Scribd
Upload
51 views

Theory of Educational Productivity

Uploaded by

Rochelle Jabillo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
51 views

Theory of Educational Productivity

Uploaded by

Rochelle Jabillo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Instructional methods, classroom and home conditions are often overlooked by most educational

models, which examines the elements influencing students’ learning outcomes such as the Carroll
model. Instead, the focus is primarily on the relationship between student attributes and academic
performance. Among these models, Walberg et al. (1986) theory of educational production stands out.
By considering both external influences and social-psychological factors, the Walberg model builds upon
earlier models of academic learning (Wang et al., 1993).

From the theoretical standpoint of Walberg’s educational productivity, nine factors influence academic
performance grouped into student characteristics (ability, age, motivation), instructional characteristics
(quantity and quality of instruction), and environmental characteristics (home environment, classroom
environment, peer group, and mass media). Earlier studies by Wang et al. (2010) and Creemers et al.
(2013) emphasized the importance of the home environment and validated Walberg’s model across
different educational systems. Between 2015 and 2019, Hattie (2015) found strong support for
instructional quality and classroom environment, Cheung and Slavin (2016) linked environmental factors
to educational technology integration, and Timmons (2021) highlighted personalized learning. From
2020-2024, research during the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g. Kyriakides & Charalambous, 2021)
underscored the role of home environment and access to quality instruction, with Nguyen et al. (2022)
suggesting updates to the theory for digital interactions. Thematic trends include technology
integration, socioeconomic status impact, and insights from the pandemic on academic productivity.

According to this theory, factors influencing a student’s learning outcomes encompass the student’s
characteristics, the learning environment, and the quality of instruction they receive (Archambault et al.,
2017). It comprehensively addresses the complex dynamics of human learning while maintaining
simplicity by focusing on nine variables consistently associated with academic success: ability or prior
achievement, age, motivation or self-concept, amount of instruction, quality of the instructional
experience, home environment, classroom or school environment, peer group environment, and mass
media (Walberg et al., 1986).

Moreover, Walberg conducted one of the earliest theories applied to classroom instruction, derived
from a meticulous literature analysis encompassing over 3,000 case studies (Walberg et al., 1986). He
utilized his theory to quantitatively, analyze the correlation and experimental impacts of specific
educational variables across science and other disciplines (Walberg et al., 1986).

His research identified nine key factors influencing the behavior of educational variables. These factors
include student priority for success, motivation, age, instructional quantity and quality, classroom
atmosphere, family environment, peer group influence, and exposure to mass media beyond the
classroom (Walberg et al., 1986). Subsequently, these nine variables were condensed into seven: ability,
student age, motivation, instructional quantity and quality (including self-instruction), and the social-
psychological climate of the classroom and home, along with potentially two additional variables: peer
group environment and familiarity with mass media, such as television.
Archambault, I., Vandenbossche-Makombo, J., & Fraser, S. L. (2017). Students’ oppositional behaviors
and engagement in school: The differential role of the student-teacher relationship. Journal of Child and
Family Studies, 26(open in a new window)(6(open in a new window)), 1702–1712.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-017-0691-y

Creemers, B., Kyriakides, L., Antoniou, P., Creemers, B., Kyriakides, L., & Antoniou, P. (2013). An
experimental study of teacher professional development based on the dynamic integrated approach.
Teacher professional development for improving quality of teaching, 161–181.

Cheung, A. C., & Slavin, R. E. (2016). How methodological features affect effect sizes in education.
Educational Researcher, 45(open in a new window)(5(open in a new window)), 283–292.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16656615

Nguyen, M. H., Gruber, J., Marler, W., Hunsaker, A., Fuchs, J., & Hargittai, E. (2022). Staying connected
while physically apart: Digital communication when face-to-face interactions are limited. New Media &
Society, 24(open in a new window)(9(open in a new window)), 2046–2067.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820985442

Timmons, M. (2021). Implementing vocabulary strategies to improve reading comprehension for English
learners. Wilmington University (Delaware).

Kyriakides, L., & Charalambous, E. (2021). Establishing links between teacher effectiveness research and
research on teacher improvement: The dynamic model of educational effectiveness. International
Beliefs and Practices That Characterize Teacher Effectiveness, 85–124.

Walberg, H. J., Fraser, B. J., & Welch, W. W. (1986). A test of a model of educational productivity among
senior high school students. The Journal of Educational Research, 79(open in a new window)(3(open in a
new window)), 133–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1986.10885664
Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1993). Toward a knowledge base for school learning.
Review of Educational Research, 63(open in a new window)(3(open in a new window)), 249–294.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543063003249

Wang, J., Odell, S. J., Klecka, C. L., Spalding, E., & Lin, E. (2010). Understanding teacher education reform.
Journal of Teacher Education, 61(open in a new window)(5(open in a new window)), 395–402.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487110384219

You might also like