Teacher specialization and student perceived instructional quality: what are the relationships to student reading achievement?

In recent decades, research has increasingly emphasized the importance of developing and maintaining a high-quality teaching force. There is now compelling evidence that teachers account for a significant portion of variance in achievement between classrooms (Darling-Hammond 2000, 2014; Goldhaber and Anthony 2007; Hanushek 2011; Hanushek and Rivkin 2012; Hattie 2009; Hedges and Greenwald 1996; Kyriakides et al. 2009; Muijs et al. 2014; Nye et al. 2004; Rockoff 2004). Nonetheless, there are conflicting views on how best to guarantee teacher quality. While some researchers argue that investing in high-quality preparation is the most promising approach, others suggest that better facilitating entry to teacher education would attract stronger candidates (Boyd et al. 2009: Ingersoll 2007).

Issues about how best to design and organize teacher preparation have become increasingly prominent in undertakings to improve teacher quality. In this debate, there is an important underlying assumption that assessment of teacher quality in the classroom context can filter out poor-quality teachers, and effectively stimulate instructional improvement. However, in a review of existing literature, Hallinger et al. (2014) found little support for the belief that teacher evaluation represents a high-impact school improvement strategy.

In fact, a recurring theme in the instructional and school development literature emphasizes the potential costs and negative consequences of the frequent monitoring of teachers’ work. Close surveillance and evaluation of teacher classroom behavior has been linked to teacher stress (Perryman et al. 2011), to de-professionalization (Zeichner 2010), to decreasing attractiveness of the teacher profession (Ingersoll et al. 2016), and to teacher attrition (Borman and Dowling 2008).

An important rationale for the scope of the current study is the increasing focus on efforts to categorize, scrutinize, and estimate teacher instructional behavior (Seidel and Shavelson 2007). The present study explores and compares relations between two measures of teacher quality—whereof one is a distal measure and the other is more proximal to teaching practice—and their relation to student achievement. Specifically, the study aims to investigate the relations between teacher specialization (defined as teacher education relevant for subject and grade), and student perceptions of instructional quality and fourth grade students’ reading achievement.

In school systems that rely on accountability regimes, specialized teachers with deep subject knowledge and the ability to translate this knowledge into highly effective teaching find themselves under scrutiny. Teacher agency is under increasing threat from national governments, as statutory bodies are tasked with the control of curriculum content, and the assessment of teacher pedagogy and professionalism. Quite simply, reforms have changed what it means to be a teacher (Day 2007).

The concept of professionalization is widely used. It generally denotes an idea that certain occupations move towards strong occupational control (Abbott 1991). Professions are recognized as the mediators and applicators of knowledge in specific domains. The exclusive nature of skills and knowledge means that professionals have a mandate to make their own choices and decisions about proper interventions (Brante 2013). Professionalization has been described as the control of work, of scientific transformation, and the licensing of ethical conduct for the relation between professionals and clients. The classical way of understanding professional work comprises a high level of trust (Lilja 2014).

In recent decades, schools and teachers in many countries have increasingly become subject to evaluation of varying kinds. Quality control and audit are regular elements. In education, professional work is both increasingly controlled and increasingly fragmented. It is characterized by external, low-trust accountability based on private sector strategies (Bottery 2006; Lilja 2014). In addition, the nature of audit culture demands quantification and measurement. Quality auditing builds on measures of performance that, in the main, eschew the use of peers or recourse to expert knowledge. Although schools are held accountable for the quality of their provision, it is often stakeholders beyond the teaching profession who determine what is to be prioritized. Consequently, the trust on which an expert system such as teaching depends is placed at risk (Perry 2006).

Abbott (1991) asserts that professions move in many directions, rather than in a single direction as implied by the term professionalization. Evetts (2006, 2011) distinguishes between occupational and organizational professionalism. Occupational professionalism, according to Evetts, is the more traditional, historical form and includes discretionary decision-making in complex cases, collegial authority, and the occupational control of work. It is based on trust in the practitioner by both clients and employers. Organizational professionalism, on the other hand, incorporates accountability, target-setting, and performance review.

Although national reforms differ in content, direction, and pace, there are important similarities. Day (2007) identifies three factors of particular relevance from a teacher quality perspective. First, reforms are proposed because governments believe that by intervening to change the conditions under which students learn, it is possible to accelerate improvements, raise standards of achievement, and thereby increase economic competitiveness. Second, the reforms result in an increased workload for teachers. Third, the reforms do not always pay attention to teacher identities. These identities are central to motivation, efficacy commitment, job satisfaction, and effectiveness. Day (2007) summarizes developments in England and Wales where schools are subjects to market pressures through parental choice of school, greater financial autonomy, evaluation, and target-setting. As outlined by Perryman et al. (2011), since the mid-1980s, teachers in England have lost a degree of relative autonomy, i.e., where they self-accountable though informal reflection and peer review. This relative autonomy has been replaced by loss of control, with stress being a common outcome. From an American perspective, Lavigne (2014) describes how, ever increasingly, hiring, firing, and tenure-granting policies are based on teacher evaluations. In a similar vein, Ingersoll (2005) explains how a teacher deficit perspective overlooks the organizational and occupational contexts of the work of teachers, which is characterized by low stature and social standing.

Much like developments in other countries, the influence that Swedish teachers have over their own work has diminished substantially. Teacher professionalism has been challenged or replaced by a teacher identity that no longer stresses the importance of specific and well-defined subject knowledge (Stenlås 2009). Teachers are accountable for perceived, as well as genuine shortcomings, and risk being “named, blamed, and shamed” (Dovemark and Holm 2017; Lindqvist et al. 2009). Occupational professionalism is contested by the frequent use of quality assessment from outside of the profession. While trust in the quality of teacher education programs, and relevantly prepared teachers indicates a meritocratic view on teacher quality and occupational professionalism, reliance on close monitoring and the assessment of teacher classroom behavior suggests an organizational professionalism that is characterized by a loss of autonomy and trust.

Much research has been devoted to identifying actions and conditions that affect student outcomes (Seidel and Shavelson 2007). Though categorization varies across studies, a number of teaching process variables have been shown to positively affect student outcomes. Reinforcement, feedback, maximization of learning time, adaptive instruction, cooperative learning, and mastery learning are all examples of instructional strategies that have been found effective (Creemers and Kyriakides 2010; Darling-Hammond and Bransford 2005; Scheerens and Bosker 1997; Seidel and Shavelson 2007; Hattie 2009). It has also been argued that monitoring teacher behaviors is preferable, or indeed necessary, for guaranteeing positive student learning outcomes (Kyriakides et al. 2014). In the domain of literacy, Cunningham and Zibulsky (2009) noted that in the past three decades, the field of teacher knowledge has grown considerably, with studies specifically categorizing the knowledge and skills that teachers must acquire and apply. In this context, the development of instruments that can provide reliable and valid estimates of teacher knowledge has received considerable attention. Still, this work is based on the premise that it is possible to examine how the teacher knowledge base is associated with student outcomes, and as a consequence of this, to develop empirically validated best practices. However, solid evidence of the transformation from teacher knowledge into teacher practice is yet to be presented.

Despite the lack of compelling evidence of the nature and effects of transformation processes, there is an almost universal quest to improve teacher, and therefore also educational quality. With this comes the demand by policy-makers for higher quality teacher education (Imig and Imig 2006). According to Cochran-Smith et al. (2010), teacher education in the USA has begun to shift from preparing highly qualified teachers, to preparing highly effective teachers. This has resulted in a deprioritizing of university-based aspects of education, with an emphasis instead on practice. Notions of accountability have shifted from inputs to outcomes. As Darling-Hammond (2017) has noted, the knowledge base for teaching and the role of universities in preparing teachers is contested. In Australia and the USA, initiatives such as ‘Teach for Australia’ and ‘Teach for America’ involve the recruitment of candidates who enter teaching with just a few weeks of pre-service training. Cochran-Smith et al. (2015) suggest that there has been very little examination of alternatively certified teachers’ professional preparation in the USA. They are placed in classrooms largely based on the assumption that their previous knowledge, and tightly compressed preparation, is sufficient to equip them for teaching.

At the same time, there is growing evidence that expert knowledge is to a large degree attained through formal, high-quality teacher education during which content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and general pedagogical knowledge is acquired (Adamson and Darling-Hammond 2012; Baumert et al. 2010; Croninger et al. 2007; Darling-Hammond et al. 2005; Depaepe et al. 2013; Kleickmann et al. 2013; Ball et al. 2008; Nye et al. 2004). Results indicate that teacher specialization with respect to subject and grade taught is important for effective teaching. Kunter et al. (2013) found that teacher characteristics that were not specific to the profession, such as for example general academic ability, had no relation to students’ mathematics achievement or enjoyment. Instead, domain-specific knowledge had positive effects not only on student achievement, but also students’ motivation. Simply being a smart student, they suggest, does not make somebody a good teacher. Further, effects of qualifications appropriate for grade level and subject can vary depending on subject domain and grade level (Wayne and Youngs 2003). For science and mathematics, and particularly at secondary level, a sizeable proportion of empirical results from Europe and the USA support the importance of specialized teachers (Baumert et al. 2010; Goe 2007). Wayne and Youngs (2003) argue that in the case of degrees, findings about the influence of coursework and certification have been inconclusive for all subjects other than mathematics. One reason for this result may be that mathematics is mostly learned in school, and that outcomes more sensitive to instruction than is the case for reading (Nye et al. 2004). While studies on the effects of teachers on reading at primary level are few (see, for example, Snow et al. 2005), evidence from the USA indicates an effect of relevant teacher education on reading achievement in lower grades (Clotfelter et al. 2007; Darling-Hammond 2014; Ferguson 1991; Nye et al. 2004). With data for Sweden, Johansson et al. (2015) estimated substantial effects of teacher education relevant for subject and grade on third graders’ reading achievement levels, and found significant effects of teacher specialization on fourth graders reading achievement levels (Myrberg et al. 2018).

Much endeavor has been dedicated to development of new models of teacher performance evaluation. “The dynamic model of educational effectiveness” was developed by Creemers and Kyriakides (2008), and has been used to measure teacher performance as perceived by students. Kyriakides et al. (2014) argue that secondary students are able to provide valid data on the classroom behavior of their teachers, and recently, studies have explored the validity of student ratings of instructional quality. The construct validity of ninth grade student ratings of instructional quality was investigated by Wagner et al. (2013). They found that while the structuring of teaching and classroom management could be generalized over classrooms and subjects (English and German languages), student motivation, the clarity of teaching, and the degree of student involvement could not. Similarly, Gaertner and Brunner (2018) investigated stability of student perceptions of instructional quality on class level over subjects, student grade levels, and for specific subjects. Results indicated that student ratings provided measures of teaching constructs that were invariant across time, and for particular subjects, but not by grade levels. It was also suggested that young students may interpret certain item formulations differently than older students.

A few studies have related student ratings of instructional quality to student achievement. In a longitudinal study by Fauth et al. (2014), student ratings of teaching quality were related to science learning among third graders. While classroom management predicted achievement, supportive climate and cognitive activation did not. Here too, the researchers considered student ratings to be useful measures of teaching quality. Panayiotou et al. (2014) investigated relationships between concrete teacher actions in the classroom as reported by students, and student achievement gains in mathematics and science in six European countries. Though student prior achievement had by way the largest explanatory power, teacher behavior contributed with a small but significant part of the variation at student and class level. Results indicated that the student questionnaire was not equally interpreted between countries for all dimensions of teaching quality. The study design did not include data on teacher education.

In a comparative study of Nordic countries, and with large-scale data from TIMSS and PIRLS (mathematics, science, and reading) for fourth graders, Scherer and Gustafsson (2015) found that individual students tended to evaluate the teacher positively in the domains where they had performance strengths, and that student perceptions of how easy the teacher was to understand had significant relations to achievement in reading and maths between classrooms. On the other hand, Blömeke et al. (2016) noted substantial between-country differences in the relationship between student ratings of instructional quality, and fourth grade student mathematics achievement. Similarly, Nortvedt et al. (2016) investigated effects of the quality of teaching as measured by fourth grade students on reading achievement in 34 countries. They too found a largely inconsistent pattern, ranging from significant negative relationships to significant positive relationships. These researchers suggest that the varying sign and strength of the relationship between student assessments of instructional quality and achievement across countries is influenced by response styles and other, as yet unknown factors.

A traditional, occupational teacher professionalism, characterized by meritocracy, collegial authority, discretionary decision-making, and a high level of trust, is increasingly contested. In many countries, it is being replaced by an organizational professionalism that emphasizes accountability, target-setting, and performance review. External low-trust accountability is accompanied by a growing interest in reliance on student assessments of teaching quality.

Irrespective of the decreasing attractiveness of the teaching profession stemming from the frequent monitoring of teachers’ work, it is important to note that there is little evidence supporting students’ abilities to make accurate estimations of teacher quality (and which could potentially be related to student attainment). On the whole, results are inconsistent, and large between-country differences in the relation between student perceptions of instructional quality and student achievement levels are to be found. An overall inconsistency in results means that it is wise to question the reliability of student assessments of teacher effectiveness. Furthermore, due to the large contextual differences between educational systems, country-specific analyses are warranted.

While there is a general agreement on the importance of teachers for student achievement, research on the effects of teacher education is still inconclusive. While some studies indicate that teacher education has little or no impact on teacher effectiveness, others have found it to be positively related to student outcomes. However, the relation between teacher education and student achievement is likely to be subject and grade specific. In particular, there is compelling evidence that teacher preparation is positively associated with student achievement in mathematics, and especially so in upper secondary grades. For teacher effects on reading, the picture remains unclear, though a growing body of research supports the importance of well-educated teachers. It has been suggested that more detailed and precise measures of teachers’ education tend to be better predictors.

Few studies have investigated the relation between student perceptions of the quality of teaching, and formal teacher qualifications. Against a backdrop of contradictory opinions on the need for investments in maintaining and developing high-quality teacher education, there is a continuing need to shed light on the effects of teacher education on student achievement. The purpose of this study is therefore to investigate the relationship between teacher specialization, student assessed instructional quality, and student reading achievement. More precisely, the research questions are:

The empirical base for the study is Swedish data from the regularly recurring reading achievement study, Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), carried out by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). PIRLS assesses fourth graders’ reading achievement in well over 50 countries. In the present study, we make use of Swedish data from the 2011 assessment, which contains a number of important add-ons to the international questionnaires. A national extension with additional background questions in the teacher questionnaire provides more detailed information on teachers’ education. Students’ assessments of the quality of teacher instruction were also expanded in the Swedish design. A representative sample of 4622 Swedish students and 218 teachers participated in the 2011 round of PIRLS.

The first step in the modeling procedure was to fit the two latent measurement models to the data. In Fig. 1, the teacher education variable (TchSpec) is presented with its factor loadings.

Six indicators formulated the latent variable TchSpec. A covariance was included between the residuals of “T_pedag” and “Tch_ed,” and “T_primary” and “T_semest.” The covariance between the error terms was negative, which shows that they share unique variance which is not absorbed by the latent factor, where high values in one of the variables correspond to low values in the other variable. The negative covariance between the indicators “T_primary” and “T_semest” is reasonable, as teacher education programs for primary teachers are usually shorter than programs directed towards middle school. Nevertheless, since both these variables were considered important for reasons of construct validity, they were kept in the model of TchSpec. The model obtained good fit to the data. Fit statistics for all the presented models are displayed in Table 3. The factor loadings for the latent variable TchSpec are all significant, and are moderate to high. Factor scores were saved for the latent variable and merged onto the student level data set, thus creating a continuous variable used in the further analyses applying two-level modeling.

In the next step, student assessed instructional quality was modeled using seven indicators from the student questionnaire. The measurement model is presented in Fig. 2.

The measurement model of student assessed instructional quality “Instr_qual” could be formulated at two levels. At teacher level, the classroom averages for the items are estimated. The factor loadings are all significant and fairly high, especially so at the between level. Fit statistics for the latent variables are presented in Table 5.

In the next step, we investigated if (1) teacher specialization (TchSpec) was related to student reading achievement levels, if (2) teacher specialization was related to student assessed instructional quality, and if (3) student assessed instructional quality was related to student reading achievement levels. In the first model (model 1), a positive relation between teacher specialization and student achievement of .19 was found. In model 2, student assessed instructional quality was introduced both as a dependent and an independent variable. Unexpectedly, student assessed instructional quality was uncorrelated with teacher specialization. Further, no significant relation was found between instructional quality and student reading achievement. Consequently, students (or classrooms) with higher achievement did not rate their teachers higher. In model 3, teaching experience (T_exp) was introduced as an explanatory variable. While the previously estimated coefficients remained about the same, “T_exp” had a positive relation to Instr_qual of .21. This indicates that the students taught by more experienced teachers perceived them as providing better instructional quality. Notably, with the effect of teacher specialization under control, the relation between experience and student achievement was zero. The correlation between “T_exp” and TchSpec was modest, albeit statistically significant, amounting to .18. In model 4, students’ early literacy abilities were accounted for. While “EarlyLit” had a substantial positive relation with student achievement, it did not have any influence on the relation between teacher specialization and achievement. In model 5, SES was taken into account, mainly as a control for potential selection effects (well-educated teachers clustered together with students from more advantageous background). When SES is introduced in models linking measures of teacher competence to student achievement, it can often be anticipated that the SES-effects overshadows any other effects. Interestingly, in this model, the effect of TchSpec on “Read ach” was reduced, but nevertheless remained significant at p < .10. The relation between “T_exp” and Instr_qual did not change when “SES” was accounted for. In model 6, we included “Lang” in the model. However, language background seemed to be confounded with both “EarlyLit” and “SES,” since no significant effect could be observed for any of these three variables. Therefore, in order to avoid multicollinearity, and to shed more light on the relationship between “Read ach,” “SES,” and “Lang,” in model 7, “EarlyLit” was deleted from the model. It could be noted that “Lang” did not have an influence which went beyond “SES.” In line with previous evidence, “SES” had a strong relation to achievement. Results reported for the teacher level are presented in Table 6.

In order to test the robustness of results, we used two modeling approaches. First, we ran ordinary regression analysis using cross-products on an aggregated teacher level data set. However, multicollinearity was observed, and the accuracy of estimates was not deemed trustworthy. Then, we tested a set of interactions in a multilevel model (see, Hox 2002). Here, random slopes were specified for the following relations: Read_ach on Lang; Read_ach on SES; Read_ach on EarlyLit; Read_ach on Instr_qual. Thereafter, the between-level variables TchSpec and T_exp were used to investigate possible interaction effects. However, there was no significant variation in the slopes, and no changes occurred when we related the teacher variables to the slopes. This indicates that relations did not vary between classrooms. For example, the effect of SES on reading achievement was similar across classrooms. It should though be noted that the number of clusters in this study might have been too limited to identify differential effects with the use of the random slope technique.

In summary, the main result from the relationships tested in a series of structural models is that teacher specialization was linked to Swedish fourth grade students’ reading achievement levels, while student perceptions of instructional quality were not.

This study explored and contrasted two measures of teacher quality and their respective relations with fourth grade students’ reading achievement levels. A Swedish national extension made possible the use of a number of indicators of teacher specialization with respect to preparation for the subject and the grade taught. A positive, significant relation between teacher specialization and student achievement was observed, which is in accordance with both previous results from Sweden (Myrberg 2007; Johansson et al. 2015, Myrberg et al. 2018), and a substantial amount of international research (e.g., Adamson and Darling-Hammond 2012; Kleickmann et al. 2013; Nye et al. 2004).

Teacher specialization is a distal measure of teacher quality. Student perception of instructional quality is however a proximal measure, and one increasingly used to evaluate teacher performance. It has been suggested that young students are well placed to evaluate the qualities of teaching, and particularly so with regard to aspects of classroom management (for example, management of time and disorderly student behavior) (Fauth et al. 2014; Kyriakides et al. 2014; Panayiotou et al. 2014). We used student questionnaire data covering a range of aspects of instructional quality, and related it to student achievement. However, contradictory to some previous research, no association between student perceptions of instructional quality and achievement was detected. It should, though, be noted that student perceived instructional quality as measured in the present study was intended to capture cognitive activation, academic focus, and clarity of instruction, rather than aspects of classroom management and student misbehavior.

Comparative studies have concluded that, as regards the relationship between students’ perceptions of instructional quality and achievement, results are generally inconclusive (Blömeke et al. 2016; Nortvedt et al. 2016). In particular, current knowledge on the predictive power of primary school students’ perceptions is limited. As pointed out by Nortvedt et al. (2016), a highly inconsistent pattern can be observed between countries in the association between fourth graders’ reading achievement and their perceptions of instructional quality, with the causes of between-country differences poorly understood.

The results of the current study support the idea that while teacher specialization can be linked to effective teaching practices affecting student achievement, students might not be able to recognize important aspects of instructional quality influencing achievement levels.