54 Factors associated with differences in digitally measured student perceptions of teaching quality Table 3.4 Model comparisons using the DIC Model Expected Deviance Penalty for the number of parameters in the model Deviance Information Criterion (DIC) 1. Full model 63.43 2.60 68.63 2. Excluding interaction between time and teachers 63.35 2.67 68.69 3. Linear growth model 73.31 2.72 78.75 3.4.2 Significant results Table 3.5 presents the regression coefficients, the standard deviation, and the 95% confidence interval (or in Bayesian terms, the “credibility region”) of the intercepts and variance components of the models with statistically significant results. The intercepts show the direction and the magnitude of the significant effect. The variance components show how variance in the data can be explained. A statistically significant effect on students’ Impact! results can be found in the model with students’ level of performance, as the 0 does not lie in the 95% confidence interval (0.134–0.593). Beta2 is 0.361 (SD = 0.118), which means that high-performing students scored their teacher significantly higher than low-performing students did (the low-performing group is the reference group). Another statistically significant effect on students’ Impact! results was found in the model where teachers’ likeability was added as a covariate, as the 0 did not lie in the 95% confidence interval (0.041–0.408). Beta1 = 0.217 (SD = 0.087), which means that the more likeable teachers were, the higher ratings they received from their students. Teachers’ teaching experience and class’s average grade also showed a statistically significant association with students’ Impact! Results, such that more experienced teachers received higher ratings from their students than less experienced teachers did, and the higher the average grade of a class, the higher the students rated their teachers. Considering the variance components, it can be seen that in all models, the most variance was explained by differences between teachers (var.ij). This was to be expected, as teachers differ in the actual quality of their teaching (Berliner, 2004; Fuller & Bown, 1975; Kini & Podolsky, 2016; van de Grift, 2007, 2010).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw