■在教学质量研究中,三个基本维度的通用模型是一个既定的框架,假设课堂管理的三个维度,学生支持和认知激活代表了教学的质量特征,可以在各个学科中推广。然而,几乎没有任何研究可以检验三个基本维度模型是否可以代表衡量体育教学质量的合适方法。基于基本尺寸的扩展模型,提出了体育教学质量的测量模型,它整合了教育和心理学研究领域以及体育科学不同子领域的不同理论方法,以检验相应测量模型的阶乘结构。
■来自瑞士不同德语区的72个七至九年级班级的1,047名学生参加了这项研究。该工具的概念化基于一种混合方法,该方法集成了通用和特定主题的特征。在相对较新的B-ESEM框架内,使用MCFA在个人和班级水平上进行的同时分析得到了更复杂的方法学技术的补充。
■假定的五因素结构最初使用ICM-CFA进行了测试,并显示出良好的模型拟合(例如,χ2/df=2.32,RMSEA=0.03,CFI=0.97,TLI=0.97,SRMR=0.04)。MCFA在两个分析层次上都显示出不同的阶乘结构,在个体层次上有五个因素,在阶级层次上有四个因素(例如,χ2/df=2.23,RMSEA=0.03,CFI=0.96,TLI=0.96,SRMR内=0.04,SRMR间=0.10)。ESEM和B-ESEM优于ICM-CFA,并显示出出色的模型拟合(B-ESEM:χ2/df=1.19,RMSEA=0.01,CFI=1.00,TLI=1.00,SRMR=0.01)。因素间相关性和因素负荷基本符合预期,指示构造有效性的参数。
■该研究在将体育教育与教学质量的通用研究联系起来方面做出了重大贡献。总的来说,证明了测量模型阶乘结构的有力论据。就进一步的有效性论证而言,该研究可以解释为多步骤过程中的第一步。
UNASSIGNED: In research on instructional quality, the generic model of the three basic dimensions is an established framework, which postulates that the three dimensions of classroom management, student support and cognitive activation represent quality characteristics of instruction that can be generalized across subjects. However, there are hardly any studies that examine if the three basic dimensions model could represent a suitable approach to measure instructional quality in physical education. Based on an extended model of the basic dimensions, a measurement model of instructional quality for physical education is presented, which integrates different theoretical approaches from the fields of educational and psychological research as well as different subfields of sports science in order to test the factorial structure of the corresponding measurement model.
UNASSIGNED: 1,047 students from 72 seventh to ninth grade classes from different German-speaking Swiss cantons participated in the study. The conceptualization of the instrument is based on a hybrid approach that integrates generic and subject-specific characteristics. The simultaneous analysis at the individual and class level using
MCFA was supplemented by more complex methodological techniques within the relatively new B-ESEM framework at the individual level.
UNASSIGNED: The postulated five-factor structure was initially tested using ICM-CFA and showed a good model fit (e.g., χ2/df = 2.32, RMSEA = 0.03, CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.97, SRMR = 0.04).
MCFA revealed a differential factorial structure at both levels of analysis with five factors at the individual level and four factors at the class level (e.g., χ2/df = 2.23, RMSEA = 0.03, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.96, SRMR within = 0.04, SRMR between = 0.10). ESEM and B-ESEM outperformed the ICM-CFA and showed an excellent model fit (B-ESEM: χ2/df = 1.19, RMSEA = 0.01, CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.00, SRMR = 0.01). Inter-factor correlations and factor loadings are largely in line with expectations, indicating arguments for construct validity.
UNASSIGNED: The study represents a substantial contribution in linking physical education and the generic research on instructional quality. Overall, strong arguments for the factorial structure of the measurement model were demonstrated. The study can be interpreted as a first step in a multi-step procedure in terms of further validity arguments.