Helms-Lorenz and Visscher (2021) identifed different relevant contextual factors infuencing teaching behavior including class size, student performance in the class, school policy, leadership and educational policies of the country. In the same vein, Brühwiler and Blatchford (2011) summarized several factors infuencing teachers' adaptive instruction and, eventually, student performance in a theoretical model. At the teacher level, the authors included general characteristics like gender, teaching experience, personal motivation, affect and competency that may infuence teaching. Furthermore, variables referring to the context of the classroom like class size and heterogeneity of the classroom are hypothesized to infuence adaptive teaching. At a higher level, factors like characteristics of the educational system of the country or region are mentioned. As identifed in the dynamic model of teaching (Kyriakides et al., 2009), national and regional educational policy infuences school policy, which in turn may affect teaching.

In this chapter, we aim to explore the relationship between the implementation of DI and various personal characteristics, teaching behaviors and contextual factors. We will study this using empirical data from secondary schools in six different countries to explore the relations across a rich set of different contexts. First, let us turn to the literature about the infuence of variables included in the study. In line with the model of Brühwiler and Blatchford (2011), we will discuss fndings from the literature across different categories: classroom (teaching) processes, teacher characteristics, classroom context, school context and country (educational system).

#### *1.1 Classroom Processes*

#### **1.1.1 Differentiated Instruction**

Across educational contexts, policy makers and teachers stressed the need to use frequent assessment and to adapt the curriculum towards individual learning needs (OECD, 2012; UNESCO, 2020a; UNESCO, 2017). Yet, observational studies in secondary education found that teachers across different countries in general did not show much DI in their lessons (Maulana et al., 2021; Van der Lans et al., 2017). Nevertheless, teachers' DI can develop in contexts in which DI is explicitly promoted (Bondie et al., 2019; Schipper et al., 2017). In literature on teaching and teaching effectiveness, DI is recognized as one of the key characteristics of effective teaching (Kyriakides et al., 2009; Seidel & Shavelson, 2007; de Grift & Wim, 2014.

#### **1.1.2 Differentiated Instruction and Other Effective Teaching Behaviors**

Most models of DI stress the interrelatedness of DI and other teaching behaviors. For instance, in the differentiation model of Tomlinson (2014), DI is said to be infuenced by general principles of differentiation like high-quality curriculum, teaching up and continuous assessment. In addition, teaching behaviors like stimulating mutual respect and supporting students to have high expectations of what they can do are important factors that may help set the stage for DI (Tomlinson & Imbeau, 2010). In the description of DI principles by Van Geel et al. (*this book*), general teaching quality indicators like communicating clear lesson goals, introducing the lesson and monitoring students' progress have a central place. The same goes for the model of Smale-Jacobse et al. (2019) in which DI is embedded in a context of continuous assessment, high-quality teaching and curriculum and a supportive learning environment. In that sense, other teaching behaviors are hypothesized to be related to teachers' DI. In some models of teaching quality, differentiation is viewed as a high-quality dimension of general teaching quality indicators like questioning, modeling or assessment (Kyriakides et al., 2009). Observational studies showed that teachers who have highly developed basic teaching skills are typically more likely to differentiate (Van der Lans et al., 2017). DI has often been found to be one of the more complex domains of teaching, clustering together with other complex teaching skills like activating students and teaching learning strategies (Van der Lans et al., 2017). In our study, DI is conceptualized as one of six domains of effective teaching behavior: creating a safe learning climate, effcient classroom management, quality of instruction, activating teaching methods, teaching learning strategies and differentiated instruction (de Grift & Wim, 2014). Interrelatedness between DI and teaching behaviors in other domains was previously found in all of the countries included in the current empirical study (Chun et al., 2020; Maulana et al., 2021).

#### **1.1.3 Other Classroom Processes**

Besides the teaching behaviors described above, which were included in our study, there are other classroom processes that may be related to DI. One example is the interpersonal relationship between the teacher and the students. A previous study shows that students rather uniformly perceive teachers who show relatively highquality DI to be "helpful" or "directing" in their interactions (Van der Lans et al., 2020).

#### *1.2 Teacher Characteristics*

#### **1.2.1 Teaching Experience**

A personal factor of the teacher that may affect the implementation of DI is teaching experience. Beginning teachers are often still developing basic teaching skills and are generally relatively infexible in their teaching. Experienced teachers, on the other hand, are generally better at offering challenging curricula, they often have deep representations of the subject matter and are skilled in monitoring and providing feedback (Berliner, 2004). Expert teachers often have a broad pedagogical and didactical repertoire and are typically more able to evaluate students' learning needs (Hayden et al., 2013). This could make it easier for them to fexibly adapt their teaching to students' needs. Fullers' (Fuller, 1969) theory of teacher development posits that teachers typically shift their concern from a focus on themselves to a focus on the task and later on to a focus on the impact of their teaching for students. Secondary school teachers generally experience a shift in focus during their careers, developing from an emphasis on the subject matter to an emphasis on gaining didactical and pedagogical expertise (Beijaard et al., 2000). The latter, more studentcentered focus in both theories of teacher development seems to be more in line with the student-centered philosophy of DI.

Teaching experience was found to be positively related to DI in the Netherlands (Van der Pers & Helms-Lorenz, 2019), Indonesia (Suprayogi et al., 2017), and in countries not included in our study like Singapore and the United States (Van Tassel-Baska et al., 2008). However, there are also studies in which less-experienced teachers differentiated better than more-experienced counterparts, for instance in Spain and South Africa (Fernández-García et al., 2019; De Jager et al., 2017). In Spain, the current teacher-training program includes increased attention for pedagogical, didactical and psychological aspects of working with students, which may explain why novice teachers show higher quality DI in this county (Fernández-García et al., 2019). In Mongolia, about half of all teachers have between 1–10 years of experience (Ministry of Education and Science, 2021). In Pakistan, teachers on average have about 7 years of experience with a maximum of around 30 years. In South Korea, teachers in lower secondary education on average have around 16 years of experience. Since about one third of all teachers are 50 years or older, many new teachers will be starting in the coming years though (OECD, 2019b). Differences in the relations between experience and DI may be caused by variation in the way teachers are prepared for DI in teacher education, in-service professionalization or by differences in educational policy (De Neve & Devos, 2016; De Jager et al., 2017), which stresses the need to take the broader context into account.

#### **1.2.2 Teacher Gender**

Teacher gender might be a less obvious infuence on DI than experience. However, since there are studies pointing at gender differences in teaching styles, teacher gender is a characteristic worth exploring. In most of the countries included in our sample, there are both female and male teachers in secondary education. In Pakistan and South Korea, there are relatively more female teachers in lower secondary education. In the Netherlands, Spain and Indonesia the proportion of female and male teachers in secondary education is relatively equal (UNESCO, 2021). Alternatively, in Mongolia, more than 80% of all secondary school teachers are female (Ministry of Education and Science, 2021).

When turning to the relations between gender and teaching, there are some studies pointing at advantages for female teachers. For instance, a study using studentratings found that Spanish female teachers in secondary and vocational education were rated higher than male teachers regarding their implementation of DI and several other domains of teaching (Fernández-García et al., 2019). In the same vein, an observational study executed in the Netherlands found female pre-service teachers to ensure a better learning climate and have better quality of instruction (Maulana & Helms-Lorenz, 2017).

However, there are also studies in which male teachers seemed to have an advantage over female teachers or in which there were little gender effects on teaching quality. In a study in Flanders, for instance, male teachers evaluated themselves more positively on leadership qualities and on helpful/friendly interpersonal behavior (Van Petegem et al., 2005). A study in the Netherlands showed that students evaluated male teachers as more cooperative and friendly than female teachers (Opdenakker et al., 2012). Another study found gender effects in favor of males in teaching learning strategies (Van der Pers & Helms-Lorenz, 2019).

It seems that gender differences in teaching are mixed depending on the context, the measurement instrument and the teaching domains. Findings in favor of males were found regarding classroom management and interpersonal relationships with students. One study executed in Spain reported that females were better in DI (Fernández-García et al., 2019), but other studies did not report on direct relations between gender and DI.

#### **1.2.3 School Subject**

There are studies arguing that the way a school subject is perceived by teachers can infuence their teaching (Grossman & Stodolsky, 1995). In the countries included in our sample, many different school subjects are taught ranging from about 8–20 core subjects followed by students. Turning to between-subject differences in DI, prior studies did not fnd evidence for pronounced differences. In a study of Pozas et al. (2020) in which teachers were questioned about their DI, a rather similar response pattern was found for both German and Mathematics. There were slight differences though, with mathematics teachers using (peer)tutoring more and German teachers indicating more use of project-based learning. In a study in which lessons of preservice teachers in the Netherlands were observed, no signifcant differences in teaching quality were found across school subjects (Maulana & Helms-Lorenz, 2017).

#### **1.2.4 Other General Characteristics of the Teacher**

In addition to the previously mentioned teacher characteristics included in our study, there are other teacher characteristics that could be related to DI. In prior studies, characteristics of teachers like knowledge, growth mindset, beliefs, selfeffcacy and professional vision were related to the implementation of DI (Coubergs et al., 2017; Suprayogi et al., 2017; Vantieghem et al., 2020; UNESCO, 2020a; Whitley et al., 2019). There are between-country differences that may affect such teacher characteristics. For instance, in South Korea only top students from high schools can enter teacher-training programs, which makes for highly knowledgeable and skilled teacher-candidates. Conversely, while in countries like Indonesia, Pakistan and Mongolia teaching is a relatively low-paid profession that does not attract many of the top graduates. In addition, the curricula of the teacher training programs and the professionalization initiatives may affect teachers' knowledge, skills and beliefs. There are differences between countries with respect to how well teachers feel prepared for pedagogical and didactical issues in classroom practice. For instance, in Spain and the Netherlands, only about a quarter of all teachers reported to feel prepared to teach in mixed-ability classrooms (OECD, 2019b). In Mongolia, there is increasing attention for teacher training and professionalization, but up to date a wide variety of approaches is used across the country (UNESCO, 2020b). And teacher training programs in Pakistan and Indonesia are not yet up to international standards (United States Agency for International Development, 2006; World Bank, 2015). From the countries included in our sample, teachers are particularly valued and supported in South Korea (OECD, 2016a).

#### *1.3 Classroom Context*

#### **1.3.1 Class Size**

The majority of studies on class size have reported that within smaller classes, teachers have more care for students' individual needs than in larger classes. Blatchford et al. (2011) found that students in smaller classes received more attention and had more active interactions with the teacher. Another study reported that teachers in smaller classes devoted less time to group instruction and more time to individual instruction, especially in below-average classes (Betts & Shkolnik, 1999). Observational studies in Dutch secondary education showed that, on average, teachers use DI more in smaller classes (Maulana & Helms-Lorenz, 2017; Van der Pers & Helms-Lorenz, 2019). Teachers typically perceive it as a relatively timedemanding and diffcult to adapt their instruction to the substantial spread of learning needs in large classes (Roiha, 2014; Wan, 2014). Across OECD countries and economies, teachers who teach larger classes tend to spend less classroom time on actual teaching and learning (OECD, 2019b).

Although overall fndings point in the direction of DI being easier for teachers to implement in smaller classrooms, the link between the two is not always clear. For instance, in the study of Suprayogi et al. (2017), Indonesian teachers reported slightly more DI in larger classes. In the study of Brühweiler and Blatchford et al. (2011), class size was not directly related to classroom processes nor student outcomes in secondary education. This illustrates that, although smaller classes may make DI easier, lower class size does not by defnition affect teaching nor student outcomes. In fact, teaching quality has been suggested to impact students more than class size (OECD, 2010).

In the countries included in our sample, the average class size differs considerably. In countries like Mongolia, Spain, South Korea and the Netherlands, the average class size is around the OECD average of 21 students (Education policy and data center, 2018; OECD, 2021). In the Netherlands, class size differs substantially between different educational tracks (Van Bergen et al., 2016). In Mongolia, class size differs considerably from around 15 students per teacher in rural areas up to 60 students per teacher in urban areas (UNESCO, 2019). The average class size in Pakistan is typically large, more than 40 students per class is not exceptional. In Indonesia, class size is also relatively large, with estimates of average class size ranging from about 33 to 47 students per teacher (Hendayana et al., 2010; OECD, 2014a).

#### **1.3.2 Other Classroom Context Factors**

Besides class size, another factor that may be related to the implementation of DI is the heterogeneity of the classroom. A large spread of learning needs can make it challenging for teachers to cater to individual students (Wan, 2014). On the other hand, external differentiation between classes may impede differentiation practices within the classroom. For instance, in Dutch secondary education students are tracked early on based on (presumed) abilities. Therefore, secondary school teachers generally feel less need for DI than in primary education (Van Casteren et al., 2017), although there is in fact still large variation in attainment within the tracks (OECD, 2016b). In most countries in our sample, students frst follow compulsory lower secondary education in mixed ability classes for 2 to 4 years. This could imply that classes in these countries are relatively more heterogeneous than in Dutch lower secondary education. Nevertheless, about half of all Dutch teachers do report to have more than 10% of students with special needs in their classes, illustrating that there may be other sources of heterogeneity too (OECD, 2019b). In upper secondary education, students are split up across different ability tracks varying from two different levels – an academic track and a vocational/technical track – in Spain, to six different ability tracks in the Netherlands (early tracking). Alternatively, in Mongolia and Indonesia, most students stay in their heterogeneous classes in upper secondary education. However, there are also students that switch to a different institution for vocational/technical education. In Pakistan, students choose between general and technical/vocational education before entering secondary education. After that, students are not split up further based on their abilities either but they do choose between different electives. In South Korea, upper secondary students can enroll in various types of high schools like general high schools, vocational high schools, science high schools or special high schools.

A teacher may additionally let the SES or the cognitive composition of the class infuence the way they choose to implement DI, for instance by taking into account that homogeneous grouping could be detrimental for low-achieving students (Deunk et al., 2018). In addition, the cultural composition of a class may drive teachers towards differentiated approaches aimed at culturally responsive teaching (Gay, 2013). In Spain, for instance, an above-average percentage of students is born in another country (OECD, 2016c), which may make classes more culturally diverse.

#### *1.4 School Context*

Although the effects of school factors on instructional quality are typically small (Opdenakker & Van Damme, 2007), there are ways that schools can support, or hinder, teachers in their implementation of DI. Several aspects of the school climate may infuence teaching and learning. School climate includes school organization, relations in the school community, leadership, available resources and institutional and structural features of the school environment to name a few (Wang & Degol, 2016). In the Netherlands and South Korea, schools have much autonomy over their resources and curriculum, while schools in Spain have somewhat less autonomy (OECD, 2011). In Mongolia, schools have little autonomy in matters of resources or curriculum. Also, in Indonesia and Pakistan, a standardized curriculum determined by the government is followed.

Several studies show that school principals can play an important role in teachers' willingness and ability to differentiate instruction (Goddard et al., 2010; Hertberg-Davis & Brighton, 2006). At the school level, working together with colleagues in a 'pedagogical team culture' may enhance teachers' implementation of DI (Smit & Humpert, 2012). Additionally, the way schools are set up may infuence DI. For instance, schools may vary in fexibility to move between different tracks (Gamoran, 1992). Moreover, school-level practices like providing enough preparation time for teachers may affect DI. Various studies show that teachers often experience lack of time for preparation and implementation of DI (De Jager, 2017; De Jager, 2013; Lavania & Nor, 2020; Roiha, 2014).

#### *1.5 Characteristics of the Country*

Based on a large-scale study on teaching quality across European, North-American, Pacifc Countries, Canada and Australia, Reynolds et al. (2002) concluded that most factors known from national school- and teacher effectiveness research 'work' in different international contexts. However, there are country-specifc differences in how teaching behaviors are interpreted and valued. The six countries included in the current study differ in many ways, for instance in the way education is organized, how the teaching profession is set up and valued, and what the classroom context is like. Some specifcs of these countries that could affect DI through classroom processes, characteristics of the teachers, and the context of the school have been discussed above. In this paragraph, we will discuss some general country characteristics, policies related to DI and country-specifc resources.

International comparisons of student performance show that students from South Korea are among the top performers internationally. Dutch students show above average performance in comparison to other countries and the performance of Spanish students is around the OECD average in the PISA evaluation. Indonesia is positioned among the lowest performing educational systems (Mullis et al., 2020; Mullis et al., 2017; OECD, 2019a). Mongolia and Pakistan are developing countries that are not yet included in international evaluations.

In most of the countries included in our study, countrywide policies aimed at student-centered and inclusive learning have been developed. For instance, in Mongolia, DI and formative assessment have gained a lot of attention through the Mongolia-Cambridge Education Initiative and also, from 2013 on, the "Upright Mongolian child" policies emphasizing equal opportunities and catering to the unique talents of individuals (Government of Mongolia., 2013; Pavlova et al., 2017). In Spain, the government emphasized the need for early diagnosis of problems affecting students' learning (in the classroom but also regarding access to education) and annual assessment of student performance (Ministerio de Educación y Formación Profesional, 2020). There is also an initiative to provide schools with enough resources for students with specifc educational needs. In the Netherlands, knowing how to account for differences between students is part of the standards prospective teachers have to meet before entering the teaching profession, and as such is included in teacher training programs and evaluation criteria for schools (Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap, 2017). Nevertheless, a lot of Dutch secondary teachers still struggle with fully implementing DI in practice (Van Casteren et al., 2017). In South Korea, the Master Plan for Educational Welfare with a focus on providing equal opportunities for all students has helped to boost quality of education and to diminish differences in school success caused by students' socio-economic or migrant status (OECD, 2014b). A homeroom teacher functions as a mentor for individual students helping to keep them on track in their development.

Indonesia also has a national policy related to improving teaching quality. However, the country does not have specifc policies directed at improving DI or other adaptive teaching practices. Policies directed at improving teaching quality in general have yet to lead to signifcant improvements (Chang et al., 2014). In Pakistan, there are no specifc country-level initiatives aimed at DI either. Studies indicate that Pakistani secondary school teachers rather adopt traditional than students-centred methods of teaching (Andrabi et al., 2013). Whether or not initiatives are employed to boost teaching quality, including DI, teachers in various countries included in our study typically struggle with the implementation of DI (Maulana et al., 2021).

Schools across different countries will probably also vary signifcantly in the human and material resources they have for accommodating students' learning needs (UNESCO, 2020a). In Indonesia and to a lesser amount in South Korea and Spain, principals reported a shortage of material resources, while shortages in the Netherlands are less pronounced (OECD, 2020). Schools in Mongolia sometimes also experience shortages; for instance, not all schools have access to the internet for pedagogical purposes (UNICEF, 2020). Of the countries in our study, expenditure on education is particularly low in Pakistan and Indonesia (World Bank, 2021). Also, school attendance is a problem in some countries. There are still a lot of children who do not attend secondary education, especially in Pakistan (UNICEF, 2021).

#### **2 Research Questions**

In this study, the relationships between personal factors, teaching behaviors and contextual factors and DI are explored across and within different countries. We have different questions guiding this study:

Based on the review of the literature, we expect that teaching experience will be positively related to teachers' DI. Since in previous studies other teaching behavior domains were found to be related to DI, we expect to fnd relations between the other observed teaching behaviors and DI, especially between DI and other relatively complex teaching behaviors. Class size could be negatively related to teachers' DI, with teachers differentiating more in relatively small classes, although this may not be true for all countries. Since there are large differences in class size across the countries in our sample, the strength of the relation may vary across the different countries. Additionally, there are indications from a Spanish study that females may differentiate more than their male counterparts, but this fnding is less clear-cut in the literature. At the school level, some variance may be explained, for instance, because of leadership, practical facilitation of DI and working together with colleagues. At the country level, multiple characteristics may affect how DI is executed and perceived. Policies attempted to stimulate DI like the acts implemented in Mongolia may positively affect DI. In prior studies South Korean teachers were typically found to show high-quality instruction, including DI. In Indonesia and Pakistan, there are no specifc country-level initiatives addressing DI, which may lead us to expect less DI in these countries. There may also be between country-differences stemming from differences in how the educational system is set up or how resources are divided. How country-level differences interact with personal- and contextual factors is yet to be explored.

#### **3 Methods**

#### *3.1 Sample and Procedure*

The current study includes observation data of lessons of a subsample of 1822 teachers in secondary education selected from the data of 4643 teachers from six countries involving Indonesia, the Netherlands, Mongolia, Pakistan, South Korea and Spain. Convenience sampling was used to collect each country sample. All teachers participated on a voluntary basis. Typical lessons of the participating teachers were observed in authentic classroom settings. Data were collected in different years ranging from 2015 to 2020. Observation ratings of one full lesson of each participating teacher were used. More information on the country samples can be found in Maulana et al. (2022).

In the original sample, the number of teachers in both South Korea and the Netherlands was considerably larger than in the other countries (e.g. 2–6 times larger than the sample from Indonesia), which might affect the outcomes. In order to better balance the sample, teachers from these countries were randomly assigned into ten subgroups. We randomly selected a subsample of the subgroups from these two countries for inclusion in the analyses. In the main text, we will present the analyses with the balanced sample of 1822 teachers. The descriptives of the frst balanced subsample of in total 1822 teachers included in the main analyses are provided in Table 23.1. The results for two other randomly chosen balanced samples and the unbalanced sample are added to the chapter as supplementary materials (see web version) as a robustness check. More information about the variables can be found in the description of the instruments.

**Table 23.1** Descriptives of the balanced sample used in the main analyses per country

#### *3.2 Instruments*

#### **3.2.1 Personal and Contextual Variables**

Teachers' gender, school subject and class size were collected by the observers in the classroom. Class size represents the number of students present during the observation. Because of the variety of subjects differing across countries, school subjects were collapsed into three categories: alpha, beta and gamma. Alpha subjects refer to native- and foreign language subjects like Dutch or English. Beta subjects refer to mathematics and natural sciences subjects like science or biology. Gamma subjects refer to social sciences and humanities like history or geography. Subjects in the arts, crafts and physical education were not included in the analyses.

#### **3.2.2 Observation Measure of Teaching Behavior Including Differentiated Instruction**

To measure teaching behavior in the six countries, the International Comparative Analysis of Learning and Teaching (ICALT) observation instrument was used (de Grift & Wim, 2014). The instrument consists of 32 high-inferential, observable teaching quality indicators, accompanied by 120 low-inferential observable teaching activities. The differentiation scale of the instrument consists of four highinferential items like "The teacher offers weaker learners extra study and instruction time" and "The teacher adjusts instruction to relevant inter-learner differences" (see Appendix A for all items and corresponding low inference examples of good practices). Each high-inferential item was rated on a 4-point Likert scale with the following categories: '1 = mostly (predominantly) weak', '2 = more often weak than strong', '3 = more often strong than weak' and '4 = mostly strong'. The sum score of these differentiation items was used as the outcome measure of the study. For all of the countries included in this study the scale reliability is acceptable, ranging from .67 in Pakistan to .84 in South Korea.

The items in the ICALT represent the six domains of teaching behavior discussed in the theoretical section including: safe and stimulating educational climate (4 items), effcient classroom management (4 items), clarity of instruction (7 items), activating teaching (7 items), differentiated instruction (4 items), and teaching learning strategies (6 items). Previous research confrmed the six-factor structure of observed teaching behavior, as well as measurement invariance and applicability of the instrument in secondary schools from different countries (Maulana et al., 2021, 2022). Please refer to Maulana et al. (2021) for examples of items in the other teaching domain-scales.

Trained observers observed a full lesson of each teacher using the ICALT. All observers completed an observer training before they executed the observations. A detailed description of the observer training can be found in Maulana et al. (2021, 2022).

#### *3.3 Analyses*

Multilevel regression analyses were used to analyze the relations of different variables with DI in R studio using the packages multilevel (Bliese, 2021; Bliese, 2016), nmle (Pinheiro et al., 2021), LME4 (Bates et al., 2021; Bates et al., 2015) and sjPlot (Lüdecke, 2021).1

In order to answer research questions 1–3, we used multilevel modeling by adding personal and contextual variables step-wisely, evaluating the improvement of the model ft as well as the specifc infuence of different personal and contextual variables. In Model 0, the fxed effect of the school level was added to the model. Then, in Model 1, teachers' gender and experience were added as personal case-mix characteristics of the teacher. After this, teachers' school subject was added to the model (Model 2). In Model 3, indicators of other domains of teaching behavior were added to study the hypothesized relations between teaching behaviors and DI. In Model 4, we added class size as a relevant classroom characteristic. In Model 5, country was added to the equation as a fxed effect. Country was added as a fxed effect instead of as a separate level in the model because there were only 6 countries included in the analyses, which is too limited to treat it as a separate level in the model. Lastly, in order to determine whether the relations between personal and contextual characteristics and DI were affected by the country in which the data was collected, we analyzed Model 4 again splitting the data per country to assess possible country-specifc differences.

#### **4 Results**

In Fig. 23.1, the results of fve different multilevel models are presented. Based on Models 1–4, there is a small, signifcant effect of gender. The effect of gender is negative for males as compared to females. The estimate becomes insignifcant (*p* = .0.056) in Model 5. There is also a small, positive effect of teaching experience on DI. However, the effect becomes insignifcant when the other teaching behavior domains are added into Model 3. The fgure further shows that DI is related to classroom management, activating teaching, and teaching learning strategies. Adding the teaching behavior domains improves the model ft most strongly (see Table 23.3). To check whether these results were infuenced by the subsample that we used, we compared the fndings to results in two other random subsamples and in the unbalanced data (see supplementary materials). Across all random samples, positive relations were found between DI and classroom management, activating teaching and teaching learning strategies. At the country level, signifcant positive estimates were found for South Korea, Pakistan and (all but one sample) Mongolia. Teaching

<sup>1</sup>The analyses were performed in SPSS as well as in R to check comparability. The outcomes were nearly identical (see supplementary materials in the web version of this chapter).

**Fig. 23.1** The relations between personal factors, teaching behaviors and contextual factors and DI based on multilevel regression Models 1–5

learning strategies is strongly related to DI in all countries (ranging from *r* = .52 in the Netherlands and Spain to *r* = .76 in Pakistan) as is the quality of activating teaching (ranging from *r* = .57 and *r* = .58 in the Netherlands and Spain respectively to *r* = .74 in South Korea). See Appendix B for the correlations.

The country-level was added to Model 5, showing signifcantly higher quality DI compared to the Dutch sample for teachers in Pakistan and South Korea, and to a lesser extent Mongolia (see Fig. 23.1 and Table 23.2). The conditional *R2* for Model 5 in Table 23.2 shows that about 70% of the total variance in DI is explained through both fxed and random effects in the model. The ICC indicates that about maximally 33% of this estimated variance could be explained by differences at the school level.

Adding the different countries to the Model signifcantly improves the model ft (see Table 23.3).

In order to further assess country-level differences regarding how the different personal and contextual characteristics were related to DI, we compared Model 4 across the different countries in Table 23.4. 2,3 When performing the multilevel analyses for the countries separately, it becomes clear that activating teaching and teaching learning strategies are signifcant and stable correlates of DI across the different countries. Additionally, in some countries, other teaching behaviors are

<sup>2</sup> In this case, the full data of South Korea and the Netherlands was used.

<sup>3</sup>Adding interaction-effects to the full model showed some interactions between variables in the model and different countries, mostly related to the varying effect of experience (see supplementary materials in the web version of the chapter).

Teaching behavior: Instruction 0.04 0.04 0.246 Teaching behavior: Activation **0.36 0.03 <0.001** Teaching behavior: Learning strategies **0.29 0.03 <0.001** Class size −0.00 0.00 0.530 Country: Indonesia (reference: The Netherlands) 0.01 0.07 0.922 Country: Mongolia (reference: The Netherlands) 0.14 0.06 **0.015** Country: Pakistan (reference: The Netherlands) 0.52 0.08 **<0.001** Country: South Korea (reference: The Netherlands) 0.32 0.06 **<0.001**

**Table 23.2** Predictors and estimates of DI based on model 5 of multilevel regression modelling

**Table 23.3** Model ft indices of the different multilevel models presented in Fig. 23.1

signifcant predictors like classroom management (the Netherlands and Pakistan), learning climate, and clarity of instruction (Mongolia). In Pakistan, the Netherlands and South Korea, a small negative effect of class size was found indicating that better DI was related to smaller classes. In the Netherlands and South Korea, teaching experience was signifcantly related to DI. On the other hand, the effect of experience was small and in the reverse direction in the Spanish sample. In the Mongolian sample, a negative effect of gender in favor of females was found. This may be an artefact of the fact that there were few male teachers in the sample. In the Netherlands, alpha and beta subjects were found to be related to higher quality DI as compared to gamma subjects. The percentage of the variance explained at the school level is relatively small, especially in Pakistan and the Netherlands. Overall, there were many commonalities across the countries, but we also found some country-specifc infuences of personal and contextual factors on DI.

#### **5 Discussion and Conclusions**

In this study, we have addressed research questions about how characteristics of the teacher, the teaching and the teaching context are related to teachers' DI and about how these relations differ across countries. Starting with the personal characteristics of the teacher: in our sample, the hypothesis of a small gender effect on DI favoring females was confrmed. Our fnding is in line with previous research on gender differences in teaching quality (Fernández-García et al., 2019; Maulana & Helms-Lorenz, 2017). When looking into the country-specifc results, the beneft of females is most profound in the Mongolian sample in which only 17% of the teachers was male, which may have affected this fnding. Furthermore, a small positive effect of teaching experience was found. This is in line with previous empirical studies (Suprayogi et al., 2017; Van Tassel-Baska et al., 2008; Van der Pers & Helms-Lorenz, 2019) and theoretical assumptions that teachers, overtime, tend to shift their focus from themselves to the learning process of their students (Beijaard et al., 2000; Fuller, 1969). Nevertheless, the positive relation of experience and DI across countries is relatively small and even reversed (experience is negatively related to DI) in Spain. The latter can be caused by the fact that less experienced teachers in Spain tend to be better trained in their initial education and professionalization to address individual students' needs (Fernández-García et al., 2019). The signifcant relation between experience and DI in Spain and in the Netherlands could also be affected by the fact that the sample in the Netherlands was relatively inexperienced (average experience of 3 years) and the sample in Spain was relatively experienced (average experience of 21 years). Possibly, relations with DI are more profound in these specifc groups of teachers. Overall, in our sample, the relations of both gender and experience with DI are small, and they become non-signifcant when adding teaching behavior indicators to the model. Nevertheless, the fact that they are signifcant predictors of DI in some of the countries shows that it is interesting to include these personal factors in further investigations. We did not fnd strong

evidence of differences in relations with DI between school subjects. Only in the Dutch sample, teachers from alpha and beta subjects generally showed higher quality DI than teachers in gamma subjects. More research would be needed to gain insights into differences between specifc subjects causing these variations. National-level studies may provide more insight into differences between the execution of DI in specifc school subjects within the county.

Indicators of effective teaching behavior were shown to be the strongest correlates of DI in our models. In particular, teachers' ability to manage the classroom, to activate students and to teach about learning strategies were found to be related to teachers' DI. The strong relations between activating teaching, teaching learning strategies and DI are in line with previous studies showing these domains of teaching being clustered together as relatively diffcult teaching domains for teachers (Maulana et al., 2021; Maulana et al., 2015; Maulana et al., 2020; Van der Lans et al., 2017). The relatedness of these teaching behaviors can also be traced back to the literature. For instance, expert teachers from the Netherlands stated that they used DI as a means to stimulate students' self-regulative behavior, which is in line with stimulating learning strategies (Keuning et al., 2017; Van Geel et al., 2019). In addition, activating teaching can be connected to DI when teachers deliberately differentiate within the didactical approaches they use to activate students. The relatedness of DI and classroom management was also reported before in literature (Prast et al., 2015). As Tomlinson and Imbeau (2010, preface) write "classroom management is the process of fguring out how to set up and orchestrate a classroom in which students sometimes work as a whole group, as small groups, and as individuals". Teachers who are not able to ensure an orderly and effcient lesson will probably not succeed in fexibly adapting the organization towards DI. But it may also work the other way around; providing students with instruction matching their learning needs may help learners into a state of fow (Csikszentmihályi, 2008) and cultivate a higher sense of competence and autonomy (Deci & Ryan, 1985), which in turn may prevent disorderly behaviors.

Overall, class size was not signifcantly related to DI over and above the infuence of other teaching behavior domains. This is in line with prior fndings in secondary education (Brühwiler & Blatchford, 2011). For good teachers who teach in a well-organized, effective manner, some variation in the number of students may not directly affect the quality of their differentiation. Nevertheless, class size was signifcantly related to DI in some countries. This was the case in Pakistan, South Korea and the Netherlands in which the classes were above average in size; this may make DI more challenging. However, overall, teaching quality seems to be more determining for DI than class size (OECD, 2010).

The variance explained by the school level was limited, even in countries like the Netherlands and South Korea where schools have relatively much autonomy. We did fnd that teachers in some countries – South Korea, Mongolia and Pakistan – showed higher levels of differentiation relative to teachers in the Netherlands. In Mongolia, classes are relatively heterogeneous and there are specifc policy developments aimed at improving individual students' learning processes that may have stimulated teachers' application of DI (Government of Mongolia, 2013; Pavlova et al., 2017). South Korean teachers are typically highly skilled and receive highquality training and professionalization which may facilitate teaching quality. The fnding that Pakistani teachers showed relatively high-quality DI was somewhat unexpected since educational policies in Pakistan do not specifcally address DI and prior research found teachers to show relatively traditional types of teaching (Andrabi et al., 2013). Nevertheless, teachers in Pakistan do have to teach in relatively large, heterogeneous classes with a big spread of learning needs. In such a context, DI seems a logical approach to keep all students on track. Additionally, implementation of DI in Dutch secondary education may be limited since teachers in secondary education may hold the notion that DI is less needed because of the rigorous tracking system (Van Casteren et al., 2017). The fact that teachers in Indonesia showed relatively little high-quality differentiation in reference to other countries is in line with previous studies (Maulana et al., 2021). This may be explained by the fact that DI is not adequately included in educational policies at the country level nor in teacher training or professionalization programs. The fact that Spanish teachers did not show higher quality DI than teachers in the Netherlands may partly be affected by the relatively experienced sample in this study. In Spain, inexperienced teachers were found to implement DI better than more experienced counterparts (Fernández-García et al., 2019). Also, policies regarding attending to individual differences are relatively new and it may take some time before they affect daily classroom practices.

Although we can hypothesize about country-specifc circumstances that may explain differences in correlates of DI, more in-depth studies are needed to verify such infuences. One fnding that is consistent throughout our study though, is that across and within the participating countries, teaching quality in other domains of teaching – particularly activating instruction and learning strategies – is related to the implementation of DI.

*Scientifc and Practical Implications* On the scientifc level, the fact that activating teaching and teaching learning strategies are positively related to DI is in line with a stage-like framework of teaching in which these relatively diffcult domains of teaching cluster together (Maulana et al., 2021; Van der Lans et al., 2017). The relatedness across the domains could also adhere to the idea that these teaching domains can be clustered into a broader overarching domain aimed at studentcentered teaching or student-support (compare the model of Praetorius et al., 2018).

On a practical note, the relatedness between different domains of teaching may imply that educators aiming to stimulate DI are best off targeting a broad development of teaching behaviors that may facilitate DI. For example, (prospective) teachers could be taught how to manage the classroom well in order to teach them skills useful for managing different instructional routes. Alternatively, related teaching behaviors may be taught in interaction. For instance, teacher educators could prompt teachers to activate their students by using differentiated activating approaches suitable to students' learning needs. By helping their students to monitor their own learning and by encouraging the use of learning strategies differentiated to students' needs, teachers could connect the dots between differentiation and self-regulated learning. Lastly, we found that personal and contextual factors could affect the implementation of DI to a certain extent. Teaching does not happen in a vacuum and professionalization initiatives should thus take the teachers' characteristics and context into account.

*Limitations* Although this chapter explores the characteristics of the teacher, the teaching process and the context of the classroom, school, and country with observations from a broad range of educational contexts, there are some limitations. First, although observation measures are suitable to capture a lot of information in authentic situations, the observation instrument used in this study does not capture all aspects of DI. The concept was measured using certain specifc indicators focusing on convergent differentiation (aimed at supporting weaker students) and on differentiation of instructions and processing. Other forms of DI such as differentiation of learning materials, differentiating the end product and making adaptations in the learning environment are underrepresented. Future refnement of the instrument could help to capture a more comprehensive operationalization of DI. In addition, the observational data do not give insights in the reasoning of the teachers when implementing DI. Further research is needed to get more insight in the why's and how's of the teaching behavior (Gheyssens et al., 2021; Vantieghem et al., 2020). Additionally, although the lesson observations give valuable insights into classrooms across the globe, only one lesson of each teacher was included. Across the sample, the mean scores presumably give a good indication of the average DI of teachers. Nevertheless, data from one lesson may be less suitable for refection on individual qualities of teachers. In studies that aim to give insights on the individual level, more lesson observations should be included (Van der Lans et al., 2016).

Secondly, although the data from the individual countries are suffciently large and relatively representative, teachers participated on a voluntary basis. This means that the current sample may not include specifc groups of teachers needed for making inferences at the country level. Hence, caution against the generalization of fndings to the country level is warranted until replication studies with broader and more representative samples are available.

Lastly, only a limited number of variables about personal- and contextual factors were collected because of practical reasons. There are relevant variables that were not included into our study like heterogeneity of the class (Tomlinson et al., 2003), team collaboration in the school (Smit & Humpert, 2012), lesson materials and curriculum (Van Geel et al., 2019), teacher beliefs and self-effcacy for implementing DI (Suprayogi et al., 2017; Whitley et al., 2019) and professional vision (Gheyssens et al., 2021; Vantieghem et al., 2020). This study offers an insightful starting point, but further studies including more personal-, pedagogical-didactical and contextual characteristics are needed to shed more light on how teachers' DI is related to personal characteristics, teaching and context.

**Funding** This work was supported by the Dutch scientifc funding agency (NRO) under Grant number 405–15-732; the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea under Grant number NRF-2017S1A5A2A03067650; and the Directorate General of Higher Education of Indonesia under Grant number 04/SP2H/DRPM/LPPM-UNJ/ III/2019; Institute of Educational Research and Innovation of the University of Oviedo (INIE), under grant INIE-19- MOD C-1.

# **Appendix A**

# *The DI-scale of the ICALT observation instrument*

Note*. The ICALT instrument is freely available upon request. However, do note that use of the instrument requires extensive and proper training. Examples of high and low inference indicators of the other teaching behavior domains can be found in the paper of* Maulana et al. (2021)

# **Appendix B**

*Correlations between DI and the 'activating teaching'- and 'teaching learning strategies' scale of the ICALT across the countries in our*

#### **References**

**Annemieke Smale-Jacobse** Annemieke Smale-Jacobse authored this study while working as an assistant professor at the Department of Teacher Education of the University of Groningen. She was involved in different courses on teaching methodology and pedagogy and research on different aspects of teaching and learning. Her research interests include differentiated instruction and adaptive teaching, metacognition, problem solving, reading comprehension and professionalization of teachers. Currently, she is working as an advisor for education and research at the Hanze University of Applied Sciences. email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
**Peter Moorer** drs. Peter Moorer is a former researcher from the Department of Teacher Education of the University of Groningen who has particularly been involved in data management and analyses together with other members of the research team. His research interests are in theoretical sociology, psychology and economics. To solve complex theoretical issues, he has specialized in advanced statistical analyses (GLM, GLMM, SEM and Data Mining).

**Ridwan Maulana** is an associate professor at the Department of Teacher Education, University of Groningen, the Netherlands. His major research interests include teaching and teacher education, factors infuencing effective teaching, methods associated with the measurement of teaching, longitudinal research, cross-country comparisons, effects of teaching behaviour on students' motivation and engagement, and teacher professional development. He has been involved in various teacher professional development projects including the Dutch induction programme and school–university-based partnership. He is currently a project leader of an international project on teaching quality involving countries from Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, and America. He is a European Editor of Learning Environments Research journal, a SIG leader of Learning Environments of American Educational Research Association, and chair of the Ethics Commission of the Teacher Education.

**Michelle Helms-Lorenz** is an Associate Professor at the Department of Teacher Education, University of Groningen, The Netherlands. Her research interest covers the cultural specifcity versus universality (of behaviour and psychological processes). This interest was fed by the cultural diversity in South Africa, where she was born and raised. Michelle's second passion is education, the bumpy road toward development. Her research interests include teaching skills and well-being of beginning and pre-service teachers and effective interventions to promote their professional growth and retention.

**Carmen-María Fernández-García**, PhD, Associate Professor at the Department of Educational Sciences at the University of Oviedo (Spain). She has received research grants from the Spanish Ministry of Education. She is member of the Spanish Society of Comparative Education, the Spanish Society of Pedagogy and the ASOCED Research Group. Her major research interests involve teaching and teacher education, learning and instruction, gender and comparative education. She has published several academic papers on these topics. Currently she is joining an international project investigating teaching behavior and student outcomes across countries, the ICALT3 Project coordinated by the University of Groningen. email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
**Mercedes Inda-Caro**, PhD, Associate Professor at the University of Oviedo (Spain). She previously worked as a training support counselor in a public school as part of her FICYT scholarship training (1997) and as Child Educator for the Principality of Asturias within the Ministry of Social Services in two periods (1996/2000). Her PhD dealt with the concept of personality disorders. Currently, she is working on three lines of research: family and gender, teacher and teachinglearning education, and gender and technology studies, as a member of the ASOCED Research Group. She has several publications in scientifc journals. email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
**Prof. Seyeoung Chun** is Professor Emeritus of Education at Chungnam National University, one of the major national universities in Daejeon, Korea. He received his education and Ph.D. from Seoul National University, South Korea, and has been actively engaged in education policy research and has held several key positions such as Secretary of Education to the President and CEO of KERIS. He founded the Smart Education Society in 2013, and has led many projects and initiatives for the paradigm shift of education in the digital era. Since his early career at the Korean National Commission for UNESCO, he has participated in many international cooperation projects and worked for several developing countries such as Nicaragua, Honduras, Cambodia, etc. *Education Miracle in the Republic of Korea* is the latest book to be published as a summary of his academic life.

**Dr. Abid Shahzad** is the Founding Director of the International Linkages at the Islamia University of Bahawalpur (IUB). He earned his PhD degree in Educational Sciences from Ghent University Belgium. Currently, he is serving as an Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Educational Leadership and Management. He has presented his research papers and participated in international workshops and seminars in more than twenty countries. He is also the founder of the International Conference on Teaching and Learning (ICOTAL) and International STEMS conference that are held annually at the Islamia University of Bahawalpur. He has engaged a number of renowned international universities, research institutes and educationists in the ICOTAL and STEMS conferences. He is regularly organizing international training workshops for research students at the Faculty of Education. He is actively signing MoUs with international academic and research partners. He is a national trainer of faculty capacity building program in Pakistan.

**Okhwa Lee** is a professor (emeritus) at the Department of Education, Chungbuk National University, South Korea, and CEO of SmartSchool (Ltd). Okhwa Lee is a specialist in educational technology and a practitioner in pre-service teacher education. She is a pioneer of software education, e-learning, and smart education in South Korea. She has been a member of the Presidential Educational Reform Committee and the Presidential e-Government of South Korea including various department committees. She has collaborated in the global society such as European Erasmus mobility programme, UNESCO, OECD and in the Korean government ODA (Offcial Development Assistant) programmes for Nicaragua, Cambodia, Myanmar, Nigeria, Vietnam, Thanilands, Philippines and Ethiopia.

**Amarjargal Adiyasuren** is a lecturer at Mongolian National University of Education. She formerly worked in Teachers' Professional Development Institute and Curriculum Reform Unit affliated to Ministry of Education and Science. She worked in various national research projects related to school management, curriculum, pedagogy and assessment. She has been involved in comparative study of assessment of transversal skills with the Network on Education Quality Monitoring in the Asia-Pacifc in the UNESCO Asia-Pacifc and the Brookings Institution of the USA. She holds bachelor and master degree in Education from the University of Tokyo. email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
**Yulia Irnidayanti** obtained her frst degree in Biology Education and PhD in Biology. She is currently a Senior Lecturer and researcher at the Biology and Biology Education Department, Universitas Negeri Jakarta [State University of Jakarta], Indonesia. Since 2001, she has been working together with the Teacher Education Department of University of Groningen, the Netherlands, on the project about teaching quality and student academic motivation from the international perspective (ICALT3/Differentiation project, Principal investigator Indonesia). She is interested in helping teachers to improve their teaching quality and student differences in their learning needs, motivation, and learning style.

**Ulziisaikhan Galindev** is a senior lecturer in The Department of Educational Administration, Mongolian National University of Education. He received his master and doctoral degrees in Educational administration from Chungnam National University, South Korea. His current research interests and expertise cover education fnance, education policy and teacher professional development. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
**Nurul Fadhilah** works part-time as a lecturer at the Department of Biostatistic and Population, University of Indonesia. She has been actively involved in the international project called ICALT3/ Differentiation as an expert observer and as co-investigator for Indonesia. Currently, she is engaged in research projects related to digital health within the health informatics research cluster (HIRC). She was involved in professional teacher development for high school teachers in DKI Jakarta. She is experienced in designing and facilitating teacher professional development training, developing syllabus, designing tasks, developing differentiated instructions, especially in Cambridge IGCSE and A level Biology subject.

**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

# **Part IV Effective Teaching and Its Correlates**

#### **Part IV Overview**

Part IV comprises six chapters. These chapters present studies focusing on various correlates of effective teaching in various international contexts.

Chapter 24 presents a study linking effective teaching behaviour and teachers' intrinsic orientation for the profession (TIOP) in the Netherlands. The study found that the link between effective teaching behaviour and TIOP is mediated by perceived self-effcacy. Background factors including qualifcation, age, and gender moderate the link between effective teaching behaviour and TIOP. Chapter 25 reports a study about the beneft of online training using refective teaching and classroom observation measuring effective teaching for improving preservice teachers' refection in China. Chapter 26 presents a study linking effective teaching and inspiring teaching to student engagement in Hong Kong. It concludes that effective teaching and inspiring teaching are related to student engagement, but differential links between effective and inspiring teaching and student engagement are visible. The study reveals that the dimensions of effective teaching are related to overall teaching quality.

Chapter 27 describes a study linking student perceptions of teaching behaviour and components to learning and motivation in the Norwegian context. The study includes teaching components such as perceived relevance of the content taught, the quality of instruction, the teachers' interest and enthusiasm, and the link between perceived instructional quality and perceived fulflment of psychological needs. The chapter concludes that students reported lack of intrinsic motivation and experienced low levels of content relevance, and discusses conditions worth investigating when aiming to foster pupils' deep learning and motivation. Chapter 28 presents a study from Singapore examining the infuence of teacher beliefs about teaching and learning on students' learning. Specifcally, the chapter focuses on understanding how teachers' beliefs affect classroom decisions determining students' learning space and processes in the context of school reform implementation. The chapter provides scenarios illustrating how contextual forces such as curricular content, national assessments, and achievement-based placement approaches infuence teachers' beliefs and practices.

Chapter 29 illustrates how teaching behaviour may differ depending on the perspectives used. The study reported in this chapter compares teachers' perceived and observed effective teaching behaviour in relation to the career phase in the UK. The study found that perceived effective teaching behaviour remains relatively stable throughout teachers' careers; however, their observed effectiveness changes considerably. An increase in teaching effectiveness was observed during middle-phases of teachers' careers, followed by a decrease during the later career phases.

Taken together, these chapters provide insights into effective teaching and its variant or corresponding concepts, in relation to various correlates from a wide range of educational systems. The part highlights the importance of taking into account correlates and contextual forces in studying and improving teaching.

# **Chapter 24 Teachers' Intrinsic Orientation, Self-Effcacy, Background Characteristics, and Effective Teaching: A Multilevel Moderated Mediation Modeling**

#### **Xiangyuan Feng , Michelle Helms-Lorenz , and Ridwan Maulana**

**Abstract** Teachers' intrinsic orientation for the profession (TIOP) refers to a compound trait derived from the meaningfulness and positive affect teachers attribute to the profession. It can be validly measured by three conceptually correlated yet empirically separable factors of autonomous motivation, enthusiasm for teaching, and enthusiasm for the subject. Grounded in the previous fndings of non-signifcant direct relationships between TIOP and effective teaching, the present study further tested the hypothesized indirect relationships between the two constructs. To better understand the underlying relational mechanisms, the potential mediating role of self-effcacy and the moderating effects of both teacher- and school-level background factors were addressed in single- and multi-level models. A total of 239 beginning teachers from 32 Dutch secondary schools responded to the questionnaires at the beginning of the frst career year. Actual teaching behaviour was observed by means of classroom observations. The results of lower-level mediation analysis confrm the mediating effect of self-effcacy on the relationship between TIOP and activating teaching behaviour at career entry. The results of single- and cross-level moderated mediation analysis show that self-effcacy signifcantly mediates the links between TIOP and three specifc teaching behaviour domains: providing safe and stimulating learning climate, classroom management, and clarity of instruction. These effects were respectively moderated by teachers' qualifcation, age, and gender. The present study makes a unique contribution to understanding the importance of TIOP for beginning teachers' well-being and effective teaching, providing insights for both teacher educators and mentors.

**Keywords** Teacher intrinsic orientation · Self-effcacy · Background variables · Effective teaching

X. Feng (\*) · M. Helms-Lorenz · R. Maulana

Department of Teacher Education, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
<sup>©</sup> The Author(s) 2023 543

R. Maulana et al. (eds.), *Effective Teaching Around the World*, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31678-4\_24

#### **1 Introduction**

Teachers' psychological characteristics have long been considered to infuence teaching effectiveness (e.g., Barr, 1952). A growing body of literature has highlighted the predictive value of teachers' motivational-affective factors for their teaching quality. Past studies have shown that teachers exhibit more adaptive and operative behaviours at work if they possess higher levels of intrinsically-oriented motivation (e.g., Hein et al., 2012; Hong et al., 2009; Malmberg, 2008; Pelletier et al., 2002; Roth et al., 2007) and positive affect (e.g., Kunter et al., 2008; Moè et al., 2010; Retelsdorf et al., 2010). Based on these fndings, Kunter and Holzberger (2014) proposed the compound trait of teachers' intrinsic orientations (TIOs) and extended plausible processes through which TIOs may affect teaching effectiveness. In addition to the direct links, TIOs are claimed to indirectly affect occupational performance via increased classroom effort (de Jesus & Lens, 2005; Feldon, 2007), long-term persistence in professional development (Watt & Richardson, 2008; Lohman, 2006), and well-being (Klusmann et al., 2008). Moreover, Kunter (2013) postulates that these motivational and affective factors may also interact with individual characteristics and situational contexts to determine the types and quality of teaching behaviours.

However, compared to the quantity of empirical studies on the respective role teacher motivation, emotion, or well-being plays in effective teaching, links between the compound construct of TIOs and teaching behaviour are underexplored. To date, only one study was found that explores the infuence of teachers' intrinsic orientation for the profession (TIOP), as a compound teacher trait that refects the general meaningfulness and buoyancy teachers experience from teaching activities and subject matters they teach, on specifc and general teaching behaviours (Feng et al., 2021). The results suggested no direct effects, which warrants the necessity for further testing the potential indirect relationships. With this end in view, the present study makes an initial attempt to explore the mediating role of self-effcacy (i.e., teachers' beliefs in their ability to work effectively), one element of teacher wellbeing (van Horn et al., 2004), in TIOP-teaching behaviour links, by taking into account the specifcity of contexts and the hierarchical structure of data. The present study aims to enrich the knowledge base of teacher motivation and teaching effectiveness in two ways. Firstly, the exploration of the indirect TIOP-teaching behaviour links brings new insights into the plausible complex mechanisms underlying the transformation of internal psychological traits into actual teaching behaviour. Secondly, the involvement of multilevel boundary conditions addresses the contextual specifcity of TIOP-teaching behaviour link, with regard not only to the relationship strength but also to its direction. Specifcally, examining the effects at both lower and higher levels simultaneously may prevent an overestimation of the main effect of teacher-level variables that is typical in hierarchical data.

#### **2 Literature Review**

#### *2.1 Teacher Motivation and Effective Teaching Behaviour*

It has long been acknowledged in educational research that teacher motivation plays a key role in nurturing teaching effectiveness (de Jesus & Lens, 2005; Miller et al., 2008). Studies employing self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000) have established strong associations between teaching practice, student learning, and teacher's autonomous motivation (i.e., deep-rooted or fully internalized endorsement of task value, for example, teachers' believe that teaching is meaningful for self's gratifcation and students' growth) (for a review, see Slemp et al., 2020). Activated by a full sense of meaningfulness for self and others (Deci et al., 2017; Ryan & Deci, 2017), autonomous motivation is assumed to be associated with higher levels of functional behaviors (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Specifcally, Pelletier et al. (2002) identifed a positive relationship between Canadian teachers' autonomous motivation and self-reported provision of autonomy support for students. Built upon this fnding, Taylor and Ntoumanis (2007) and Taylor et al. (2008) found multiple benefts of autonomous motivation on the use of three motivational strategies (i.e., autonomy support, structure, and involvement) reported by physical education (PE) teachers in the U.K. Similarly, Roth et al. (2007) concluded from their investigation in Israeli elementary schools that teachers' reported autonomous motivation positively predicted student-perceived autonomy-supportive activities, which in turn yielded increased student motivation for learning. Consistent fndings were also documented in research across a range of contexts such as Hong Kong secondary schools (Lam et al., 2009), Spanish EFL classrooms (Bernaus et al., 2009), Indonesian junior high schools (Abbas, 2013), and Flemish PE teachers across educational levels (Van den Berghe et al., 2014).

In addition to the consequence of motivational strategies, Hein et al. (2012) also concluded in a cross-national study including Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, and Spain that intrinsically motivated teachers exhibited more student-centered and productive styles of teaching. In the Indonesian secondary school context, teachers' autonomous motivation was positively related to classroom management skills and clarity of instruction (Irnidayanti et al., 2020). In sum, the cumulative evidence reveals a clear relevance of teacher-perceived autonomous motivation with certain aspects of effective teaching. It can be concluded that, in general, teachers who perceive their work as intrinsically worthwhile and meaningful are likely to exhibit higher levels of effective teaching behaviours.

#### *2.2 Teacher Enthusiasm and Effective Teaching Behaviour*

The topic of teacher enthusiasm in general has captured the interest of educational practitioners and researchers in the past decades for multiple reasons (Keller et al., 2016). Initially characterized in teaching effectiveness research as an indicator of effective teachers, teaching strategies, and course quality (e.g., Gentry et al., 2011; Moulding, 2010; Walberg & Paik, 2000), teacher enthusiasm manifests itself in a set of outward teacher behaviours perceivable to the observers and students in large scale evaluations. Under a process-product paradigm of this research strand, teacher enthusiasm is characterized by energetic and humorous teaching, sustained student interest (post-hoc analysis without a proactive underlying theory of enthusiasm; e.g., Marsh, 1982, 1994; Marsh & Ware, 1982), student-teacher rapport, and safe and stimulating teaching (Jackson et al., 1999).

Later, Kunter et al. (2008) reconceptualized teacher enthusiasm by shifting the focus of interest from visible "enthusiastic expressiveness" to the relatively hidden "enthusiastic experience" of teachers. Deviating from the cumulative studies on displayed teacher enthusiasm, they proposed the concept of *experienced enthusiasm* and referred to it as "the degree of enjoyment, excitement, and pleasure that teachers typically experience in their professional activities" (Kunter et al.*,* 2008, p. 470). In doing so, these scholars theoretically differentiated the affective and behavioral approaches of teacher enthusiasm and suggested the former as the antecedent to prompt the latter (Frenzel et al., 2009; Kunter et al., 2008, 2011). Furthermore, they recognized two conceptually different, yet correlated sub-dimensions of experienced teacher enthusiasm, one for the subject being taught (i.e., enthusiasm for the subject) and the other for the teaching activity itself (i.e., enthusiasm for teaching) (Kunter et al., 2008, 2011).

The reconceptualization of teacher enthusiasm as an affective trait is also mirrored by the instrument to measure it. Kunter et al. (2008, 2011) put aside the high/ low-inference instruments for student perceptions (Frenzel et al.*,* 2009; Patrick et al., 2000; Wheeless et al., 2011) or observer ratings (e.g., Brigham et al., 1992; Natof & Romanczyk, 2009) frequently used in the teaching effectiveness research. Instead, they developed and refned self-reports measures to assess teachers' experienced enthusiasm in forms of their general impression and evaluation for the enjoyment and pleasure they experience at work (one teaching-specifc subscale and one subject-specifc subscale). Self-reported enthusiasm for teaching, but not that for the subject, was found to be associated with secondary school teachers' higher levels of classroom management skills and cognitively activating and supportive teaching, which subsequently benefted students' motivation and academic achievement (Kunter, 2013; Kunter et al., 2008). In a nutshell, studies generally suggest that teachers who perceive teaching as intrinsically pleasant are more likely to excel in certain teaching behaviour domains.

# *2.3 Teachers' Intrinsic Orientation and Effective Teaching Behaviour*

Grounded in SDT and teaching effectiveness perspectives, Kunter and Holzberger (2014) encapsulates the conceptually close, yet separable, intrinsic factors of teachers' orientations into the compound trait TIOs. They refer to TIOs as "the habitual inter-individual differences between teachers in the degree to which they experience positive emotions and high meaningfulness in their profession" (Kunter & Holzberger, 2014, p. 86). In the theory-led model constructed by Kunter and Holzberger (2014), TIOs is hypothesized as an essential correlate of teacher wellbeing (e.g., self-effcacy, job satisfaction, burnout) and professional effort at workplace (e.g., engagement and persistence in professional learning, classroom efforts). These teacher factors in turn beneft instructional quality and subsequent student outcomes. More specifcally, it is assumed that the positive infuence of TIOs on effective teaching behaviour can be explained by both direct psychology-behavior links and indirect relationships mediated by teachers' situational classroom effort (de Jesus & Lens, 2005; Feldon, 2007), well-being (Klusmann et al., 2008), and long-term persistence in professional development (Watt & Richardson, 2008; Lohman, 2006) (see Fig. 24.1). Additionally, teachers' motivational and affective traits are postulated to interact with individual characteristics and situational contexts to determine the types and quality of teaching behaviour (Kunter, 2013). The innovative value of this model lies in its additional explanation for the underlying process where various psychological and behavioral traits of teachers interplay for better functioning across contexts.

IN LIGHT OF KUNTER AND Holzberger (2014)'s theory, TIOs have been further crystallized by being rephrased into teachers' intrinsic orientation for the profession (TIOP) (Feng et al., 2021). The construct validity of TIOP was empirically tested in terms of its dimensionality via teachers' self-reported autonomous motivation (i.e., a cognitive-evaluative factor refecting the meaningfulness teachers ascribe to the profession) and experienced enthusiasm for teaching and for the subject (i.e., affective-evaluative factors to elicit teachers' positive emotional experience) (Feng et al., 2021) (see Fig. 24.1). The results concluded that TIOP can be constructed as a compound trait of teachers with three subdimensions. However, the empirical testing of TIOP's predictive validity for the quality of the general as well as specifc observed teaching behavior (i.e., providing safe and stimulating learning environment, classroom management, clarity of instruction, intensive and activating

**Fig. 24.1** A model of the relationships between TIOs/TIOP and effective teaching adapted from Kunter and Holzberger's (2014) theory (concepts not included in the present study are blurred)

teaching, differentiated instruction, teaching learning strategies) indicated that there was no signifcant direct relationship between TIOP and the six teaching behaviour domains (Feng et al., 2021). Consequently, it is hypothesized that the effects of TIOP on displayed teaching behaviors may be indirect and may potentially be infuenced by certain teacher characteristics in different boundary conditions.

In other words, instead of functioning as a direct facilitator, TIOP may indirectly proft the quality of displayed teaching behaviour through its positive effects on teachers' psychological well-being and the subsequent intentional efforts they invest in the profession. However, the strength of these direct and indirect effects may vary across teachers with different personal characteristics (e.g., age, gender, academic qualifcation) and working contexts (e.g., class size, school culture, principal leadership). Unfolding such complex interplay of teacher factors is therefore considered of great value to understand the process of successfully transforming (student) teachers' inner power into the actual profts for themselves (i.e., wellbeing and professionalization) and the students (i.e., teaching and learning effectiveness). As an initial step of this exploration, the present study examines the role of teacher self-effcacy in mediating the links between TIOP and different domains of teaching behavior, while considering the infuence of the relevant background factors at teacher and school levels.

# *2.4 Mediators and Moderators of the Relationship Between TIOP and Effective Teaching Behaviour*

#### **2.4.1 Self-Effcacy as a Mediator**

As illustrated in Fig. 24.1, TIOP can function as either a direct or an indirect resource for instructional quality through teachers' increased well-being. While a rigorous analysis of all possible mediators is beyond the scope of the present study, the focus is on the mediating role of self-effcacy as a representative factor of teachers' occupational well-being (Van Horn et al., 2004). Since the concept of TIOP is relatively novel and empirical research on TIOP is scarce, existing literature on the sequential connections among TIOP-related concepts such as autonomous motivation, enthusiasm, self-effcacy, and teaching behaviors are elaborated for reference.

A large body of empirical literature has documented the benefts of autonomous motivation for teachers' psychological well-being and functioning in diverse contexts (e.g., Fernet et al., 2017; Ryan & Deci, 2000, 2017). More specifcally, autonomously motivated teachers are more likely to experience higher levels of self-effcacy (Gagné et al., 2015), sense of accomplishment (Ryan & Deci, 2000), job satisfaction (Collie et al., 2016), and overall satisfaction of life (Pauli et al., 2018). In addition to intrinsically-orientated motivation, experienced enthusiasm also bears a close link to enhanced well-being of teachers (Keller et al., 2016). Enthusiastic teachers were found to be more self-effcacious (Kunter et al., 2011), and satisfed with their work and life (Kunter, 2013; Kunter et al., 2008, 2011). In sum, autonomous motivation and experienced enthusiasm of teachers seems to go hand in hand with self-effcacy and other factors of well-being.

Self-effcacy as a primary indicator of teachers' well-being has been both theoretically and empirically supported to predict teachers' beliefs about instructional behaviors (Ross, 1992; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). Teachers with lower levels of self-effcacy are more likely to experience setbacks in teaching (Betoret, 2006). A meta-analysis of 43 self-effcacy studies done by Klassen and Tze (2014) reveals a signifcant medium effect size (*r* = .28) of self-effcacy on evaluated teaching performance (via principal, supervisor, student ratings), which is consistent with the prior self-effcacy studies outside the education discipline (e.g., *r* = .38; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). This conclusion was further clarifed in another review study (Zee & Koomen, 2016) which identifed the consequence of in-service teacher self-effcacy on teaching behaviors such as process-oriented instruction and differentiation, activating teaching strategies, inclusive practices and referral decisions, classroom management skills (both instructional and behavioral), classroom goal structures, and emotional support. In sum, more effcacious teachers are likely to exhibit a learner-centered constructivist style of teaching (Temiz & Topcu, 2013). However, the role of self-effcacy as a mediator of teacher motivation and teaching behaviour is unclear.

#### **2.4.2 Teacher Characteristics and Contexts as Moderators**

Moderators are considered very informative in social science research since they underline the boundary conditions of a theory's generalizability (Whetten, 1989). Informed by the empirical evidence on how certain contextual and personal factors infuence teaching behaviors, the present study aims to test the contextualized relationship between self-effcacy and teaching behaviour. Considering that teachers are naturally embedded in hierarchical school structures, the contextual factors that may impact their professional practices should be considered in a multi-level design (e.g., school, classroom, teacher). The regional or school level factors such as the dynamics and size of student population, the student-teacher (employment size) ratio, fnancial distribution for school management and teacher professionalism may infuence the attraction, retention, and growth of high-quality beginning teachers (for a review, see van der Pers & Helms-Lorenz, 2019). Specifcally in the context of Dutch secondary schools, 11% to 22% of the variance in beginning teachers' observed teaching behaviour was attributed to school-level characteristics (van der Pers & Helms-Lorenz, 2019). Among them, effects of urbanization degree and student population decline were found on stimulating teaching, classroom management, and adaptive instruction, respectively. Furthermore, many schools provide novices and veterans with different degrees of learning opportunities and infrastructures. For instance, professional development schools (PDSs) in the Netherlands collaborate with education institutes to support teachers by means of sustainable and collaborative activities, which in turn fosters beginning teachers' general teaching behaviour during their frst career year (Helms-Lorenz et al., 2018).

Apart from the contextual factors at higher levels, personal characteristics at the teacher level such as *gender* (e.g., Opdenakker et al., 2012; Opdenakker & Van Damme, 2007; Van Petegem et al., 2007), *age* and *teaching experience* (e.g., Kini & Podolsky, 2016; Ladd & Sorensen, 2015; Maulana et al., 2015), *educational background* and *certifcation* (see Tatto et al., 2012; van der Pers & Helms-Lorenz, 2019) are, in varying degrees, related to teachers' instructional quality. Amongst these factors, cumulative training and practical experience predominantly avail teachers improved instructional skills (e.g., van der Pers & Helms-Lorenz, 2019), and male teachers are found to exhibit better instructional (Maulana et al., 2015) and relational skills (e.g., classroom management, student interaction, cooperativeness) (e.g., Opdenakker et al., 2012). Furthermore, since the process of teaching and learning is inherently interactive and reciprocal, *student factors* (at class, school, regional levels) have been revealed to affect teachers' professional well-being and teaching effectiveness (Kunter & Holzberger, 2014). For example, schools with a predominant proportion of low socioeconomic-status (SES) students were found to hinder beginning teachers' workplace learning (Ronfeldt, 2012) and inhibit peer/ colleague cooperation (Opdenakker & Van Damme, 2007). Comparatively, smaller classes may engender more individualized teaching and teacher-student interaction, after controlling for prior pupil attainment, gender, and special education needs (Blatchford et al., 2011). Nevertheless, the moderating effect of certain personal and contextual background factors on the link between teacher motivation and teaching behaviour requires further investigation.

#### **3 The Current Study**

Whereas novices in most occupations generally begin with minor duties and progressively receive more challenging assignments along their trajectory of professionalization, beginning teachers tend to receive full pedagogical and organization responsibilities immediately after career entry (Tynjälä & Heikkinen, 2011). Increasingly strained by instructional challenges (e.g., heavy workload, students' low engagement and misbehavior, differentiated teaching) and a discrepancy between professional effcacy and preparedness, beginning teachers experience prevalent praxis shock (Ashby et al., 2008; Hoy & Spero, 2005). This problem seems to subsequently jeopardize professional well-being and motivation, leading to rising teacher attrition and shortages in the longer term (e.g., Helms-Lorenz et al., 2016). In view of such concerns, the present study assigned research priority to the assessment of beginning teachers' TIOP and delved into the relationships between teachers' self-perception (i.e., TIOP and self-effcacy) and preparedness (i.e., general and specifc teaching behaviour) at career entry.

Since the strengths of these relationships might vary across contexts (Blömeke et al., 2016), no prior assumption was made regarding the moderating effects of one particular background variable on the link between TIOP and teaching behaviour. Instead, a general hypothesis was developed only on the existence of personal or contextual factors as moderators in the effcacy-teaching behavior link. By employing an exploratory approach, the infuence of TIOP on the specifc and general teaching behaviour via self-effcacy were scrutinized for its context-(in)dependency. To achieve this purpose, the following research questions were to be answered:

### **4 Methods**

#### *4.1 Participants and Procedure*

The present study was a part of a 3-year research project on the teacher induction program implemented in the northern Netherlands (in Dutch: *Inductie in het Noorden* (*INO*)), which was subsidized by the Dutch government. After the research objectives and protocols were developed, 239 beginning teachers (*N*female = 144, *M*age = 28.74), ranging from 21 to 61 years of age and of all subject matters, voluntarily participated in the project at career entry. They were unevenly distributed among 32 Dutch secondary schools (*N*teachers per school = 1–21). Specifcally, three cohorts of teachers were included. Cohort 1 (*N* = 73) were surveyed with the questionnaires of TIOP and self-effcacy between November and December in 2014, cohort 2 (*N* = 78) between October and November in 2015, and cohort 3 (*N* = 88) between October and November in 2016. In addition to self-reports, beginning teachers were observed by well-trained observers and rated on the quality of the six domains of teaching behavior displayed in the classroom. The Dutch version of these instruments was employed in this study after translation and back translation procedure was conducted (Hambleton, 1994). School contextual factors and personal characteristics were collected from secondary sources or public databases. In order to increase response rates, teachers who participated throughout the INO project were provided with a €30 gift voucher and annual feedback.

#### *4.2 Measures*

*TIOP.* Dutch beginning teachers' TIOP was measured using a validated TIOP scale, which consists of the sub-dimensions of experienced enthusiasm for teaching (4 items), experienced enthusiasm for subject (4 items), and autonomous motivation (3 items) (Feng et al., 2021) (see Appendix Table 24.A1). Teachers' responses were scored using four-point Likert scales ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 4 (completely/strongly agree). Considering the multidimensional second-order structure of TIOP, omega (0.91, 0.92) and omega hierarchical (0.79, 0.78), instead of alpha, were selected as the reliability coeffcients. The estimates of omega (hierarchical) indicated that the total score of the compound TIOP scale primarily refects the characteristics of the general factor TIOP while also leaving space to capture the specifcity of sub-factors in the lower order constructs. However, the low internal consistency of the autonomous motivation subscale (alpha = .436) is most probably due to the limited number and heterogeneity of items (see Appendix Table 24.A1). This fnding suggests that this subscale be better used as part of the TIOP measure rather than an independent scale.

*Self-effcacy.* We used the Teachers' Sense of Effcacy Scales (TSES; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001) to measure teachers' perceived self-effcacy (see Appendix Table 24.A1). Consisting of 24 items, the scale covers three domains of teacher effcacy: effcacy for instruction (8 items), effcacy for classroom management (8 items) and effcacy for student engagement (8 items) (see Appendix Table 24.A1). Teachers responded on a fve-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (nothing) to 5 (a great deal). Acceptable to high reliability coeffcients of alpha (0.62–0.94) of both the general and sub-scales were reported across contexts and over time (Duffn et al., 2012; Feng et al., 2021; Helms-Lorenz et al., 2018; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). In the present study, TSES was employed to measure beginning teachers' general teaching self-effcacy. In addition, raw scores rated on the 5-point scale were converted to 4-point scale, using the linear transformation equation: (Maxnew-Minnew) × (X-Minold)/(Maxold-Minold) + Minnew.

*Observed teaching behaviors.* Six domains of observable teaching behavior (i.e., providing safe and stimulating learning environment, classroom management, clarity of instruction, intensive and activating teaching, differentiated instruction, teaching learning strategies) were assessed by well-trained observers using the validated Dutch version of International Comparative Analysis of Learning and Teaching (ICALT) instrument (Maulana et al., 2017; Van de Grift et al., 2014). The instrument consists of 120 low-inferential items specifying observable teaching behaviours, which are categorized into 32 high-inferential items as indicators of the aforementioned six behavioral domains. Each indicator was rated on a four-response category (1 = "mostly weak, 4 = "mostly strong"). These generic behavioral domains have been identifed as essential for supporting and maximizing students' learning, thus reliably manifesting the effectiveness of teaching in classrooms. The validity and reliability of the measure have been proven good across various national contexts (alpha from 0.74 to 0.92) (Maulana et al., 2017, 2020).

*Background variables.* The multilevel background factors included in this study are teachers' demographics (i.e., age, gender, education degree, and qualifcation types) and contextual characteristics at teacher-level (i.e., class size, students' gender, age, and prior academic scores), and school-level (i.e., school size, school type, student teacher ratio, employment size, gender and age distribution of teacher population; student SES). Among them, teacher and class characteristics were recorded together with the questionnaires on teaching behaviour or the supervision monitor. Professional development school status (VORaad), school sizes (DUO, 2015, 2016; VOION, Arbeidsmarkt en Opleidingsfonds Voortgezet Onderwijs, 2016), and SES of neighbourhoods (Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau [SCP], 2014) are all secondary data from mentioned sources. These background factors were included in the models as moderators of the relationships between self-effcacy and teaching behaviour.

#### *4.3 Data Analysis*

#### **4.3.1 Preliminary Analysis**

The proportion, patterns, and mechanisms of data missingness were scrutinized for the sake of unbiased estimates of parameters, statistical power, and generalizability of fndings (Dong & Peng, 2013). Initial analysis results indicate a missing rate of 0% to 16.3% on key variables (i.e., TIOP-related factors, self-effcacy, observed teaching behaviors) (see Table 24.1). Although about 15%–20% data missingness is common in educational and psychological studies (Enders, 2003), missingness above 10% is considered consequential to statistical inferences (Bennett, 2001). Therefore, all key variables were further assessed in terms of the mechanisms of missingness using Little's Test of Missing Completely at Random (MCAR) (Little, 1988).

The construct validity of focal latent variables (i.e., second-order TIOP, secondorder self-effcacy, correlated teaching behavior domains) was subject to confrmatory factor analyses (CFAs) using Mplus 8.3, on condition that the plausibility of MCAR or MAR was justifed in the evaluation of cross-sectional missingness. Factors scores were thereby calculated and used for the following structural equation modeling (SEM). Furthermore, by modeling TIOP and self-effcacy in the same model (with their correlation set free), the average variance extracted (AVE) and composite reliability (CR) were estimated so as to examine the discriminant and convergent validity of the individual-level self-report data (see Appendix Table 24.A2).

#### **4.3.2 Single and Multilevel Mediation Analysis**

To test the mediating effects of self-effcacy, simple mediation models were frst constructed, where the quality of general and specifc teaching behavior was regressed on TIOP via self-effcacy. Goodness-of-ft indices were estimated. Preacher et al.'s (2010) Monte Carlo bootstrap method was applied to generate 95% confdence intervals (IC) that assists in making conclusions on the signifcance of the indirect effects. Then, on condition that the rationality of performing multilevel mediation analysis was justifed through the intra-class correlations (ICC) of teaching behavior domains (ICCs = [0.100, 0.178]), lower level mediation models were constructed (see Fig. 24.2). In these random effect models, all causal paths were

**Fig. 24.2** Lower level mediation model between TIOP, self-effcacy, and teaching behavior

allowed to vary between school units. We compared their related ft indices of Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), and sample size adjusted BIC (ssaBIC) and then estimated the multilevel mediating effects (see Preacher et al., 2011; teacher-level mediation = aL1 × bL1 + L2 covariance of aL1 and bL1; school-level mediation = (aL1+ aL2) × (bL1+ bL2)). Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) estimation method was applied to assess the signifcance of school-level mediation at 95% IC. However, given that there are 7 clusters with only one member, these clusters contribute to the estimation of school-level parameters rather than individual-level ones, resulting in less individual-level power. Consequently, path estimates and confdence intervals calculated by MCMC were only reported for school-level mediation effects.

#### **4.3.3 Single and Multilevel Moderated Mediation Analysis**

After the testing of simple and lower level mediation models, background factors from two levels (i.e., teacher, school) were added to the model (see Fig. 24.3). It is presumed that school contextual characteristics are identical and thus function in a uniform manner towards individual teachers in the same schools. Therefore, a set of simple and cross-level models (i.e., teacher-school levels) were formulated, in which independent (i.e., TIOP) and dependent variables (i.e., specifc and general teaching behaviors), mediator (i.e., self-effcacy), and teacher characteristics are level 1 (L1) variables, whereas school contexts are level 2 (L2) variables (see Fig. 24.3). Due to the limited sample size, the moderating effect of each factor was explored successively. The software Mplus 8.3 was used since it allows the examination of mediation and moderation in one single model and enables correct estimation of parameters and errors. In these models, the effects of L2 moderators were specifed as random.

**Fig. 24.3** Successive mediation models moderated by background or contextual factors at different levels

#### **5 Results**

#### *5.1 Preliminary Results*

Preliminary analysis was conducted to examine the possible consequences of missing values in data and to test the measurement validity of established instruments in the target context. The results of Little's tests (*X2* = 28.271, *df* = 35, *p* = .783) suggest that missing values on key variables (i.e., TIOP-related factors, observed teaching behaviors) were randomly distributed and did not depend on any other measured or non-measured variable (Graham, 2009). Consequently, cases can be dropped listwise or pairwise during factor analysis and SEM, and implementation of the maximum likelihood approach for handling missingness is also supported. The descriptive statistics of the raw scores of self-reports, observation, and teacher characteristics, along with their bivariate correlations are shown in Table 24.2, with the scale scores of self-effcacy converted to 4-point scaling. The reliability coeffcients of alpha for each sub-scale were also estimated.

Based on the above fndings, CFAs of teacher-level observation and self-reports were legitimate, which yielded good model fts: (1) *X2* TIOP (41, *N* = 239) = 83.841, CFITIOP = 0.986, TLITIOP = 0.981, RMSEATIOP = 0.066, and SRMRTIOP = 0.055, λs = [0.446, 0.949]; (2) *X2* SE (0, *N* = 239) = 0.000, CFISE = 1.000, TLISE = 1.000, RMSEASE = 0.000, and SRMRSE = 0.000, λs = [0.620, 0.829]; (3) *X2* TB (0, *N* = 200) = 0.000, CFITB = 1.000, TLITB = 1.000, RMSEATB = 0.000, and SRMRTB = 0.000, *r* = [0.113, 0.706]. In general, all item loadings and factor correlations are signifcant and range from moderate to high, except the link between stimulating teaching and teaching learning strategies (*r* = 0.113, *p* = 0.086). The calculation of factor scores instead of means was warranted due to the heterogeneous loadings among three sub-domains of TIOP (λET = 0.949, λES = 0.812, λAM = 0.446, *p*s < .001) and self-effcacy (λSE1 = 0.829, λSE2 = 0.620, λSE3 = 0.753, *p*s < .001).

To examine the discriminant and convergent validity of the teacher-level selfreport data, TIOP and self-effcacy were estimated in a single model (see Appendix Fig. 24.A1). Goodness-of-ft indices indicated good ft, *X2* (73, *N* = 239) = 124.250, CFI = 0.983, TLI = 0.979, RMSEA = 0.054, and SRMR = 0.056. Based on the reported standardized factor loadings and residual variances, AVEs and CRs were calculated, showing acceptable to satisfactory results (AVETIOP = 0.59; CRTIOP = 0.80; AVESE = 0.54; CRSE = 0.78). Since the AVE values of the higher-order TIOP and multidimensional self-effcacy are above 0.5 and those of CR above 0.7, convergent validity was supported (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Besides, given that the amount of the variance captured by TIOP or self-effcacy (√AVE = 0.74–0.77) were greater than their correlation (*r* = 0.613), discriminant validity was supported (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). In general, the CFA results prove that the established instruments applied in this study are valid measures of beginning teachers' TIOP, self-effcacy, and teaching behavior, respectively, in the Dutch context.

**Table 24.2**(continued)

*p* < .05, \*\* *p* < .001

\*

X. Feng et al.

#### *5.2 Self-Effcacy as the Mediator*

The analysis of within- and cross-cluster mediation examines the multi-level relationship between TIOP and effective teaching that is mediated by self-effcacy (research question 1: single- and lower-level mediation models). Firstly, every simple mediation model showed acceptable model ft (CFI > .977; TLI > .942; RMSEA < .080; SRMR < .038) (see Appendix Table 24.A2). However, no signifcant mediating effect of self-effcacy was found on the relationship between TIOP and teaching behaviour. Secondly, all lower level mediation models except TIOP-activating teaching (TB4) showed non-signifcant indirect effects (unstandardized βmediation\_ TB4 = −2.300, *p* = .065; ICMCMC = [−5.19, −0.23]) (see Appendix Table 24.A2). In this model, TIOP signifcantly predicted self-effcacy (unstandardized β = −1.447, *p* = .023, IC = [−2.696, −0.199]), which, in turn, predicted TB4 (unstandardized β = 1.589, *p* < .001, IC = [1.129, 2.049]). After controlling for the mediator, TIOP was regressed on TB4 with unstandardized β = 16.745 (*p* < .001, IC = [16.157, 17.333]). Combining the direct and indirect effects results in a positive and signifcant total effect (unstandardized βtotal = 14.446, *p* < .001).

Compared to the non-signifcant positive mediation (unstandardized βmediation\_ TB4 = 0.204, *p* > .05, IC = [−0.112, 0.529]) in the corresponding single-level model, self-effcacy's mediating effect was negative and signifcant in the lower level model. This is caused by the stronger between-school links of TIOP-effcacy (unstandardized βTIOP-SE = −2.315, *p* < .001; IC = [−3.443, −1.187]) and of effcacy-TB4 (unstandardized βSE-TB4 = 1.286, *p* < .001; IC = [1.101, 1.471]), as illustrated in Fig. 24.4. In the same vein, the direct effect of TIOP on TB4 turned signifcant in the lower level model due to the stronger between-school effect (unstandardized βTIOP-TB4 = 17.025, *p* < .001; IC = [16.882, 17.167]). In general, self-effcacy seemed to partially suppress the effect of TIOP on the quality of intensive and activating teaching at the outset of teaching career. However, such effect is mainly caused by between-school differences, leaving the teacher-level direct and indirect links not statistically signifcant.

#### *5.3 Background Variables as Moderators*

The analysis then moved to the estimation of moderated mediation. Whether the mediation effects of self-effcacy were strengthened or weakened by personal (research question 2: single-level models) and school characteristics (research question 3: cross-level models) was examined. In total, four single-level models but no cross-level models were found with signifcant moderated mediation (see Table 24.3). All models showed similar related ft indices when compared to simple mediation models (∆AICs = [−14.555, −1.006], ∆BICs = [−7.736, 5.946], ∆ssaB-ICs = [−14.074, 0.394]). As illustrated in Fig. 24.5, teachers' TIOP positively predicted self-effcacy with β = [0.515, 0.523], *p* < .05, while self-effcacy in turn (1)

**Fig. 24.4** Lowe-level model with the signifcant mediating effect of self-effcacy **\*** *p* **< .05**

**Table 24.3** Fit indices of simple mediation models

negatively predicted stimulating teaching (TB1) and classroom management (TB2) (β = [−0.843, −0.404], *p* < .05), with the latter slopes positively predicted by the interference moderators of qualifcation or age (βinteraction = [0.168, 0.222], *p* < .05), or (2) positively predicted clarity of instruction (TB3) (β = [0.604, 0.796], *p* < .05), with negative interference moderators of gender or age (βinteraction = [−0.194, −0.178], *p* < .05).

Specifcally, after involving the hypothesized mediators and moderators, the infuence of TIOP on TB1 and TB2 was fully suppressed by self-effcacy (βmediation\_ model1 = −0.657; *p* = .012; ICMCMC = [−1.203, −0.172]; βmediation\_model2 = −0.807; *p* = .036; ICMCMC = [−1.630,-0.113]; βmediation\_model3 = −1.582; *p* = .017;

**Fig. 24.5** Models with signifcant effects of moderated mediation **\*** *p* **< .05.**

ICMCMC = [−3.000, −0.365]). The suppression effects on TB1 decrease with qualifcation (βmoderated mediation\_model1 = 0.394; *p* = .003; ICMCMC = [0.149, 0.678]). The effects on TB2 also decrease with qualifcation (βmoderatedmediation\_model2 = 0.409; *p* = .034; ICMCMC = [0.060, 0.815]) and age (βmoderatedmediation\_model3 = 0.055; *p* = .016; ICMCMC = [0.013, 0.103]). Comparatively, self-effcacy was also found to fully mediate the positive effects of TIOP on TB3 (βmediation\_model4 = 1.061, *p* = .043; ICMCMC = [0.093, 2.169]), and this mediating effect was stronger for males (βmoderatedmediation\_model4 = −0.639; *p =* .027; ICMCMCs = [−1.236, −0.108]). In general, teacher characteristics such as qualifcation, age, and gender, rather than contextual factors at both teacher and school levels, signifcantly moderate the indirect links between TIOP and relatively basic and teacher-centered teaching behavior.

#### **6 Discussion and Conclusion**

The main purpose of this study was to test the indirect links between TIOP and teaching behaviour built upon the previous work of Kunter and Holzberger (2014). Since the concept of TIOP is relatively novel and relevant empirical research is scarce, the knowledge base of TIOP is still in development. The present study is one of the frst to address the theoretical and empirical implication of TIOP, as a compound teacher trait, in teaching effectiveness research.

The frst research question was: *Does teachers' self-effcacy mediate the relationships between TIOP and the specifc and general observed teaching behaviour?* The fndings of simple and lower-level mediation analysis answered this question by providing such evidence that, after considering the naturally nested structure of teacher workforce, self-effcacy is found to partially suppress the positive relationship between TIOP and activating teaching at the outset of teaching career. This is in line with the fndings of Ryan and Deci (2000, 2017), Kunter (2013), and Kunter et al. (2008) about teachers' positive psychological factors (i.e., TIOs, well-being) benefting effective teaching behaviour, whereas partly inconsistent with Kunter and Holzberger's (2014) hypothesis on self-effcacy as a facilitating mediator. A closer look at the relationships at both levels reveals that self-effcacy does serve as a facilitator at the teacher level, which confrms the empirical fndings of Gagné et al. (2015), Kunter et al. (2011), Klassen and Tze (2014), and Zee and Koomen (2016). However, the stronger suppressing effect of self-effcacy found at the school level, caused by the negative TIOP-effcacy link, completely overwhelmed the aforementioned teacher-level effect. Most likely, it is caused by the external schoollevel factors which have not been internalized by beginning teachers, such as recruitment policies to attract and retain teachers with qualities that are aligned to the school culture.

It seems that the school-teacher mutual selection somehow leads to the gathering of teachers with a discrepancy between TIOP and self-effcacy. One possible explanation of this could be some schools' tendency to attract and recruit enthusiastic teachers who are experiencing praxis shock. Beginning teachers who rate themselves high on TIOP-related scales are more likely to hold higher expectations towards the teaching profession (Ashby et al., 2008) and sometimes more vulnerable to role shock and disillusion. As a consequence, these intrinsically motivated beginning teachers may possess better activating teaching skills to maximize learning outcomes but their actual performance is slightly interfered by the loss of selfconfdence in implementing them in classrooms. Comparatively, some other schools may fnd a majority of their beginning teachers with relatively lower enthusiasm or intrinsic motives yet higher self-effcacy. In their cases, self-effcacy can serve as a buffer to offset the infuence of low TIOP on activating teaching skills.

Considering that the strengths of TIOP-effcacy-behavior links might vary across different boundary conditions, the second and third questions were raised: *Do teacher characteristics and school contexts moderate the mediating effect of selfeffcacy in the relationship between TIOP and teaching behavior?* Results of singlelevel moderated mediations answered the second research question, suggesting that personal factors such as qualifcation, age, and gender signifcantly moderate certain indirect TIOP-teaching behavior links. However, cross-level model results do not provide any empirical evidence for the moderating effects of school-level characteristics. As a complement of the frst conclusion that self-effcacy partially mediates the TIOP-activating teaching link at the school level, moderated mediation results reveal that self-effcacy also fully mediates the relationships between TIOP and three other teaching behaviours (i.e., providing safe and stimulating learning environment, classroom management, clarity of instruction) at the teacher level. Such fndings provide further evidence supporting the positive links between TIOs and teacher well-being (e.g., Gagné et al., 2015; Kunter et al., 2011) as well as the gender effect (e.g., Maulana et al., 2015; Opdenakker et al., 2012) and benefts of teacher experience on effective teaching (e.g., van der Pers & Helms-Lorenz, 2019). Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that there are two fndings that seem inconsistent with the previous studies.

Firstly, self-effcacy is found to negatively relate to beginning teachers' behaviours in terms of providing safe and stimulating learning climates and managing classrooms. But these negative links may weaken and fnally turn positive after teachers accumulate certain years of teaching experience. In this case, the fnding enriches the previous self-effcacy theories (for a review, see Klassen & Tze, 2014; Zee & Koomen, 2016) by revealing the prevalence of beginning teachers' imprecise perception of their actual capacity in these two domains and by identifying the importance of accumulated experience in lessening such misconception. Comparatively, beginning teachers' evaluation of their actual instructional clarity is relatively more accurate. This may be due to the more tangible indicators (e.g., clear lesson structure, regular checking students' understanding, structured explanation) (Maulana et al., 2020).

Secondly, no evidence was found to uphold the (in)direct relationships between TIOP and differentiated instruction and teaching learning strategies, two behaviour domains that are relatively complex and student-centered. One possible explanation for this could be the measurement instrument used in this study for teachers' selfeffcacy, as a higher-order factor, refecting the general evaluation of their own competence in stimulating and activating teaching, classroom management, and instruction clarity. The lack of domain specifcity, particularly in terms of the more complex domains of differentiated instruction and metacognition teaching, may lead to less correspondence between beginning teachers' perception of and actual competence in particular skills. Nevertheless, the empirical validity of the above and additional plausible explanations requires future research.

#### **7 Implication and Limitations**

Teaching effectiveness research is not merely concerned with student-centered outcomes. The past decades have witnessed an increasing trend towards paying attention to the signifcance of teachers in the profession (Keller et al., 2016). Teachers' motivation and well-being as well as the complex mechanisms underlying whether and how they transform such internal qualities into effective teaching behaviour matters. Therefore, this study can serve as a threshold for a fresh view of the inner world of teachers by pointing out a consolidated direction for future research on teachers' psychology-behavior links. Specifcally, this empirical study provides some preliminary evidence on the potential beneft TIOP can bring to beginning teachers' well-being and effective teaching behaviour. It is thereby suggested that the theory of TIOP be embedded into the design of initial teacher education (ITE) and induction arrangements. Nevertheless, fndings of the school-level discrepancy between TIOP and self-effcacy that emerge during the recruitment process as well as the teacher-level imprecise perception of actual capacity in certain domains call our attention to a more malleable and differentiated design of such interventions.

During pre-service education, value construction and positive experiencing should be arranged to further nurture student teachers' high meaningfulness and affection for their future career, which is hopefully linked to higher self-effcacy and improved skills in stimulating and activating teaching, classroom management, and clarity of instruction at the individual level. Comparatively, after career entry, schools and mentors are recommended to differentiate their training by providing self-effcacious teachers with TIOP-facilitating intervention (e.g., school visit and enculturation, value construction seminars and workshops) and self-determined teachers with confdence-raising activities (e.g., collaborative lesson planning, peer assessment and communication). It is assumed that such balanced development can not only fashion a more vigorous team of beginning teachers but also advantage their actual teaching behaviour to maximize student learning.

In addition to the school-wide differentiation, teacher education and induction should also offer training that is tailored to teachers' personal characteristics and individual needs (Decker & Rimm-Kaufman, 2008; Joerger & Bremer, 2001). In light of the present research fndings, it is suggested that not only teachers' psychological and behaviour profles (e.g., TIOP, self-effcacy, domain-specifc teaching skills) but also personal characteristics (e.g., age, qualifcation, gender) should be taken into consideration during the design of interventions. Acknowledging the complex interplay of multiple personal factors and how they may infuence teachers' well-being and performance in the workplace matters, especially when educators and mentors try to maximize the effectiveness of training and the professional potentials of teachers. In our case, in order to optimize beginning teachers' resiliency to reality shock caused by the discrepancies that emerge among TIOP, wellbeing, and effective teaching behaviour, additional personalized training and mentoring are recommended.

It is noted that the present study has several limitations. Firstly, this study assessed self-effcacy as a general concept instead of domain-specifc self-effcacies (effcacy for instruction, classroom management and student engagement), which to some extent coincides with certain domains of teaching behaviors (e.g., instructional clarity, intensive and activating teaching, classroom management). Therefore, it would be intriguing to further explore the infuence of different types of selfeffcacy on the related specifc domains of teaching behaviour and how such effects mediate the relationships between TIOP and teaching effectiveness. Secondly, the mediation analysis confrmed the assumptions that TIOP constitutes a resource factor and that self-effcacy operates as a mediator between TIOP and basic teaching skills under certain boundary conditions. However, the absence of longitudinal data

makes it impossible to further examine the causality of the relationships. Accordingly, longitudinal or intervention data are needed in future studies to confrm the direction of the effects. Despite the above limitations, the fndings support the importance of TIOP for beginning teachers' well-being and effective teaching and demonstrate the moderating effects of teacher-centered background factors. To better understand the complex mechanisms underlying the transformation of TIOP to teaching effectiveness, additional research needs to be conducted. After the hypothesized links are empirically tested in and beyond the current context, the theory-led model constructed in this paper can be validated and applied, as a systematic and generalizable guide, in initial teacher education and teacher induction programs.

**Acknowledgement** This study was part of the PhD project of the frst author, while the second and the third author received a grant from the Dutch Ministry of Education under Grant (OND/ ODB-13/19888). All participants voluntarily participated the project. The frst author would like to thank them for their contribution and appreciate Peter Moorer for his support with the management of data.

# **Appendix**

**Table 24.A1** English version of three self-reported scales

**Table 24.A2** Fit indices for simple and lower-level mediation models

**Fig. 24.A1** A model of two focal constructs measured by self-reports for convergent and divergent validity **\*** *p* **< .05**

#### **References**

**Xiangyuan Feng** is a PhD candidate at the Department of Teacher Education of the University of Groningen in the Netherlands. Her PhD project focuses on beginning teachers' intrinsic orientation for the profession (TIOP), its infuence on teaching skills and academic outcomes, and effective induction interventions to facilitate the development of TIOP. Methodologically, she is interested in structural equation modelling and item response theory.

**Michelle Helms-Lorenz** is an Associate Professor at the Department of Teacher Education, University of Groningen, The Netherlands. Her research interest covers the cultural specifcity versus universality (of behaviour and psychological processes). This interest was fed by the cultural diversity in South Africa, where she was born and raised. Michelle's second passion is education, the bumpy road toward development. Her research interests include teaching skills and well-being of beginning and pre-service teachers and effective interventions to promote their professional growth and retention.

**Ridwan Maulana** is an associate professor at the Department of Teacher Education, University of Groningen, the Netherlands. His major research interests include teaching and teacher education, factors infuencing effective teaching, methods associated with the measurement of teaching, longitudinal research, cross-country comparisons, effects of teaching behaviour on students' motivation and engagement, and teacher professional development. He has been involved in various teacher professional development projects including the Dutch induction programme and school– university-based partnership. He is currently a project leader of an international project on teaching quality involving countries from Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, and America. He is a European Editor of Learning Environments Research journal, a SIG leader of Learning Environments of American Educational Research Association, and chair of the Ethics Commission of the Teacher Education.

**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

# **Chapter 25 The Effects of a Short Self-Access Online Training for Practicum Preparation on the Depths of Refection of Preservice Teachers**

#### **Ye Wang, James Ko , and Peng Wang**

**Abstract** Enhancing preservice teachers' critical refections on their newly acquired knowledge and experience is crucial for promoting their teaching skills and performance. However, it is a challenging task to teach refections and increase their depths of refection. Previous research has succeeded to help preservice teachers refect in a fullterm taught course. However, little empirical research demonstrated the effects of a short self-access online training program on the depths of refection of preservice teachers. Framed in Ryan and Ryan's (High Educ Res Dev 32(2):244–257, 2013) refection depth model, this study adopted a quasi-experimental research design to examine the depths of refection after attending a short online training of four 30-min sessions varied in training session order and session content. Data of 555 refective statements were identifed subsequently in 120 refective logs of 30 preservice teachers in a teacher education university in northern China. The results showed a signifcant difference between the experimental and control groups, indicating that a short self-access online training program has benefcial effects on preservice teachers' refections during practicum preparation. While the depths of the refective statements identifed were relatively shallow, the frequency of the refective statements did not decrease with their depths. Additionally, topics in the online training sessions signifcantly affected the depths of preservice teachers' refections, while the training sequence did not. This study is conducive to designing the relevant online training programmes to promote the depths of refection of preservice teachers in teacher education programmes.

Y. Wang (\*)

Hiroshima University, Higashihiroshima, Japan e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
J. Ko (\*)

Department of Education Policy and Leadership, The Education University of Hong Kong, Tai Po, Hong Kong e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
#### P. Wang

Orthopedics Department, Affliated Hospital of Hebei University of Chinese Medicine, Shijiazhuang, China

The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China

**Keywords** Refection · Refective teaching · Classroom observation · Online training · Preservice teacher

#### **1 Introduction**

Building preservice teachers' critical refections on the understanding and transformation of their acquired knowledge are crucial in shaping their early professional development. However, preservice teachers in general are quite often found to have diffculties and feel disappointed when they taught in the actual classrooms due to the gaps between the acquired knowledge during teacher education and practicum experience (Korthagen et al., 2006). Defned as "deliberate thinking about action with a view to its improvement" (Hatton & Smith, 1995, p. 40), refection is a valued emphasis in the current feld experience requirements of teacher education programmes because preservice teachers are expected to develop the "ability to facilitate learning and talk meaningfully about their practice" (Tyrrell et al., 2013, p. 15). Peer dialogues in a virtual learning environment of preservice teachers from four countries on practical teaching issues indicated different refected depths of teacher education and practicum (Wang et al., 2020). Classroom observation, which provides a direct way to observe and evaluate teachers' teaching behaviours, is a vital tool for teacher evaluation and professional development (Martinez et al., 2016).

Therefore, refective teaching and classroom observation can be two practical approaches for preservice teachers to improve refection depth and ultimately achieve quality teaching. This study describes a pilot study examining the impact of a short self-access online training in refective teaching (RT) and classroom observation (CO) on preservice teachers' depths of refection before they starts their practicum practice.

#### **2 Literature Review**

#### *2.1 Refective Teaching*

Refective teaching refers to teachers' refections of their teaching practice in the classroom, especially the problems they meet during teaching, to put forward appropriate strategies and methods to resolve them (Schön, 1983). However, problemsolving is not the only feature of refective teaching. The knowledge and experience that preservice teachers have acquired in the past may not provide suffcient support for the current teaching situation. Preservice teachers need to transform from relying on the prior knowledge and experience to actively achieving new knowledge and creating new thoughts. Refection allows preservice teachers to adopt the newly reconstructed knowledge into practice, thus further enhancing their teaching skills and promoting their practice. For instance, Lee (2005) believed that through teaching refection, preservice teachers could continuously enrich their teaching

**Table 25.1** Model for teaching and assessing refective learning (Ryan & Ryan, 2013)