What makes a good teacher? The relative importance of mathematics teachers' cognitive ability, personality, knowledge, beliefs, and motivation for instructional quality.

Autor/inn/en	Baier, Franziska; Decker, Anna-Theresia; Voss, Thamar; Kleickmann, Thilo; Klusmann, Uta; Kunter, Mareike
Titel	What makes a good teacher? The relative importance of mathematics teachers' cognitive ability, personality, knowledge, beliefs, and motivation for instructional quality. Gefälligkeitsübersetzung: Was macht einen guten Lehrer aus? Die relative Bedeutung der kognitiven Fähigkeiten, der Persönlichkeit, des Wissens, der Überzeugungen und der Motivation von Mathematiklehrern für die Unterrichtsqualität.
Quelle	In: British journal of educational psychology, 89 (2019) 4, S. 767-786Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Link als defekt meldenVerfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	online; gedruckt; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0007-0998; 2044-8279
DOI	10.1111/bjep.12256
Schlagwörter	Wissen; Bildungsqualität; Eigenschaft; Kognitive Kompetenz; Persönlichkeit; Lehrer; Motivation; Lehren; Mathematikunterricht
Abstract	Background: Teachers differ substantially in their instructional performance in the classroom. Thus, researchers and policymakers are interested in how these differences can be explained and how the instruction provided by low-performing teachers can be improved. Previous research has focused either on generic (cognitive ability and personality) or profession-specific (professional knowledge, beliefs, and motivation for teaching) teacher characteristics as predictors of instructional quality but their relative importance has not yet been tested. Aims: Hardly any studies have combined central generic and profession-specific variables in ascertaining their relative importance for instructional quality. In the present study, we seek to close this research gap. Samples: We investigated 209 German mathematics teachers and their 4,672 students attending grades 7-10 (13- to 16-year-old students). Methods: Teacher characteristics (cognitive ability, personality, professional knowledge, beliefs about, and enthusiasm for teaching) were assessed using standardized tests and self-report measures. Instructional quality (learning support, classroom disruptions, and cognitive activation) was rated by the students. Results: Using structural equation modelling, we found extraversion, enthusiasm for teaching, and pedagogical/psychological knowledge to be significant predictors of learning support (R-2 = .31) and conscientiousness and enthusiasm for teaching to be significant predictors of classroom discipline (R-2 = .21). We did not find significant predictors for cognitive activation. Conclusions: Our results indicate the relative significance of generic and profession-specific teacher variables for instructional quality. Overall, a substantial amount of variance in instructional quality is explained by teacher characteristics. (ZPID).
Erfasst von	Leibniz-Institut für Psychologie, Trier
Update	2025/3