70 Does smartphone-assisted student feedback affect the quality of teachers’ teaching? structured classroom management (Day et al., 2008; Marzano, 2003; Pianta & Hamre, 2006); 3. providing clear instruction (Hollingsworth & Ybarra, 2015; Muijs et al., 2014; Rosenshine, 1995); 4. Providing adaptive instruction ; 5. good quality teacher–student interactions (den Brok, Brekelmans, et al., 2006); 6. cognitive activation of students to promote deep learning (Drijvers, 2015; Hiebert & Grouws, 2007); 7. assessing students’ learning during the lesson (formative assessment; Black & William, 2006; Hattie, 2008; Hattie & Timperley, 2007). A review of student perception questionnaires was also conducted (Bijlsma, 2016) to gather information about items used in other questionnaires. Both the literature study and the review led to ideas about and formulations of items for the Impact! tool. Potential items were discussed extensively among the researchers involved (for the considerations taken into account, see section 1.5 of this dissertation). Experts in the f ield of educational sciences contributed to our study by identifying items that, in their opinion, should be included in the questionnaire. Moreover, teachers and students from Dutch secondary schools (Grade 9) were asked whether the items were comprehensible and clear, and what they thought the items were about. Based on their feedback, some items were reformulated, which resulted in a f inal set of 16 items (see Appendix A). 4.3.3 Research design and intervention An experimental design was chosen for this study, as this was considered to be the best research design for evaluating the effects of smartphone-assisted student feedback (Fraenkel et al., 2012). More than one teacher from some schools participated in the study. To avoid cross-over effects (teachers from the same school influencing each other; Fraenkel et al., 2012), schools were randomly assigned to the experimental group or the control group. Therefore, the number of teachers in both groups was slightly different. During the intervention period of four months, teachers in the experimental group used the Impact! tool and thus received feedback on their lessons from their students. Teachers in the control group did not use the Impact! tool. They were given access to the tool after the intervention and the posttest. The project timeline is presented in Figure 4.2. M0, M1, M2 and M3 indicate the measurement moments, where M0 is the pretest, M3 is the posttest, and M1 and M2 are in-between measurements (see section 4.3.5 of this chapter). The green line indicates the use of the Impact! tool and the green stars indicate the lessons in which the tool was used. The number of times the tool was used differed per teacher, because it was up to the teacher to decide when to use it. Therefore, the number of stars varies between teachers. For example, the five
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw