Bosker, R.J.

Scheerens, J.

English

University of Twente Research Information

seEuropean ConferenceonEducational ResearchBOOK OFSUMMARIESVolume 1University of TwenteThe NetherlandsJune 22 - 25, 1992ICOLOFONEditors:Tjeerd PlompJules PietersAndries FeterisEditorial assistance:Harmen AbmaJeroen BremanConny de KoningOlivia KramersRenate SchraaCover:Hanna SnijderPrint:DuoprintUniversity of TwenteDepartment of EducationP.O. Box 2177500 AE EnschedeISBN 90-365-0534-8Copyright CO 1992 by Department of Education, University of Twente4contingency theory in order to build an expert system (the OrganizationalConsultant) for organizational diagnoses.Bosker & Rljpkema present the design characteristics of a knowledge-basedsystem that formalizes contingency theory for education. It is demonstrated how aformalization of this kind can help in theory formation.CONCEPTUAL AND FORMAL MODELS OF SCHOOLEFFECTIVENESSJ. Scheerens, & R.J. Bosker, Department of Education,Univemity of Twente, Enschede, The NetherlandsThe following questions are addressed in this paper:is it useful to think in terms of a comprehensive multilevel school effectivenessmodel?what would be the key-variables of such a model?what are the basic explanatory mechanisms behind the interrelationship of factorswithin the model?which are competing causal specifications of the interrelationships?which statistical models are appropriate to compare competing causalspecifications?Most current reviews of the school effectiveness literature and proposals for schooleffectiveness models or even theories appear to accept Barr and Dreeben's basicnotion of schools as "nested layers". According to this view the outcomes of onehierarchical level facilitate processes and outputs at the next.So, for instance, managerial processes at school level are supposed to facilitateconditions of effective instruction at the classroom level. The point we which tomake is that current conceptualizations of school effectiveness that roughly followthis framework are surrounded with considerable vagueness. In the process ofattempts to formalize these models, some of this vagueness is likely to becomeevident and, in some cases, resolved by means of competing specifications.First of all, the basic notion that conditions at high levels "somehow" facilitateconditions at lower levels can be interpreted in several ways; higher levels can bethought of as:providing contexts for lower level conditions made up of aggregates of lower levelfactors (contextual effects);minoring lower level conditions;serving as incentives of lower level conditions;material facilities for conditions at lower levels;overt measures to create effectiveness-enhancing conditions at lower levels(Scheerens, 1992).Quite likely it will depend on the particular higher level variable which type offacilitating relationship is more plausible than another. The point is that conceptualmodels should be explicit on the particular interpretation of higher level facilitation.Secondly, an even more basic issue is the question how comprehensive andcomplex our school effectiveness models should be. "Multilevel" 's most likely tomean four levels: the level of the individual learner, the classroom level, the school86Ilevel and the immediate environment of the school (municipality, school district,local educational authority etc.).At each level several relevant antecendent conditions of the ultimate criterion(student achievement) can be discerned. The set of relevant characteristics willbecome even larger when a broader conception of school organizationaleffectiveness Is used. To avoid a prohibitive proliferation of variables, In ouropinion, two mutually enforcing research strategies are to be chosen:to test global four-level models on large datasets, in which it is taken for grantedthat only summary indicators of key-factors are utilized;to test more specific two-level models in which more precise measurement ofrelevant variables is feasible.In this paper the questions of key-variables and explanatory mechanisms will onlybe dealt with briefly, referring to other publications in which these issues are dealtwith more extensively. We shall produce a list of key-variables as they have beenidentified In current reviews and mention some explanatory frameworks (didacticmodels, public choice theory, the cybernetic principle and models of coordinationin educational organizations).When turning to the question of alternative causal specifications within a globalframework of schools as nested layers, we discern the following competingmodels:additive vs InteractiveAccording to additive models higher level conditions are seen as increments tovariables operating at the lower level; e.g. achievement-oriented policy of anadministrative level above the school "adds to the effects of achievement-orientedpolicy at school level. In the interactive models higher level conditions impinge onthe (causally interpreted) relationship between lower level antecendent conditionsand the criterion variable; for instance as when instruction at classroom level isthought of as determining the impact of ability and effort of individual learners.In terms of multilevel modelling the comparison of these two interpretationsinvolves an interest in comparing intercepts (additive model) vs an interest incomparing slopes (interactive model).recursive vs non-recursiveNegative correlations between variables that are taught to be effectiveness-enhancing and achievement are no exception in school effectiveness research.The inherent ambiguity in correlational research then allows for the Interpretationthat (e.g.) instructional processes are adapted to achievement levels. In fact, it isnot at all implausible that several interrelationships among key-variables of schooleffectiveness models are in fact non-recursive. Questions about the recursivenessor non-recursiveness of certain interrelationships within school effectivenessmodels can be tackled in three ways:by means of experimental research;by means of alternative path-analytical models;by means of system-dynamic models.System-dynamic approaches also bring the important question to the foregroundas to which exogeneous factors can "break" repetitive cycles or feedback-loops.Conceptually this issue has to do with the primary "levers" of school effectiveness.t_r87The Idea of meta-feedback which originates from the image of the learningorganization is also to be tackled by means of this methodology.contextual vs "genuine" multilevel effectsA basic challenge of the nested-layers perspective on school functioning is thethesis that school effectiveness Is largely determined by selection mechanisms(effective schools are schools that attract good students, good teachers and goodadministrators). "Higher level causation" according to this competing perspectivewould be largely determined by the contextual effects of aggregates (for instance:weak pupils do better in classes where average achievement is higher). Issues ofcontextual vs 'genuine" multilevel effects can be settled by including both types ofvariables In multilevel models and by examining the relative magnitude ofregression coefficients.Indirect vs direct causal effectsConditions that are 'more than one level up" with respect to educationalachievement can either be seen as direct causes of achievement or as indirectlyinfluencing achievement via Intermediate levels. It should be noted that this sort ofcompeting causal models cannot simply be settled by comparing differentspecifications of the usual LISREL-type or path-analytic models. Instead we wouldneed multilevel path-analytic techniques, which are presently being developed.additive vs synergetic interpretationsSchool effectiveness researchers, confronted with very low correlations betweentheir antecedent conditions and achievement, have sometimes sought refrege Inthe thought that the joint effect of several variables, which individually appear to beof marginal influence, would "do the trick'. The question is whether this magic ofthe whole being more than the seen of its parts is amenable to more precise andformal specification.Mathematical formalization of each type of competing causal specification as wellas a numerical example will be given in the paper.ReferencesScheerens, J. (1991). Bsjiacietesjiyaogsa; jhacajasgarstznaDraatice. CassellPubl. (in press).INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT, AUTONOMY AND QUALITY OFSCHOOLSFons van Wieringen, Department of Education, University ofAmsterdam, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsEspecially since the publication of Chubb & Moe's book on Politics, markets andAmerica's schools In 1990 there Is considerable debate whether the institutionalcontext of schools does have a direct influence on the quality of schools. Chubb &Moe argue that an effective school organization cannot flourish without substantialschool autonomy from direct external control. They make the point that the8810.

Conceptual and formal models of school effectiveness

https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/files/177857205/Scheerens1992conceptual.pdf

Conceptual and formal models of school effectiveness

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Twente Research Information