78 Does smartphone-assisted student feedback affect the quality of teachers’ teaching? at M3 (24%) than at M1 (16%) and M2 (12%). No teacher asked colleagues for tips on how to improve, or signed up for a course. The percentage of teachers who looked on the internet for information about how to improve declined somewhat during the intervention period (from 12% at M1 to 4% at M3). A small percentage of teachers reported that they had not done anything with the feedback (8%, 4% and 8% of the teachers at M1, M2, and M3, respectively). Other actions reported by teachers were about using the feedback for formulating learning goals (for internships) and for personal reflection on their lessons. Figure 4.5 Percentage of teachers in the experimental group who reported they undertook improvement-oriented actions outside their lessons at the three measurement moments (M1, M2 and M3). 4.4.5 Hypothesis four: improvement of teaching quality Figure 4.6 shows teachers’ average teaching quality scores over time. In Figure 4.6, we see that the average teaching quality improved at the beginning of the intervention period. Just before period 7, perceived teaching quality showed a slight decline. It improved again between period 10 and period 17. After that, teaching quality showed a capricious trend and dropped to about the initial level. Table 4.2 shows the results of five multilevel models (including the null model) to estimate teaching quality when taking time into account. %
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw