Three Decades of Educational Effectiveness Research in Belgium and the Netherlands: Key Studies, Main Research Topics and Findings

Abstract

In their state-of-the-art review on educational effectiveness research (EER), Reynolds et al. (2014) mention that EER addresses two core, foundational questions, namely "What makes a 'good' school? and "How do we make more schools 'good '?" (p. 197). To answer these questions, all the factors within schools and the educational system that might affect learning outcomes of students in both their academic and social-emotional development are foci of EER. The ultimate goal is to understand existing practices, and to establish and test models and theories in order to explain why some schools, learning environments and teachers are more effective than others, and in what way they are more effective (Creemers, 2007).About three decades ago, these questions were picked up by a scholar from the Netherlands, namely Bert Creemers, who summarized around the mid-1980s the literature on educational research and, in particular, school effectiveness research done so far to support the creation of an outline for a new structure of secondary education in the Netherlands as well as to enhance the quality and effectiveness of Dutch education (Creemers, 1983;Creemers & Schaveling, 1985). A few years later, he started to collaborate and write papers with Jaap Scheerens, a Dutch scholar experienced in, among other things, educational evaluation and school organization research. At the end of the 1980s, a scholar from the Flemish-speaking part of Belgium (Flanders), namely Jan Van Damme, got triggered by the same questions too, and

Developments in early adolescents’ self-regulation: The importance of teachers’ supportive vs. undermining behavior

“…This means that students must feel cared for by their teachers, must feel that their teachers are interested in them, must experience sincere concern and responsiveness from their teacher to them in order to develop and engage in self-regulated learning. Also, Schuitema et al (2016) found evidence for the importance of teacher involvement on students’ self-regulated learning (use of metacognitive strategies, delay of gratification) in their longitudinal study and this finding is in line with research studying the influence of caregivers (parents, teachers, mentors) on children’s ability to self-regulate and to engage in academic learning pointing to the importance of warm and responsive caregivers ( Stroet et al, 2013 ; Murray et al, 2015 , 2016 ; Housman et al, 2018 ; Opdenakker, 2020 , 2021 ). According to the self-determination theory, teachers’ involvement with their students plays an important role in students’ internalization process by which they ‘attempt to transform socially sanctioned mores or requests into personally endorsed values and self-regulations’ ( Deci and Ryan, 2000 , p. 235–236).…”

“…By satisfying students’ need for belongingness or relatedness, involved teachers nurture the motivational basis for internalization, ensuring a more effective transmission of values and regulations and a more cohesive social (class) organization ( Deci and Ryan, 2000 ). In addition to the self-determination theory, also theories (e.g., attachment theory, teaching through interactions framework, model of interpersonal teacher behavior) and classroom studies addressing the influence of social (learning) environments on student learning and student (motivational) outcomes stress and, in case of research studies, have repeatedly demonstrated the importance of having warm teacher-students relationships ( Opdenakker et al, 2012 ; Stroet et al, 2013 , 2015 ; Sparks et al, 2016 ) and creating a warm and safe climate in classes for students’ learning (for a discussion of theories and research, see Opdenakker, 2020 , 2022 ; Opdenakker and Van Damme, 2006a , b , 2007 ). Teachers who are involved with their students are able to create such environments ( Opdenakker and Van Damme, 2006b ; Fraser, 2012 ; Opdenakker, 2020 , 2022 ).…”

Executive Functions, Self-Regulation and External-Regulation: Relations and new evidence

“…This means that students must feel cared for by their teachers, must feel that their teachers are interested in them, must experience sincere concern and responsiveness from their teacher to them in order to develop and engage in self-regulated learning. Also, Schuitema et al (2016) found evidence for the importance of teacher involvement on students' self-regulated learning (use of metacognitive strategies, delay of gratification) in their longitudinal study and this finding is in line with research studying the influence of caregivers (parents, teachers, mentors) on children's ability to self-regulate and to engage in academic learning pointing to the importance of warm and responsive caregivers (Stroet et al, 2013;Murray et al, 2015Murray et al, , 2016Housman et al, 2018;Opdenakker, 2020Opdenakker, , 2021.…”

Need-Supportive and Need-Thwarting Teacher Behavior: Their Importance to Boys’ and Girls’ Academic Engagement and Procrastination Behavior

“…Numerous studies found evidence for the importance of teacher support (often conceptualized as a mixture of academic and interpersonal support) to students’ (academic) engagement ( Connell and Wellborn, 1991 ; Skinner and Belmont, 1993 ; Marks, 2000 ; Fredricks et al, 2004 ; Klem and Connell, 2004 ; Blumenfeld et al, 2005 ; Eccles and Roeser, 2011 ; Wang and Eccles, 2012b ; Stroet et al, 2013 ; Wentzel, 2016 ; León et al, 2017 ; Opdenakker, 2020 ), and various studies have shown that teachers’ ability to meet students’ basic psychological needs correlates with students’ engagement ( Taylor et al, 2010 ). Ryan and Patrick (2001) operationalized teacher support as the promotion of good teacher–student and peer relationships and found that students’ perception of teacher support was related to positive changes in engagement, while students’ perception of the teacher as promoting performance goals (competition and comparison) was related to negative changes in engagement.…”

“…However, learning environment and educational effectiveness studies as well as studies on student motivation and current motivation theories such as the self-determination theory (SDT; Ryan and Deci, 2000 , 2020 ; Deci and Ryan, 2002 ) and stage–environment fit theory ( Eccles and Roeser, 2009 ) refer to learning environment experiences (such as teacher behavior, teacher–student interaction, peer group characteristics, and interactions between peers) as important additional explanations for students’ adaptive functioning/behavior, e.g., academic engagement ( Ryan and Patrick, 2001 ; Urdan and Schoenfelder, 2006 ; Roorda et al, 2011 ; Vansteenkiste et al, 2012 ; Wang and Eccles, 2012b ; Stroet et al, 2013 ; León et al, 2017 ; Opdenakker, 2020 ) and maladaptive functioning/behavior such as procrastination, misconduct, problem, or antisocial behavior in the classroom ( O’Connor et al, 2011 ; Vansteenkiste et al, 2012 ; Nordby et al, 2017 ; Oostdam et al, 2019 ; Opdenakker, 2020 ). Moreover, there is evidence from longitudinal studies on students’ motivation and academic engagement in school that, in general, students’ motivation and academic engagement not only decline during secondary education ( Gottfried et al, 2001 ; Wigfield et al, 2006a , b ; Skinner et al, 2008 ; van der Werf et al, 2008 ; Peetsma and van der Veen, 2011 ; Opdenakker et al, 2012 ; Wang and Eccles, 2012a ) but also that students’ learning environment experiences affect (the evolution of) their motivation and academic engagement in school ( Opdenakker et al, 2012 ; Wang and Eccles, 2012b ; Stroet et al, 2015 ; Núñez and León, 2019 ).…”