0952648
0.1430287
0.1839781
0.1909041
0.196314
0.2759684
0.3093347
0.3676322
0.4353257
0.4552308
0.4692393
0.4801925
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
274
127
203
353
213
458
189
159
972
10704
281
190
165
Max
N
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
458
189
127
203
159
353
281
274
190
972
213
10704
165
199
Country
GBR
NZL
SWE
FIN
AUS
AUT
DNK
NOR
USA
IRL
DEU
CAN
OECD
Country
GBR
NZL
FIN
AUS
IRL
CAN
USA
AUT
DNK
DEU
SWE
OECD
NOR
3) Teachers decide about course content
Proportion
SD
Min
0.965216
0.9336713
0.9087851
0.8707023
0.8386581
0.8058212
0.7959795
0.742883
0.693344
0.6765307
0.6221224
0.5504863
0.5502009
0.1834326
0.2496421
0.2886791
0.3363586
0.3683681
0.396291
0.403703
0.4381991
0.462509
0.4696528
0.485999
0.4977007
0.4974967
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Max
N
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
458
159
189
203
353
274
281
190
165
127
213
972
10704
4) Teachers decide about the courses offered
Proportion
SD
Min Max
0.8289207
0.7375137
0.6915849
0.6768424
0.6723017
0.5694265
0.5564182
0.4966712
0.4450938
0.4436296
0.4400977
0.3660412
0.2150922
0.37699
0.4413757
0.4629807
0.4683462
0.4712331
0.4954114
0.4983191
0.5009038
0.4978628
0.4979826
0.4977172
0.4817434
0.4119719
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
N
458
159
203
353
127
972
165
274
281
213
189
10703
190
200
Appendix K: Descriptive statistics for teacher responsibility scale by country
Descriptive statistics for teacher responsibility scale by country/weighted
Country
Mean
SD
Min
Max
United Kingdom
New Zealand
Finland
Australia
Ireland
Sweden
Austria
Denmark
Germany
Canada
Norway
United States
Total for 12
countries
0.5797123
0.4061814
0.3896089
0.3436941
0.243439
0.2249226
0.1446985
-0.0767221
-0.3047042
-0.3195224
-0.3780905
-0.4932323
0.4875249
0.8111061
0.7174726
0.8366535
0.7677358
0.6471503
0.8323236
0.9495058
1.11964
1.161421
0.9359251
1.266347
-0.2553465
1.166916
-2.535996
-2.535996
-2.535996
-2.535996
-2.535996
-2.535996
-2.535996
-2.535996
-2.535996
-2.535996
-2.535996
-2.535996
N
0.9010759
0.9010759
0.9010759
0.9010759
0.9010759
0.9010759
0.9010759
0.9010759
0.9010759
0.9010759
0.9010759
0.9010759
458
159
203
353
127
189
274
281
213
972
190
165
-2.535996 0.9010759
3584
201
Appendix L: Maximum likelihood estimates for science performance in curriculum
countries in PISA 2009
Table 11 Maximum likelihood estimates for science performance in Australia
Null model
Australia
Est.
Level-2 cov. (TA items)
Level-2 cov. (TA+TR
items)
Full Model (Level-1 &
Level-2 cov.)
Est.
SE
Est.
SE
Est.
SE
512.27***
10.07
514.52***
13.03
725.86***
49.42
β₂ (stand. tests)
-9.54
5
-9.38*
4.76
1.06
2.57
β₃(teacher tests)
6.86
3.63
6.58
3.81
3.62
2.36
β₄(teach. judgments)
-0.12
2.73
Fixed part
β₁ (_cons)
520.01***
(-2.72)
0.54
2.82
-0.57
1.64
β5(assess. policies)
-1.43
11.4
1.83
6.30
β6(text. used)
-8.3
17.04
-0.73
8.55
β7(course content)
15.9
14.39
4.43
7.60
β8(courses offered)
-10.91
9.65
-2.43
6.53
32.85***
1.22
β9(SES)
β10(gender)
-4.15**
1.58
β11(age)
-13.06***
3.12
β12(grade)
39.62***
2.29
β13(1st immigration gen.)
-4.59
3.08
β14(2nd immigration gen.)
2.85
2.83
-19.92***
3.90
β15 (home lang. other than test lang.)
β16 (public school)
xtreg
SD(random
intercept)
49.06
Var(random
intercept)
2384.93
371.27
2350.39
348.27
1188.83
191.47
SD (level-1
residual)
86.82
Var(level-1
residual)
7262.79
147.37
7262.75
147.35
6481.58
125.31
ICC(rho)
0.24
Wald chi2(3)
mixed
-26.21***
4.18
mixed
Random part
mixed
10.09
Wald chi2(7)
15.58
Wald chi2(18)
1827.01
Log likelihood
-83129.69
N=14251
Schools=353
-492731.52
-492716.15
-83124.868
Derived estimates
R2 (Total variance)
0.029
0.23
R12 (level-1 var.)
0.009
0.14
R22 (level-2 var.)
0.036
0.51
Note: Standard errors in parentheses in null model. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. Controlling for
dummy missing variables.
202
Table 11 Maximum likelihood estimates for student science performance in Canada
Null model
Canada
Est.
Level-2 cov. (TA items)
Level-2 cov. (TA+TR
items)
Full Model (Level-1
& Level-2 cov.)
Est.
SE
Est.
SE
Est.
SE
500.75***
13.36
496.06***
14.86
767.09***
52.09
β₂ (stand. tests)
-0.81
3.64
-1.63
3.66
-1.36
2.95
β₃(teacher tests)
6.12
3.4
6.07
3.44
-0.86
3.06
β₄(teach. judgments)
-1.15
1.67
-1.33
1.72
0.17
1.52
β5(assess. policies)
3.06
5.7
0.15
5.52
β6(text. used)
10.6
6.35
2.78
6.29
β7(course content)
2.99
5.35
-2.59
4.40
β8(courses offered)
-10.1
6.22
-3.60
5.62
β9(SES)
22.13***
1.27
β10(gender)
-6.69***
1.65
β11(age)
-13.14***
2.98
β12(grade)
48.53***
2.43
β13(1st immigration gen.)
-11.22**
4.32
β14(2nd immigration gen.)
-13.47***
3.60
β15 (home lang. other than test lang.)
-12.10***
3.72
Fixed part
517.26***
β₁ (_cons)
(-1.48)
β16 (public school)
xtreg
SD(random
intercept)
42.51
Var(random
intercept)
1750.18
162.87
1711.6
152.16
1103.28
111.53
SD (level-1
residual)
76.92
Var(level-1
residual)
5859.52
100.58
5858.63
100.65
5124.95
91.60
ICC(rho)
0.23
Wald chi2(6)
mixed
-25.94**
8.29
mixed
Random part
mixed
11.71
Wald chi2(11)
16.13
Wald chi2(21)
1498.44
Log likelihood
-134687.69
N= 23207
Schools=978
-385711.63
-385675.12
-379026.79
Derived estimates
R2 (Total variance)
0.015
0.19
R12 (level-1 var.)
0.01
0.13
R22 (level-2 var.)
0.031
0.39
Note: Standard errors in parentheses in null model. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Controlling for dummy missing variables.
203
Table 12 Maximum likelihood estimates for student science performance in United
Kingdom
Null model
United Kingdom
Est.
Level-2 cov. (TA items)
Level-2 cov. (TA+TR
items)
Full Model (Level-1
& Level-2 cov.)
Est.
SE
Est.
SE
Est.
SE
511.40***
20.6
513.37***
27.02
353.52***
65.56
β₂ (stand. tests)
-2.86
7.02
-2.93
6.59
-2.97
4.39
β₃(teacher tests)
-0.88
7.54
-2.44
6.94
-2.01
4.15
4.1
5.47
3.55
5.2
5.03
3.36
β5(assess. policies)
4.58
9.94
10.15
8.68
β6(text. used)
22.4
26.69
23.11
19.86
β7(course content)
5.53
17
-4.47
12.91
β8(courses offered)
-34.22**
10.41
-11.18
9.10
β9(SES)
30.83***
1.64
β10(gender)
-10.12***
2.99
β11(age)
11.49**
4.06
β12(grade)
33.99***
5.27
β13(1st immigration gen.)
5.75
7.76
β14(2nd immigration gen.)
14.26*
5.89
β15 (home lang. other than test lang.)
-16.25*
7.07
Fixed part
β₁ (_cons)
508.53***
(-2.41)
β₄(teach. judgments)
β16 (public school)
Random part
xtreg
SD(random
intercept)
50.47
Var(random
intercept)
3014.84
352.54
2864.02
332.24
1489.69
180.12
SD (level-1
residual)
79.76
Var(level-1
residual)
6209.05
182.48
6209.06
182.47
5559.13
158.61
ICC(rho)
0.29
Wald chi2(6)
mixed
-46.59***
12.17
mixed
mixed
5.05
Wald chi2(11)
30.74
Wald chi2(22)
806.47
Log likelihood
-71191.81
N= 12179
Schools=482
-676150.44
-676040.63
-623957.37
Derived estimates
R2 (Total variance)
-0.035
0.21
R12 (level-1 var.)
0.024
0.13
R22 (level-2 var.)
-0.184
0.41
Note: Standard errors in parentheses in null model. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Controlling for dummy missing variables.
204
Table 13 Maximum likelihood estimates for student science performance in Ireland
Null model
Ireland
Level-2 cov. (TA items)
Level-2 cov. (TA+TR
items)
Full Model (Level-1 &
Level-2 cov.)
Est.
Est.
SE
Est.
SE
Est.
SE
506.27***
(-4.1)
491.96***
20.92
520.19***
20.52
745.95***
110.25
Fixed part
β₁ (_cons)
β₂ (stand. tests)
1.15
5.4
0.62
5.39
-1.67
4.36
β₃(teacher tests)
-3.35
6.07
-4.01
6.09
-7.28
4.47
β₄(teach. judgments)
4.61
6.22
4.56
6.99
2.66
4.92
β5(assess. policies)
-5.74
22.91
-5.17
14.95
β6(text. used)
-10.82
17.51
-48.21*
21.21
β7(course content)
-7.2
12.03
-11.06
10.12
β8(courses offered)
-8.17
14.4
1.87
10.58
30.02***
1.92
β10(gender)
-2.42
3.96
β11(age)
-10.76
6.98
19.80***
3.00
β13(1st immigration gen.)
-3.28
7.42
β14(2nd immigration gen.)
12.17
15.24
β15 (home lang. other than test lang.)
-27.65**
10.10
β16 (public school)
-25.77**
9.25
mixed
β9(SES)
β12(grade)
Random part
xtreg
SD(random
intercept)
46.33
Var(random
intercept)
2455.47
446.44
2375.09
458.03
1464.74
323.43
SD (level-1
residual)
81.69
Var(level-1
residual)
6801.11
238.27
6800.95
238.29
6033.58
235.52
ICC(rho)
0.24
Wald chi2(6)
mixed
mixed
16.07
Wald chi2(11)
47.67
Wald chi2(21)
1257.68
Log likelihood
-23084.18
N= 3937
Schools=144
-105948.55
-105938.14
-92189.752
Derived estimates
R2 (Total variance)
-0.05
0.15
R12 (level-1 var.)
-0.019
0.1
R22 (level-2 var.)
-0.144
0.32
Note: Standard errors in parentheses in null model. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Controlling for dummy missing variables.
205
Table 14 Maximum likelihood estimates for student science performance in New Zealand
Null model
New Zealand
Level-2 cov. (TA items)
Level-2 cov. (TA+TR
items)
Full Model (Level-1 &
Level-2 cov.)
Est.
Est.
SE
Est.
SE
Est.
SE
530.52***
(-4.15)
457.24***
23.4
499.99***
25.54
424.62***
85.72
Fixed part
β₁ (_cons)
β₂ (stand. tests)
-3.29
4.3
-1.71
3.37
-2.92
2.70
β₃(teacher tests)
18.94**
7.33
10.89
5.69
8.25*
3.90
4.66
5.64
2.62
4.21
0.99
2.86
5.16
10.97
1.36
7.64
β6(text. used)
-144.10***
22.06
-106.37***
14.91
β7(course content)
110.68***
12.46
95.72***
13.25
β8(courses offered)
-22.53*
11.09
15.49***
7.81
38.52***
2.59
β10(gender)
7.17
4.97
β11(age)
6.19
5.50
29.87***
4.60
β13(1st immigration gen.)
0.25
5.72
β14(2nd immigration gen.)
-3.45
5.71
β15 (home lang. other than test lang.)
-42.51***
5.91
β16 (public school)
-18.35**
6.34
mixed
β₄(teach. judgments)
β5(assess. policies)
β9(SES)
β12(grade)
Random part
xtreg
SD(random
intercept)
49.83
Var(random
intercept)
2636.95
459.89
2104.75
400.19
724.61
130.21
SD (level-1
residual)
90.83
Var(level-1
residual)
7963.18
240.28
7962.63
240.06
6722.36
180.10
ICC(rho)
0.23
Wald chi2(6)
mixed
mixed
39.7
Wald chi2(11)
924.5
Wald chi2(21)
1678.6
Log likelihood
-27703.16
N= 4643
Schools= 163
-60832.24
-60791.03
-57752.06
Derived estimates
R2 (Total variance)
0.012
0.31
R12 (level-1 var.)
0.035
0.19
R22 (level-2 var.)
-0.062
0.71
Note: Standard errors in parentheses in null model. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Controlling for dummy missing variables.
206
Table 15 Maximum likelihood estimates for student science performance in United States
Null model
United States
Level-2 cov. (TA items)
Level-2 cov. (TA+TR
items)
Full Model (Level-1 &
Level-2 cov.)
Est.
Est.
SE
Est.
SE
Est.
SE
499.41***
(-4.1)
421.52***
31.89
420.30***
30.38
885.82***
161.28
Fixed part
β₁ (_cons)
β₂ (stand. tests)
-31.18*
12.25
-23.86*
10.6
-12.98
8.61
β₃(teacher tests)
38.95**
11.65
42.19***
9.53
29.60***
5.92
-2.99
6.67
-4.57
5.67
-2.12
3.86
β5(assess. policies)
-24.43
13.61
-10.99
11.19
β6(text. used)
-17.35
20.94
11.27
13.84
β7(course content)
-16.3
20.03
-26.23
15.12
β8(courses offered)
28.45
17.91
10.65
14.07
β9(SES)
22.39***
3.18
β10(gender)
-14.70***
3.31
β11(age)
-26.63**
9.47
β12(grade)
43.06***
5.00
β13(1st immigration gen.)
-4.33
6.99
β14(2nd immigration gen.)
-2.34
5.98
β15 (home lang. other than test lang.)
-6.72
5.48
β₄(teach. judgments)
β16 (public school)
Random part
xtreg
SD(random
intercept)
50.49
Var(random
intercept)
2500.75
454.81
2261.81
357.03
1297.04
239.70
SD (level-1
residual)
79.15
Var(level-1
residual)
5740.22
162.1
5737.79
162.53
5008.22
134.33
ICC(rho)
0.29
Wald chi2(5)
mixed
-38.00**
13.95
mixed
mixed
300.96
Wald chi2(9)
506.65
Wald chi2(20)
1785.35
Log likelihood
N= 5233
-30514
-4150558.6
-4149148.1
-4095343.4
Schools= 165
Derived estimates
R2 (Total variance)
0.065
0.28
R12 (level-1 var.)
0.084
0.2
R22 (level-2 var.)
0.019
0.49
Note: Standard errors in parentheses in null model. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Controlling for dummy missing variables.
207
Appendix M: Maximum likelihood estimates for science performance in didaktik countries
in PISA 2009
Table 16 Maximum likelihood estimates for student science performance in Austria
Null model
Austria
Level-2 cov. (TA items)
Level-2 cov. (TA+TR
items)
Full Model (Level-1
& Level-2 cov.)
Est.
Est.
SE
Est.
SE
Est.
SE
478.51***
(-4.66)
396.74***
34.26
454.20***
33.7
693.63***
88.85
β₂ (stand. tests)
-5.6
12.5
-5.64
13.48
-19.38**
6.72
β₃(teacher tests)
3.68
6.82
4.53
6.92
1.17
4.83
β₄(teach. judgments)
12.8
10.27
13.26
9.43
8.03
7.28
-42.07*
19.75
-30.97*
12.94
β6(text. used)
-6.86
18.7
0.12
14.82
β7(course content)
-19.57
18.53
-3.55
13.71
β8(courses offered)
-8.79
14.21
Fixed part
β₁ (_cons)
β5(assess. policies)
5.09
10.33
β9(SES)
11.85***
1.65
β10(gender)
-25.71***
3.54
β11(age)
-10.45*
5.36
β12(grade)
39.50***
2.87
β13(1st immigration gen.)
-21.21***
6.14
β14(2nd immigration gen.)
-30.58***
5.00
β15 (home lang. other than test lang.)
-12.91**
4.61
β16 (public school)
mixed
-13.04
13.08
mixed
Random part
xtreg
SD(random
intercept)
75.4
Var(random
intercept)
6359.19
696.33
5847.09
645.02
3073.84
362.01
SD (level-1
residual)
65.56
Var(level-1
residual)
4272.67
121.23
4270.43
121.09
3614.06
112.51
ICC(rho)
0.57
Wald chi2(6)
mixed
13.51
Wald chi2(11)
29.93
Wald chi2(22)
2057.46
Log likelihood
-37368.43
N= 6590
Schools= 282
-271593.58
-271478.36
-259127.77
Derived estimates
R2 (Total variance)
-0.065
0.33
R12 (level-1 var.)
0.006
0.16
R22 (level-2 var.)
-0.119
0.46
Note: Standard errors in parentheses in null model. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. Controlling for
dummy missing variables.
208
Table 17 Maximum likelihood estimates for student science performance in Germany
Null model
Germany
Level-2 cov. (TA items)
Level-2 cov. (TA+TR
items)
Full Model (Level-1 &
Level-2 cov.)
Est.
Est.
SE
Est.
SE
Est.
SE
511.30***
(-5.49)
494.70***
29.13
521.73***
29.21
763.21***
74.01
β₂ (stand. tests)
-36.67**
13.36
-33.69**
12.87
-25.97*
12.18
β₃(teacher tests)
0.72
7.63
-1.2
7.79
0.62
6.77
β₄(teach. judgments)
0.98
8.91
-0.71
8.12
-1.48
7.27
β5(assess. policies)
0.86
15.62
-5.05
14.11
β6(text. used)
10.58
15.98
11.57
14.25
β7(course content)
-11.4
14.25
-6.97
12.09
β8(courses offered)
-39.49**
15.19
-36.16**
12.95
β9(SES)
10.26***
1.24
β10(gender)
-20.37***
1.79
β11(age)
-13.35***
3.81
β12(grade)
37.32***
1.93
β13(1st immigration gen.)
-12.78**
4.85
β14(2nd immigration gen.)
-18.48***
3.85
β15 (home lang. other than test lang.)
-16.12***
4.42
Fixed part
β₁ (_cons)
β16 (public school)
Random part
xtreg
SD(random
intercept)
81.45
Var(random
intercept)
6593.99
627.19
6173.42
572.18
4332.85
496.24
SD (level-1
residual)
59.27
Var(level-1
residual)
3465.68
104.93
3465.37
104.91
2634.14
69.59
ICC(rho)
0.65
Wald chi2(5)
mixed
-23.27
20.21
mixed
mixed
12.5
Wald chi2(10)
26.5
Wald chi2(20)
1222.86
Log likelihood
-27810.63
N= 4979
Schools= 226
-1635456.9
-1634968
-1454987.5
Derived estimates
R2 (Total variance)
0.009
0.31
R12 (level-1 var.)
0.013
0.25
R22 (level-2 var.)
0.006
0.35
Note: Standard errors in parentheses in null model. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Controlling for dummy missing variables.
209
Table 19 Maximum likelihood estimates for student science performance in Denmark
Null model
Denmark
Level-2 cov. (TA items)
Level-2 cov. (TA+TR
items)
Full Model (Level-1
& Level-2 cov.)
Est.
Est.
SE
Est.
SE
Est.
SE
481.10***
(-2.75)
492.15***
11.84
470.59***
12.04
650.94***
97.08
β₂ (stand. tests)
1.89
3.51
2.42
3.7
4.42
2.86
β₃(teacher tests)
-0.72
4.11
0.11
4.06
1.64
3.05
0.8
3.08
0.51
3.02
1.99
2.38
6.52
6.89
7.00
5.03
19.18*
9.85
14.74
8.68
β7(course content)
-0.6
7.89
1.14
5.73
β8(courses offered)
-2.56
7.11
-6.03
5.47
β9(SES)
28.47***
1.52
β10(gender)
-15.15***
2.90
-10.94
5.85
β12(grade)
40.19***
3.84
β13(1st immigration gen.)
-37.28***
6.25
β14(2nd immigration gen.)
-34.82***
4.57
β15 (home lang. other than test lang.)
-22.99***
5.73
Fixed part
β₁ (_cons)
β₄(teach. judgments)
β5(assess. policies)
β6(text. used)
β11(age)
β16 (public school)
Random part
xtreg
SD(random
intercept)
42.49
Var(random
intercept)
1400.47
165.38
1266.52
146.03
618.40
84.27
SD (level-1
residual)
82.42
Var(level-1
residual)
6474.04
185.35
6472.45
185.63
5329.18
155.37
ICC(rho)
0.21
Wald chi2(5)
mixed
-2.17
6.58
mixed
mixed
12
Wald chi2(10)
93.9
Wald chi2(20)
1312.38
Log likelihood
-34804.82
N= 5924
Schools= 285
-191445.64
-191376.09
-185910.1
Derived estimates
R2 (Total variance)
0.084
0.31
R12 (level-1 var.)
0.047
0.22
R22 (level-2 var.)
0.224
0.66
Note: Standard errors in parentheses in null model. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Controlling for dummy missing variables.
210
Table 18 Maximum likelihood estimates for student science performance in Finland
Null model
Finland
Level-2 cov. (TA items)
Level-2 cov. (TA+TR
items)
Full Model (Level-1
& Level-2 cov.)
Est.
Est.
SE
Est.
SE
Est.
SE
548.44***
(-2.16)
540.41***
11.64
533.37***
12.63
685.43***
86.2
β₂ (stand. tests)
8.79
5.85
10.32
5.59
16.74***
4.64
β₃(teacher tests)
-4.67
3.7
-5.58
3.79
-4.82
3.16
β₄(teach. judgments)
5.09
3.36
4.19
3.23
3.41
2.30
14.62*
6.04
12.90*
5.29
β6(text. used)
-0.94
20.19
-0.03
19.21
β7(course content)
2.17
6.43
-0.99
5.50
β8(courses offered)
-2.85
6.51
-0.67
4.51
β9(SES)
27.03***
1.60
β10(gender)
13.98***
2.73
-9.68
5.10
39.17***
5.69
β13(1st immigration gen.)
-29.22
15.37
β14(2nd immigration gen.)
-27.88*
12.34
-35.76***
6.08
Fixed part
β₁ (_cons)
β5(assess. policies)
β11(age)
β12(grade)
β15 (home lang. other than test lang.)
β16 (public school)
xtreg
Random part
mixed
-17.16
10.05
mixed
mixed
SD(random
intercept)
26
Var(random
intercept)
598.29
113.55
576.36
112.06
410.45
73.53
SD (level-1
residual)
80.66
Var(level-1
residual)
6552.25
174.46
6549.67
174.06
5707.73
137.74
ICC(rho)
0.09
Wald chi2(5)
NR
Wald chi2(9)
NR
Wald chi2(20)
NR
Log likelihood
-33887.24
N= 5810
Schools= 203
-122868.08
-122854.48
-121355.85
Derived estimates
R2 (Total variance)
0.004
0.15
R12 (level-1 var.)
-0.007
0.12
R22 (level-2 var.)
0.115
0.39
Note: Standard errors in parentheses in null model. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Controlling for dummy missing variables. NR=not reported for model by software.
211
Table 19 Maximum likelihood estimates for student science performance in Norway
Null model
Norway
Level-2 cov. (TA items)
Level-2 cov. (TA+TR
items)
Full Model (Level-1 &
Level-2 cov.)
Est.
Est.
SE
Est.
SE
Est.
SE
499.97***
-2.46
479.05***
14.95
472.41***
17.08
199.60***
78.82
Fixed part
β₁ (_cons)
β₂ (stand. tests)
-5.06
6.13
-3.6
5.83
-2.89
5.41
β₃(teacher tests)
7.84*
3.28
7.91**
3.06
6.07*
3.23
-0.3
2.98
-0.55
2.86
0.12
2.48
11.93*
6
11.63*
5.10
β6(text. used)
-4.14
7.71
-2.32
6.54
β7(course content)
-0.41
6.13
-0.58
5.93
β8(courses offered)
12.41
9.81
14.28
9.12
30.24***
2.37
4.48
2.96
15.90**
5.12
β12(grade)
14.15
17.27
β13(1st immigration gen.)
-7.68
12.20
β14(2nd immigration gen.)
-19.63
10.81
-47.46***
9.36
β₄(teach. judgments)
β5(assess. policies)
β9(SES)
β10(gender)
β11(age)
β15 (home lang. other than test lang.)
β16 (public school)
Random part
xtreg
SD(random
intercept)
29.87
Var(random
intercept)
864.28
143.24
836.39
146.6
624.45
109.65
SD (level-1
residual)
80.17
Var(level-1
residual)
6453.3
161.48
6445.99
161.34
5653.72
144.83
ICC(rho)
0.12
Wald chi2(5)
mixed
14.77
11.28
mixed
mixed
NR
Wald chi2(9)
NR
Wald chi2(19)
NR
Log likelihood
-27182.53
N= 4660
Schools= 197
-128025.15
-128000.97
-123893.3
Derived estimates
R2 (Total variance)
0.0003
0.14
R12 (level-1 var.)
-0.004
0.12
R22 (level-2 var.)
0.031
0.3
Note: Standard errors in parentheses in null model. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Controlling for dummy missing variables. NR=not reported for model by software.
212
Table 20 Maximum likelihood estimates for student science performance in Sweden
Null model
Sweden
Level-2 cov. (TA items)
Level-2 cov. (TA+TR
items)
Full Model (Level-1 &
Level-2 cov.)
Est.
Est.
SE
Est.
SE
Est.
SE
497.97***
(-2.75)
537.88***
26.71
573.11***
27.44
572.18***
83.24
Fixed part
β₁ (_cons)
β₂ (stand. tests)
-13.6
8.01
-14.09
8.18
-10.41
5.65
β₃(teacher tests)
1.29
6.54
0.33
6.64
2.50
4.05
β₄(teach. judgments)
-4.33
6.88
-3.66
6.93
-7.07*
3.37
5.6
13.75
8.35
8.96
β6(text. used)
-30.18
15.98
-15.72
18.92
β7(course content)
-8.33
16.79
0.34
12.78
β8(courses offered)
-0.92
10.43
2.65
7.07
32.84***
2.21
β10(gender)
2.70
2.83
β11(age)
-1.24
5.13
β12(grade)
57.10***
7.67
β13(1st immigration gen.)
-30.26**
9.76
β14(2nd immigration gen.)
-28.67***
6.85
β15 (home lang. other than test lang.)
-15.07
8.33
β16 (public school)
-21.31
12.82
mixed
β5(assess. policies)
β9(SES)
Random part
xtreg
SD(random
intercept)
39.45
Var(random
intercept)
2148.68
422.47
2125.5
417.65
873.57
198.63
SD (level-1
residual)
87.31
Var(level-1
residual)
7691.12
199.81
7691.65
200.23
6361.53
184.20
ICC(rho)
0.17
Wald chi2(5)
mixed
mixed
4.49
Wald chi2(9)
10.86
Wald chi2(20)
909.21
Log likelihood
-27055.62
N= 4567
Schools= 189
-237393.89
-237386.88
-233090.04
Derived estimates
R2 (Total variance)
-0.072
0.21
R12 (level-1 var.)
-0.009
0.17
R22 (level-2 var.)
-0.381
0.44
Note: Standard errors in parentheses in null model. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Controlling for dummy missing variables.
213
Appendix N: Innovation in education, 2000-2011
Overall composite innovation index (Source: OECD 2014)
School and classroom composite innovation index, 2000-2011 (Source: OECD 2014)
VITA
Armend Tahirsylaj
Education
2015 (expected)
Ph.D. in Educational Theory & Policy, The Pennsylvania State University
2007
M.Ed. in Curriculum, Teaching & Learning, University of Calgary
2003
B.A. in English Language and Literature, University of Prishtina
Grants, Assistantships, Fellowships, and Scholarships
2014-2015
Center for Online Innovation in Learning Grant, The Pennsylvania State University
2011-2014
Waterbury Graduate Assistantship, The Pennsylvania State University
2010-2011
Hubert Humphrey Fellowship, The Pennsylvania State University
2004-2007
Canadian International Development Agency Scholarship, University of Calgary
Professional Experience
2014-2015
Program Manager, The Pennsylvania State University
2011-2014
Graduate research assistant, The Pennsylvania State University
2009-2010
Education Adviser & Coordinator, Ministry of Education (Kosovo)
2004-2010
Lecturer, University of Prishtina (Kosovo)
Selected Publications
Tahirsylaj, A., Brezicha, K., & Ikoma, S. (In press). Unpacking teacher differences
in Didaktik and Curriculum Traditions: Trends from TIMSS 2003, 2007, and 2011. In G. LeTendre & A.
Wiseman (Eds.), Promoting and Sustaining a Quality Teaching Workforce. UK: Emerald Group Publishing.
Bismack, A., Ong, Y.S., Tahirsylaj, A., & Duschl, R. (In press). Driving change forward. In R. A. Duschl &
A. S. Bismack (Eds), Reconceptualizing STEM Education: The central role of practices. New York:
Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
Zhang, L., Khan, G., & Tahirsylaj, A. (forthcoming). Student Performance, School Differentiation, and World
Cultures: Evidence from PISA 2009. International Journal of Educational Development.
Tahirsylaj, A. (2013). Educational Change in Post-war Kosovo: Perceptions of Kosovo Educators as
Presented in Shkëndija. Interchange, 44(1-2) 1-13.
Tahirsylaj, A. (2012). Stimulating creativity and innovation through Intelligent Fast Failure. Thinking Skills
and Creativity, 7(3), 265-270.
Tahirsylaj, A. (2010). Higher Education in Kosovo: Major Changes, Reforms and Development Trends in
Post-conflict Period at University of Prishtina. Interchange, 41(2), 171-183.