23 2 Fauth et al., 2014; Fraser, 1998b; Hattie, 2008; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Hiebert & Grouws, 2007; Hollingsworth & Ybarra, 2015; Marzano, 2003; Maulana et al., 2015; Muijs et al., 2014; Pianta & Hamre, 2006; Reynolds et al., 2014; Rosenshine, 1995; Sammons et al., 1995; van de Grift, 2007). These practices were categorized into the following seven general characteristics of effective teaching: 1. creating a supportive and positive classroom climate; 2. well-organized and structured classroom management; 3. providing clear instruction; 4. adapting instruction to students’ needs; 5. teacher–student interaction; 6. the cognitive activation of students to promote deep learning; 7. assessing student learning during the lesson (formative assessment). Experts in the field of educational science were asked for their ideas about potential items that, in their opinion, reflect the core of high-quality teaching and could be included in the questionnaire. With the information collected through the literature research and the review, and the input from the experts, draft versions of the questionnaire were developed and iteratively discussed among the authors of this article. During these discussions, the question was always whether the items reflect the seven characteristics of effective teaching presented above. After the authors had reached consensus about the formulation of the items, the items were presented to grade 9 students from Dutch secondary schools, who were asked whether the items were clear to them, and what they thought the items were about. Their teachers were also asked whether they thought the items were clear for the students and if they thought specific important aspects of teaching were missing in the draft questionnaire. Based on the feedback from the teachers and students, a final set of 16 items was included in the questionnaire (see Appendix A). The characteristic of effective teaching that each item refers to is given as well in Appendix A. Items 1-15 were responded to using a 4-point Likert scale. Item 16 was an open-ended question, where students could type in their answer. With items 6, 8 and 11, an extra option, not applicable, was added, because these questions do not apply to every situation (for an example on a student phone, see Figure 1.1). The construct validity of the Impact! questionnaire was evaluated based on the data collected with the Impact! tool, using the IRT modelling approach described in the previous section. Further details on the IRT model and the goodness-of-f it indices are outlined in the Method section of this chapter (section 2.3).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw