Input, proces og læring i grundskolen:et systematisk review udført for Den Nordiske Indikatorarbejdsgruppe.

• Main Authors: Larsen, Michael Søgaard, Nordenbo, Sven Erik, Holm, Anders, Laursen, Per Fibæk, Elstad, Eyvind, Scheerens, Jaap, Uljens, Michael, Hauge, Trond Eiliv
• Format: Book
• Language: English
• Published: Dansk Clearinghouse for uddannelsesforskning 2010
• Subjects: Iceland
• Online Access: https://pure.au.dk/portal/da/publications/input-process-and-learning-in-primary-and-lower-secondary-schools(c4c1fe19-6976-4130-8835-ded93e0ff04f).html; http://dpu.dk/everest/Publications/Udgivelser/Clearinghouse/20110118125507/CurrentVersion/SR5-FinalVersion-15.06.2010_forskningsserie.pdf

What do we want to know? What empirical research has been carried out to examine the relationship between factors in primary and lower secondary schools (inputs and processes) and the learning achieved by primary and lower secondary school pupils (outputs and outcomes)? What are the results with weight of evidence of this empirical research? Who wants to know and why? The project was commissioned by the Danish Evaluation Institute (Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut) and was performed on behalf of the Nordic Indicator Workgroup (DNI). DNI is a workgroup nominated by the Nordic Evaluation Network, which consists of representatives of The Agency for the Evaluation and Quality Development of Primary and Lower Secondary Education in Denmark, the Danish Evaluation Institute, the Swedish National Agency for Education, the Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, the Finnish National Board of Education and the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture in Iceland. The task has been to establish which factors or constellation of factors in the school are the most important for producing desired results that might be relevant for the development of a reliable indicator instrument for supervision and development etc. within the primary and lower secondary school sector. What did we find? From 1990 to 2008, 109 studies were published on malleable school factors within school effectiveness research. Of these studies, 71 are of high or medium weight of evidence. Synthesising these studies establishes that 11 school factors (some with subcategories) are of im10 portance for high pupil achievement. The school factors and subcategories identified are the following: Human Resources (Management and Leadership); Educational Leadership (Management and Leadership); Opportunity to Learn (Curriculum/scheduling); Disciplinary Climate (School Culture and School Climate); Achievement/progress Orientation (School Culture and School Climate); Interrelational Climate (School Culture and School Climate); Social norms and values (School Culture and School Climate); Teacher behaviour (Teacher); Teacher as an Organisational Actor (Teacher); Pupil Composition of the School; and Parental Relationship. What are the implications? For practice: The school leader should realize that a number of aspects of his or her work are important for pupil learning: the more he or she is available for teachers the better; the more the principal’s policies are concerned with teachers’ growth the better; the more teachers and parents are involved in school decisions the better. The principal should demonstrate strong leadership, above all in the areas of curriculum and instruction, and should be able to involve other staff members in leadership activities and position. The principal’s behaviour ought to be supportive and egalitarian and neither directive nor restrictive, and should be ‘resource supportive’, e.g. in deciding textbooks and contents of the teaching. The teacher’s efficiency of organising the instruction process improves pupil learning; this is measured by the percentage of time teachers reported spending on the planning of their lessons for the following day, the making of a weekly teaching plan, keeping to the timetable, and the assigned time spent on lessons,. It also includes homework hours, which are total hours pupils spent on homework both in school and out of school per week. In a good school an orderly atmosphere prevails, and also an ordered environment, in which appropriate pupil behav11 iours are present. A good school for pupils is a school where pupils do not feel unsafe, since the proportion of pupils who feel unsafe has a significant negative effect on pupil achievement. A good school focuses on academic achievement and high expectations, high pupil engagement exists and negative peer pressure is absent. Teachers rate attentiveness and have established a ‘learning climate’. In a good school, staff and pupils show affiliation and support/respect, there is a warm teacher/pupil relationship, teachers can obtain assistance, advice and encouragement and they are made to feel accepted by their colleagues. Pupils develop positive relationships with each other. Good schools employ various means of communication and interaction with the parents. Parents are invited to be active on School Boards, and are given the opportunity to participate in leadership decisions. Schools give parents tips about homework and encourage them to participate in focus groups and surveys to uncover children’s and parents’ needs. Parents’ support of children and involvement in school matters and community partnership are important. For policy: Policymakers can influence pupil learning through choice of the pupil composition of the school. Policymakers can promote pupil achievement by helping to identify strengths and weakness in school by developing indicator systems for malleable school factors and subcategories. For research: Although research in the ‘good school’ to a certain extent is based on high quality data and sophisticated statistical models, taking into account that data is sampled as clusters (students within classes and classes within schools) and thus reporting the correct standard errors, it is also evident that no studies in this review seriously address causality in terms of using experimental or quasiexperimental data or statistical methods that allow for causal interpretation. It seems that there is a complete lack of interest in estab12 lishing causal directions in ‘good school’ research. Concerning the problems of the causal direction of school inputs, it is evident that it is crucial that future research takes causality more seriously. Taking causality seriously also means that new requirements must be made to data, requirements that are not always met by existing data sources. Thus the research community must also convince policy makers that a new causal agenda in school research is needed. How did we arrive at these results? The project has had four principal phases. First we searched all relevant sources for research that had been published during the period 1990-2008. Next we went through the studies that had been found in order to ensure that only those that were relevant were included. Then we extracted relevant data out of the studies using, among other things, a software programme developed by the EPPI-centre, University of London. Finally the research mapping was carried out on the relevant studies, and syntheses were formulated where possible. For further information The study is included in the Evidence Base set up by the Clearinghouse for Educational Research. Here a link can also be found to the basis for the research, the Concept Note, that governs the research process at the Danish Clearinghouse for Educational Research