Observer ratings of instructional quality: Do they fulfill what they promise?

Publikation: Beiträge in ZeitschriftenZeitschriftenaufsätzeForschungbegutachtet

Standard

Observer ratings of instructional quality: Do they fulfill what they promise? / Praetorius, Anna Katharina; Lenske, Gerlinde; Helmke, Andreas.
in: Learning and Instruction, Jahrgang 22, Nr. 6, 12.2012, S. 387-400.

Publikation: Beiträge in ZeitschriftenZeitschriftenaufsätzeForschungbegutachtet

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Praetorius AK, Lenske G, Helmke A. Observer ratings of instructional quality: Do they fulfill what they promise? Learning and Instruction. 2012 Dez;22(6):387-400. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.03.002

Bibtex

@article{9d18b635daca4003ad112e8652ec348a,
title = "Observer ratings of instructional quality: Do they fulfill what they promise?",
abstract = "Despite considerable interest in the topic of instructional quality in research as well as practice, little is known about the quality of its assessment. Using generalizability analysis as well as content analysis, the present study investigates how reliably and validly instructional quality is measured by observer ratings. Twelve trained raters judged 57 videotaped lesson sequences with regard to aspects of domain-independent instructional quality. Additionally, 3 of these sequences were judged by 390 untrained raters (i.e., student teachers and teachers). Depending on scale level and dimension, 16-44% of the variance in ratings could be attributed to instructional quality, whereas rater bias accounted for 12-40% of the variance. Although the trained raters referred more often to aspects considered essential for instructional quality, this was not reflected in the reliability of their ratings. The results indicate that observer ratings should be treated in a more differentiated manner in the future.",
keywords = "Generalizability theory, Instructional quality, Observer ratings, Reliability, Validity, Educational science",
author = "Praetorius, {Anna Katharina} and Gerlinde Lenske and Andreas Helmke",
year = "2012",
month = dec,
doi = "10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.03.002",
language = "English",
volume = "22",
pages = "387--400",
journal = "Learning and Instruction",
issn = "0959-4752",
publisher = "Elsevier B.V.",
number = "6",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Observer ratings of instructional quality

T2 - Do they fulfill what they promise?

AU - Praetorius, Anna Katharina

AU - Lenske, Gerlinde

AU - Helmke, Andreas

PY - 2012/12

Y1 - 2012/12

N2 - Despite considerable interest in the topic of instructional quality in research as well as practice, little is known about the quality of its assessment. Using generalizability analysis as well as content analysis, the present study investigates how reliably and validly instructional quality is measured by observer ratings. Twelve trained raters judged 57 videotaped lesson sequences with regard to aspects of domain-independent instructional quality. Additionally, 3 of these sequences were judged by 390 untrained raters (i.e., student teachers and teachers). Depending on scale level and dimension, 16-44% of the variance in ratings could be attributed to instructional quality, whereas rater bias accounted for 12-40% of the variance. Although the trained raters referred more often to aspects considered essential for instructional quality, this was not reflected in the reliability of their ratings. The results indicate that observer ratings should be treated in a more differentiated manner in the future.

AB - Despite considerable interest in the topic of instructional quality in research as well as practice, little is known about the quality of its assessment. Using generalizability analysis as well as content analysis, the present study investigates how reliably and validly instructional quality is measured by observer ratings. Twelve trained raters judged 57 videotaped lesson sequences with regard to aspects of domain-independent instructional quality. Additionally, 3 of these sequences were judged by 390 untrained raters (i.e., student teachers and teachers). Depending on scale level and dimension, 16-44% of the variance in ratings could be attributed to instructional quality, whereas rater bias accounted for 12-40% of the variance. Although the trained raters referred more often to aspects considered essential for instructional quality, this was not reflected in the reliability of their ratings. The results indicate that observer ratings should be treated in a more differentiated manner in the future.

KW - Generalizability theory

KW - Instructional quality

KW - Observer ratings

KW - Reliability

KW - Validity

KW - Educational science

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84865576473&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.03.002

DO - 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.03.002

M3 - Journal articles

AN - SCOPUS:84865576473

VL - 22

SP - 387

EP - 400

JO - Learning and Instruction

JF - Learning and Instruction

SN - 0959-4752

IS - 6

ER -

DOI

Zuletzt angesehen

Publikationen

  1. Dehydration and Pelletisation of Agricultural Biomass by Extrusion
  2. Protokoll der 73. Jahresversammlung am 26. Juli 2024 in Oldenburg
  3. A Note on Happiness in Eastern Europe
  4. Transferring sustainability solutions across contexts through city-university partnerships
  5. `Macht ist kein Samthandschuh der Gewalt`- Macht als Grundbegriff einer kritischen Handlungswissenschaft?
  6. Research-based coaching of academic staff as means to improve Engineering Education
  7. Bildung, Pluralität und Demokratie
  8. Detecting Hidden Friendship in Online Social Networks
  9. Klassentestheft Teil 1 (10 Ex.) - 2. Schuljahr
  10. Klasse und Geschlecht als intersektionale Differenzbegriffe oder als Konstitutionsbegriffe in gesellschaftstheoretisch orientierten Zeitdiagnosen?
  11. Aspekte sozialer Nachhaltigkeit im Kontext der beruflichen Bildung Benachteiligter
  12. Computerspiele mit und ohne Gewalt
  13. Affiziert werden
  14. Die Sintflut
  15. Chantal Mouffe – Gezähmte Radikale oder überschätzte Reformerin? Stefan Wallascheks ZPTh-Artikel in der Diskussion
  16. Works councils
  17. Das Wissen, von dem deutsche Hochschulen nicht wissen, dass sie es wissen
  18. The German Manufacturing Sector is a Granular Economy
  19. Bundesrat: Zustimmung zum E-Government-Gesetz
  20. Bindung von Führungsnachwuchskräften an Organisationen durch Fairness in der Personalentwicklung
  21. Proceedings of the Conference "Protection of the Environment and the Climate"
  22. Das label und die macht
  23. „Perspektiven wechseln“ – Tagen unter Pandemiebedingungen
  24. Die Bemessung des Hinterbliebenengeldes gemäß § 844 Abs. 3 BGB
  25. Inklusion und Umgang mit Heterogenität in der beruflichen Bildung
  26. Trickkisten: Heinz von Foerster und der Zauber der Kybernetik