ARTICLE IN PRESS

Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 1–21

www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Teacher characteristics and teaching styles as effectiveness

enhancing factors of classroom practice$
Marie-Christine Opdenakkera,b,, Jan Van Dammea
a
Department of Educational Sciences, Centre for Educational Effectiveness and Evaluation, K.U. Leuven, Dekenstraat 2,
Leuven B-3000, Belgium
b
Department of Educational Sciences, University of Groningen, The Netherlands

Abstract

This study examined effects of teacher characteristics (gender, teacher education and certification, class management
skills and job satisfaction) and teaching styles on indicators of good classroom practice in mathematics classes in
secondary education by means of multilevel analysis. The study reveals that the presence of effective classroom practices
can be explained by a learner-centered teaching style and by good class management skills. Furthermore, it was found
that teachers with a high level of job satisfaction give more instructional support to their classes, especially to classes
from a low-ability range, than teachers with a low level of job satisfaction.
r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Teaching style; Classroom practice; Multilevel analysis

1. Introduction teaching (sometimes operationalised as structured

Research on educational effectiveness often
investigates the importance of what’s going on in
the classroom with respect to cognitive and non-
cognitive outcomes. Factors such as the quality of
$
The writing of the paper was funded by the Flemish
Minister of Education and Training, in the context of the
programme ‘Policy Research Centres’ and by a grant from the
Catholic University of Leuven.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +32 16 32 62 60;
fax: +32 16 32 58 59.
E-mail address: marie-christine.opdenakker@ped.kuleuven.
be (M.-C. Opdenakker).
or direct teaching), time on task, opportunity to
learn (content covered), effective learning time,
classroom management, classroom climate, and
relationships within the classroom have not only
often been included as promising explanatory
variables in models about learning and educa-
tional effectiveness, but their relevance has also
regularly been proven in educational effectiveness
research (Creemers, 1994b; Doyle, 1985; Fraser,
Walberg, Welch, & Hattie, 1987; Scheerens, 1992;
Scheerens & Bosker, 1997; Slavin, 1996; Stallings,
1985; Teddlie & Reynolds, 2000). The importance
of student and teacher interactions and of (other)

0742-051X/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2005.07.008
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 M.-C. Opdenakker, J. Van Damme / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 1–21
aspects of classroom climate (e.g., a classroom
atmosphere conducive to learning, an orderly and
safe atmosphere) is also stressed in research on
effective schools, in school climate research
(Anderson, 1982, 1991), and in research concern-
ing the effects of classes and schools on non-
cognitive outcomes (like well-being, work attitude,
etc.) (Grisay, 1996; Konu, Lintonen, & Autio,
2002; Opdenakker & Van Damme, 2000). Also
research on effective teaching within the teacher
‘artistry’ tradition stresses the importance of a
good and vital relationship between teacher and
students (Harris, 1998). The synthesis of meta-
analyses and reviews of Wang, Haertel, and
Walberg (1993) gives evidence for positive associa-
tions between achievement and all the mentioned
classroom practice characteristics. Teaching styles
(which often reflect teachers’ views on teaching
and learning and their preferred behaviour) have
also received a considerable degree of attention
within the educational literature over the past two
decades. There is some evidence that teaching
styles can help to interpret the influences of
teachers on student achievement (Aitkin & Zu-
zovsky, 1994; Ebmeier & Good, 1979) and on
attitudes towards subjects (Ebenezer & Zoller,
1993), and that teaching behaviour and teaching
styles can make an important difference to student
learning (Centra & Potter, 1980; McDaniel, 1981;
Wentzel, 2002). Research on teaching and teacher
education (within the tradition of teacher think-
ing) and research on teacher change emphasise the
importance of beliefs, thoughts, judgements,
knowledge, attitudes and theories of teachers for
teaching practice (Clark & Peterson, 1986; Cuban,
1993; Fullan, 1982; Pajares, 1992; Shuell, 1996).
Also, in a study of Maxwell, McWilliam, Hem-
meter, Ault, and Schuster (2001) some of the
differences in classroom practices (11%) could be
explained by teacher beliefs even after controlling
for the effects of grade and teacher education.
Within the research on mathematics learning there
is some evidence for the impact of teachers’ beliefs
on student outcomes. For example, Fennema and
Franke (1992) found that teachers’ beliefs about
teaching and learning mathematics were associated
with their pedagogical practices as well as with
what their students learned. However, investigat-
ing beliefs, thoughts, judgements, knowledge and
theories of teachers and the link between these and
teachers’ actions is not easy because, as Day (1999)
suggests, teachers’ actions are often based on
implicit, tacit knowledge. Furthermore, Argyris
and Schon (1974) mention that integrating action
with thought is a difficult task, which is also
illustrated by a study of Fung and Chow (2002)
about the congruence of student teacher’s peda-
gogical images (based on their views about
teaching) and actual classroom practice. Several
researchers mention the complexity of the relation-
ship between thought and cognition on one hand
and action and behaviour on the other hand (den
Brok, 2001; Korthagen, 2004) and a review of
Fang (1996) about the consistency between teacher
beliefs and behaviour only partially supported the
consistency hypothesis. There are examples of
teacher education programs that build upon the
beliefs of pre-service teachers (and feature sys-
tematic and consistent long-term support in a
collaborative setting) which seem to be successful
in changing beliefs of pre-service teachers (Wideen,
Mayer-Smith, & Moon, 1998; Gill, Ashton, &
Algina, 2004), but there are also less successful
ones. In sum, much research work has still to be
done to further explore the links between teacher
beliefs, thoughts, theories, knowledge and atti-
tudes on one hand and teacher behaviour, class-
room practices and student outcomes on the other
hand, and to deepen our understanding of the
creation of classroom practice.
Next to the already mentioned teacher and
classroom practice characteristics, another char-
acteristic of classes seems to be important with
respect to outcomes. Recent educational effective-
ness research has shown that, besides individual
background characteristics, the student composi-
tion of classes can also effect the achievement of
students and that student composition and class-
room and school practices are to some degree
related to each other (Lam, 1996; Opdenakker,
2004; Opdenakker & Van Damme, 2001; Opde-
nakker, Van Damme, De Fraine, Van Landeghem,
& Onghena, 2002; Opdenakker, Van Damme, &
Minnaert, 2005; Parkerson, Lomax, Schiller, &
Walberg, 1984; Weinert, Schrader, & Helmke,
1989). The interplay between students and teacher
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.-C. Opdenakker, J. Van Damme / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 1–21
(behaviour) is also stressed in other educational
research, e.g., in research on interpersonal teacher
behaviour (Wubbels & Brekelmans, 1998) and
within the domain of the sociology of education
(Thrupp, 1999).
So, although research indicates that classroom
practices, teacher behaviour and teaching styles
are important with respect to student outcomes (as
are student composition characteristics), until
now, little research has been done about the
degree to which effective classroom practices are
class, teacher, and school dependent and are
related to student composition, teacher character-
istics, and teaching styles. With respect to the
improvement of education in general and teacher
education and in-service training in particular it is
important to know how good classroom practices
can be enhanced and which characteristics of
teachers are related to effective classroom prac-
tices. A study about the degree to which effective
classroom practices are related to student compo-
sition, teacher characteristics, and teaching styles
can offer insight and clues to foster good class-
room practices. It can also provide insight into the
limitations classes and/or teachers impose on the
development of effective classroom practices.
The purpose of this study is to explore the class,
teacher, and school-relatedness of good classroom
practices and to investigate the effects of teacher
characteristics and teaching styles on these class-
room practices, after having accounted for rele-
vant student composition characteristics. The
selection of classroom practices and relevant
student composition characteristics is based on
theoretical work and research by Opdenakker
(1996, 2004; see also Opdenakker et al., 2005),
which itself was inspired by educational (effective-
ness) research and models and theories about
learning and educational effectiveness.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
A representative sample of 132 mathematics
classes of the second grade in secondary education
in Flanders (the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium),
3
assigned to 78 mathematics teachers and belonging
to 47 schools participated in the study. The study
reported here was part of a more extensive study
on the effects of students, classes, teachers, and
schools on mathematics achievement in secondary
education (Opdenakker, 2004) and was based on
the Longitudinaal Onderzoek in het Secundair
Onderwijs (LOSO)—Longitudinal Research in
Secondary Education database (Van Damme, De
Fraine, Van Landeghem, Opdenakker, & Onghe-
na, 2002). The LOSO project was a longitudinal
study on school careers of students of almost
all schools of three regions in Flanders (which
were representative of the Flemish schools in
general) and started at the beginning of the
1990s. (For more information, see Van Damme
et al., 2002.)
The mathematical classes considered belong to
the so-called A-stream.1 The students belonging to
these classes were required to have parental
permission to participate. (Almost all the students
of the three regions received permission.) The
participating classes were randomly selected
(based on the selection of their mathematics
teacher). About 52% of the students belonging
to the 132 classes are girls. Of the 132 classes, 22%
are boys classes (or classes with more than 80%
boys), 8.5% are mixed classes with a majority of
boys (61–80% of the students are boys), 24% are
equally mixed classes (with 40–60% students of
each gender), 19% are mixed classes with a
majority of girls and 26.5% are girls classes (or
classes with almost only girls). About 51% of the
teachers are female. They teach all types of classes,
but boys classes are most of the time taught by
male teachers, whereas girls classes are more often
taught by female teachers. Mixed classes are
almost as frequently taught by male as by female
1
In Flanders, in the beginning of secondary education, the
great majority of the students follow the A-stream or the
general track. They can make a subject choice for 5–7 h a week.
The subjects chosen can be grouped into four groups: classical
languages (Latin and/or Greek), general subjects, techni-
cal–theoretical options, and technical–practical options. The
majority of classes (75%) in the second grade are formed by
grouping students with the same subject choice. For more
information about the secondary school system in Flanders, see
Van Damme et al. (2002).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
4 M.-C. Opdenakker, J. Van Damme / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 1–21
teachers. The schools of the sample are private or
public schools offering only a first cycle (autono-
mous middle schools) or more than one cycle. In
Flanders secondary education consists of three
cycles of two grades each. Autonomous middle
schools and so-called multitrack schools (with
more than one cycle) prepare in their first cycle for
both academic (or ‘general’) and technical/voca-
tional options in the higher cycles. ASO-schools
offer only the academic track and TSO/BSO-
schools offer only the technical and vocational
tracks.
2.2. Instruments, scales, and variables
2.2.1. Surveys
Students and teachers completed surveys during
two consecutive school years. The ability and
achievement motivation of the students were
registered at the start of the first grade (first
school year). The parents’ involvement in the
schooling of their child was also registered in that
grade and was based on an appreciation by the
students’ primary and secondary education tea-
chers. Information about the classroom practice in
the mathematics class (with respect to the learning
environment and the class climate) was registered
in the second half of the second school year (with
an interval between the measurements of both
aspects). Information about the teacher (personal
characteristics and aspects of teaching styles) was
registered in the first school year.
2.2.2. Measures
2.2.2.1. Group composition measures. Three class
composition measures are used in this study: the
(numerical) intelligence level, the motivational
level, and the level of parents’ involvement in the
schooling of their child. These group composition
measures are based on student scores on a
numerical scale of a Flemish intelligence test
(GETLOV) (Lancksweerdt, 1991) (56 items), on
scales about achievement motivation (29 items,
a ¼ :82) and facilitating anxiety (18 items, a ¼ :82)
from a Dutch questionnaire (PMT-K) (De Froid-
mont & Mortier, 1975; Hermans, 1976), and on a
scale about the involvement of the parents in the
schooling of their child (based on teachers’
response to questions about the parents’ interest
in school life and parental support; 5 items,
a ¼ :80). For more information about the parents’
involvement scale (examples of representative
items), see Appendix A. The composition mea-
sures are calculated by averaging the scores of all
the students belonging to the same class. The
calculation of the reliability of the scores on the
group composition measures is based on the
formula of Snijders and Bosker (1999, p. 25).
For the (numerical) intelligence level (Num_intel),
the achievement motivation (Achmot), the facil-
itating anxiety (F_anxiety), and the parents’
involvement in the schooling of their child (P_in-
volvement), the respective reliability values are .84,
.52, .50 and .80.2
2.2.2.2. Classroom practice measures. Classroom
practice scales were derived from teacher and
student questionnaires. Two kinds of classroom
practice variables were selected: indicators of the
learning environment in the classroom and in-
dicators of the class climate. The indicators of the
learning environment, derived from teacher ques-
tionnaires, are ‘opportunity to learn mathematics’
(OTLM) and ‘instructional support’ (IN-
STR_SUP). The opportunity to learn mathematics
is an indication of the degree to which items of the
mathematics achievement test were covered during
the school year.3 The instructional support vari-
able is based on five scales: structured teaching
(Struct) (4 items, a ¼ :76), feedback on study
results (Feedback) (2 items), proportion of in-
tellectually challenging questions in a regular class
mathematics test (Intel_test) (1 item), way of
repeating subject matter (Repeat) (1 item), and
degree of focus on individual development (In-
div_dev) (7 items, a ¼ :63). (Examples of repre-
sentative items of the mentioned scales can be
found in Appendix A.)
2
Kallestad, Olweus, and Alsaker (1998) propose an aggregate
reliability coefficient of .35 as a minimum.
3
The mathematics teacher was asked to score each item with
the categories (3) a typical item students have studied during the
school year (and that can be asked during the exams), (2) a
question that the students should be able to answer on the basis
of the subject matter taught during the school year or (1) an
item that does not belong to the subject matter taught.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.-C. Opdenakker, J. Van Damme / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 1–21
So, with respect to instructional support two
aspects are considered: general support with
respect to the subject matter (structured teaching,
proportion of intellectually challenging questions
in a regular mathematics test, way of repeating
subject matter) and student-related adaptive sup-
port (feedback on study results, degree of focus on
individual development). The selection of indica-
tors is based on the research literature about
effective instruction and effective schools (Cree-
mers, 1994a, b; Lam, 1996; Sammons, Hillman, &
Mortimore, 1995; Wang & Walberg, 1991) and is
confirmed by factor analysis.
The class climate indicators, derived from
teacher and student questionnaires are: ‘relation-
ship with the mathematics teacher’ (RE-
LTEACH), ‘integration of the students in the
class group’ (INTEGR), and ‘learning climate’
(LEARNCLIM). The relationship with the mathe-
matics teacher is based on two items—answered by
the teacher: ‘relationship is based on trust’ (Trust)
and ‘teacher has personal relevance for class’
(Pers_relev). So, in classes with a high score on
‘the relationship with the mathematics teacher’
variable the teachers have a good feeling about the
quality of the relationship with their classes. The
integration of students in the class group is based
on the scales ‘cohesiveness of class group’ (Cohe-
sion) (6 items, a ¼ :77), based on information from
the teacher, and ‘integration in class group’
(Integr), based on answers from students. The
scale ‘integration in class group’ is an aggregate of
student answers to questions about their integra-
tion in the class group. The original student scale
consists of ten items (a ¼ :89). The reliability of
the aggregate scores is .54. In classes with a high
level of integration the students feel at home and
no-one feels rather outside the group. The students
treat each other in a nice way and are often friends
of each other. As a class they form a cohesive
group. (Examples of items of the scales can be
found in Appendix A.) The last class climate
characteristic, namely the learning climate, con-
sists of three scales based on information from the
teacher, referring to a calm and quiet classroom
atmosphere (Calm_atm) (7 items, a ¼ :89), to a
(task-oriented) focus on learning and study
(Study_orient) (4 items, a ¼ :87), and to the
5
engagement and co-operation of the students as
perceived by the mathematics teacher (Co-opera-
tion) (1 item). So, in classes with a good learning
climate the students are calm and quiet and to
learn something is very important to them. The
teacher of such classes experiences co-operation of
the students. We refer the reader to Opdenakker
(2004), Van Damme et al. (2002), and Opdenakker
et al. (2002) for more detailed information about
all the mentioned variables. The construction of
the variables ‘opportunity to learn’, ‘instructional
support’, ‘relationship with the mathematics tea-
cher’, ‘integration of the students in the class
group’, and ‘learning climate’ is based on a
LISREL SEM analysis. More information about
this analysis can be found in Opdenakker et al.
(2005). Evidence of the relevance of all these
classroom practice variables for explaining differ-
ences in class and student outcomes with respect to
effort and mathematics achievement is given in
Opdenakker et al. (2005) and Opdenakker (2004).
2.2.2.3. Teacher characteristics and teaching
styles. The teacher characteristics and teaching
styles variables were derived from an extensive
teacher questionnaire about their background,
teaching behaviour, educational and pedagogical
framework, orientation towards school and educa-
tion, and their experiences with life and work at
school. The most important school effectiveness
studies from The Netherlands and Flanders until
the 1990s (e.g., Bosker, Hofman, & van der
Velden, 1985; Bosker, van der Velden, & Hofman,
1985; Bosker, van der Velden, Hofman, & Klok,
1985; Brandsma & Stoel, 1986, 1987; Tesser, 1986;
Thys, Van De Ven, & Vermoere, 1990; Van den
Berg & Vandenberghe, 1981) and school effective-
ness studies from English-speaking countries (e.g.,
Mortimore, Sammons, Stoll, Lewis, & Ecob, 1988;
Rutter, Maughan, Mortimore, & Ouston, 1979),
as well as the special issue ‘Developments in school
effectiveness research’ of the ‘International Jour-
nal of Educational Research’ with guest editors
Creemers and Scheerens (1989) were important
sources of inspiration.
The questionnaire contained self-report mea-
sures by the teacher of his/her own teaching
practices and daily school life. A lot of questions
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

6 M.-C. Opdenakker, J. Van Damme / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 1–21

Table 1
Overview of the three componentsa solution of teaching variables

Scales of factor Component Description Number of Reliability

analysis loadings items

LEARNSTYLE: Learner-centered teaching style

DIFF .68 Amount of differentiation activities and material n¼6 a ¼ :67
ACTPROBL .67 Activities undertaken when confronted with a problem student n¼5 a ¼ :64
STUDENTACT .66 Amount of active student participation in the lessons n¼7 a ¼ :77
DISCUSSTUD .65 Frequency of discussions about student and class affairs with n ¼ 14 a ¼ :84
other teachers of the same class
USETRESULTS .51 Use of test results to direct one’s own teaching n¼1
PERSDEV* .44 Orientation towards the development of the person(ality) of the n ¼ 14 a ¼ :77
students
PERSRELSTUD* .42 Personal relationship with students based on trust n¼6 a ¼ :67
CONTENTSTYLE: Content-centered teaching style (with a focus on subject matter acquisition and discipline)
SUBJMOR .77 Orientation towards subject matter acquisition and cognitive n¼9 a ¼ :70
development
DISCIPL .75 Focus on discipline and obedience n¼9 a ¼ :70
POSDIFF .71 Positive attitude towards differentiation n¼7 a ¼ :68
PERSDEV .63 Orientation towards the development of the person(ality) of the n ¼ 14 a ¼ :77
students
CLMANAGEMENT: Orderly classroom management without strict control activities
CLASSMAN .73 Amount of orderly classroom management n¼6 a ¼ :74
CONTR .68 Use of control activities (to keep the students under control) n¼3 a ¼ :50
PERSRELSTUD .56 Personal relationship with students based on trust n¼6 a ¼ :67
a
To interpret the components, only scales with a component loading larger than .40 are used. Scales with a loading larger than .40 on
several components are added to all the relevant components. An asterisk behind the scale name indicates that the scale has a higher
loading on another component.

are formulated as statements and the teachers were
asked to rate them on a five-point scale, mostly a
Likert scale.
First, orthogonal factor analyses were per-
formed on the answers to the statements to
construct scales at the teacher level. Information
(examples of representative items) on the scales is
given in Appendix A. In order to reduce the
number of teacher variables involved and to find
dimensions of teaching styles of mathematics
teachers teaching in the first two grades of
secondary education (n ¼ 115), we ran a second-
order principal component analysis with varimax
rotation. This resulted in three meaningful (ortho-
gonal) components. An overview of these compo-
nents including the scales with a loading above .40
on one or more components is given in Table 1.
Scores were calculated for each component.
The first component refers to the extent to which
the teacher has an instructionally innovative and
student-centered teaching style. A teacher scoring
high on this style differentiates between his/her
students and uses differentiation activities and
material. He/she plays an active role when he/she
is confronted with problem students4 and has a lot
of active student participation during his/her
lessons. He/she often discusses student affairs with
other teachers of the same class and uses test
results to direct and redirect his/her own teaching.
An orientation towards the development of the
person(ality) of the students and a good relation-
ship with the students have a loading of, respec-
tively, .44 and .42 on this component, which means
that these characteristics seem to contribute to this
4
These are students which have some problems with their
cognitive, social or emotional functioning. The problems may
be temporal. So, these students may have behavioural
problems, and/or learning problems (generally or specifically
in mathematics).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.-C. Opdenakker, J. Van Damme / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 1–21
component too, although to a lesser degree than
the other characteristics. So, this teaching style
reflects a focus on the learning of the students and
on the students themselves. We will refer to this
teaching style in this article with the term ‘learner-
centered teaching style’ (LEARNERSTYLE).
The second component refers to the extent to
which the teacher has a traditional teaching style
with a focus on subject matter acquisition,
cognitive development and discipline. Character-
istic of this style is also a negative attitude towards
differentiation and a rather weak orientation
towards the development of the person(ality) of
the students. This teaching style reflects a concern
for content delivery by the teacher and subject
matter acquisition by the students. The focus on
discipline has to be seen against the background of
this concern for content delivery. We will refer to
this teaching style with the term ‘content-centered
teaching style’ (CONTENTSTYLE).
In the literature about teaching styles, charac-
teristics of the learner-centered and the content-
centered teaching style are often mentioned,
although these labels are not always used. For
example, Bennett (1976) makes a distinction
between a formal and informal style and MacNeil
(1980) uses the labels ‘expository’ versus ‘discovery
style’. Fischer and Fischer (1979) have defined six
categories for teaching styles including a child-
centered, a learning-centered and a subject-cen-
tered teaching style. Kelly (1980) indicates two
dimensions with respect to teaching style namely:
exploratory and authoritarian, and Wade (1981)
mentions next to a formal and an informal
style also a mixed style. More recent literature
stresses dimensions with respect to teaching
styles rather than dichotomies (e.g., Lane, 1999;
Wentzel, 2002).
The third component of the component analysis
is an indicator of teachers’ classroom management
skills (CLMANAGEMENT). A high score on this
component indicates that the teacher creates an
orderly and quiet work environment in his classes,
that he/she has no problems with maintaining
order and that he/she does not use control
activities to keep the students under control (like
a high work speed and a strict use of punishments
and sanctions when irregularities and disorderly
7
behaviour are detected). A teacher scoring high on
this component has usually a rather good relation-
ship with his students.
As already mentioned, the three components
(which need to be interpreted as dimensions) are
orthogonal. This means that there are no sig-
nificant relations between the components. So, the
position on one component has no implications
for the position on the other components.
With respect to teacher characteristics the
gender of the teacher (T_GENDER), his/her job
satisfaction (JOBSAT) (14 items; a ¼ :87), and his/
her level of training and certification (T_TRAIN-
ING) were considered. Teachers scoring high on
the job satisfaction scale like teaching very much.
Teaching in secondary education is an exiting and
fascinating experience for them. They have the
feeling that they can mean a lot to their students
and (they have the impression) that they are
successful in teaching students. So liking the job
and having the impression to be successful with
respect to (the learning of) students are important
aspects of the job satisfaction of teachers. (For
examples of representative items, see Appendix A.)
2.3. Data analysis
Multilevel modelling was used to study the class,
the teacher, and the school-relatedness of class-
room practices and to investigate the school-
relatedness of teacher characteristics and teaching
styles. The relations between classroom practices,
teacher characteristics and teaching styles were
also investigated by means of multilevel analysis.
Multilevel analysis is a methodology for the
analysis of data with complex patterns of varia-
bility, with a focus on nested sources of variability:
e.g., students in classes, classes in schools. The
main statistical model of multilevel analysis is the
hierarchical linear model, an extension of the
multiple linear regression model to a model that
includes nested random effects. Multilevel statis-
tical models are always needed if a multi-stage
sampling design has been employed (e.g., when
first a sample of schools is taken, next a sample of
classes within each school and last a sample of
pupils within each class), because the clustering of
the data should be taken into consideration
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
8 M.-C. Opdenakker, J. Van Damme / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 1–21
(Snijders & Bosker, 1999). The simplest case of this
model is the random effects analysis of variance
model or the empty model. When a two-level
hierarchy is used (e.g., with classes at the first level
and schools at the second level), this model
exhibits only random variation between groups
and random variation within groups. It contains
no explanatory variable. Based on this model,
estimations of the variance at the distinguished
levels (e.g., the class and the school level) are
obtained. This makes it possible to see which level
is important for the characteristic under study. For
example, when the estimation of the variance at
school level (level two) of a learning environment
characteristic measured at class level is much
higher than the estimation of the variance at class
level (level one), than this means that differences
between classes with respect to the mentioned
learning environment characteristic are largely
related to differences between schools in this
respect. In other words, in that case, differences
between classes with respect to the mentioned
learning environment characteristic are found
because there are differences between (the classes
of different) schools. It implies that for explaining
the differences between classes one has mainly to
look at characteristics of schools.
The empty model can be expanded by the
inclusion of explanatory variables. (This is com-
parable with the inclusion of explanatory variables
in multiple regression analysis.) With the explana-
tory variables, we try to explain a part of the
variability of the dependent variable. It is possible
to explain variability at level one as well as—in a
next step—at level two.
In the random intercept model (the empty
model or an extension of the empty model with
explanatory variables), only the intercept is
assumed to be random. However, it is also possible
that slopes (regression coefficients) of level-one
variables are random or, otherwise stated, vary
randomly across groups. For example in a study of
students within classes, it is possible that the effect
of a student’s intelligence on mathematics achieve-
ment differs among classes. An interaction be-
tween a level-one and a level-two variable (a cross-
level interaction) can be included into the model to
explain the random slope. More information
about multilevel analysis can be found in Gold-
stein (2003), Raudenbush and Bryk (2002), Kreft
and de Leeuw (1998), Snijders and Bosker (1999),
and Hox (2002). In this study the program
MLwiN was used to perform the multilevel
analyses (Goldstein et al., 1998).
In order to explain variance in classroom
practice characteristics, random intercept models
as well as random slope models were used in this
study. In a first stage, random intercept models
were used and the effect of each of the mentioned
teacher characteristics and teacher styles was
examined apart as well as in combination with
each other. A distinction was also made between
analyses which do and do not take into account
the group composition and which do and do not
consider relations between classroom practice
characteristics. In a second stage, attention was
paid to random slopes of group composition
variables and to interactions between group
composition and variables concerning teacher
characteristics and teaching styles.
3. Results
3.1. Teacher characteristics and teaching styles:
Relations and school-relatedness
Before we link the indicators of classroom
practice with teacher characteristics and teaching
styles, an exploration of the teacher characteristics
and teaching styles is needed. Therefore, we made
use of our dataset of (up to) 115 mathematics
teachers teaching in the first two grades of
secondary education and a selection from this
dataset: 78 mathematics teachers teaching in the
second grade (A-stream) of secondary education.
With respect to the characteristic ‘level of
teacher training and certification’ we found that
almost all the teachers had the same level of
teacher training and certification: they followed a
three year teacher education program in higher
education and were certificated to teach mathe-
matics. Therefore, this teacher characteristic is not
used further in the analyses described here.
With respect to the relations between teacher
characteristics and teaching styles we found small
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.-C. Opdenakker, J. Van Damme / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 1–21
positive correlations between job satisfaction and
classroom management skills (.26 for the total
group and .27 for the mathematics teachers of the
second grade). The correlation between job
satisfaction and a learner-centered teaching style
is .27 for the total group and .43 for the teachers of
the second grade, A-stream. So, especially for
teachers of the second grade (A-stream) there is an
important relationship between their job satisfac-
tion and the extent to which they have a learner-
centered teaching style. Furthermore, the job
satisfaction and teaching style dimensions were
not gender-related: male and female mathematics
teachers did not differ with respect to teaching
styles and job satisfaction. However, male and
female mathematics teachers differed with respect
to classroom management skills. The effect of
gender was most pronounced in the total group of
mathematics teachers, indicating that female tea-
chers had somewhat more difficulty in keeping and
maintaining order in their classes than their male
colleagues. Gender could explain 7% of the
variance in class management skills. In the teacher
group of the second grade (A-stream), the effect of
gender was significant at the 10% level only and
could explain almost 4% of the variance. We think
that the more pronounced effect of gender in the
total teacher group can be attributed to larger
classroom management differences between male
and female teachers teaching first and/or second-
grade classes of the least able students following a
remedial program in the first grade or a prepara-
tion year for vocational education in the second
grade. Research in Flanders (see Van Damme et
al., 1997, p. 88, 103) has shown that those students
often belong to low socioeconomic status families.
Keeping and maintaining order in this kind of
classes is extra difficult and perhaps male teachers
have less difficulty with keeping and maintain-
ing order because students accept their authority
more easily.
The analyses of the school and the teacher-
relatedness of job satisfaction, classroom manage-
ment skills, and teaching styles reveal that job
satisfaction, classroom management skills, and the
learner-centered teaching style are almost comple-
tely teacher-related. With respect to the content-
centered teaching style evidence was found for a
9
school-related component. Although mathematics
teachers of the same school differ with respect to
their position on the content-centered teaching
style, one fifth of the variance in the content-
centered style is related to the school. This means
that there are schools where the mathematics
teachers, as a group, are highly focused on subject
matter acquisition, on cognitive development and
on discipline, whereas there are other schools
where the group of mathematics teachers does not
stress these aspects of education. It is remarkable
that this school-relatedness was not found with
respect to the learner-centered teaching style, the
classroom management skills, and the job satisfac-
tion of mathematics teachers.
3.2. The class, teacher, and school-relatedness of
characteristics of classroom practice
To what extent are classroom practices different
among schools, among teachers within schools,
and different among classes belonging to the same
teacher and school? Table 2 reveals that mathe-
matics teachers of the second grade are very
important with respect to the opportunity to learn
mathematics. The instructional support mathe-
matics classes receive is also very teacher-depen-
dent, which means that teachers within the same
school differ with respect to the instructional
support they give to their classes. Although the
opportunity to learn mathematics also differs
between schools, most of the differences seem to
be situated between teachers within schools. Table
2 also reveals that teachers to some degree
differentiate between their classes with respect to
the opportunity to learn mathematics: almost
12% of the variance in opportunity to learn
Table 2
Distribution of the variance (%) over the distinguished levels
(N c ¼ 132, N t ¼ 78, N s ¼ 47)
Class Teacher School
OTLM 11.9 77.9 10.2
INSTR_SUP 10.0 90.0 0.0
RELTEACH 42.1 31.9 26.0
INTEGR 84.9 3.9 11.3
LEARNCLIM 96.1 0.0 3.9
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
10 M.-C. Opdenakker, J. Van Damme / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 1–21
mathematics is estimated between classes of the
same teacher. The instructional support mathe-
matics classes receive from their mathematics
teacher is very teacher-related, but teachers also
seem to differentiate to some degree between their
classes with respect to instructional support. It is
remarkable that no variance is estimated at school
level, which means that instructional support does
not seem to be a school characteristic (at the
moment of investigation). We got no indication
that schools differ significantly from each other
with respect to the average instructional support
classes receive.5 A focus on individual develop-
ment, a component of instructional support (not
mentioned separately in Table 2), is an exception:
24.7% of the variance is associated with the class
level, 47.2% with the teacher level and 28% with
the school level. Schools seem thus to differ with
respect to differentiation policy and the stimula-
tion of student participation and involvement.
Concerning the indicators of the class climate a
somewhat different picture appears. The learning
climate in mathematics classes is almost comple-
tely class-related and only a small part of the
variance seems to be associated with the school
level. The relationship between the students of the
same class is also very class-related; however, the
teacher and the school seem to matter too: 15% of
the variance is associated with the teacher and the
school level together. As could be expected, a large
amount of the variance in the relationship with the
mathematics teacher is associated with the class
and the teacher level. This means that the quality
of the relationship between the teacher and the
students in his/her classes differs between teachers
(belonging to the same school) and that there are
also differences between classes belonging to the
same teacher. So, there are indications that the
same teacher has not always a relationship of the
same quality with all his/her classes, although
5
Perhaps teachers belonging to the same school neither talk
much nor make agreements about this kind of learning
environment characteristics. This can explain the finding of a
zero estimation of the variance associated with the school level.
Variance associated with the school level with respect to a focus
on individual development could be explained by the focus on
this topic in programs for in-service training for teachers and
school leaders.
there are also indications that some teachers have,
in general, a better relationship with their classes
than other teachers. The school seems to matter
too and this is in particular true with respect to the
extent to which the relationship between teacher
and students is based on trust. Combined with the
previous finding, we have indications that schools
differ with respect to the relational climate.
3.3. The importance of teacher characteristics and
teaching styles for classroom practice
The previously described results indicate that
classroom practice characteristics are almost al-
ways to some degree teacher-related. This finding
suggests that the study of the relationship between
teacher characteristics and styles and classroom
practice is an important one. However, previous
research indicated that class composition is also
related to classroom practice and that certain
classroom practice characteristics are interrelated.
Opdenakker et al. (2005), using the same dataset,
investigated the relations between group composi-
tion and classroom practice characteristics by
means of structural equation modelling. They
found that the instructional support a class
receives from the mathematics teacher is—among
other things—a function of the average cognitive
level of the students in the classroom. The learning
climate in the classroom, the relationship with the
mathematics teacher and the integration of the
students in the class group seemed to be a function
of characteristics of the family of the students,
namely of the parents’ involvement in the school-
ing of their child (which included the parents’
interest in school life and parental support). The
learning climate in the class is also affected by the
achievement motivation level of the class. Further-
more, Opdenakker et al. (2005) found that the
opportunity to learn mathematics in classes was
effected by the instructional support mathematics
teachers gave to their classes and—to a lesser
extent—by the use of self-chosen or self-con-
structed teaching material. They also mentioned
relationships between climate characteristics. The
learning climate and the integration of the students
in the class group were influenced by the quality of
the relationship between class and teacher,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

M.-C. Opdenakker, J. Van Damme / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 1–21 11

the multilevel analyses are discussed in more

JOBSAT
detail.7
-*

LEARNER- 3.3.1. The learning environment

Num_intel INSTR_SUP STYLE
+*** +**
Fig. 1. Most important results of the multilevel analyses with
respect to the importance of teacher characteristics and
teaching styles on indicators of learning environment.
School
LEARNER-
+˚ STYLE
P_involvement RELTEACH
+**
+* CL-
MANAGEM
+***
+**
INTEGR T_GENDER
-*
Fig. 2. Most important results of the multilevel analyses with
respect to the importance of teacher characteristics and
teaching styles on indicators of class climate.
whereas the learning climate was also influenced
by the integration of the students in the class
group. We have to take these findings into account
when we study the effects of teacher characteristics
and styles on classroom practice characteristics
with respect to the learning environment and the
class climate. An overview of the most important
results of the multilevel analyses conducted to
investigate the importance of teacher character-
istics and teaching styles for classroom practice are
given in Fig. 1 (with respect to the learning
environment) and in Fig. 2 (with respect to the
class climate).6 In the next sections the results of
6
In these figures, classroom practice characteristics are
represented with a rectangle and teacher characteristics and
teaching styles with an ellipse. The relationships between
classroom practice and teacher characteristics and styles are
represented by arrows. A ‘+’ indicates a positive regression
coefficient and thus a positive relationship; a ‘’ indicates a
negative regression coefficient. The asterisks behind them
indicate the significance level: 1po:10;  po:05;  po:01;

po:001.
Multilevel analyses indicated that almost 15%
of the variance in instructional support can be
explained by the learner-centered teaching style.
The more the mathematics teacher adopts a
learner-centered teaching style, the more he/she
invests in instructional support. When we take into
account the cognitive level of the class, which
explains more than 40% of the variance in
instructional support, almost 8% is left. So, the
combination of the nested models with respect to
the effect of the learner-centered teaching style and
the intellectual composition of the class on the
instructional support a class receives revealed that
to some degree the effect of the intellectual level of
a class goes hand in hand with a student-centered
teaching style of the teacher, which indicates a
relationship between the intellectual level of classes
and the degree to which their teachers have a
learner-centered teaching style. However, the
combination of the models also reveals that the
learner-centered teaching style has an important
effect in addition to the effect of the cognitive level
of the class on the instructional support a class
receives. So, the conclusion ‘the more the teacher
adopts a learner-centered teaching style, the more
7
Explanations for differences in classroom practice charac-
teristics will be discussed in the next section. However, because
explanations at school level are not the topic of this manuscript
they will not be discussed in that section. We restrict ourselves
here to a short summary of our findings with respect to the
effects of school characteristics on class climate characteristics.
Our research revealed that a participative professionality-
oriented leadership, which is a leadership with much teacher
participation in the decision-making and with an important
focus on educational tasks (one can compare this with a (broad
definition of) democratic educational leadership), is associated
with better integrated classes at school. A part of the variability
in the relationship between teacher and students in the class at
school level can be explained by the opportunity to learn
mathematics at school level. At school level a negative
association was found between the opportunity to learn and
the relationship between teacher and students in the classes,
especially when characteristics of the class composition were
taken into account. We think that this could be an indication of
a negative effect of too much stress, at school level, on offering
much subject matter.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
12 M.-C. Opdenakker, J. Van Damme / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 1–21
he/she invests in instructional support’ even holds
when one takes into account the cognitive level of
the class.
Furthermore, the analyses revealed that the
relationship between the cognitive level of the
class group and the amount of instructional
support a class receives from the teacher differs
to some degree from teacher to teacher and can be
(partially) explained by the job satisfaction of the
teacher. The higher the job satisfaction of the
teacher is, the weaker the relationship between the
cognitive level of the class and the amount of
instructional support the class receives. The lower
the job satisfaction of the teacher is, the stronger
the relationship between the class composition and
the amount of instructional support. It appears
that teachers with a low job satisfaction invest
much effort in their high cognitive level classes and
a lot less in their classes with a low cognitive level,
whereas teachers with a high job satisfaction are
less directed by the cognitive level of the class in
offering instructional support; they give more
instructional support to their low level classes
than teachers with a low job satisfaction. Remem-
ber that in general, teachers with a high job
satisfaction have the feeling that they can mean a
lot to their students and that they are under the
impression that they are successful in teaching
students. So perhaps (mathematics) teachers who
are inclined to think that they are the impression
to be successful with respect to (the learning of)
students (and who believe in the ability to learn of
all students) are willing to invest much more effort
to their less smart classes than teachers who do are
not under that impression (and/or experience and
belief). The consequence is that teachers who have
feel successful (based on their experiences in the
past) or do believe in the ability to learn of all
students, invest effort in their students and classes
and receive, in return, a positive affirmation of
their beliefs and impressions (in the form of high
study results of their students and classes).
However, (mathematics) teachers who do not have
the mentioned belief or experiences do not invest
much effort in their less smart students and classes
and, in return, get the impression that only smart
students and classes can learn (mathematics). So
there are some indications that the confidence,
beliefs, experiences (and perhaps expertise) and
pedagogical epistemologies of teachers are related
to their job satisfaction and that this influences
their classroom practices.
A learner-centered teaching style is also posi-
tively correlated with the opportunity to learn
mathematics in classes and can explain 8% of
the variance in opportunity to learn. The effect of
the learner-centered teaching style seems to dis-
appear when taking into account the instructional
support a class receives and the use of self-
constructed or self-selected teaching material.
However, one has to bear in mind the finding that
the amount of instructional support a class
receives is itself a function of the extent to which
a teacher has a learner-centered teaching style.
3.3.2. The class climate
With respect to the climate characteristics, the
quality of the relationship between teacher and
students seems to be positively influenced by the
extent to which the teacher has adopted a learner-
centered teaching style. The classroom manage-
ment skills of the teacher seem to matter too and
both variables together explain almost 9% of the
variance in the quality of the relationship between
teacher and students. The effects of these teacher
variables remained evident even after taking into
account the level of the parents’ involvement in the
schooling of their child.8 Furthermore, we got
indications that the connection between the level
of parents’ involvement in the schooling of their
child and the quality of the relationship between
the teacher and his students differs among schools.
This means that there are probably characteristics
of schools which can explain the strength of this
8
The job satisfaction of the teacher could also explain some
variance in the relationship between teacher and students.
However, after taking into account the level of parents’
involvement in the schooling of their child this effect
disappears. Moreover, the job satisfaction and the learner-
centered teaching style variables did not have significant
coefficients anymore when these variables were combined in
one model explaining the variance in the relationship between
teacher and students. However, they could explain quite a large
amount of variance together. We think that the effect of job
satisfaction has to be seen in the light of its relationship with the
learner-centered teaching style. The correlation between these
variables is .43.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.-C. Opdenakker, J. Van Damme / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 1–21
connection and that there are possibilities for
intervention at the level of the school.
With respect to the relationship between the
students of the same class group and, in particular,
the integration of the students in the class group, the
gender of the teacher seems to matter to some
degree. Classes with a female mathematics teacher
seem to be less integrated than classes with a male
teacher. When we do not take into account the
level of parents’ involvement in the schooling of
their child and the quality of the relationship
between teacher and class group, the extent to
which the teacher has adopted a student-centered
innovative teaching style seems to matter too with
respect to the integration of students in their class
groups. The effect is, however, rather small.
Together, both variables could explain 7% of the
variance.
The learning climate in classes seems to be
effected by the job satisfaction of the teacher
and—to a lesser extent—by the classroom man-
agement skills of the teacher. After taking into
account the level of parents’ involvement in the
schooling of their child, the prior achievement
motivation level of the class, the quality of the
relationship between the teacher and the class, and
the extent to which the students feel themselves
integrated in their classes as a group, no additional
effect of the job satisfaction and the classroom
management skills is found.
4. Conclusions and discussion
The results presented in this article are based on
large-scale longitudinal survey research. Data of a
representative sample of 132 mathematics classes
of the second grade and 78 mathematics teachers
of 47 secondary schools in Flanders were analysed
with multilevel analysis. The purpose of the study
was to explain relevant class and teacher differ-
ences with respect to instructional support, op-
portunity to learn, and class climate
characteristics. Six teacher variables were consid-
ered: gender, level of teacher training and certifica-
tion, job satisfaction, classroom management
skills, and some teaching styles, namely the extent
to which the teacher has a learner-oriented
13
teaching style and the extent to which the teacher
has a content-centered teaching style (with a focus
on subject matter acquisition, on cognitive devel-
opment and on discipline). However, the level of
teacher training and certification was not studied
further, because all the teachers had the same level
of teacher training and certification: they followed
a three year teacher education program in higher
education and had a certification to teach mathe-
matics in the first grades of secondary education.
Our results indicate that a lot of variance in
classroom practice characteristics is associated
with differences between teachers. Especially with
respect to characteristics of the learning environ-
ment, and to a lesser degree, also with respect to
indicators of class climate, the teacher seems to
matter. Exploring the effects of teacher character-
istics and teaching styles revealed that some of
these variables could explain variance in classroom
practice characteristics. Our study indicated that
even after taking into account group composition,
teachers seem to have an influence on the class-
room practice in their classes. With respect to the
importance of the investigated teaching character-
istics and teaching styles, the positive effects of a
learner-centered teaching style on classroom prac-
tice characteristics is remarkable, all the more so
because those characteristics have been proven to
be important for student effort for mathematics
and mathematics achievement (see Opdenakker,
2004). A learner-centered teaching style has a
positive effect on the instructional support tea-
chers give to their classes and on the quality of the
relationship between teacher and class. It is
associated with higher opportunity to learn
(because of its positive effect on the instructional
support) and with a better integration of the
students in the class group (because of its positive
effect on the relationship between teacher and
students). Teachers scoring high on this style
stimulate a lot of active student participation in
their classes, undertake differentiation activities
and have differentiation material, undertake ac-
tion when they are confronted with a problem
student, discuss often student and class affairs with
their colleagues teaching the same class, are
oriented towards the development of the person
(ality) of the students, have a relationship with the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
14 M.-C. Opdenakker, J. Van Damme / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 1–21
students based on trust, and use test results to
direct their own teaching. It was striking that we
did not find any effect of the content-centered
teaching style (focussing on subject matter acquisi-
tion, on cognitive development, and discipline) on
the investigated classroom practice characteristics,
even when classroom composition was not taken
into account.
Positive effects on classroom characteristics
were also found with respect to class management
skills. Good class management skills seemed to
have a positive effect on the quality of the
relationship between teacher and class, and
because of this, also (a small effect) on the learning
climate in the class.
With respect to the job satisfaction of teachers,
we have indications that the job satisfaction affects
the relationship between group composition and
the amount of instructional support a class
receives. The lower the job satisfaction of the
teacher is, the stronger the relationship between
the cognitive level of the class and the amount of
instructional support a class receives. Perhaps
teachers with a high job satisfaction (who have
the feeling that they can mean a lot to their
students and that they can make a difference in the
learning of students) are willing to invest a lot of
energy and effort (instructional support) into their
classes across the ability range contrary to teachers
with a low job satisfaction. Without taking into
account the group composition, the job satisfac-
tion of teachers can also explain some differences
in the quality of the relationship between a teacher
and his/her students and differences with respect
to the learning climate in classes.
Finally, the gender of the teacher does not seem
to matter much with respect to classroom practice
characteristics. An effect was only found with
respect to the integration of students within their
classes. Indications were found that classes of
female mathematics teachers are somewhat less
well integrated than classes of male teachers.
Further research revealed that this gender effect
did not diminish when controlling for the gender
composition of the class (which had a small
positive effect, indicating that the higher the
percentage of girls in the class the higher the
integration of the students in that class); the effect
of the gender of the teacher even became some-
what stronger. Exploring the interaction effect
between the gender of the teacher and the gender
composition of the class revealed that there was a
tendency that female teachers had an equalising
effect on the integration of classes: classes with a
high percentage of boys were as integrated as
classes with a high percentage of girls. However,
with male teachers the integration of classes with a
high percentage of girls was much higher than the
integration of the same kind of classes with a
female teacher. There were almost no differences
between male and female teachers with respect to
the integration of classes with a high percentage of
boys.
In conclusion, we have indications that class-
room practice characteristics which are, according
to the research literature, effective with respect to
effort for mathematics and with respect to mathe-
matics achievement might be enhanced by a
learner-centered teaching style and by the equip-
ment of teachers with good class management
skills. The enhancement of the job satisfaction of
teachers is a means to enhance the instructional
support of classes composed of a rather low ability
range. With respect to the enhancement of the job
satisfaction, the stimulation of a learner-centered
teaching style and the equipment of teachers with
good class management skills can serve as tools. In
sum, our study revealed that teacher character-
istics and teaching styles can be effectiveness
enhancing factors of classroom practice.
Many findings reported in this article are
consistent with the research literature about
effective teaching. For example, Cothran, Kulin-
na, and Garrahy (2003, p. 442) state on the basis of
their study about students’ perspectives on effec-
tive class management ‘‘It does appear, at least
from the students’ perspective, that teacher’s
personal characteristics are not independent of their
actions.’’ Their study also indicates a relation
between classroom management skills and the
teacher–students relationship, and their descrip-
tion of effective class managers (derived from
student answers) is consistent with the one used in
the present study: they mention the importance of
clear expectations and consequences (which was
an item in our classroom management skills scale
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.-C. Opdenakker, J. Van Damme / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 1–21
and is also often mentioned in the research
literature, see, e.g., Brophy & Good, 1986) and
state that students also reported that effective class
managers developed relationships with students in
which care and respect are important. (In our
study a personal relationship based on trust and
respect was a scale which loaded high on the
classroom management skills component.) Next,
Cothran et al. (2003) mention the importance of
the balance between control and fun in the class
and they have indications from the students’
answers ‘‘that just as being too lax was a problem,
so was being too strict’’. (Remember that we have
a scale ‘control’, which has a negative loading on
the class management component.) Furthermore,
they stated that caring teachers communicate with
their students and listen to them and they make a
plea for effective communication training in
teacher education programs, something we can
only applaud.
Our finding that, with respect to characteristics
of the learning environment (namely, opportunity
to learn and instructional support), the teacher is
much more important than the class, and that,
with respect to the quality of the relationship
between teacher and students (an indicator of the
class climate), the class and the teacher are equally
important, is consistent with the rather scarce
research literature on this topic. Den Brok (2001),
conducting research in the Netherlands, and Levy,
Wubbels, den Brok, and Brekelmans (2003), doing
research in the USA, found that with respect to
interpersonal teaching behaviour the class and the
teacher seemed to be equally important. Den Brok
(2001) also studied teacher actions from a learning
activities perspective and concluded that although
the class and the teacher seemed to be important,
the importance of the teacher outweighed the
importance of the class.
With respect to the importance of a learner-
centered teaching style, our results are in line with
the literature about effective teaching and effective
classroom practices, which shows that beyond
verbal skills, subject matter knowledge and aca-
demic ability, a combination of elements like
concern for children, flexibility, professional
knowledge and experience (knowing how to
teach), and specific teaching practices provides a
15
strong guarantee of teacher effectiveness (Darling-
Hammond & Sykes, 2003). It also affirms the
importance of student-centered teaching beha-
viour and the teacher’s competence to work with
diverse student populations (Wenglinsky, 2002). In
order to optimize the practice in classes, our study
reveals that it seems to be important that teachers
adopt a learner-centered teaching style. This
means that teachers have the requisites and are
willing to have a lot of active student participation
in their classes, undertake differentiation activities
and have differentiation material, undertake ac-
tion when they are confronted with a problem
student, discuss often student and class affairs with
their colleagues teaching the same class, are
oriented towards the development of the person
(ality) of the students, have a relationship with the
students based on trust and respect, and make use
of test results to direct their own teaching. It will
be an important undertaking for teacher education
and teacher in-service programs to prepare and
further professionalise (mathematics) teachers in
such a way that they can adopt a learner-centered
teaching style. Kulinna and Cothran (2003)
suggest that a lack of experience with the style
can be a factor why teachers do not use this style
as much as a teacher- or content-centered style.
They found in their study that although teachers
believed that learner-centered teaching styles were
effective they did not use it as much as teacher-
centered styles. Guskey (1986) argues that for
change to occur teachers must first see positive
results in their own settings, which implies that
teachers need opportunities to practice the learner-
centered style in controlled environments as well as
in classroom settings. We agree with Kulinna and
Cothran (2003, p. 608) ‘that those teaching
opportunities must be accompanied by support,
feedback, and reflection on the use and outcomes
of the style’. Another factor that has to be taken
into account is the finding of Cothran and Ennis
(1997) that many teachers value class control over
class learning. Kulinna and Cothran (2003) state
that teacher- and content-centered teaching styles
(‘reproductive’ styles) initially appear to offer
more control.
There is some link between our results about the
learner-centered teaching style and our results
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
16 M.-C. Opdenakker, J. Van Damme / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 1–21
about the job satisfaction of teachers. We already
mentioned that having the feeling to mean a lot to
students and having the impression to be success-
ful in teaching students are important determi-
nants of a high job satisfaction of teachers.
Believing that teachers can make a difference in
the learning of students and, that teachers can
mean a lot to students seem to us the underlying
principles for scoring high on a learner-centered
teaching style. A positive correlation of .43
between job satisfaction and the scores on the
learner-centered teaching style in our sample gives
evidence for this. So, there is some evidence that
the stimulation of a learner-centered teaching style
(by means of working on beliefs of teachers) has
potential to enhance the job satisfaction of
teachers, which seems to be important for creating
optimal classroom practice conditions, especially
for classes of a rather low ability range. With
respect to teacher education and teacher in-service
programs this means that enhancing the job
satisfaction of teachers may involve enhancing
teachers’ pedagogical epistemologies, and provid-
ing them with theoretical and practical knowledge
about alternative strategies and approaches to
their teaching. Recent research on teachers’ think-
ing and practice reveals that a teacher’s cognitive
and pedagogical behaviours are guided by, and
make sense in relation to, a personally held system
of beliefs, values and principles. Our results tend
to subscribe to this. Genuine changes tend to come
about when teachers are enabled to think differ-
ently about what is going on in classrooms, and
can align their theories and practice more closely
as a result of engagement with meaningful profes-
sional development.
The findings of our study give some indications
of the inappropriateness of a narrow conceptua-
lisation of (teacher) effectiveness in terms of
testing and assessment of student outcomes in
relation to strictly defined curriculum content.
Teaching is much more than delivering subject
matter to students (confer the mentioned indica-
tors of classroom practice and the mentioned
aspects of teaching styles) and the learning of
students at school is much more than what they
produce as achievement outcomes on a particular
test. Good teaching involves reflection on oneself,
on classroom practice (learning environment and
class climate), on the students and their learning
(processes), etc. It also involves communication
and building relationships with students, classes,
parents, colleagues, school leaders, etc. Similarly, a
student’s learning experience involves much more
then what is expressed by achievement scores per
se. Throughout their time at school students build
their own learner identity, modelling their orienta-
tion to schooling; they learn to communicate and
to relate to other participants in the school, etc.
Also these aspects of learning are influenced by
teachers (and other participants in the school) and
should be included when conceptualising effective-
ness of teachers and schools. Some attention to a
broader range of learning outcomes and broader
conceptualisations of teacher and school effective-
ness is already visible in the domain of research on
educational effectiveness (see, for example, several
contributions on this topic in the School Effec-
tiveness and School Improvement journal in the
last decade), but much work has still to be done in
the domain of research, and especially in the
domain of government evaluations.
To conclude, one limitation to the present study
needs to be mentioned. As indicated earlier, our
study is based on a sample of mathematics classes
in the second grade of secondary education. To
what extent the conclusions from this study can be
applied to other grades, school types, other subject
classes and teachers, and other countries has to be
studied further. The similarities with the research
results of the studies of den Brok (2001) and Levy
et al. (2003), which were based on different grades,
different subjects and even educational systems of
different countries, give some indication of a
broad applicability of our conclusions.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the Department of
Education of the Ministry of the Flemish commu-
nity for funding the research project and the
anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments
on a previous draft of this manuscript. The writing
of the article was funded by the Flemish Minister
of Education and Training, in the context of the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.-C. Opdenakker, J. Van Damme / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 1–21
programme ‘Policy Research Centres’ and by a
grant from the Catholic University of Leuven.
Appendix A
In this section, two representative items of each
scale used in the study are given. Items marked
with the symbol ‘(-)’ were inverted.
Parents’ involvement in the schooling of their
child (response format: 5-point Likert)
1. The student is well coached by his parents with
respect to school matters.
2. The parents of the student have a positive
orientation towards education and school.
Structured teaching (explicating the structure in
the subject matter) (response format: 5-point; never
y very often)
1. I rehearsed the relevant concepts from already
taught subject matter in the class every time I
started a new chapter.
2. I tried to anchor new subject matter in already
taught subject matter and still to be taught
subject matter.
Feedback on study results (response format: 5-
point; never y almost always)
1. I gave feedback and explanation to the whole
class about mistakes on tests.
2. Students had the opportunity to get individual
feedback and explanation about their mistakes
on tests.
Focus on individual development (response for-
mat: 5-point; never y very often)
1. During the lessons in this class, I organized an
open discussion with the students about the
subject matter taught, a text or a work project.
2. I differentiated between bright and less
bright students when offering exercises during
lessons.
17
Integration in class group (response format: 5-
point Likert)
1. In our class I feel that I am rather outside the
group. (-)
2. I think that most of my classmates treat me in a
nice way.
Cohesiveness of the class group (response format:
5-point Likert)
1. The students of this class are a cohesive group.
2. A lot of students in this class are friends.
Calm and quiet atmosphere in the classroom
(response format: 5-point Likert)
1. The students of this class are calm and quiet.
2. It takes a lot of time to calm this class before the
lessons can be started. (-)
Task-oriented focus on learning and study
(response format: 5-point Likert)
1. To learn something is very important to the
students of this class.
2. The students of this class search themselves for
answers on questions which concern them.
Job Satisfaction (response format: 5-point Likert)
1. I like teaching.
2. I experience the job of a teacher in secondary
education as fascinating.
Amount of differentiation activities and material
(response format: 5-point Likert)
1. I have special material (handbooks, exercises,
y) for remedial teaching of shortcomings of
weaker students.
2. I provide extra exercises or other tasks for
students who are quicker than others.
Activities undertaken when confronted with a
problem student (response format: 3-point; no y
yes, always)
1. Do you allocate time intentionally to observe a
problem student?
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
18 M.-C. Opdenakker, J. Van Damme / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 1–21
2. Do you take initiative to help the problem
student or to solve the problem in a different
manner?
Amount of active student participation in the
lessons (response format: 5-point Likert)
1. I negotiate with the students about the subject
matter or the tasks they have to make.
2. The students are encouraged to find applica-
tions of the things they have learned in the class.
Frequency of discussions about student and class
affairs with other teachers of the same class
(response format: 4-point; never y always)
1. How often do teachers of the same class discuss
the learning achievement of the students?
2. How often do teachers of the same class discuss
class regulations?
Orientation towards the development of the
person(ality) of the students (response format: 5-
point Likert)
1. It is important that students are themselves at
school and that they can discover themselves.
2. My most important task as a teacher is
coaching youth to adulthood.
Personal relationship with students based on trust
(response format: 5-point Likert)
1. When a student wants to confide in me, I will
comply with the request.
2. The relationship between me and my students is
based on mutual trust.
Orientation on subject matter acquisition and
cognitive development (response format: 5-point
Likert)
1. My first responsibility as a teacher is to impart
enough subject matter knowledge to the stu-
dents. All the rest is of secondary importance.
2. Transfer of knowledge and cognitive develop-
ment remain more important than general
education in schools.
Focus on discipline and obedience (response
format: 5-point Likert)
1. Obedience is good for the education of the
student.
2. For good education, it is important that
students obey and adapt the rules of the school
in the first place.
Positive attitude towards differentiation (re-
sponse format: 5-point Likert)
1. A good student is the victim of differentiation
in education. (-)
2. Differentiated education is good for all stu-
dents.
Amount of orderly classroom management (re-
sponse format: 5-point Likert)
1. Unnecessary and interfering interruptions occur
during my lessons. (-)
2. It often takes a lot of time before it is quiet
enough in my classes to start teaching. (-)
Use of control activities (to keep the students
under control) (response format: 5-point Likert)
1. To keep the students under control I use a high
work speed.
2. I strictly apply the sanctions holding for an
offence.
References
Aitkin, M., & Zuzovsky, R. (1994). Multilevel interaction
models and their use in the analysis of large-scale school
effectiveness studies. School Effectiveness and School Im-
provement, 5, 45–73.
Anderson, C. S. (1982). The search for school climate: a review
of the research. Review of Educational Research, 52,
368–420.
Anderson, L. (1991). Increasing teacher effectiveness. Paris,
UNESCO: International Institute for Educational Planning.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice,
increasing professional effectiveness. London: Jossey-Bass.
Bennett, N. (1976). Teaching styles and pupil progress. London:
Open Books.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.-C. Opdenakker, J. Van Damme / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 1–21
Bosker, R., Hofman, W., & van der Velden, R. (1985). Een
generatie geselecteerd. Deel 1: de loopbanen [A generation
selected. Part 1: The school careers]. Groningen: RION.
Bosker, R., van der Velden, R., & Hofman, W. (1985). Een
generatie geselecteerd. Deel 2: technisch rapport leerlingen en
ouders [A generation selected. Part 2: Technical report
students and parents]. Groningen: RION.
Bosker, R., van der Velden, R., Hofman, W., & Klok, J. (1985).
Een generatie geselecteerd. Deel 3: technisch rapport scholen
[A generation selected. Part 3: Technical report schools].
Groningen: RION.
Brandsma, H., & Stoel, W. (1986). Schoolleiders in het
voortgezet onderwijs [School leaders in secondary education].
Groningen: RION.
Brandsma, H. P., & Stoel, W. G. R. (1987). Schoolleiders in het
voortgezet onderwijs. Een exploratieve studie naar de
determinanten en effecten van schoolleiderskenmerken
[School leaders in secondary education. An explorative
study into the determinants and effects of school leader
characteristics]. In J. Scheerens, & W. G. R. Stoel (Eds.),
Effectiviteit van onderwijsorganisaties (pp. 99–113). Lisse:
Swets & Zeitlinger.
Brophy, J., & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher behavior and
student achievement. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of
research on teaching, (3rd ed) (pp. 328–375). New York:
McMillan.
Centra, J. A., & Potter, D. A. (1980). School and teacher
effects: An interrelational model. Review of Educational
Research, 50(2), 273–291.
Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers’ thought
processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on
teaching, (3rd ed) (pp. 255–296). New York: McMillan.
Cothran, D. J., & Ennis, C. D. (1997). Students’ and teachers’
perspectives of conflict and power. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 13, 541–553.
Cothran, D. J., Kulinna, P. H., & Garrahy, D. A. (2003). This is
kind of giving a secret awayy: students’ perspectives on
effective class management. Teaching and Teacher Educa-
tion, 19, 435–444.
Creemers, B. P. M. (1994a). The effective classroom. London:
Cassell.
Creemers, B. P. M. (1994b). Effective instruction as a basis for
effective education in schools. Tijdschrift voor Onderwijsre-
search, 19, 3–16.
Creemers, B., & Scheerens, J. (Eds.) (1989). Developments in
School Effectiveness Research. International Journal of
Educational Research, 13, 685–825.
Cuban, L. (1993). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in
American classrooms: 1890– 1990 (2nd ed.). New York:
Teachers College Press.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (2003). Wanted: A national
teacher supply policy for education: The right way to meet
the ‘‘highly qualified teacher’’ challenge. Education Policy
Analysis Archives, 11 (33). Retrieved from http://epaa.
asu.edu/epaa/v11n33.
Day, C. (1999). Developing teachers: The challenges of lifelong
learning. London: Falmer.
19
De Froidmont, R., & Mortier, V. (1975). PMT-K: Vlaamse
versie 1975 [PMT-K: Flemish version 1975]. Amsterdam:
Swets & Zeitlinger.
den Brok, P. (2001). Teaching and student outcomes: A study on
teachers’ thoughts and actions from an interpersonal and a
learning activities perspective. Utrecht: IVLOS.
Doyle, W. (1985). Effective secondary classroom practices. In
R. M. J. Kyle (Ed.), Reaching for excellence: An effective
schools sourcebook (pp. 55–70). Washington, DC: US
Government Printing Office.
Ebenezer, J. V., & Zoller, U. (1993). Grade 10 students’
perceptions of and attitudes toward science teaching and
school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30,
175–186.
Ebmeier, H., & Good, T. L. (1979). The effects of instructing
teachers about good teaching on the mathematics achieve-
ment of fourth grade students. American Educational
Research Journal, 16(1), 1–16.
Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and
practices. Educational Research, 38, 47–65.
Fennema, E., & Franke, M. L. (1992). Teacher’s knowledge and
its impact. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on
mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 147–164). New York:
McMillan.
Fischer, B. B., & Fischer, L. (1979). Styles in teaching and
learning. Educational Leadership, 36, 245–254.
Fraser, B. J., Walberg, H. J., Welch, W. W., & Hattie, J. A.
(1987). Syntheses of educational productivity research.
International Journal of Educational Research, 11, 145–252.
Fullan, M. (1982). The meaning of educational change. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Fung, L., & Chow, L. P. Y. (2002). Congruence of student
teachers’ pedagogical images and actual classroom practice.
Educational Research, 44, 313–321.
Gill, M. G., Ashton, P. T., & Algina, J. (2004). Changing
preservice teachers’ epistemological beliefs about teaching
and learning in mathematics: An intervention study.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 164–185.
Goldstein, H. (2003). Multilevel statistical models (3rd ed.).
London: Edward Arnold.
Goldstein, H., Rasbash, J., Plewis, I., Draper, D., Browne, W.,
Yang, M., Woodhous, G., & Healy, M. (1998). A user’s
guide to MLwiN. London: University of London, Institute
of Education, Multilevel Models Project.
Grisay, A. (1996). Evolution des acquis cognitifs et socio-affectifs
des élèves au cours des années de collège [Evolution of
cognitive and affective development in lower secondary
education]. Liège, Belgium: Université de Liège.
Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of
teacher change. Educational Researcher, 15, 5–12.
Harris, A. (1998). Effective teaching: A review of the literature.
School Leadership & Management, 18, 168–183.
Hermans, H. (1976). PMT-K: Prestatie motivatie test voor
kinderen. Aanvullende handleiding bij de Vlaamse versie
1975 (aangepast door R. de Froidmont & V. Mortier)
[PMT-K achievement motivation test for children. Supple-
mentary manual for the Flemish version 1975 (adapted by
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
20 M.-C. Opdenakker, J. Van Damme / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 1–21
R. de Froidmont & V. Mortier)]. Amsterdam: Swets &
Zeitlinger.
Hox, J. (2002). Multilevel analysis. Techniques and applications.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kallestad, J. H., Olweus, D., & Alsaker, F. (1998). School
climate reports from Norwegian teachers: A methodological
and substantive study. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 9, 70–94.
Kelly, A. (1980). Exploration and authority in science learning
environments: An international study. European Journal of
Science Education, 2(2), 161–174.
Konu, A. I., Lintonen, T. P., & Autio, V. J. (2002). Evaluation
of well-being in schools: A multilevel analysis of general
subjective well-being. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 13, 187–200.
Korthagen, F. A. J. (2004). In search of the essence of a
good teacher: Towards a more holistic approach in
teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20,
77–97.
Kreft, I., & de Leeuw, J. (1998). Introducing multilevel modeling.
London, UK: Sage Publications.
Kulinna, P. H., & Cothran, D. J. (2003). Physical educa-
tion teachers’ self-reported use and perceptions of
various teaching styles. Learning and Instruction, 13,
597–609.
Lam, J. F. (1996). Tijd en kwaliteit in het basisonderwijs:
ontwikkeling van een onderzoeksinstrumentarium [Time and
quality in primary education: development of a set of research
instruments]. Twente: Universiteit Twente.
Lancksweerdt, P. (1991). Getlov (Gemeenschappelijke Testbat-
terij Lager Onderwijs). Onderzoeksverslag over de gegevens
van de leerlingen van het 6de leerjaar lager onderwijs uit de
vrije P.M.S.-centra in Oost-Vlaanderen schooljaar
1989– 1990 [Getlov (Test battery for primary education).
Research report about the data of six-grade students in
primary education from private school guidance centres of
East-Flanders]. Deinze: Vrij P.M.S.-centrum 1.
Lane, P. L. (1999). The impact of teaching styles on students’
styles and academic outcomes. Dissertation Abstracts
International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences,
60(4-A), 1011.
Levy, J., Wubbels, Th., den Brok, P., & Brekelmans, M.
(2003). Students’ perceptions of interpersonal aspects of the
learning environment. Learning Environments Research, 6,
5–36.
MacNeil, R. D. (1980). The relationship of cognitive style and
instructional style to the learning performance of under-
graduate students. Journal of Educational Research, 73(6),
354–359.
Maxwell, K. L., McWilliam, R. A., Hemmeter, M. L., Ault, M.
J., & Schuster, J. W. (2001). Predictors of developmentally
appropriate classroom practices in kindergarten through
third grade. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 16,
431–452.
McDaniel, T. R. (1981). Criticism, research and reform in
contemporary education: The search for ‘‘significant differ-
ences’’. Contemporary Education, 53(1), 6–8.
Mortimore, P., Sammons, P., Stoll, L., Lewis, D., & Ecob, R.
(1988). School matters: The junior years. Somerset: Open
Books.
Opdenakker, M. -C. (1996). An explorative study of the effect
of school, teacher and classroom characteristics on achieve-
ment in secondary education in Flanders. Paper presented at
the ‘Graduate Student Conference ICO on school effective-
ness’, Groningen.
Opdenakker, M.-C. (2004). Leerling in Wonderland? Een
onderzoek naar het effect van leerling-, lesgroep-, leerkracht-
en schoolkenmerken op prestaties voor wiskunde in het
secundair onderwijs [Student in Wonderland? A study on
the effect of student, class, teacher, and school characteristics
on mathematics achievement in secondary education]. Leu-
ven: Acco.
Opdenakker, M.-C., & Van Damme, J. (2000). Effects of
schools, teaching staff and classes on achievement and well-
being in secondary education: Similarities and differences
between school outcomes. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 11, 165–196.
Opdenakker, M.-C., & Van Damme, J. (2001). Relationship
between school composition and characteristics of school
process and their effect on mathematics achievement. British
Educational Research Journal, 27, 407–432.
Opdenakker, M.-C., Van Damme, J., De Fraine, B., Van
Landeghem, G., & Onghena, P. (2002). The effect of schools
and classes on mathematics achievement. School Effective-
ness and School Improvement, 13, 399–427.
Opdenakker, M. -C., Van Damme, J., & Minnaert, A. (2005).
Are there equal opportunities in our classes and schools? An
investigation into the relationship between class composition,
indicators of the learning environment and the class climate,
effort, and academic achievement of classes. Manuscript
under review.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational
research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of
Educational Research, 62, 307–332.
Parkerson, J. A., Lomax, R. G., Schiller, D. P., & Walberg, H.
J. (1984). Exploring causal models of educational achieve-
ment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 638–646.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear
models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.).
London: Sage Publications.
Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P., & Ouston, J. (1979).
Fifteen thousand hours: Secondary schools and their effects
on children. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sammons, P., Hillman, J., & Mortimore, P. (1995). Key
characteristics of effective schools: A review of school
effectiveness research. London, UK: OFSTED.
Scheerens, J. (1992). Effective schooling: Research, theory and
practice. London/New York: Cassell.
Scheerens, J., & Bosker, R. (1997). The foundations of
educational effectiveness. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Shuell, T. J. (1996). Teaching and learning in a classroom
context. In D. C. Berliner, & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook
of educational psychology (pp. 726–764). New York:
MacMillan.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.-C. Opdenakker, J. Van Damme / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 1–21
Slavin, R. E. (1996). Education for all. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (1999). Multilevel analysis.
An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling.
London, UK: Sage Publications.
Stallings, J. (1985). Effective elementary classroom practices. In
M. J. Kyle (Ed.), Reaching for excellence: An effective
schools sourcebook (pp. 19–38). Washington, DC: US
Government Printing Office.
Teddlie, C., & Reynolds, D. (2000). International handbook of
school effectiveness research. London, UK: Falmer.
Tesser, P. (1986). Sociale herkomst en schoolloopbanen in het
voortgezet onderwijs [Social background and school careers
in secondary education]. Nijmegen: Instituut voor Toege-
paste Sociale Wetenschappen.
Thrupp, M. (1999). Schools making a difference: Let’s be
realistic. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Thys, L. (Ed.), Van De Ven, G., & Vermoere, H. (1990). Profiel
van het tweede jaar BSO. Leerkracht in het BSO een zware
job? Onderzoek naar arbeidssatisfactie, schoolwerksfeer en
onderwijsoriëntatie [Profile of the second grade of vocational
secondary education. Is being a teacher in vocational
secondary education a heavy job? A study concerning job
satisfaction, work atmosphere at school and educational
orientation]. Brussel: CSBO.
Van Damme, J., De Troy, A., Meyer, J., Minnaert, A., Lorent,
G., Opdenakker, M.-C., & Verduyckt, P. (1997). Succesvol
doorstromen in de aanvangsjaren van het secundair onderwijs
[Successful passing through the first years in secondary
education]. Leuven: Acco.
Van Damme, J., De Fraine, B., Van Landeghem, G.,
Opdenakker, M.-C., & Onghena, P. (2002). A new study
on educational effectiveness in secondary education in
Flanders: An introduction. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 13, 383–397.
21
Van den Berg, R., & Vandenberghe, R. (1981). Onderwijsinno-
vatie in verschuivend perspectief [Educational innovation in
moving perspective]. Tilburg: Zwijsen.
Wade, B. (1981). Highly anxious pupils in formal and informal
primary classrooms: The relationship between inferred
coping strategies and: I. Cognitive attainment. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 51(1), 39–49.
Wang, M. C., & Walberg, H. J. (1991). Teaching and
educational effectiveness: Research synthesis and consensus
from the field. In H. C. Waxman, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.),
Effective teaching: Current research (pp. 81–104). Berkeley:
McCutchan.
Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1993). Toward
a knowledge base for school learning. Review of Educational
Research, 63, 249–294.
Weinert, F., Schrader, F.-W., & Helmke, A. (1989). Quality of
instruction and achievement outcomes. International Jour-
nal of Educational Research, 13, 895–932.
Wenglinsky, H. (2002). How schools matter: The link between
teacher classroom practices and student academic perfor-
mance. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 10(12) Re-
trieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n12/.
Wentzel, K. R. (2002). Are effective teachers like good parents?
Teaching styles and student adjustment in early adolescence.
Child Development, 73, 287–301.
Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J., & Moon, B. (1998). A critical
analysis of the research on learning to teach: Making the
case for an ecological perspective on inquiry. Review of
Educational Research, 68, 130–178.
Wubbels, Th., & Brekelmans, M. (1998). The teacher factor
in the social climate of the classroom. In B. J. Fraser, &
K. G. Tonin (Eds.), International handbook of science
education, part one (pp. 565–580). London: Kluwer Aca-
demic Publishers.