Revisiting the Three Basic Dimensions model: A critical empirical investigation of the indirect effects of student-perceived teaching quality on student outcomes
Main Article Content
Abstract
The Three Basic Dimensions model, theorizes three mediators for the effect of teaching quality dimensions on student outcomes. However, the proposed mediating paths and their effects have largely not been empirically tested. This study investigated the mediating role of depth-of-processing, time-on-task, and need satisfaction between student-perceived teaching quality and student mathematics achievement and interest, expanding the TBD model to include mediation paths suggested by theories of motivation, cognition, and effort. Data from the TALIS Video Study for Germany, comprising 958 secondary school students in 41 classrooms, were used to run multilevel longitudinal and correlational mediation analyses. The results only found mediation effects at the student level; there were no mediating effects at the classroom level. Not all of the hypothesized relationships thought to exist between the mediators and achievement and interest outcomes were confirmed. The conceptual sequence of the variables, the choice of correlational vs. longitudinal evidence, and the level of analysis were all shown to have an impact on the results. The study thus confirms some of the assumptions of the TBD model, identifies new paths between teaching quality and student outcomes, and provides suggestions for how to proceed with further investigation of a model which should be expanded and more thoroughly empirically tested.
Article Details
FLR adopts the Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs Creative Common License (BY-NC-ND). That is, Copyright for articles published in this journal is retained by the authors with, however, first publication rights granted to the journal. By virtue of their appearance in this open access journal, articles are free to use, with proper attribution, in educational and other non-commercial settings.
References
Adachi, P., & Willoughby, T. (2015). Interpreting effect sizes when controlling for stability effects in longitudinal autoregressive models: Implications for psychological science. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 12, 116–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2014.963549
Aebli, H. (2011). Zwölf Grundformen des Lehrens: Eine allgemeine Didaktik aufpsychologischer Grundlage. Medien und Inhalte didaktischer Kommunikation, der Lernzyklus [Twelve basic forms of teaching: A general didactics based on psychology: Media and content of didactic communication, the learning cycle] (14. Auflage). Klett-Cotta.
Ahmadi, A., Noetel, M., Parker, P., Ryan, R.M., Ntoumanis, N., Reeve, J., Beauchamp, M.,Dicke, T., Yeung, A., Ahmadi, M., Bartholomew, K., Chiu, T.K.F., Curran, T., Erturan, G., Flunger, B., Frederick, C., Froiland, J. M., González-Cutre, D., Haerens, L., . . . Lonsdale, C. (2023). A classification system for teachers’ motivational behaviors recommended in self-determination theory interventions. Journal of Educational Psychology. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000783
Ahn, I., Ming Chiu, M., & Patrick, H. (2021). Connecting teacher and student motivation: Student-perceived teacher need-supportive practices and student need satisfaction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 64, 101950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2021.101950
Alp Christ, A., Capon-Sieber, V., Grob, U.W., & Praetorius, A. K. (2022). Learning processes and their mediating role between teaching quality and student achievement: A systematic review. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 75, 101209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2022.101209
Appleton, J.J., Christenson, S.L., & Furlong, M.J. (2008). Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 369–386. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20303
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S.L., Kim, D., & Reschly, A.L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: Validation of the student engagement instrument. Journal of School Psychology, 44(5), 427–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.002
Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psychological Review, 64, Part 1(6), 359–372. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043445
Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In K.W. Spence & J.T. Spence (Eds.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory. (Vol. 2, pp. 89-195). Academic Press.
Badri, R., Amani-Saribaglou, J., Ahrari, G., Jahadi, N., & Mahmoudi, H. (2014). School culture, basic psychological needs, intrinsic motivation and academic achievement: Testing a casual model. Mathematics Education Trends and Research, 4, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5899/2014/metr-00050
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T., Jordan, A., Klusmann, U., Krauss, S., Neubrand, M., & Tsai, Y.‑M. (2010). Teachers’ mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 133–180.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209345157
Begrich, L., Praetorius, A. K., Decristan, J., Fauth, B., Göllner, R., Herrmann, C., Kleinknecht, M., Taut, S., & Kunter, M. (2023). Was tun? Perspektiven für eine Unterrichtsqualitätsforschungder Zukunft. [What to do? Perspectives for a teaching quality research of the future]. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 51, 63–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42010-023-00163-4
Bellens, K., Van Damme, J., Van Den Noortgate, W., Wendt, H., & Nilsen, T. (2019). Instructional quality: Catalyst or pitfall in educational systems’ aim for high achievement and equity? An answer based on multilevel SEM analyses of TIMSS 2015 data in Flanders (Belgium), Germany, and Norway. Large-Scale Assessments in Education, 7, 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-019-0069-2
Berliner, D. C. (2002). Comment: Educational research: The hardest science of all. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 18–20. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X031008018
Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructors' autonomy support and students’ autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self‐determination theory perspective. Science Education, 84(6), 740–756.
https://doi.org/10.1002/1098237X(200011)84:6<740::AID-SCE4>3.0.CO;2-3
Blair, C. (2002). School readiness: Integrating cognition and emotion in a neurobiological conceptualization of children’s functioning at school entry. American Psychologist, 57, 111–127.
https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.57.2.111
Boggiano, A. K., Main, D. S., & Katz, P. A. (1988). Children's preference for challenge: The role of perceived competence and control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(1), 134–141.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.54.1.134
Boggiano, A. K., Flink, C., Shields, A., Seelbach, A., & Barrett, M. (1993). Use of techniques promoting students' self-determination: Effects on students' analytic problem-solving skills. Motivation and Emotion, 17(4), 319–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992323
Boston, M. D., & Candela, A. G. (2018). The Instructional Quality Assessment as a tool for reflecting on instructional practice. ZDM, 50(3), 427–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0916-6
Böheim, R., Knogler, M., Kosel, C., & Seidel, T. (2020). Exploring student hand-raising across two school subjects using mixed methods: An investigation of an everyday classroom behavior from a motivational perspective. Learning and Instruction, 65, 101250.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101250
Brehm, J. W., & Self, E. A. (1989). The intensity of motivation. Annual Review of Psychology, 40, 109–131. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.40.020189.000545
Brophy, J. (2000). Teaching. Educational practices series: Vol. 1. InternationalAcademy of Education.
Brophy, J. (2006). History of research on classroom management. In C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice and contemporary issues (pp. 17–43). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 822–848.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822
Butler, R., & Shibaz, L. (2008). Achievement goals for teaching as predictors of students’ perceptions of instructional practices and students’ help seeking and cheating. Learning and Instruction, 18(5), 453–467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.06.004
Chan, S., & Yuen, M. (2014). Personal and environmental factors affecting teachers’ creativity-fostering practices in Hong Kong. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 12, 69-77.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2014.02.003
Charalambous, C. Y., & Praetorius, A.-K. (2020). Creating a forum for researching teaching and its quality more synergistically. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 67, 100894.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100894
Cheung, G. W., & Lau, R. S. (2008). Testing mediation and suppression effects of latent variables. Organizational Research Methods, 11(2), 296–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428107300343
Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP Framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243.https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823
Chiu, M. M. (2004). Adapting teacher interventions to student needs during cooperativelearning: How to improve student problem solving and time on-task. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 365–399. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312041002365
Clausen, M. (2002). Unterrichtsqualität: Eine Frage der Perspektive? [Instructional quality: A question of perspectives?]. Waxmann.
Clifford, M. (1990). Students need challenge, not easy success: Only by teaching students to tolerate failure for sake of true success can educators control the national epidemic of “educational suicide”. Educational Leadership, 48, 22–26.
Cronbach, L. J. (1975). Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 30, 116–127. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076829
De Corte, E. (1995). Fostering cognitive growth: A perspective from research on Mathematics learning and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 30(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3001_4
De Corte, E. (2004). Mainstreams and perspectives in research on learning (mathematics) from instruction. Applied Psychology, 53(2), 279–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2004.00172.x
De Jong, R., & Westerhof, K. J. (2001). The quality of student ratings of teacher behaviour. Learning Environments Research, 4(1), 51–85. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011402608575
Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitating internalization: The self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62(1), 119–142.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1994.tb00797.x
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. The University of Rochester Press.
Diederich, J., & Tenorth, H.‑E. (1997). Theorie der Schule: Ein Studienbuch zu Geschichte, Funktionen und Gestaltung [Theory of school: A study book on history, functions and design]. Berlin, Germany: Cornelsen Scriptor. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:11675
Dorfner, T., Förtsch, C., & Neuhaus, B. J. (2018). Effects of three basic dimensions of instructional quality on students’ situational interest in sixth-grade biology instruction. Learning and Instruction, 56, 42–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.03.001
Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53, 159–200.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543053002159
Doyle, W. (1986). Classroom organization and management. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 392–431). MacMillan.
Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction. Peterson.
Emmer, E. T., & Stough, L. M. (2001). Classroom management: A critical part of educational psychology, with implications for teacher education. Educational Psychologist, 36(2), 103–112.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3602_5
Evertson, C. M. (1989). Improving elementary classroom management: A school-based training program for beginning the year. The Journal of Educational Research, 83(2), 82–90.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1989.10885935
Evertson, C. M., & Harris, A. M. (1992). What we know about managing classrooms. Educational Leadership, 49, 74–78.
Fauth, B., Decristan, J., Decker, A.‑T., Büttner, G., Hardy, I., Klieme, E., & Kunter, M. (2019). The effects of teacher competence on student outcomes in elementary science education: The mediating role of teaching quality. Teaching and Teacher Education, 86, 102882.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.102882
Fauth, B., Decristan, J., Rieser, S., Klieme, E., & Büttner, G. (2014). Student ratings of teaching quality in primary school: Dimensions and prediction of student outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 29, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.07.001
Fauth, B., Göllner, R., Lenske, L., Praetorius, A., & Wagner, W. (2020). Who sees what? Theoretical considerations on the measurement of teaching quality from different perspectives. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 66(1), 138–155. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:25870
Finn, J. D., & Zimmer, K. S. (Eds.). (2012). Student engagement: What is it? Why does it matter? In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.) Handbook of research on student engagement (pp 97–131). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_5
Fisher, C., Berliner, D., Filby, N., Marliave, R., Cahen, L., & Dishaw, M. (1981). Teaching behaviors, academic learning time, and student achievement: An overview. The Journal of Classroom Interaction, 17(1), 2–15.
Förtsch, C., Werner, S., Dorfner, T., Kotzebue, L. von, & Neuhaus, B. J. (2017). Effects of cognitive activation in biology lessons on students’ situational interest and achievement. Research in Science Education, 47(3), 559–578. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9517-y
Förtsch, C., Werner, S., Kotzebue, L. von, & Neuhaus, B. J. (2018). Effects of high-complexity and high-cognitive-level instructional tasks in biology lessons on students’ factual and conceptual knowledge. Research in Science & Technological Education, 36(3), 353–374.
https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02635143.2017.1394286
Fredricks, J. A., & McColskey, W. (2012). The measurement of student engagement: A comparative analysis of various methods and student self-report instruments. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Student Engagement (pp. 763–782). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_37
Fredricks, J. A. (2022). The measurement of student engagement: Methodological advances and comparison of new self-report instruments. In A. Reschly & S. Christenson (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 597–616). Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-031-07853-8
Gagné, M. (2003). The role of autonomy support and autonomy orientation in prosocial behavior engagement. Motivation and Emotion, 27, 199–223. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025007614869
Geldhof, G. J., Preacher, K. J., & Zyphur, M. J. (2014). Reliability estimation in a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis framework. Psychological Methods, 19(1), 72–91. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032138
Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (2003). Looking in classrooms (9th ed.). Pearson Education.
Grabinger, R. S., & Dunlap, J. C. (1995). Rich environments for active learning: A definition. Research in Learning Technology , 3(2), 5–34. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v3i2.9606
Grabinger, S., Dunlap, J. C., & Duffield, J. A. (1997). Rich environments for active learning in action: Problem-based learning. Research in Learning Technology, 5(2), 5–17.
https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v5i2.10558
Guay, F., Ratelle, C. F., & Chanal, J. (2008). Optimal learning in optimal contexts: The role of self-determination in education. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 49(3), 233–240. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012758
Hachfeld, A., & Lazarides, R. (2020). The relation between teacher self-reported individualization and student-perceived teaching quality in linguistically heterogeneous classes: an exploratory study. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 36, 1159–1179.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-020-00501-5
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Heckhausen, H. (1991). Motivation and Action (P. K. Leppman, Trans). Springer-Verlag.
Helm, C. (2016). Zentrale Qualitätsdimensionen von Unterricht und ihre Effekte auf Schüleroutcomes im Fach Rechnungswesen. [Key quality dimensions of teaching and their effects on student outcomes in accounting] Zeitschrift Für Bildungsforschung, 6(2), 101–119.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s35834-016-0154-3
Helmke, A. (2012). Unterrichtsqualität und Lehrerprofessionalität: Diagnose, Evaluation und Verbesserung des Unterrichts [Teaching quality and teacher professionalism: Diagnosis, evaluation, and improvement of teaching] (4. überarbeitete Aufl.). Klett/Kallmeyer.
https://books.google.ch/books?id=MHdxOwAACAAJ
Herbert, B., Fischer, J., & Klieme, E. (2022). How valid are student perceptions of teaching quality across education systems? Learning and Instruction, 82, 101652.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc .2022.101652
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4
Hiebert, J., & Grouws, D. A. (2007). The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students’ learning. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the national council of teachers of mathematics (pp. 371–404). Information Age Pub.
Hiebert, J., & Stigler, J. W. (2023). Creating practical theories of teaching. In A.-K. Praetorius & C. Y. Charalambous (Eds.), Theorizing teaching: Current status and open issues (pp. 23–56). Springer.
Hill, P., & Rowe, K. (1996). Multilevel modeling in school effectiveness research. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 7, 1–34. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/0924345960070101
Hospel, V., & Galand, B. (2016). Are both classroom autonomy support and structure equally important for students’ engagement? A multilevel analysis. Learning and Instruction, 41, 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.09.001
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1– 55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Hughes, J. N., Luo, W., Kwok, O. M., & Loyd, L. K. (2008). Teacher-student support, effortful engagement, and achievement: A 3-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.1
Illies, J. J., & Reiter‐palmon, R. (2004). The effects of type and level of personal involvement on information search and problem solving. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(8), 1709–1729. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02794.x
Jang, H., Kim, E. J., & Reeve, J. (2012). Longitudinal test of self-determination theory’s motivation mediation model in a naturally occurring classroom context. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 1175–1188. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028089
Jansen, M., Schroeders, U., Lüdtke, O., & Marsh, H. W. (2019). The dimensional structure of students’ self-concept and interest in science depends on course composition. Learning and Instruction, 60, 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.11.001
Julian, M. W. (2001). The consequences of ignoring multilevel data structures in nonhierarchical covariance modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8(3), 325–352. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0803_1
Kiemer, K., Gröschner, A., Kunter, M., & Seidel, T. (2018). Instructional and motivational classroom discourse and their relationship with teacher autonomy and competence support—findings from teacher professional development. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 33(2), 377–402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-016-0324-7
Klieme, E., Lipowsky, F., Rakoczy, K., & Ratzka, N. (2006). Qualitätsdimensionen und Wirksamkeit von Mathematikunterricht: Theoretische Grundlagen und ausgewählte Ergebnisse des Projekts „Pythagoras“.[Quality dimensions and effectiveness of mathematics education: theoretical foundations and selected results of the “Pythagoras” project.] In M. Prenzel & L. Allolio-Näcke (Eds.), Untersuchungen zur Bildungsqualität von Schule: Abschlussbericht des DFG-Schwerpunktprogramms (pp. 127–146). Waxmann.
Klieme, E., Pauli, C., & Reusser, K. (2009). The Pythagoras Study: Investigating effects of teaching and learning in Swiss and German mathematics classrooms. In T. Janík & T. Seidel (Eds.), The power of video studies in investigating teaching and learning in the classroom (pp. 137–160). Waxmann.
Klieme, E., & Rakoczy, K. (2003). Unterrichtsqualität aus Schülerperspektive: Kulturspezifische Profile, regionale Unterschiede und Zusammenhänge mit Effekten von Unterricht [Instructional quality from a student perspective: Culture-specific profiles, regional differences, and associations with effects of instruction]. In J. Baumert, C. Artelt, E. Klieme, M. Neubrand, M. Prenzel, U. Schiefele, W. Schneider, K.-J. Tillmann, & M. Weiß (Eds.), PISA 2000 — Ein differenzierter Blick auf die Länder der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (pp. 333–359). Leske + Budrich; VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Klieme, E., & Rakoczy, K. (2008). Empirische Unterrichtsforschung und Fachdidaktik: Outcome-orientierte Messung und Prozessqualität des Unterrichts. [Empirical classroom research and subject didactics: Outcome-oriented measurement and process quality of teaching. Zeitschrift Für Pädagogik, 54(2), 222–237. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:4348
Klieme, E., Schümer, G., & Knoll, S. (2001). Mathematikunterricht in der Sekundarstufe I: «Aufgabenkultur» und Unterrichtsgestaltung [Mathematics teaching in lower secondary schools: “Task culture” and lesson design]. In E. Klieme, & J. Baumert (Eds.), TIMSS – Impulse für Schule und Unterricht (pp. 43-57). Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung.
Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). Guilford Press
Kounin, J. S. (1970a). Discipline and group management in classrooms. Holt Rinehart &Winston.
Kounin, J. S. (1970b). Observing and delineating technique of managing behavior in classrooms. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 4(1), 62–67.
Kuger, S. (2016). Curriculum and learning time in international school achievement studies. In S. Kuger, E. Klieme, N. Jude, & D. Kaplan (Eds.), Assessing contexts of learning (pp. 395–422). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45357-6_16
Kunter, M., & Baumert, J. (2006). Who is the expert? Construct and criteria validity of student and teacher ratings of instruction. Learning Environment Research 9, 231–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-006-9015-7
Kunter, M., Baumert, J., & Köller, O. (2007). Effective classroom management and the development of subject-related interest. Learning and Instruction, 17(5), 494–509.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.002
Kunter, M., & Trautwein, U. (2013). Psychologie des Unterrichts [Psychology of Teaching]. StandardWissen Lehramt: Vol. 3895. Ferdinand Schöningh.
https://doi.org/10.36198/9783838538952
Lazarides, R., & Buchholz, J. (2019). Student-perceived teaching quality: How is it related to different achievement emotions in mathematics classrooms? Learning and Instruction, 61, 45–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.01.001
LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 815–852.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106296642
León, J., Medina-Garrido, E., & Núñez, J. L. (2017). Teaching quality in math class: The development of a scale and the analysis of its relationship with engagement and achievement. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 895. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00895
Li, H., Liu, J., Zhang, D., & Liu, H. (2020). Examining the relationships between cognitive activation, self-efficacy, socioeconomic status, and achievement in mathematics: A multi-level analysis. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 101–126. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12351
Lietaert, S., Roorda, D., Laevers, F., Verschueren, K., & De Fraine, B. (2015). The gender gap in student engagement: The role of teachers’ autonomy support, structure, and involvement. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 498–518. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12095
Lipowsky, F., & Hess, M. (2019). Warum es manchmal hilfreich sein kann, das Lernen schwerer zu machen – Kognitive Aktivierung und die Kraft des Vergleichens [Why it can sometimes be helpful to make learning harder – Cognitive activation and the power of comparison]. In K. Schöppe & F. Schulz (Hrsg.), Kreativität & Bildung –Nachhaltiges Lernen (s. 77–132). kopaed.
Lipowsky, F., Rakoczy, K., Pauli, C., Drollinger-Vetter, B., Klieme, E., & Reusser, K. (2009). Quality of geometry instruction and its short-term impact on students’ understanding of the Pythagorean Theorem. Learning and Instruction, 19(6), 527–537.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.11.001
Lotz, M. (2016). Grundlagen des Unterrichtens und der Unterrichtsforschung [Fundamentals of teaching and classroom research]. In M. Lotz (Ed.), Kognitive Aktivierung im Leseunterricht der Grundschule: Eine Videostudie zur Gestaltung und Qualität von Leseübungen im ersten Schuljahr (pp. 7–22). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-10436-8_2
Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Trautwein, U., & Kunter, M. (2009). Assessing the impact of learning environments: How to use student ratings of classroom or school characteristics in multilevel modelling. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(2), 120–131.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.12.001
Mackinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(1), 99–128. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4
Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Nagengast, B., Trautwein, U., Morin, A. J. S., Abduljabbar, A. S., et al. (2012). Classroom climate and contextual effects: conceptual and methodological issues in the evaluation of group-level effects. Educational Psychologist, 47, 106–124.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.670488
McCaffrey, D. F., Castellano K. E., van Essen, T. (2020). Student test development. In Global Teaching InSights: Technical report. Section II: Instrument development. OECD.
McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mitchell, M. (1993). Situational interest: Its multifaceted structure in the secondary school mathematics classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 424–436.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.3.424
Mouratidis, A., Barkoukis, V., & Tsorbatzoudis, C. (2015). The relation between balanced need satisfaction and adolescents’ motivation in physical education. European Physical Education Review, 21(4), 421–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X15577222
Mouratidis, A., Vansteenkiste, M., Michou, A., & Lens, W. (2013). Perceived structure and achievement goals as predictors of students’ self-regulated learning and affect and the mediating role of competence need satisfaction. Learning and Individual Differences, 23, 179–186.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.09.001
Mu, J., Bayrak, A., & Ufer, S. (2022). Conceptualizing and measuring instructional quality in mathematics education: A systematic literature review. Frontiers in Education, 7, 994739.
https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.994739
Murray, C., & Pianta, R. C. (2007). The importance of teacher-student relationships for adolescents with high incidence disabilities. Theory Into Practice, 46(2), 105–112.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840701232943
OECD. (2020). Global teaching insights: A video study of teaching. OECD.
https://doi.org/ 10.1787/20d6f36b-en
Pauli, C., & Reusser, K. (2006). Von international vergleichenden Video Surveys zur videobasierten Unterrichtsforschung und -entwicklung. [From international comparative video surveys to video-based teaching research and development] Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 52, 774 – 798.
https://doi.org/10.25656/01:4488
Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 315–341.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986): The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Eds.), 19, Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 123 – 205). New York: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60214-2
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(2), 135–146. https://doi.org/10.1086/208954
Piaget, J. (1992). Psychologie der Intelligenz [Psychology of the Intelligence]. Klett-Cotta.
Pianta, R. C., & Steinberg, M. (1992). Teacher–child relationships and the process of adjusting to school. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 57, 61–80.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.23219925706
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452
Praetorius, A.-K., & Charalambous, C. Y. (2023). Where are we on theorizing teaching? A literature overview. In A.-K. Praetorius & C. Y. Charalambous (Eds.), Theorizing teaching: Current status and open issues (pp. 1–22). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25613-4_1
Praetorius, A.‑K., Klieme, E., Herbert, B., & Pinger, P. (2018). Generic dimensions of teaching quality: The German framework of three basic dimensions. ZDM, 50(3), 407–426.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0918-4
Praetorius, A.-K., Fischer, J., & Klieme, E. (2020b). Teacher and student questionnaire development. In Global Teaching InSights Technical report. Section II: Instrument development. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Praetorius, A. K., Grünkorn, J., & Klieme, E. (2020a). Towards developing a theory of generic teaching quality: origin, current status, and necessary next steps regarding the three basic dimensions model. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik. Beiheft, 66(1), 15–36. https://doi.org/10.3262/ZPB2001015
Praetorius, A.‑K., Pauli, C., Reusser, K., Rakoczy, K., & Klieme, E. (2014). One lesson is all you need? Stability of instructional quality across lessons. Learning and Instruction, 31, 2–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.12.002
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.
https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
Preacher, K. J., Zhang, Z., & Zyphur, M. J. (2011). Alternative methods for assessingmediation in multilevel data: The advantages of multilevel SEM. Structural Equation Modeling, 18, 161–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2011.557329
R Development Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software]. http://www.R-project.org/
Rakoczy, K. (2006). Motivationsunterstützung im Mathematikunterricht. Zur Bedeutung von Unterrichtsmerkmalen für die Wahrnehmung von Schülerinnen und Schüler. [Motivational support in mathematics education. On the importance of instructional features for the perception of students]. Zeitschrift Für Pädagogik, 52(6), 822–843. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:4490
Rakoczy, K., & Pauli, C. (2006). Hoch inferentes Rating. Beurteilung der Qualitätunterrichtlicher Prozesse [High-inference rating. Assessment of instructional quality]. In I. Hugener, C. Pauli, & K. Reusser (Eds.), Video-analysen. Dokumentation der Erhebungs- und Auswertungsinstrumente zurschweizerisch-deutschen Videostudie "Unterrichtsqualität, Lernverhaltenund mathematisches Verständnis". Materialien zur Bildungsforschung. GFPF, 15, 206–233.
Reeve, J. (2006). Teachers as facilitators: What autonomy-supportive teachers do and why their students benefit. The Elementary School Journal, 106(3), 225–236. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/501484
Reeve, J., & Jang, H. (2006). What teachers say and do to support students' autonomy during a learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 209–218.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.209
Reeve, J. (2009). Why teachers adopt a controlling motivating style toward students and how they can become more autonomy supportive. Educational Psychologist, 44(3), 159–175.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520903028990
Reeve, J. (2016). Autonomy-supportive teaching: What it is, how to do it. In W. C. Liu, J. C. K. Wang, and R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Building autonomous learners: Perspectives from research and practice using self-determination theory (pp. 129–152). Singapore: Springer Singapore.
Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. (2002). Student interest and achievement: Developmental issues raised by a case study. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 173–195). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012750053-9/50009-7
Reusser, K., Pauli, C., & Waldis, M. (Eds.). (2010). Unterrichtsgestaltung und Unterrichtsqualität: Ergebnisse einer internationalen und schweizerischen Videostudie zum Mathematikunterricht. [Lesson design and Teaching quality: Results of an international and Swiss video study on mathematics teaching]. Waxmann.
Richter, M., Gendolla, G., & Wright, R. A. (2016). Three decades of research on motivational intensity theory. In Advances in Motivation Science (Vol. 3, pp. 149–186).
https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.adms.2016.02.001
Rieser, S., Naumann, A., Decristan, J., Fauth, B., Klieme, E., & Büttner, G. (2016). The connection between teaching and learning: Linking teaching quality and metacognitive strategy use in primary school. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(4), 526–545. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12121
Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48 (2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
Ruiz-Alfonso, Z., & León, J. (2017). Passion for math: Relationships between teachers’ emphasis on class contents usefulness, motivation and grades. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 51, 284–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.08.010
Ruiz-Alfonso, Z., & León, J. (2019). Teaching quality: relationships between passion, deep strategy to learn, and epistemic curiosity. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 30(2), 212–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2018.1562944
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.
https://doi.org/ 10.1037//0003-066X.55.1.68
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic dialectical perspective. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 3–33). University of Rochester Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2009). Promoting self-determined school engagement: Motivation, learning, and well-being. In K. R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Educational psychology handbook series. Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 171–196). Routledge.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Publications.
Ryan, R. M., & Powelson, C. L. (1991). Autonomy and relatedness as fundamental to motivation and education. The Journal of Experimental Education, 60(1), 49–66.
https://doi.org/ 10.1080/00220973.1991.10806579
Savalei, V., & Rosseel, Y. (2021). Computational options for standard errors and test statistics with incomplete normal and nonnormal data in SEM. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 29(2), 163–181. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/wmuqj
Schlesinger, L., & Jentsch, A. (2016). Theoretical and methodological challenges in measuring instructional quality in mathematics education using classroom observations. ZDM, 48, 29–40.
https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11858-016-0765-0
Schlesinger, L., Jentsch, A., Kaiser, G., König, J., & Blömeke, S. (2018). Subject-specific characteristics of instructional quality in mathematics education. ZDM, 50, 475–490.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0917-5
Schukajlow, S., Achmetli, K., & Rakoczy, K. (2019). Does constructing multiple solutions for real-world problems affect self-efficacy? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 100(1), 43–60.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-018-9847-y
Schukajlow, S., & Krug, A. (2014). Do multiple solutions matter? Prompting multiple solutions, interest, competence, and autonomy. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 45, 497–533.
https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.45.4.0497
Schukajlow, S., Rakoczy, K., & Pekrun, R. (2023). Emotions and motivation in mathematics education: Where we are today and where we need to go. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 55, 249–267.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-022-01463-2
Seidel, T. (2014). Angebots-Nutzungs-Modelle in der Unterrichtspsychologie: Integration von Struktur- und Prozessparadigma [The opportunity-use model in instructional psychology: Integrating structure and process paradigms]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 60(6), 850–866. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:14686
Seidel, T., & Shavelson, R. J. (2007). Teaching effectiveness research in the past decade: The role of theory and research design in disentangling meta-analysis results. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 454–499. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307310317
Senden, B., Nilsen, T., & Teig, N. (2023). The validity of student ratings of teaching quality: Factorial structure, comparability, and the relation to achievement. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 78, 101274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2023.101274
Sheldon, K. M., & Hilpert, J. C. (2012). The balanced measure of psychological needs (BMPN) scale: An alternative domain general measure of need satisfaction. Motivation and Emotion, 36, 439–451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-012-9279-4
Silver, E. A., & Stein, M. K. (1996). The QUASAR project: The "revolution of the possible" in mathematics instructional reform in urban middle schools. Urban Education, 30(4), 476–521.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085996030004006
Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (2009). Engagement as an organizational construct in the dynamics of motivational development. In K. Wentzel, & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation in school (pp. 223–245). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Stallings, J. (1980). Allocated academic learning time revisited, or beyond time on task. Educational Researcher, 9(11), 11–16. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X009011011
Stapleton, L. M., Yang, J. S., & Hancock, G. R. (2016). Construct meaning in multilevel settings. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 41(5), 481–520. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998616646200
Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W., & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 455-488. https://doi.org/10.2307/1163292
Stein, M. K., & Lane, S. (1996). Instructional tasks and the development of student capacity to think and reason: An analysis of the relationship between teaching and learning in a reform mathematics project. Educational Research and Evaluation, 2(1), 50–80.
https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1380361960020103
Styck, K. M., Anthony, C. J., Sandilos, L. E., & DiPerna, J. C. (2020). Examining rater effects on the classroom assessment scoring system. Child Development, 92(3), 976–993.
https://doi.org/10.1111 /cdev.13460
Sun, H., & Chen, A. (2010). A pedagogical understanding of the self-determination theory in physical education. Quest, 62(4), 364–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2010.10483655
Sun, Y., Liu, R.‑D., Oei, T.‑P., Zhen, R., Ding, Y., & Jiang, R. (2020). Perceived parental warmth and adolescents' math engagement in China: The mediating roles of need satisfaction and math self-efficacy. Learning and Individual Differences, 78, 101837.
https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.lindif.2020.101837
Talić, I., Scherer, R., Marsh, H. W., Greiff, S., Möller, J., & Niepel, C. (2022). Uncovering everyday dynamics in students’ perceptions of instructional quality with sampling. Learning and Instruction, 81, 101594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2022.101594
Theis, D., Sauerwein, M., & Fischer, N. (2020). Perceived quality of instruction: The relationship among indicators of students’ basic needs, mastery goals, and academic achievement. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 176–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12313
Turner, J. C., & Meyer, D. K. (2004). A classroom perspective on the principle of moderate challenge in mathematics. The Journal of Educational Research, 97(6), 311–318.
https://psycnet.apa.org/ doi/10.3200/JOER.97.6.311-318
Van der Kaap-Deeder, J., Soenens, B., Ryan, R. M., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2020). Manual of the Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scale (BPNSFS). Ghent University, Belgium.
van der Scheer, E. A., Bijlsma, H. J. E., & Glas, C. A. W. (2019). Validity and reliability ofstudent perceptions of teaching quality in primary education. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 30(1), 30–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2018.1539015
Vansteenkiste, M., Niemiec, C. P., & Soenens, B. (2010). The development of the five mini-theories of self-determination theory: An historical overview, emerging trends, and future directions. In T. C. Urdan & S. A. Karabenick (Eds.), Advances in Motivation and Achievement: Vol. 16. The decade ahead: Theoretical perspectives on motivation and achievement (1st ed., pp. 105–165). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0749-7423(2010)000016A007
Vieluf, S., Praetorius, A.-K., Rakoczy, K., Kleinknecht, M., & Pietsch, M. (2020). Angebots-Nutzungs-Modelle der Wirkweise des Unterrichts: Ein kritischer Vergleich verschiedener Modellvarianten [Opportunity-use model of effective teaching: A critical comparison of different models]. Zeitschrift Für Pädagogik, 66(1), 63–80. https://doi.org/10.3262/ZPB2001063
Vieluf, S., & Klieme, E. (2023). Teaching effectiveness revisited through the lens of practice theories. In A-K. Praetorius & C. Y. Charalambous (Eds.), Theorizing teaching: Current status and open issues (pp. 57–95). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Vu, T., Magis-Weinberg, L., Jansen, B. R., van Atteveldt, N., Janssen, T. W., Lee, N. C., ... & Meeter, M. (2022). Motivation-achievement cycles in learning: A literature review and research agenda. Educational Psychology Review, 34(1), 39–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09616-7
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Wagner, W., Göllner, R., Werth, S., Voss, T., Schmitz, B., & Trautwein, U. (2016). Student and teacher ratings of instructional quality: Consistency of ratings over time, agreement, and predictive power. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(5), 705–721. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000075
Wang, M. T., & Eccles, J. S. (2013). School context, achievement motivation, and academic engagement: A longitudinal study of school engagement using a multidimensional perspective. Learning and Instruction, 28, 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.04.002
Wang, Y., Tian, L., & Huebner, E. S. (2019). Basic psychological needs satisfaction at school, behavioral school engagement, and academic achievement: Longitudinal reciprocal relations among elementary school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 56, 130–139.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.01.003
Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1993). Toward a knowledge base for school learning. Review of Educational Research, 63(3), 249–294. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543063003249
Warner, G. J., Fay, D., & Spörer, N. (2017). Relations among personal initiative and the development of reading strategy knowledge and reading comprehension. Frontline Learning Research, 5(2), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v5i2.272
Wentzel, K. R., & Miele, D. B. (2016). Handbook of motivation at school (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1992). The development of achievement task values: A theoretical analysis. Developmental Review, 12(3), 265–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-2297(92)90011-P
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (2002). Development of achievement motivation. Academic Press.
Williams, L. J., Hartman, N., & Cavazotte, F. (2010). Method variance and marker variables: A review and comprehensive CFA marker technique. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3), 477–514.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428110366036
Zhang, T., Solmon, M. A., Kosma, M., Carson, R. L., & Gu, X. (2011). Need support, need satisfaction, intrinsic motivation, and physical activity participation among middle school students. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 30(1), 51–68. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.30.1.51
Zee, M., Koomen, H. M. Y., & van der Veen, I. (2013). Student-teacher relationship quality and academic adjustment in upper elementary school: The role of student personality. Journal of School Psychology, 51(4), 517–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2013.05.003
Zhen, R., Liu, R.‑D., Ding, Y., Wang, J., Liu, Y., & Le Xu (2017). The mediating roles of academic self-efficacy and academic emotions in the relation between basic psychological needs satisfaction and learning engagement among Chinese adolescent students. Learning and Individual Differences, 54, 210–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.01.017
Zhu, Y., & Kaiser, G. (2022). Impacts of classroom teaching practices on students’ mathematics learning interest, mathematics self-efficacy and mathematics test achievements: a secondary analysis of Shanghai data from the international video study Global Teaching Insights. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 54(3), 581–593. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-022-01343-9
Zhou, J., Huebner, E. S., & Tian, L. (2021). The reciprocal relations among basic psychological need satisfaction at school, positivity and academic achievement in Chinese early adolescents. Learning and Instruction, 71, 101370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101370
Ziegelbauer, S. (2009). Denkprozesse lernwirksam anregen. Sensortechnik im modernen Physikunterricht. [Stimulating thought processes in an effective way. Sensor technology in modern Physics lessons.] Tectum.