Teachers teaching skills in two provinces in Indonesia according to the dynamic model

of educational effectiveness
S. N. Azkiyah*1, S. Doolaard2, M.P.C. van der Werf2
Paper presented at the International Congress on School Effectiveness and Improvement
Held in Cyprus, 4 7 January 2010
Contact information:
1

Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta, Indonesia and a PhD student at
GION Institute for Educational Research, the University of Groningen, The Netherlands.
* Corresponding author email: s.n.a.azkiyah@rug.nl

GION Institute for Educational Research, the University of Groningen, Grote Rozenstraat 3,
9712 TG, Groningen The Netherlands.

Abstract
Improving teachers teaching quality has been widely considered to be the most influential
factor in improving education and student outcomes. The question is what and how to
improve. The dynamic model especially the classroom level can be used as a framework to
understand teaching quality and therefore decision on the focus of an improvement project
can be made (Kyriakides, Creemers, & Antoniou, 2009). This paper is part of a PhD study on
effective teacher training program in Indonesia. It specifically aims to understand the teaching
skills of Indonesian secondary teachers according to the classroom level of the dynamic
model. Classroom observation data of secondary teachers in the provinces of DKI Jakarta and
Banten were analyzed and the results showed that teachers in general do not really practice
the factors of the dynamic model.
Keywords: Teaching skills, teacher professional development, the dynamic model of
educational effectiveness
Introduction
It has been widely acknowledged that teacher is one of the most influential factors in
improving education (Creemers, 1994, Darling-Hammond, 1997, Fullan, 2001, Harris, 2002,
Harris & Muijs, 2005, Marzano, 2007, OECD, 1994, Pilot, 2007, Van Der Werf et al., 2000).
Although it might be argued that these school or classroom effects are relatively small
compared to other factors like family and individual effects, they are nevertheless large in
terms of placement in curricular tracks and further development (Doolaard, 1999).
The question is what and how to improve teacher or classroom level. Creemers &
Kyriakides (2008) have developed the dynamic model of educational effectiveness. It has four
level, i.e. context/national policy level, school level, teacher/classroom level, and student
level, in which five dimensions of each level are taken into account to provide the
1

measurement of each effectiveness factor. They are frequency, focus, stage, quality, and
differentiation.
Previous research has shown that the classroom level can be used to establish five
stages of teaching skills, from the easiest up to the most difficult ones, and therefore decision
on the focus of an improvement project can be made (Kyriakides, Creemers, Antoniou, 2009).
This paper is part of a PhD study on effective teacher professional development (TPD)
program for secondary school teachers in Indonesia. It specifically aims at understanding
teaching skills of Indonesian teachers especially with regards to the teaching of English
reading comprehension as the focus of the study.
The discussion of the paper will be organized in the following sections: 1) he
classroom level of the dynamic model; 2) the establishment of developmental teaching skills;
3) method; 4) discussion of the findings; and finally 5) conclusion
The Classroom Level of the Dynamic Model
Figure 1 The Dynamic model of Educational Effectiveness

As seen in figure 1, the classroom level of the dynamic model (Creemers & Kyriakides, 2008)
consists of eight factors. They are 1) orientation, 2) structuring, 3) modeling, 4) application,
5) questioning, 6) assessment, 7) management of time, and 8) building classroom as a
learning environment (CLE).

Orientation is the provision of objectives, which is expected to help students

understand the importance of their learning activities. Structuring concerns with teacher
explanation on series of activities of the lesson. With respect to questioning, research has
found out that the effective teachers raise numerous questions and engage students in class
discussion (Muijs & Reynolds, 2000). Question difficulties vary with context and teachers
should include both product and process questions. Next, teachers are expected to help
students use strategies and/or develop their own strategies through modeling. This activity
should be completed with application, which is the provision of immediate exercise of topics
taught during the lesson. Furthermore, teachers should identify their students learning need
through assessment, which should also enable them to improve their teaching. The seventh is
CLE, which includes 1) teacher-student interaction, 2) student-student interaction, 3)
students treatment by teachers, 4) competition among students, and 5) classroom disorder.
Finally, management of time is important to maximize students engagement and make sure
that they are on tasks throughout the lesson.
Figure 1 also shows there are five dimensions to measure each factor, i.e. frequency,
focus, stage, quality, and differentiation. Frequency refers to the quantity of each of the above
classroom factors. Focus is dealing with the specificity of the activity; whether an activity is
too specific or too general in relation with the goals of the activity. Stage concerns with the
period at which an activity takes place and quality questions whether an activity is clear and
understandable for students. Finally differentiation refers to the extent to which activities
associated with the above classroom factors are implemented in the same way for all groups
of students. It is expected that teachers adapt specific needs of students and provide
differentiated instruction according to individual student learning needs.
The Establishment of Developmental Teaching Skills
A study was conducted in Cyprus to measure teacher behavior in the classroom through
observation. The Rasch model was applied using computer program Quest. The reliability of
the scale was found to be higher than .93. The Rasch analysis shows that they can be
classified into five clusters from the easiest to the most difficult ones. (Kyriakides, Creemers,
& Antoniou, 2009).
Table1thefivedevelopmentalstagesbasedonteachingskillsincludedintheDynamicModel

STAGES

1: Basic
Elements of
Direct Teaching

TEACHING SKILLS

Frequency management time

Stage Management of time
Frequency structuring
Frequency Application
Frequency Assessment
Frequency Questioning
Frequency teacher-student relation

2: Putting
3

Stage Structuring
Quality Application
Stage Questioning
Frequency student relations
Focus Application
Stage Application
Quality of questions

3: Acquiring
quality in active
/ direct teaching

Stage student relations

Stage teacher-student relation
Stage Assessment
Frequency Teaching Modeling
Frequency Orientation
Focus student relations
Quality: feedback
Focus Questioning
Focus teacher-student relation
Quality structuring
Quality Assessment

4:
Differentiation
of teaching and
putting aspect of
quality in
constructivist
teaching

Differentiation Structuring
Differentiation time management
Differentiation Questioning
Differentiation Application
Focus Assessment
Differentiation Assessment
Stage teaching modeling
Stage orientation

5: Achieving
quality and
differentiation
in teaching
using different
approaches

Quality teacher-student relation

Quality student relations
Differentiation teacher-student relation
Differentiation student relations
Focus Orientation
Quality Orientation
Differentiation Orientation
Quality of teaching modeling
Focus Teaching Modeling

aspects of
quality in direct
teaching and
touching on
active teaching

The first stage refers to the quantitative characteristics of factors associated with direct
teaching. Most of them deal with the frequency dimension and thus implies that the quantity
of teaching is a prerequisite for instruction. The second stage is putting aspects of quality in

direct teaching and touching on active teaching, which concerned with qualitative aspects of
three factors associated with direct teaching (structuring, application, and questioning). Three
dimensions of application are included and this indicates that application is a basic and
relatively simple competence that teachers could develop. The third stage is acquiring quality
in active / direct teaching. Not only factors associated with direct teachings, two factors
associated with constructivism namely orientation and modeling are also included. The fourth
stage is differentiation of teaching and putting aspect of quality in constructivist teaching. The
teaching skills in this stage are mainly concerned with the differentiation dimension of factors
associated with direct teaching. Teachers at this stage understand different needs of their
students and are also able to offer appropriate application, structuring, questions, and
assessments for different group of students. The last stage is achieving quality and
differentiation in teaching using different approaches, which are the most difficult qualitative
characteristics of factors related to both direct/active teaching and the new teaching approach.
Method
Participants
The sample is 58 teachers from 56 private junior secondary madrasah schools (JSS) in the
provinces of DKI Jakarta and Banten. Madrasah is a type of schools under the authority of the
Ministry of Religious Affairs (MORA). It is reported that more than 80% of madrasahs are
private with low quality of human resources and limited funds (CEQDA, 2007). Since this
paper is part of a broader research project on TPD, it is logical to consider that teachers in
madrasah will benefit more from such improvement program.
Instrument, data collection and analysis
The data on teacher teaching quality were gathered through classroom observation using low
and high inference instruments. In this study, the original observation instruments were
modified and simplified for English reading comprehension. They are different from in
several aspects. There are two low inference instruments in the original study, whereas this
study uses only one, which is to record teacher activities according to the factors in the
classroom level of the model. The other low inference instrument in the original study deals
with teacher-students and students-students interaction and thus there are two observers. Due
to some limitation, this study only has one observer who is required to fill in the low inference
instrument and then rate the scale in the high inference instrument. The original high
inference instrument includes all factors and dimensions, whereas this study included all
factors but time management as this factor is measured together with CLE especially
concerning students opportunities to learn. Differentiation dimension of some factors are
excluded due to the fact that during the pre-testing of the instrument, none of the observed
teachers practiced such activity. In order to make the instrument shorter some items
measuring differentiation dimension are deleted. In addition, the items in this study are
modified specifically for reading comprehension whereas the original is more general.
Furthermore, the high inference instrument requires the observer to rate a Likert
response scale to indicate the frequency and quality of observed activities. There are 52 items
5

which are divided into two; part A concerns with the frequency of observed activities
provided on not at all (1) to a great deal (5) scale and part B deals with mostly the quality of
observed activities provided on 1 (minimum) to 5 (maximum) scale.
The number of items in most factors varies from 6 8 items, except questioning which
has 10 and assessment which has only 2. Questioning has the most items as this factor has
more sub-factors. On the other hand, assessment has the least since some items in the original
instrument are considered to be very close to questioning.
Classroom observation was carried out by independent observers who had very good
inter-rater reliability (.85). The reliability test of each factor/scale of the high inference
instrument in the present study is in general very good; orientation (.889), structuring (.843),
modeling (.837), application (.767), questioning (.701), assessment (.668), and building
classroom as a learning environment (.828). The low reliability of the assessment could be
due to the fact that this factor has only two items. The data gathered in August and September
2010 will then be analyzed using descriptive statistics to understand teacher teaching quality.
Discussion of the Findings
Participant
Table 2 indicates there are more female participants from both provinces. This resembles the
data in the real population in which there are more female teachers. In total there are 33
female and 25 male teachers, which make the total number of participants 58.
Table 2 the number of participants according to their sex and province
Sex
Female
Male
Total

Province
DKI Jakarta Banten
17
16
11
14
28
30

Total
33
25
58

How do teachers teach?

The discussion in this section will be based on the mean score of observed activities in each
factor or scale. On a 5 Likert scale of 1 (not at all), 2 (little), 3 (enough), 4 (much), and 5 (a
great deal) for part A and 1 (minimum) to 5 (maximum) for part B, the minimum and
maximum score of each item is also provided. 0 is for those which are missing.
Table 3 the mean score of each factor/scale
Factor
Orientation A
Orientation B

Minimum Maximum
58
1.00
3.40
58
1.00
3.00

Mean
1.6448
1.6810

Structuring A
Structuring B
Modeling A
Modeling B
Questioning A
Questioning B
Assessment A
Assessment B
CLE A
CLE B

58
58
58
58
58
58
58
58
58
58

1.00
1.00
1.00
.50
1.00
1.00
.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.12
3.50
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.50

1.7276
1.8276
1.7931
1.6466
2.3858
2.1638
2.0862
2.0172
1.8759
2.2414

Except questioning and assessment as well as CLE part B, all mean score of the
scales are less than 2. This means that in general teacher nearly did not practice the classroom
level factors of the dynamic model at all. However, it is important to note that few teachers
scored enough in each scale, which indicates that differences in teaching quality among
teachers exist. Another good story is the fact that teachers have started to provide questions
and assessment although little.
Orientation
The mean score of both orientation A and B is less than 2 meaning that in general
teachers tend not to practice orientation at all. The frequency of each item in this scale
indicates that several teachers (26%) provided enough questions to link the day lesson either
with previous lesson or students daily life. However, many of them did not follow the
questions with explicit explanation on the purpose of the lesson. This indicates that
orientation is not an easy activity and is in line with the study in Cyprus, which places
frequency orientation in the third stage. It is quite common to find teachers in Indonesia
complaining that their students are not motivated and interested in the lesson. One possible
explanation is the result of this study, which is the fact that teachers do not provide enough
orientation for their students.
Structuring
Similar with orientation, the mean score of this factor is less than 2, which indicates
that teacher did not really provide structuring activities for their students. Yet, 36% of them
managed to give enough signals that they moved to different stages. In addition, although less
than one fourth, teachers were also quite successful to arrange the lesson from easier to more
complex activities. It should also be noted that few teachers were able to provide structuring
activities more than enough (much); for example 3% presented the structure of the lesson and
2% explained the structure of in a way that was clear for the students.

Modeling
Nearly one third (28%) of teachers spent some time to explain the content of the
lesson. Yet, more than 50% presented only little the concept or the strategies for their students
to accomplish their tasks. Similarly, when students were facing difficulties, they provided
them only little procedures or strategies to overcome their students problems. In this stage,
students engagement was unlikely to occur since many of them did not challenge their
students to explain nor demonstrate strategies of learning they might know. In addition,
teachers neither used students ideas to solve nor to present the strategies to overcome
problems.
Application
The mean of all items in this factor shows that teacher did not provide enough
application tasks to their students. In the case of reading comprehension class, this could
happen when teachers spent long time on reading aloud and translating the text. As a
consequence, within 40 minutes of the classroom observation, there was not much application
tasks provided for students. One aspect in differentiation in reading comprehension class is
seen from the texts provided for students. This research found that nearly no teachers asked
their students to read different texts in different group. However, 26% of teachers provided
application activities according to their plans, which then could explain the low expectancy of
the teachers to their students.
Questioning
For questioning, almost one third of teachers (34%) were able to pose enough
questions to their students. The question is how do teachers react? The data showed that
around 50% teachers translated the questions into Bahasa Indonesia, which is rather in
contrats with the theory of teaching reading comprehension. In addition, they also tend to
move to other questions or answered the questions themselves. Useful hints were not really
provided as more than 50% provided only little clues or hints. Luckily, almost 50% were
successful to pose clear questions for his students.
Assessments
In this research, assessment is measured only from two items. The results indicated
that teachers provided only with both little question or relevant tasks to examine their students
understanding. When the activity was dominated by reading aloud and translation of the text,
there was little space to explore the content and therefore questions or tasks to examine what
students have understood from the day lesson did not really appear.
Building classroom as a learning environment (CLE)
Using mostly whole class instruction, quite a lot of teachers gave students
opportunity to participate in the lesson. Yet, not many students were on tasks during the

lesson. This could be due to the fact that teachers provided not enough tasks during the lesson.
This, at the same time, means that teachers were not successful to manage their time well in
order to maximize students learning. There was also no explicit encouragement from
teachers for the students to cooperate and compete to each other.
Conclusion
Based on the above brief description of teacher behavior according to the dynamic model, it
can be concluded that in general the quality of teaching of Indonesian secondary teachers of
madrasah in the two provinces, especially on the teaching of English reading comprehension
is low. Yet, the more important aspect is the fact that the factors and the dimensions of the
classroom level of the dynamic model are useful in providing reference on what specific
aspect to be prioritized for improvement. When the result of this study is explained to
individual teachers participating in the research, they are expected to understand their
strengths and weaknesses, which then should enable them to take decision on teaching skills
they should improve. Lastly, when it is possible, it is useful that this study employs the Rasch
analysis to investigate whether teaching skills can be classified into developmental stages and
thus to confirm previous study conducted in Cyprus.

References
CEQDA. (2007). Laporan Dampak Kebijakan Akreditasi, BOS, dan Sertifikasi terhadap Masa
Depan Madrasah di DKI Jakarta. Kerjasama LAPIS dan CEQDA UIN Jakarta.
Creemers, B.P.M. (1994). The Effective Classroom. London: Cassel.
Creemers, B.P.M. and Kyriakides, L. (2008). The Dynamics of Educational Effectiveness.
London: Routledge
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Doing what metters most: investing in quality teaching.
Doolaard, S. (1999). Schools in change or schools in chain?: the development of educational
effectiveness in a longitudinal perspective. Enschede: Twente University Press.
Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change. London: Routledge Falmer.
Harris, A. (2002). School Improvement: whats in it for school?. London: Falmer Press.
Harris, A. & Muijs, D. (2005). Improving schools through teacher leadership. London: Open
University Press.
Kyriakides, L., Creemers, B.P.M., Antoniou, P. 2009. Teacher behavior and student
outcomes: suggestion for research on teacher training and professional development.
Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (2009) 1223.
Marzano, R.J. (2007). The art and science of teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Muijs, D. & Reynolds, D. (2000). School Effectiveness and Teacher Effectiveness in
Mathematics: Some preliminary Findings from the Evaluation of the Mathematics
Enhancement Programme (Primary). School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11
(3), 273-303.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (1994). Quality in
teaching. OECD, Paris.
Pilot, A. (2007). The Teacher as a Crucial Factor in Curriculum Innovation: the case of
Utrecht University. Paper presented at the Conference Teaching and Learning
according and after Bologna, at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH,
Zurich, Switzerland, 9-10 March, 2007
Van der Werf, M.P.C., Creemers, B.P.M., De Jong, R., & Klaver, L. (2000). Evaluation of
school improvement through an educational effectiveness model: The case of
Indonesias PEQIP project. Comparative Education Review, 44(3), 329356.

10

APPENDIX
1. The frequency and mean of items for orientation
ITEM

Min

Max

Frequency

Mean

1.00

3.00

1 = 66%, 2 = 26%, 3 = 9%

1.4310

1.00

4.00

1 = 71%, 2 = 24 %, 3 = 3%, 4 = 2%

1.3621

1.00

3.00

1 = 34%, 2 = 40%, 3 = 26%

1.9138

1.00

3.00

1 = 78%, 2 = 17%, 3 = 5%

1.2759

1.00

4.00

1 = 9%, 2 = 60%, 3 = 28%, 4 = 3% 2.2586

1.00

3.00

1 = 43%, 2 = 47%, 3 = 10%

1.6724

1.00

3.00

1 = 42%, 2 = 48%, 3 = 10%

1.6897

PARTA
The teacher presented explicitly the aims of
reading certain topics and text and studying
specific reading skills
The teacher asked pupils to discover the purpose
of reading certain topics and text and studying
specific reading skills.
The teacher posed questions to link the lesson of
the day with previous lessons, today lesson or
students daily life.
The teacher presented or reviewed the aims
when he/she moved to another activity.
The teacher spent some time on introductory
activities.
PART B
The orientation activities that were organized
during the lesson are clear and help students
understand the new topic, text and specific
reading skills
The aims of the lesson were linked to previous
activities or today activities or students daily
life.

2.

The frequency and mean of items for structuring

ITEM

Min

Max

Frequency

1.00

3.00

1 = 79%, 2 = 19% , 3 = 2%

1.2241

1.00

4.00

1 = 40%, 2 = 43% , 3 = 14%, 4 = 3%

1.8103

1.00

3.00

1 = 29%, 2 = 35%, 3 = 36%

2.0690

.00

3.00

0 = 3%, 1 = 40%, 2 = 48%, 3 = 9%

1.6207

1.00

4.00

1 = 15%, 2 = 76%, 3 = 5%, 4 = 3%

1.9655

Mean

PARTA
The teacher explained how different activities
were linked to each other.
The teacher presented the structure of the
lesson (the topic, the text, and specific reading
skills) to the students.
The teacher signaled different stages or
activities during the day lesson.
The teacher reviewed the main ideas / skills
presented during the lesson.
The teacher spent time on closing-up
activities.
PART B

11

The teacher explained the structure of the

lesson in a way that was clear for the students.
The lesson transited from easier to more
complex activities.

3.

1.00

4.00

1 = 31%, 2 = 55%, 3 = 12%, 4 = 2%

1.8448

1.00

3.00

1 = 40%, 2 = 38%, 3 = 22%

1.8276

The frequency and mean of items for modeling

ITEM

Min

Max

Frequency

Mean

1.00

4.00

1 = 15%, 2 = 41%, 3 = 28%, 4 = 16%

2.4310

1.00

3.00

1 = 36%, 2 = 57%, 3 = 7%

1.7069

1.00

3.00

1 = 74%, 2 = 17%, 3 = 9%

1.3448

1.00

3.00

1 = 36%, 2 = 54%, 3 = 10%

1.7414

PARTA
The teacher spent time to lecture pupils on the
lessons content.
The teacher presented concept or strategies
that students can use to accomplish specific
reading skills planned to be taught.
The teacher challenged students to explain or
demonstrate strategies of reading they might
know.
When students faced certain learning obstacles
or were confronted with a problematic
exercise during application tasks, the teacher
provided them with useful procedures or
strategies for overcoming them.
PART B
The teacher used pupils ideas on how to solve
a problem to present the strategy or method of
solving it.
Students understood the procedures and
strategies that were presented by the teacher.

4.

1.00

.00

3.00 1 = 62%, 2 = 33%, 3 = 5%

1.4310

3.00 0 = 3%, 1 = 24%, 2 = 55%, 3 = 17%

1.8621

The frequency and mean of items for application

ITEM

Min

Max

Frequency

1.00

3.00

1 = 36%, 2 = 48%, 3 = 16%

1.7759

1.00

3.00

1 = 91%, 2 = 4%, 3 = 5%

1.1379

1.00

2.00

1 = 91%, 2 = 9%

1.0862

1.00

3.00

1 = 71%, 2 = 24%, 3 = 5%

1.3448

Mean

PARTA
The teacher provided students the chance to
use concepts, skills or strategies that they have
acquired throughout the lesson or during
previous lessons.
The teacher distributed different texts to
different group of students.
The teacher asked students to deal with more
difficult text(s) that were more demanding
than the text used during teaching modeling.
The teacher provided less able students more
time to practice what have been taught during
the lesson.

12

The teacher gave the opportunity to the low

ability students to compete the high ability
students.
PART B
The observed application activities referred
(were linked) to all specific reading skills
planned to be taught.
The teacher provided a chance for students to
apply / exercise their previous knowledge
The teacher used to explain the procedures and
strategies to the pupils and then he or she
requested using them.

5.

1.00

4.00

1 = 79%, 2 = 17%, 3 = 4%

1.2759

1.00

3.00

1 = 31%, 2 = 43%, 3 = 26%

1.9483

1.00

3.00

1 = 40%, 2 = 41%, 3 = 19%

1.7931

.00

3.00

0 = 2%, 1 = 34%, 2 = 50%, 3 = 14%

1.7586

The frequency and mean of items for Questioning

ITEM

Min

Max

1.00

4.00

1.00

5.00

Frequency

Mean

PARTA
The teacher posed questions throughout the
lesson.
The questions posed by the teacher ask
students to give answers and not to explain the
way they find their answers.
When students gave wrong answers or no
answer, the teacher translated the questions or
some of the words into Bahasa Indonesia.
When students gave wrong answers or no
answer, the teacher posed simpler questions to
help students find the answer.
When students gave wrong answers or no
answer, the teacher moved to another question
or answered it him/herself.
The teacher differentiated the type of feedback
that he or she provided to students
The teacher provided useful hints when
students gave wrong answers.
When a student gave a wrong answer or no
answer, the teacher readdressed the question
until somebody gave the correct answer.

1 = 5%, 2 = 40%, 3 = 34%, 4 = 21%

1 = 3%, 2 = 45%, 3 = 9%, 4 = 3%,

2.7069

2.6379

5 = 3%
1 = 3%, 2 = 22%, 3 = 50%, 4 = 21%,
1.00

5.00

1.00

3.00

1 = 54%, 2 = 36%, 3 = 10%

1.5690

2.00

5.00

2 = 15%, 3 = 52%, 4 = 26%, 5 = 7%

3.2414

1.00

3.00

1 = 46%, 2 = 47%, 3 = 7%

1.6034

1.00

4.00

1 = 29%, 2 = 53%, 3 = 16%, 4 = 2%

1.8966

1.00

4.00

1 = 14%, 2 = 51%, 3 = 33%, 4 = 2%

2.2241

1.00

4.00

1 = 10%, 2 = 34%, 3 = 48%, 4 = 7%

2.5172

1.00

3.00

1 = 34%, 2 = 47%, 3 = 19%

1.8448

5 = 3%

2.9828

PART B
The teacher posed questions that were clear
for the pupils in terms of their content.
The teacher corrected pupils misconceptions
using their wrong answers.

13

6.

The frequency and mean of items for Assessment

ITEM

Min

Max

Frequency

Mean

.00

3.00

0 = 2%, 1 = 14%, 2 = 58%, 3 = 26%

2.0862

1.00

3.00

PARTA
The teacher posed questions to examine what
students have understood from the day lesson.
PART B
The teacher provided relevant tasks or
questions to examine what students have
understood from the day lesson.

7.

1 = 17%, 2 = 64%, 3 = 19%

2.0172

The frequency and mean of items for CLE

ITEM

Min

Max

Frequency

Mean

1.00

4.00

3 = 5%, 2 = 38%, 3 = 55%, 4 = 2%

2.5345

1.00

3.00

1= 64%, 2 = 26%, 3 = 10%

1.4655

1.00

3.00

1 = 48%, 2 = 31%, 3 = 21%

1.7241

1.00

3.00

1 = 14%, 2 = 57%, 3 = 29%

2.1552

1.00

4.00

1 = 58%, 2 = 33%, 3 = 7%, 4 = 2%

1.5172

PART B
The majority of pupils were engaged in
activities that were provided by their teacher.

1.00

3.00

1 = 5%, 2 = 62%, 3 = 33%

2.2759

The teacher provided enough tasks for

students during the lesson.

1.00

4.00

1 = 12%, 2 = 57%, 3 = 24%, 4 = 5%

2.2241

PARTA
The teacher gave students the opportunity to
participate in the lesson.
The teacher explicitly encouraged students to
cooperate with each other
During the lesson, students cooperated on their
own initiative.
Each student was engaged in tasks/work
assigned to him/her by the teacher
The teacher explicitly encouraged competition
among students.

14