Next Article in Journal
Pathways Through Which Digital Technology Use Facilitates Farmers’ Adoption of Green Agricultural Technologies: A Comprehensive Study Based on Grounded Theory and Empirical Testing
Previous Article in Journal
Rural Tourism, Economic Growth, and Environmental Sustainability: Empirical Evidence Based on County-Level Data in China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 20
10.3390/su17209216
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Teaching Equity and Perceived Learning Effect in Dual-Teacher Classroom Under Education for Sustainable Development: A Comparative Study of Student Engagement Mechanisms Through the Opportunity-to-Learn Framework

by
Guangwei Hu
1,
Yonghai Zhu
2,*,
Di Liu
1 and
Ziling Liu
1
1
Elementary Education College, Capital Normal University, Beijing 100048, China
2
AI Education Institute, Capital Normal University, Beijing 100048, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(20), 9216; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17209216
Submission received: 31 August 2025 / Revised: 2 October 2025 / Accepted: 14 October 2025 / Published: 17 October 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Education and Approaches)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Ensuring equitable access to quality education is essential for Education for Sustainable Development. However, the efficacy of innovative Education for Sustainable Development models like the Dual-Teacher Classroom in promoting teaching equity has not been sufficiently studied. Grounded in the Opportunity to Learn (OTL) theory—a theoretical framework that provides observational constructs for Education for Sustainable Development (ESD), which are operationalized as empirical measures in this study—this study investigates the mechanisms through which teaching equity influences perceived learning effect, with learning engagement as a mediator, among elementary students in Beijing, China. Data were collected from 278 participants using a validated questionnaire. The results reveal significant disparities between urban and rural students, with urban students demonstrating higher levels of teaching equity, learning engagement, and perceived learning effect. Mediation analysis indicated that learning engagement acts as a partial mediator for urban students, whereas it serves as a full mediator for rural students. These findings highlight the importance of context-sensitive instructional strategies to enhance equity and engagement in the Dual-Teacher Classroom. The study contributes to the discourse on educational sustainability by emphasizing the role of equitable teaching practices in fostering inclusive and effective learning environments. Practical implications for teacher collaboration and real-time feedback mechanisms are discussed.

1. Introduction

We are currently experiencing accelerated transformations in the global landscape and in the trajectory of human development, wherein sustainable development has emerged as an inevitable trend for societal progress and a critical pathway for addressing global challenges. Education serves as a pivotal bridge for achieving sustainability—it is both an integral component of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and a fundamental mechanism to realize all SDG targets [1].
Following the United Nations’ adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in 2015, the global education community embraced the Education 2030 Framework for Action. This framework established a worldwide consensus on Education for Sustainable Development (ESD), as outlined in SDG4, which defines ten specific targets [2]. Guided by this framework, China has actively implemented and promoted ESD initiatives, leading to the creation of a distinctive Dual-Teacher Classroom model that embodies innovative features of the sustainability pedagogy. This approach has emerged as an innovative teaching model that integrates local and remote instructors to bridge educational gaps between under-resourced and well-resourced schools, thereby laying a solid foundation for education in sustainable development. Typically, the Dual-Teacher Classroom involves an “input” group—often consisting of rural schools with limited resources—and an “output” group—usually urban schools with abundant educational advantages. This structure creates a natural setting for examining disparities in teaching equity and learning effects.
Despite extensive literature on teaching equity in conventional classrooms [3,4,5,6,7], research specifically targeting the unique mechanisms of teaching equity within the Dual-Teacher Classroom model for ESD remains limited. Moreover, recent scholarship calls for moving beyond technical or resource-based definitions of equity to focus on the relational and participatory dimensions of learning (Goldin et al., 2025; Freedman et al., 2025) [8,9]. Most existing studies have concentrated on resource allocation and learning performance in traditional settings, leaving unanswered how teaching equity practices influence student engagement and perceived learning effect in Dual-Teacher Classroom environments. Moreover, within the Dual-Teacher Classroom model, teaching equity serves as a key monitoring indicator for ESD [10]. Although the Opportunity to Learn (OTL) theory—a well-established representation of equity—has been applied in general educational contexts, its relevance and adaptation to ESD have not yet been thoroughly investigated.
To address this research gap, the study adopts the OTL framework to systematically examine the relationships among teaching equity, learning engagement, and perceived learning effect within the Dual-Teacher Classroom model for ESD. By comparing the experiences of students from both rural and urban groups, the research aims to elucidate the distinct pathways through which teaching equity influences perceived learning effect. Quantitative methods and structural equation modeling are employed to provide empirical evidence of these relationships, offering theoretical insights and practical recommendations for enhancing instructional practices in ESD.
This study contributes to the literature by empirically investigating the mediating role of learning engagement in Dual-Teacher Classrooms under the OTL framework, a novel approach that has not been thoroughly explored in previous research. Specifically, it addresses the gap in understanding how teaching equity practices influence perceived learning effect in the context of ESD, providing new insights for sustainable educational development.

1.1. Education for Sustainable Development

Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) has distinct phases. Based on the social contexts and primary issues addressed during different periods, it can broadly be divided into four stages: “education for environmental protection”, “environmental education for adapting to sustainable development”, “education for sustainable development aimed at building a fair and sustainable future”, and “education for sustainable development dedicated to realizing the coexistence of humans and the planet”.
Initially, the core focus of ESD was rooted in environmental protection. Through an emphasis on environmental education, it aimed to raise ecological awareness and foster public competence in addressing environmental issues. Entering the 20th century, environmental education evolved into “environmental education for adapting to sustainable development.” The 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development gradually contributed to a broadening international consensus around “education for sustainable development aimed at building a fair and sustainable future.” During the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005–2014), the international community introduced core principles of sustainable development and integrated them into environmental education, which significantly raised global awareness and recognition of ESD’s importance. At the 70th Session of the United Nations General Assembly in 2015, all 193 Member States adopted the document “Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” Target 4.7 under Sustainable Development Goal 4 (Quality Education) articulates the commitment to” ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development,” thereby establishing ESD not only as a renewed objective in its current phase but also as an essential element of global educational frameworks [11].
Throughout its evolution, the conceptual emphasis of ESD has expanded from its initial focus on environmental education to emphasizing education’s critical role in integrating economic growth, social equity, and environmental protection. It now also prioritizes the construction of an equitable and sustainable future, advancing toward a vision of sustainable development founded on the harmonious coexistence between humanity and the planet.

1.2. Dual-Teacher Classroom: A New Model of Education for Sustainable Development to Address Urban-Rural Educational Gaps

The Dual-Teacher Classroom has emerged as an innovative model for ESD in China, designed to address systemic equity issues in education between urban and rural areas (Zheng et al., 2021) [10]. By leveraging network technology and synchronous interactive teaching systems, this model connects urban schools with rural schools, facilitating real-time collaboration between teachers from well-resourced and under-resourced institutions. The Dual-Teacher Classroom exemplifies a sustainable approach to resource sharing—it minimizes physical infrastructure costs while maximizing the reach of teacher expertise through cross-regional collaboration (Zheng et al., 2021) [10]. Unlike traditional co-teaching models, which primarily target inclusive education for students with disabilities (Messiou, 2016) [12], the Dual-Teacher Classroom model emphasizes equitable access to high-quality instruction through shared pedagogy and resource redistribution, thereby contributing to sustainable education development.
However, despite its potential, empirical research on the Dual-Teacher Classroom remains limited and often lacks a critical examination of equity outcomes. Existing studies predominantly focus on technical implementations, creating a gap in understanding how teaching equity influences student engagement and the learning effect. For instance, Liu et al. (2022) and Li et al. (2024) described the construction of a Dual-Teacher classroom within intelligent environments, emphasizing technology but overlooking equity dimensions [13,14]. Similarly, Jiang et al. (2025) explored the use of artificial intelligence to enhance participation but did not address how equity perceptions shape classroom effectiveness [15]. In contrast, Coiduras et al. (2020) evaluated the alignment of the Dual-Teacher Classroom with the OTL framework but did not examine the mediating role of equity perceptions [16]. These contradictions highlight the need for a comprehensive analysis of teaching equity mechanisms in Dual-Teacher Classrooms.

1.3. The Framework of Teaching Equity Under the OTL Theory: From Theory to Practice

“Opportunity to Learn” (OTL) is defined as the opportunity for students to encounter the intended curriculum through the implemented curriculum (Hyman et al., 1996) [17]. The Opportunity to Learn (OTL) theory, initially conceptualized by Carroll (1963), posits that equitable learning outcomes depend on students’ access to sufficient time, appropriate resources, and tailored instruction [18]. Over the decades, OTL has evolved into a multidimensional framework encompassing systemic, institutional, classroom, and student-level factors. Stevens (1993) pioneered a multi-dimensional view of OTL, shifting the focus beyond time to include content coverage and instructional quality [19]. This was further systematized by Schmidt et al. (1996) [20], whose model conceptualized OTL factors across the educational system, school, classroom, and student levels, providing a foundational theory for large-scale assessments like TIMSS and PISA. These assessments operationalized OTL to evaluate the intended curriculum and students’ opportunities to apply knowledge in diverse contexts. The framework continued to evolve, incorporating broader socio-cultural dimensions such as teacher–student relationships (Jensen et al., 2016) [21] and the role of leadership in shaping learning opportunities (Urick et al., 2018) [22].
This expanded conceptualization offers a robust theoretical foundation for analyzing innovative instructional models, including the Dual-Teacher Classroom, where the equitable distribution and effective use of learning opportunities are central concerns. Supporting this approach, Kurz et al. (2014) [23] and Margaret et al. (2019) [24] have highlighted the OTL framework as a valuable tool for examining co-teaching arrangements. Within the Dual-Teacher Classroom model, teaching equity is adopted as a key monitoring indicator for Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). To empirically assess this construct, it is operationalized through three interdependent components derived from the OTL framework as shown in Figure 1, translating the theoretical dimensions into measurable indicators (Lei, 2018) [25]:
A.
Equal Treatment: Ensuring uniform access to learning identities, rights, and resources (Lei, 2018) [25]. However, contemporary research cautions that such procedural uniformity, while foundational, can inadvertently sustain inequities if applied rigidly without considering students’ diverse starting points (Kwok et al., 2025) [26].
B.
Differentiated Treatment: Adapting instruction to address individual needs, particularly for disadvantaged students (Boaler & Sengupta-Irving, 2016) [3]. Effective differentiation is increasingly framed as a humanizing practice that responds to students’ unique cultural and cognitive assets, rather than a mere technical adjustment (Kwok et al., 2025; Phuong et al., 2025) [26,27].
C.
Equitable Experiences: Prioritizing students’ subjective perceptions of fairness, trust, and satisfaction (Yang & Li, 2016) [28]. This dimension aligns with the growing emphasis on transformative social-emotional learning and “expansive framing,” which prioritizes students’ sense of belonging, identity, and relevance in the learning process (Yadati et al., 2025; Freedman et al., 2025) [9,29].
Recent studies highlight persistent tensions among these components. For example, while Equal Treatment correlates positively with behavioral engagement (Trainor, 2020) [30], excessive standardization may fail to address the needs of marginalized students (Xu & Zhao, 2021) [31]. Conversely, Differentiated Treatment has been shown to reduce achievement gaps (Denessen, 2020) [32]. It carries a risk of stigmatizing students if implemented without sufficient sensitivity (Fry, 1983) [33]. These findings underscore that balancing equity with differentiation remains a critical challenge in Dual-Teacher Classroom—particularly in contexts where urban-rural disparities exacerbate existing structural inequities.

1.4. Learning Engagement and Perceived Learning Effect: A Multidimensional Lens

Learning engagement, comprising emotional, behavioral, and cognitive dimensions (Wang et al., 2014) [34]—functions both as an outcome and a mediator of teaching equity. Emotional engagement (e.g., interest and enthusiasm) is highly responsive to perceived fairness (Zheng et al., 2017) [35], while behavioral engagement (e.g., task completion) depends significantly on access to learning resources (Kaltiainen et al., 2018) [36]. Cognitive engagement, which involves metacognition and critical thinking, is enhanced when students perceive instructional practices as equitable (Boaler & Sengupta-Irving, 2016) [3].
However, existing research often oversimplifies engagement by treating it as a composite measure (Griffin, 2018) [37], overlooking how its distinct dimensions interact within the Dual-Teacher Classroom for ESD. For instance, while cognitive engagement might be consistently high across student groups during a well-structured synchronous lecture, emotional and behavioral engagement could vary significantly depending on local facilitation and technological access (Li et al., 2024) [14]. Furthermore, Perceived Learning Effect—a subjective evaluation of knowledge acquisition—is theorized as shaped by these multidimensional engagement processes in conjunction with teaching equity (He et al., 2012) [6]. Nevertheless, the specific mediation mechanisms through which equity and the distinct dimensions of engagement collectively influence perceived learning effect remain unexamined in the Dual-Teacher Classroom model.
Despite growing interest in the Dual-Teacher Classroom for ESD, several critical questions remain unexplored:
  • How do urban-rural disparities in Dual-Teacher Classroom for ESD influence students’ perceptions of teaching equity?
  • Which dimensions of learning engagement mediate the relationship between teaching equity and perceived learning effect?
  • How does teaching equity contribute to narrowing the gap in perceived learning effect between urban and rural student groups?

Hypotheses

Based on the literature review and the OTL framework for teaching equity, this study proposes the following hypotheses, with learning engagement operationalized through its three dimensions: emotional, behavioral, and cognitive engagement.
H1. 
Teaching equity in the Dual-Teacher Classroom positively influences both learning engagement and perceived learning effect.
H2. 
Significant differences exist between the rural group and the urban group in levels of teaching equity, learning engagement, and perceived learning effect, with the urban group expected to report higher values across these constructs.
H3. 
Learning engagement mediates the relationship between teaching equity and perceived learning effect. Specifically, we hypothesize the following:
H3a. 
Teaching equity has a positive influence on learning engagement.
H3b. 
Learning engagement has a positive influence on perceived learning effect.
H3c. 
The indirect effect of teaching equity on perceived learning effect through learning engagement is significant.
H4. 
The mediating effect of learning engagement differs significantly between the rural and urban groups, suggesting that the strength and pattern of mediation vary across educational contexts.
Figure 2 illustrates the hypothesized model, outlining the structural relationships among teaching equity, learning engagement, and perceived learning effect.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Context of the Study and Participants

The participants in this study were fifth-grade elementary school students from Beijing, enrolled in mathematics classes taught through the Dual-Teacher Classroom for ESD model.
At the beginning of the project, an anonymous survey was administered, the responses of which were collected on-site. Prior to the data collection, informed consent was obtained from both the class teachers and participants. During the session, participants received standardized instructions and were encouraged to ask questions if they had any doubts during the completion process to ensure they understood the content of the questionnaire and could provide accurate responses. A total of 278 students (137 boys, 141 girls) engaged in the Dual-Teacher Classroom model were included, yielding 278 completed questionnaires.

2.2. Research Instrument

Both the rural and urban groups used the same questionnaire. The survey included three sections, namely teaching equity, learning engagement, and perceived learning effect, with a total of 50 questions. All items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). During the adaptation of existing scales, exploratory factor analysis was performed, and items were adjusted to suit the participants’ age characteristics and course requirements.

2.2.1. Dual-Teacher Classroom Teaching Equity Survey

The survey instrument employed in this study was adapted from internationally validated questionnaires, including the PISA Learning Opportunities questionnaire (Xin et al., 2018) [38], Arbaugh et al. (2008) [39], Davis (1989) [40], and Lei (2018) [25], with a focus on teaching equity. The final version of the survey, tailored to the Dual-Teacher Classroom model, comprises 27 items assessing three constructs: equal treatment, differentiated treatment, and equitable experiences.

2.2.2. Dual-Teacher Classroom Student Learning Engagement Survey

The study adapted the “Learning Engagement Scale” developed by Wang et al. (2014) [34], which categorizes students’ learning engagement into three dimensions: emotional engagement, behavioral engagement, and cognitive engagement. The questionnaire was further customized to fit the context of the Dual-Teacher Classroom, which features blended synchronous teaching by instructors. Emotional engagement denotes positive affective experiences in the classroom, such as interest, enjoyment, and enthusiasm. Behavioral engagement corresponds to observable behaviors, including timely task completion, attention, class participation, questioning, and undertaking challenging tasks. Cognitive engagement involves mental investment, such as meaningful processing, strategy use, sustained attention, and metacognition (Wentzel & Miele, 2009) [41]. The final questionnaire comprises 18 items.

2.2.3. Dual-Teacher Classroom Student Perceived Learning Effect Survey

This study utilized the Perceived Learning Effect Scale by Thomas to develop a survey instrument tailored specifically to students in the Dual-Teacher Classroom context [42]. The final questionnaire comprises 5 items.
A pilot survey of the developed questionnaire is an essential step to examine the appropriateness of its items. Based on the analysis results, the questionnaire was appropriately revised, laying a solid foundation for the formal distribution. Consequently, to ensure the rationality of the research instrument, the researcher randomly selected 158 students from classes not involved in the main experiment as the pilot sample. This sample consisted of 80 boys (50.6%) and 78 girls (49.4%), to whom the questionnaires were distributed and subsequently collected.
The reliability of the collected valid questionnaires was tested using SPSS 26.0 (version 26.0; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was employed to assess the questionnaire’s reliability, determining its stability and consistency. A threshold of 0.7 is typically used for Cronbach’s alpha, with higher values indicating better internal consistency. In the reliability analysis, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for all dimensions of the Teaching Equity scale, the Learning Engagement scale, and the Perceived Learning Effect scale exceeded 0.9. These results indicate excellent reliability and high internal consistency for all sections of the questionnaire, suggesting no need for content adjustments at this stage.
To establish the discriminant validity of the measurement instrument, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted. As shown in Table 1, the fit indices for the model were as follows: X2/df = 1.933 (<3), RMSEA = 0.058 (<0.08), and values for NFI, RFI, CFI, IFI, and TLI all exceeded 0.9 [43]. These results indicate that the model meets accepted criteria for good fit, thereby supporting the discriminant validity of the three scales within the Dual-Teacher Classroom questionnaire. We further assessed the construct validity of the scales by examining composite reliability (CR), average variance extracted (AVE), and the Heterotrait–Monotrait Ratio (HTMT). As shown in Table 1b, all constructs demonstrated good composite reliability (CR > 0.7) and convergent validity (AVE > 0.5). The HTMT ratios were below the threshold of 0.90, supporting discriminant validity [44].

2.3. Data Analysis

To test the hypotheses, data analysis was performed using IBM SPSS (version 26.0) and IBM AMOS (version 24.0). Initially, descriptive statistics were computed with IBM SPSS, followed by independent samples t-tests and correlation analysis. We conducted a multigroup structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis to test measurement invariance across rural and urban groups. Configural invariance was established, confirming that the factor structure is equivalent across groups. Given the ordered categorical nature of the Likert-scale data, we employed the robust maximum likelihood (MLR) estimation method, which is appropriate for non-normal and categorical data. Subsequently, structural equation modeling (SEM) was carried out using the PROCESS macro for IBM SPSS and IBM AMOS to examine the relationships proposed in Figure 1. SEM enables the simultaneous examination of all variables in the model, allowing researchers to evaluate whether the model should be retained, rejected, or modified. To enhance the robustness of our analysis, we included gender and class as covariates in the model to control for potential confounding effects. Additionally, we adjusted for clustering at the class level using cluster-robust standard errors to account for intra-class correlations. After fitting the SEM model to the data, path analysis was conducted (Schumacker & Lomax, 2010) [45]. Additionally, the bias-corrected percentile bootstrapping method was applied to test mediation effects, with 5,000 bootstrap samples used to establish confidence intervals for these effects.

3. Results

3.1. Common Method Bias Test

To address potential common method bias, as all variables in this study were assessed using self-report measures, Harman’s single-factor test was conducted. The results indicated that five factors had eigenvalues greater than 1, with the first factor accounting for only 36.96% of the variance—below the recommended threshold of 40%. Therefore, common method bias was not a significant concern in this study.

3.2. Descriptive Statistics and Analysis

Descriptive Statistics, Differences, and Correlations

Descriptive statistics for the research variables, including the mean, standard deviation, and significance levels of intergroup differences, are presented in Table 2 and Table 3. The analysis revealed statistically significant differences between the rural and urban groups on all variables (p < 0.05). Among the sub-variables, however, only emotional engagement did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.065, which exceeded the 0.05 threshold), whereas all the other sub-variables demonstrated significant differences (p < 0.05), thereby supporting hypothesis H2.
A key assumption for performing regression analysis and specifying mediation models is the presence of significant correlations among variables (Preacher et al., 2007) [46]. This study examined the correlations among all variables and sub-variables. As shown in Table 4 and Table 5, all correlation coefficients were statistically significant. Strong associations were observed among teaching equity, learning engagement, and perceived learning effect. Notably, the strongest correlation was identified between teaching equity and perceived learning effect, exceeding 0.8, underscoring its critical role. Among the sub-variables, emotional engagement demonstrated a moderate correlation with perceived learning effect, while other variables exhibited stronger relationships with perceived learning effect, thereby supporting hypothesis H1. These results suggest that although all components contribute to perceived learning effect, the association with emotional engagement was less robust compared to other dimensions.

3.3. Mediating Effects and Heterogeneity in Dual-Teacher Classroom

To examine the model shown in Figure 2, we employed SPSS PROCESS Model 4 to test the mediation model, with a focus on the effects of teaching equity and learning engagement on perceived learning effect in the Dual-Teacher Classroom. This model was analyzed separately for different student groups, specifically comparing students from the rural and urban groups participating in the Dual-Teacher Classroom. The mediation analysis results for the urban and rural groups are presented in Figure 3 and Figure 4.
The results of the mediation effect decomposition for the urban group are summarized in Table 6. Bootstrap analysis of urban mediation effects showed that the total effect of teaching equity on perceived learning effect was 0.993, and the direct effect was 0.547, with a bootstrap 95% CI of [0.396, 0.699]. The results indicate that, even after including the mediating variable of learning engagement, teaching equity still exerted a significant direct effect on perceived learning effect, accounting for 55.086% of the total effect. Learning engagement played a significant mediating role between teaching equity on perceived learning effect, with an indirect effect value of 0.446 (bootstrap 95% CI of [0.179, 0.744]), representing 44.914% of the total effect.
These findings suggest that while teaching equity has a direct impact on perceived learning effect, learning engagement also significantly mediates this relationship, explaining a substantial portion of the total effect.
The results of the mediation effect decomposition for the urban group are summarized in Table 7. The bootstrap analysis of the mediation effect for the rural group indicates that the total effect of teaching equity on perceived learning effect was 0.806, with a direct effect of 0.256 and a bootstrap 95% CI of [−0.012, 0.523]. This suggests that, after including learning engagement as a mediator, the direct effect of teaching equity on perceived learning effect was not statistically significant, accounting for only 31.762% of the total effect. In contrast, the mediation effect of learning engagement between teaching equity and perceived learning effect was significant, with an indirect effect of 0.550 (bootstrap 95% CI of [0.137, 1.054]), representing 68.238% of the total effect. These results imply that the influence of teaching equity on perceived learning effect is fully mediated by learning engagement.
A comparison between the urban and rural groups reveals that learning engagement functions as a significant mediator in both student groups, thereby supporting hypothesis H3. However, its mediating role differs: it exhibits partial mediation in the urban group, whereas it acts as a complete mediator in the rural group. This observed distinction validates Hypothesis H4.

3.4. Dual-Teacher Classroom Structural Equation Model and Heterogeneity

To further investigate the relationships between the three sub-variables of teaching equity—equal treatment, differentiated treatment, and equitable experiences—and the three sub-variables of learning engagement—emotional engagement, cognitive engagement, and behavioral engagement—with perceived learning effect, the hypothesized model was expanded to incorporate the corresponding sub-variable structure. Following necessary path modifications, the results indicated that the refined sub-structural equation model demonstrated good fit, with fit indices as follows: X2/df = 2.173 (<3), RMSEA = 0.065 (<0.08), and NFI, RFI, CFI, IFI, TLI all exceeding 0.9. These values conform to established standards of good model fit, thereby supporting the validity of the proposed model.
Based on the standardized hypothesis testing results of the sub-variable structural equation model (as presented in Figure 5), all path coefficients were positive. Specifically, the three sub-variables of teaching equity—equal treatment, differentiated treatment, and equitable experiences—exerted significant positive effects on the three sub-variables of learning engagement: emotional engagement, behavioral engagement, and cognitive engagement. Furthermore, behavioral engagement was found to have a significantly positive influence on perceived learning effect, whereas the influence of the remaining paths was not statistically significant.
To further examine potential differences in sub-variable pathways between urban and rural group students, separate structural equation models were developed and tested for each cohort.
Prior to conducting the multigroup path analysis, a series of measurement invariance tests were performed to ensure that the constructs were measured equivalently across the rural and urban groups, which is a critical prerequisite for meaningful cross-group comparisons. We followed a sequential constraint approach, testing configural, metric, and scalar invariance. The configural invariance model, which imposes the same factor structure across groups without constraining parameters, demonstrated good fit (χ2/df = 2.866, CFI = 0.977, TLI = 0.956, RMSEA = 0.057), indicating that the basic model structure is equivalent. The metric invariance model, which constrains factor loadings to be equal across groups, did not result in a significant deterioration of model fit compared to the configural model (ΔCFI = −0.008, ΔRMSEA = 0.002), supporting metric invariance, which meets the recommended criteria of ΔCFI < 0.010 and ΔRMSEA < 0.015 for invariance establishment. The establishment of metric invariance confirms that participants from both groups attribute the same meaning to the latent constructs, thus justifying the subsequent comparison of regression paths (structural coefficients) between the rural and urban groups. This confirms that the constructs are being measured on the same scale and that the items relate to the latent factors in the same way for both rural and urban students, allowing for the comparison of structural paths and correlations in the subsequent multigroup analysis.
According to the path diagram results for the urban group (as presented in Figure 6), all path coefficients were positive. Specifically, equal treatment demonstrated significant positive effects on emotional engagement, behavioral engagement, and cognitive engagement. Similarly, equitable experiences significantly and positively influenced behavioral engagement, cognitive engagement, and perceived learning effect. However, the other path coefficients did not reach statistical significance.
According to the path diagram results for the rural group (as shown in Figure 7), most path coefficients were positive; however, a small number of paths indicated that equal treatment had a negative, though non-significant, effect on emotional engagement and cognitive engagement. In contrast, both differentiated treatment and equitable experience showed significant positive effects on emotional engagement, behavioral engagement, and cognitive engagement. The remaining path coefficients were not statistically significant. Among these, equitable experience exerted the strongest influence on emotional engagement within the rural group, differentiated treatment had the greatest effect on behavioral engagement, and differentiated treatment also demonstrated the strongest impact on cognitive engagement.
A comparison of the path coefficients between the structural equation models for the rural and urban groups revealed variations across certain paths. To further investigate the specific paths where these differences occur and to explore potential underlying causes, this study performed a path-specific heterogeneity analysis, as summarized in Table 8.
From Table 8, it can be observed that for the paths ET → EE, ET → BE, and ET → CE, the urban group exhibits significant positive effects. This indicates that, for urban students, equal treatment significantly and positively influences learning engagement. In contrast, these paths demonstrate weaker effects within the rural group; even slight negative effects are observed in the paths ET → EEt and ET → CE.
Regarding the paths DT → EEt, DT → BE, and DT → CE, the rural group appears more responsive to differentiated treatment. Specifically, differentiated treatment has a significant positive impact on emotional, behavioral, and cognitive engagement among rural students, highlighting its critical importance for this group. This finding resonates with the concept of “humanizing approaches” to equity, which argues that recognizing and responding to individual and contextual needs is paramount for marginalized students (Kwok et al., 2025) [26]. It suggests that for rural students, who may be at a systemic disadvantage, the act of being seen and personally supported by the teacher is a critical component of perceiving the classroom as equitable. In comparison, the effects of differentiated treatment on the same variables, though still positive, are less pronounced within the urban group.
Regarding the path EE → EEt, the influence within the rural group exceeds that of the urban group. Meanwhile, for the paths BE → PLE and EE → PLE, behavioral engagement and equitable experience exert significant positive effects on perceived learning effect among urban students. However, these significant positive effects were not observed in the rural group.

4. Discussion

This study focuses on the Dual-Teacher Classroom, an instructional organizational model designed to promote sustainable education. Within the OTL framework of teaching equity, it investigates the mechanisms and pathways through which equal treatment, differentiated treatment, and equitable experience—key observational indicators within ESD—along with student learning engagement, encompassing emotional, cognitive, and behavioral engagement, influence perceived learning effect. Within the context of the Dual-Teacher Classroom model examined in this study, the findings offer a clearer understanding of how teaching equity practices within sustainable education contribute to students’ perceived learning effect. All four research hypotheses proposed in this study were fully supported by the empirical results.

4.1. Significant Differences in Teaching Equity, Learning Engagement, and Perceived Learning Effect Between Rural and Urban Students in Dual-Teacher Classroom

Within the Dual-Teacher Classroom for ESD, notable disparities were observed in teaching equity, learning engagement, and perceived learning effect between rural and urban students, with urban students demonstrating significantly higher effects. Students in rural settings participate in online learning, where language and text serve as the primary channels for both vertical and horizontal information transmission. However, this process is accompanied by information loss. Information loss refers to a degradation in either the quality or quantity of information. Quality loss occurs when information becomes distorted and thereby diminishes in value, whereas quantity loss involves a reduction in the amount of meaningful content (Xiao, 1995) [47]. Consequently, rural students receive diminished instructional content, while urban students, being closer to the information source, experience minimal loss. This imbalance leads to significant differences in teaching equity between the two groups. Since equity varies substantially at the source, subsequent differences in learning engagement and perceived learning effect naturally follow. Interestingly, at the sub-dimension level, no significant difference in emotional engagement was found between rural and urban students. This suggests that, despite some degradation in teaching equity during the transmission process characteristic of the Dual-Teacher Classroom, the model succeeds in fostering students’ emotional participation, reflecting a strong student appetite for sustainable education. Therefore, based on our findings, it appears crucial to enhance teachers’ equitable teaching practices within this specific Dual-Teacher Classroom model. This might involve building professional collaborative communities, and establishing relationships based on mutual trust is crucial (Truijen et al., 2013; Bacharach et al., 2010) [48,49]. Real-time sharing of student learning conditions—while maintaining emotional engagement—can facilitate differentiated cooperative instruction tailored to student needs, thereby helping to promote balanced, high-quality educational resources and eliminate disparities in teaching equity between rural and urban students. This objective is central to the core mission of the ESD. For instance, studies in other countries (e.g., Bacharach et al., 2010) have shown that teacher collaboration and professional development programs can enhance equity in co-teaching models [49]. These findings suggest that similar approaches could be adapted in Dual-Teacher Classrooms globally to address educational disparities.

4.2. Teaching Equity in the Dual-Teacher Classroom Has a Significant Positive Effect on Perceived Learning Effect, with Equitable Experiences as the Strongest Sub-Dimension

Teaching equity in the Dual-Teacher Classroom for ESD exerts a significant positive impact on perceived learning effect, with the equitable experiences sub-dimension demonstrating the strongest influence. This finding is consistent with previous research (Mislevy et al., 2018) [50] and is strongly reinforced by recent work on “productive disciplinary engagement,” which links deep learning to environments where students feel their contributions are valued and legitimized (Freedman et al., 2025) [9]. Equitable experiences encompass trust, fairness, and satisfaction—dimensions associated with the extent to which students feel recognized and valued within classroom instruction (Yang & Li, 2016) [28]. Therefore, the Dual-Teacher Classroom should prioritize enhancing students’ equitable experiences, continually improving course implementation, and building meaningful connections between course content and students’ prior knowledge to facilitate deep engagement among all students (Yu, 2023) [51]. In the Dual-Teacher Classroom, teaching equity goes beyond the mere equal distribution of learning opportunities by teachers as a form of procedural fairness. Rather, it entails ensuring that students experience genuine fairness in learning opportunities, acknowledging each student’s central role in the classroom, and transitioning from formal to substantive equity. Moreover, it has been observed that Dual-Teacher Classrooms can occasionally result in classroom disorganization or a lack of feedback on student contributions (Li et al., 2024) [14], which may diminish students’ learning enthusiasm, reduce their sense of presence, and weaken their equitable experiences. Therefore, it is essential for teachers to align teaching elements effectively, optimize instructional methods, and reinforce a student-centered educational philosophy to better fulfill the intended function of the Dual-Teacher Classroom. Our findings, viewed through the lens of recent scholarship (Goldin et al., 2025) [8], suggest that successful implementation of Dual-Teacher Classrooms requires moving “Beyond Technical Fixes.” It is not enough to simply connect two classrooms technologically; the pedagogical and relational practices within that technological framework must be deliberately designed to foster substantive, rather than superficial, equity.

4.3. Teaching Equity in the Dual-Teacher Classroom Significantly Influences Perceived Learning Effect Through the Mediation of Learning Engagement, with Variation in Effects Between Rural and Urban Groups

In the Dual-Teacher Classroom for ESD, learning engagement serves as a significant mediator, indicating that teachers should focus not only on students’ engagement but also on their own equitable instructional practices. Both teacher and student actions collectively contribute to enhancing overall teaching effectiveness within this model. However, mediation analysis between rural and urban groups reveals notable differences: for the urban group, teaching equity partially enhances perceived learning effect through learning engagement, while also retaining a significant direct effect. In contrast, for the rural group, the influence of teaching equity on perceived learning effect is fully mediated by learning engagement, with no significant direct path observed. This discrepancy, as observed in our sample, underscores a potential latent inequity between student groups in the Dual-Teacher Classroom structure we studied. His discrepancy aligns with previous studies (e.g., King-Sears & Strogilos, 2020), indicating that structural inequities amplify mediation differences in disadvantaged groups [52]. The full mediation in rural students suggests that learning engagement is a critical pathway for improving perceived learning effect in resource-limited contexts. Internationally, these findings highlight the need for culturally adaptive strategies in Dual-Teacher Classrooms to address global educational disparities. The difference may stem from the fact that urban students, being at the source of high-quality educational resources, experience teaching equity in two distinct ways: (1) a baseline level of fairness established through long-term student–teacher collaboration, forming a fairness threshold, and (2) enhanced teaching equity resulting from teachers’ heightened emphasis on fairness within the Dual-Teacher setting, which surpasses this threshold and is perceptible to students. When urban students perceive teaching equity below this threshold, entrenched cognitive patterns may lead them to underestimate the role of learning engagement, whereas equity levels exceeding the threshold facilitate improved perceived learning through engagement. Therefore, teachers in the Dual-Teacher Classroom should recognize the heterogeneity in students’ fairness thresholds. Efforts should be made to ensure fundamental equity while progressively elevating teaching equity for rural students to raise their fairness threshold, thereby mitigating intergroup disparities. Such an approach could be a promising direction for helping to transcend procedural fairness and work towards substantive equity. Furthermore, teachers should refine synchronized teaching practices to ensure that both rural and urban students perceive equitable instructional treatment, ultimately supporting sustainable educational development for all.

4.4. Structural Equation Model Pathways Differ Between Rural and Urban Students in the Dual-Teacher Classroom, with Equal Treatment in Teaching Equity and Learning Engagement Exhibiting Significant Positive Effects for Urban but Not Rural Students

In the Dual-Teacher Classroom for ESD, differences are observed in the paths linking Equal Treatment (ET) to the dimensions of Learning Engagement—Emotional Engagement (EEt), Behavioral Engagement (BE), and Cognitive Engagement (CE)—between rural and urban students. This indicates that even under comparable teaching equity conditions, significant disparities in learning engagement persist across these groups. Due to differences in the initial learning conditions of rural and urban students (King-Sears & Strogilos, 2020) [52], a substantial time gap exists in how each group absorbs the same knowledge. Systemic inequities, such as the absence of real-time interaction, further amplify these disparities. When teachers allocate equal learning time or questioning opportunities to all students, those in rural areas—who often require more time to comprehend the material—may be advanced to new content before fully mastering current concepts, thereby intensifying pre-existing inequalities. This often leads to disengagement and reduced learning engagement among rural students. Conversely, in the paths linking Differentiated Treatment (DT) to Learning Engagement (EEt, BE, and CE), teaching equity shows a significant positive effect across all engagement dimensions for the rural group—unlike the urban group. This suggests that when rural students receive additional guidance and tailored learning time, inherent inequities can be mitigated, resulting in truly equitable treatment. Such an approach enhances comprehension and strengthens engagement, underscoring that the goal of teaching equity in the Dual-Teacher Classroom is not absolute equality, but comparative fairness (Temkin, 2017) [53]. Teachers should therefore account for differences in students’ learning starting points and provide differentiated support to ensure balanced and substantive equity. Moreover, communication in the Dual-Teacher Classroom constitutes a two-way interactive process wherein students, as active participants, selectively engage with content based on their individual needs and perspectives (Guo, 2016) [54]. Therefore, teachers should prioritize individual learning needs, implement differentiated instruction that leverages students’ strengths, and ensure sustainable educational development while addressing diversity. These strategies will ultimately enhance the perceived learning effect and optimize the functionality of the Dual-Teacher Classroom.

5. Conclusions

Based on the OTL teaching equity framework, which serves as an observational indicator for ESD, this study empirically examines primary school students in sustainable development settings in Beijing, China. It investigates the relationships among teaching equity, learning engagement, and perceived learning effect within the Dual-Teacher Classroom model. The results reveal significant disparities in teaching equity, learning engagement, and perceived learning effect between rural and urban students. Teaching equity exerts a significant positive effect on perceived learning effect, both directly and indirectly through the mediation of learning engagement. Notably, the mediating effects differ meaningfully between rural and urban student groups. The study further demonstrates that students play an actively positive role in the relationship between teaching equity, learning engagement, and perceived learning effect, with these effects varying across rural and urban contexts. Based on these findings, the following recommendations are proposed: further promote teachers’ equitable instructional behaviors within the Dual-Teacher Classroom; establish professional collaborative communities and foster mutually trusting cooperative relationships to eliminate disparities in teaching equity between rural and urban students; enhance students’ equitable experiences and improve the synchronization of teaching processes; acknowledge variations in students’ fairness thresholds and gradually increase equity support for rural students to elevate their fairness threshold, thereby transitioning from formal to substantive equity while maintaining fundamental fairness; and adopt a student-centered approach through differentiated instruction that responds to individual needs, ensuring fair yet tailored support that promotes sustainable development and improves overall educational quality. Future research should build on these findings by incorporating the nuanced lenses for characterizing equitable teaching that are emerging in the literature (Phuong et al., 2025) [27]. This could involve observational studies to document the specific teacher moves that create equitable experiences, and intervention studies that design and test professional development programs aimed at helping dual-teacher pairs implement the humanizing and transformative practices called for by contemporary equity scholars (Kwok et al., 2025; Yadati et al., 2025) [26,29].

6. Limitations and Future Research

While this study provides valuable insights into the mechanisms of teaching equity in Dual-Teacher Classrooms, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the study was conducted in a specific educational context (elementary schools in Beijing), and all participants were fifth-grade students. This limits the generalizability of the findings to other regions, cultural settings, or grade levels. Future research should validate these findings across more diverse geographical and demographic contexts. The data were primarily based on student self-reports, which, despite showing no severe common method bias, may be subject to social desirability and recall biases. The use of perceptual measures for variables like teaching equity and learning effect, while appropriate for capturing student experiences, does not equate to objective measures of instructional quality or learning gains. Future studies could benefit from incorporating multimodal data, such as classroom observations, teacher reports, and objective achievement tests, to triangulate the findings.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.Z.; methodology, D.L. and Z.L.; software, validation, writing—original draft preparation, G.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Office for Education Sciences Planning, China, under the National Education Science “14th Five-Year Plan” Key Project of the Ministry of Education, “Research on the effective behavior system of Dual-Teacher Classroom teaching in the context of high-quality and balanced education” (Grant No. DCA220455).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study by the Ethics Review Committee of the Elementary Education College at Capital Normal University due to the National Health Commission’s Ethical Review Measures for Biomedical Research Involving Humans of the People’s Republic of China and the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent for participation was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
OTLOpportunity to Learn
ESDEducation for Sustainable Development
ETEqual Treatment
DTDifferentiated Treatment
EEEquitable Experiences
EEtEmotional Engagement
BEBehavioral Engagement
CECognitive Engagement
PLEPerceived Learning Effect

References

  1. Braßler, M. Students’ digital competence development in the production of open educational resources in education for sustainable development. Sustainability 2024, 16, 1674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. United Nations. About the Sustainable Development Goals. Available online: http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/ (accessed on 17 June 2025).
  3. Boaler, J.; Sengupta-Irving, T. The many colors of algebra: The impact of equity focused teaching upon student learning and engagement. J. Math. Behav. 2016, 41, 179–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Debnam, K.J.; Johnson, S.L.; Waasdorp, T.E.; Bradshaw, C.P. Equity, connection, and engagement in the school context to promote positive youth development. J. Res. Adolesc. 2014, 24, 447–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Farley, I.A.; Burbules, N.C. Online education viewed through an equity lens: Promoting engagement and success for all learners. Rev. Educ. 2022, 10, e3367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. He, X.; Chen, X. Study on the influence of teaching equity on students’ interest in learning. Chin. Univ. Teach. 2012, 7, 81–84. [Google Scholar]
  7. Rolleston, C.; James, Z.; Aurino, E. Exploring the Effect of Educational Opportunity and Inequality on Learning Outcomes in Ethiopia, Peru, India, and Vietnam; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2013; Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000225938 (accessed on 12 July 2025).
  8. Goldin, S.; Robinson, D.D.; Shaughnessy, M.; Garcia, N.M.; Blunk, M.; Pynes, D.A.; Mortimer, J.P. Beyond Technical Fixes: Reconsidering Equity Sticks and Expanding Notions of Equitable Teaching. Urban Educ. 2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Freedman, E.B.; Hickey, D.T.; Schamberger, B.; Harris, T. Reimaging productive disciplinary engagement and expansive framing: A synthesis of equity-oriented scholarship. Educ. Psychol. 2025, 60, 106–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Zheng, X.; Rao, J.; Jia, Y. “Three classrooms” promote the high-quality and balanced development of compulsory education: Evolution history, strategic value, relationship analysis and conceptual framework. Mod. Educ. Technol. 2021, 31, 14–22. [Google Scholar]
  11. Yue, W.; Li, W.J. Evolutionary Logic and Future Trends of Education for Sustainable Development: An Analysis Based on UNESCO Series Reports. J. Comp. Educ. 2023, 45, 3–11+33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Messiou, K. Research in the field of inclusive education: Time for a rethink? Int. J. Incl. Educ. 2016, 21, 146–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Liu, S.; He, H. Effective teaching behavior in online teaching in university courses—Based on an empirical analysis of large-scale online teaching during the epidemic. Mod. Educ. Manag. 2022, 3, 66–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Li, H.; Zhang, L.; Liu, X.; Lin, C. The collaborative dilemma of double-teacher classroom: Causes, phenomenon and cracking—Based on the perspective of organizational boundary. Audio-Vis. Educ. China 2024, 6, 87–93. [Google Scholar]
  15. Jiang, Y.; Yuan, Y.; He, Z. How can we enhance elementary students’ learning engagement in a Dual-Teacher Classroom setting? an analysis of a moderated mediation effect. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2025, 33, 4681–4697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Coiduras, J.L.; Blanch, A.; Barbero, I. Initial teacher education in a dual-system: Addressing the observation of teaching performance. Stud. Educ. Eval. 2020, 64, 100834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hyman, B.; Jane, B.K. Mathematics and Science Education Around the World: What Can We Learn from the Survey of Mathematics and Science Opportunities (SMSO) and the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)? National Academy Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1996; pp. 70–72. [Google Scholar]
  18. Carroll, J.B. A model of school learning. Teach. Coll. Rec. 1963, 64, 723–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Stevens, F.I. Applying an Opprtunity to Learn. In Handbook of Education Policy Research; Sestigation of the Effects of Teaching Practices via Secondary Analyses of Multiple-Case-Study Summary Data. J. Negro Educ. 1993, 62, 232–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Schmidt, W.H.; Maier, A. Opportunity to Learn. In Handbook of Education Policy Research; Sykes, G., Schneider, B., Plank, D.N., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2009; pp. 541–559. [Google Scholar]
  21. Jensen, M. Rogative Learning in Education for Sustainable Development: Environment, Human Rights and Democracy. J. Sustain. Dev. Stud. 2016, 9, 52–75. [Google Scholar]
  22. Urick, A.; Wilson, A.S.P.; Ford, T.G.; Frick, W.C.; Wronowski, M.L. Testing a Framework of Math Progress Indicators for ESSA: How Opportunity to Learn and Instructional Leadership Matter. Educ. Adm. Q. 2018, 54, 396–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kurz, A.; Elliott, S.N.; Wehby, J.H.; Smithson, J.L. Assessing Opportunity-to-Learn for Students with Disabilities in General and Special Education Classes. Assess. Eff. Interv. 2014, 40, 24–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Margaret, P.W.; Holly, G. Instruction in Co-Teaching in the Age of Endrew F. Behav. Modif. 2019, 45, 39–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Lei, X.Q. Research on Classroom Teaching Equity and Its Indicator System. Ph.D. Thesis, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing, China, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  26. Kwok, M.; Su-Keene, E.; Rios, A. Preservice teachers’ conceptualizations of equity and equality: Tensions between technical and humanizing approaches. J. Teach. Educ. 2025, 76, 121–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Phuong, A.E.; Nguyen, J.; Huang, F.; Vo, J.; Mejia, F.D.; Hunn, C.T. Lenses for Characterizing Equitable College STEM Teaching: Aligning Equity and Academic Goals. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference of the Learning Sciences-ICLS 2025, Helsinki, Finland, 10–13 June 2025; International Society of the Learning Sciences: Bochum, Germany, 2025; pp. 889–897. [Google Scholar]
  28. Yang, X.; Li, X. Index studies focusing on equity within schools. Educ. Sci. Res. 2016, 11, 5–12+21. [Google Scholar]
  29. Yadati, N.; Thomas, B.; Rajan, S.K. Promoting equity through teacher practices: A scoping review on transformative social-emotional learning. Issues Educ. Res. 2025, 35, 422–441. [Google Scholar]
  30. Trainor, A.A.; Robertson, P.M. Culturally and linguistically diverse students with learning disabilities: Building a framework for addressing equity through empirical research. Learn. Disabil. Q. 2020, 45, 46–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Xu, J.; Zhao, X. Research on teaching improvement and countermeasures under the perspective of classroom fairness—Empirical analysis of OECD global teaching insight video research data in Shanghai, China. Res. Educ. Dev. 2021, 41, 42–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Denessen, E.; Keller, A.; van den Bergh, L.; van den Broek, P. Do Teachers Treat Their Students Differently? An Observational Study on Teacher–Student Interactions as a Function of Teacher Expectations and Student Achievement. Educ. Res. Int. 2020, 2020, 2471956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Fry, G.W. Empirical indicators of educational equity and equality: A Thai case study. Soc. Indic. Res. 1983, 12, 199–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Wang, Z.; Bergin, C.; Bergin, D.A. Measuring engagement in fourth to twelfth grade classrooms: The Classroom Engagement Inventory. Sch. Psychol. Q. 2014, 29, 517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Zheng, Y.; Yang, Z.; Jin, C.; Qi, Y.; Liu, X. The influence of emotion on fairness-related decision making: A critical review of theories and evidence. Front. Psychol. 2017, 8, 1592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kaltiainen, J.; Lipponen, J.; Petrou, P. Dynamics of trust and fairness during organizational change: Implications for job crafting and work engagement. In Organizational Change; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 90–101. [Google Scholar]
  37. Griffin, C.B. Exploring Associations Among African American Youths’ Perceptions of Racial Fairness and School Engagement: Does Gender Matter? J. Appl. Sch. Psychol. 2018, 34, 338–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Xin, T.; Jiang, Y.; Wang, X. From educational opportunities to learning opportunities: The microscopic vision of educational equity. Educ. Res. Tsinghua Univ. 2018, 39, 18–24. [Google Scholar]
  39. Arbaugh, J.B. Does academic discipline moderate CoI-course outcomes relationships in online MBA courses? Internet High. Educ. 2013, 17, 16–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Davis, F.D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989, 13, 319–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Wentzel, K.R.; Miele, D.B. Engagement and Disaffection as Organizational Constructs in the Dynamics of Motivational Development. In Handbook of Motivation at School, 2nd ed.; Wentzel, K.R., Miele, D.B., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 237–260. [Google Scholar]
  42. Thomas, L.J.; Parsons, M.; Whitcombe, D. Assessment in Smart Learning Environments: Psychological factors affecting perceived learning. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2019, 95, 197–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Hu, L.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J. 1999, 6, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Schumacker, R.E.; Lomax, R.G. A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling, 3rd ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA; Taylor and Francis Group, LLC: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  46. Preacher, K.J.; Rucker, D.D.; Hayes, A.F. Addressing Moderated Mediation Hypotheses: Theory, Methods, and Prescriptions. Multivar. Behav. Res. 2007, 42, 185–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Xiao, H. The Decision Science Dictionary; People’s Publishing House: Beijing, China, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  48. Truijen, K.J.; Sleegers, P.J.; Meelissen, M.R.; Nieuwenhuis, A.F.M. What makes teacher teams in a vocational education context effective? A qualitative study of managers’ view on team working. J. Workplace Learn. 2013, 25, 58–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Bacharach, N.; Heck, T.W.; Dahlberg, K. Changing the face of student teaching through coteaching. Action Teach. Educ. 2010, 32, 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Mislevy, R.J.; Haertel, G.; Cheng, B.H.; Ructtinger, L.; DeBarger, A.; Murray, E.; Vendlinski, T. A “conditional” sense of fairness in assessment. In Fairness Issues in Educational Assessment; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 33–52. [Google Scholar]
  51. Yu, R. Study on the current situation and influencing factors of fairness among primary and middle school students. Shanghai Educ. Res. 2023, 2, 70–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. King-Sears, M.E.; Strogilos, V. An exploratory study of self-efficacy, school belongingness, and co-teaching perspectives from middle school students and teachers in a mathematics co-taught classroom. Int. J. Incl. Educ. 2020, 24, 162–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Temkin, L. Equality as comparative fairness. J. Appl. Philos. 2017, 34, 43–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Guo, J. The reflection and criticism of the limited effect theory. Young Rep. 2016, 29, 5–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 09216 g001
Figure 1. The framework of teaching equity under the OTL theory, illustrating three components, namely equal treatment, differentiated treatment, and equitable experiences, which collectively measure teaching equity in Dual-Teacher Classrooms.
Figure 1. The framework of teaching equity under the OTL theory, illustrating three components, namely equal treatment, differentiated treatment, and equitable experiences, which collectively measure teaching equity in Dual-Teacher Classrooms.
Sustainability 17 09216 g001
Sustainability 17 09216 g002
Figure 2. Hypothesis model, showing the proposed relationships among teaching equity, learning engagement, and perceived learning effect.
Figure 2. Hypothesis model, showing the proposed relationships among teaching equity, learning engagement, and perceived learning effect.
Sustainability 17 09216 g002
Sustainability 17 09216 g003
Figure 3. Mediation model for urban group showing partial mediation of learning engagement between teaching equity and perceived learning effect. *** p < 0.001.
Figure 3. Mediation model for urban group showing partial mediation of learning engagement between teaching equity and perceived learning effect. *** p < 0.001.
Sustainability 17 09216 g003
Sustainability 17 09216 g004
Figure 4. Mediation model for the rural group showing partial mediation of learning engagement between teaching equity and perceived learning effect. *** p < 0.001; dashed lines represent non-significant paths.
Figure 4. Mediation model for the rural group showing partial mediation of learning engagement between teaching equity and perceived learning effect. *** p < 0.001; dashed lines represent non-significant paths.
Sustainability 17 09216 g004
Sustainability 17 09216 g005
Figure 5. Path diagram of the sub-variable structural equation model. ET: Equal Treatment; DT: Differentiated Treatment; EE: Equitable Experiences; EEt: Emotional Engagement; BE: Behavioral Engagement; CE: Cognitive Engagement; PLE: Perceived Learning Effect. *** p < 0.001; dashed lines represent non-significant paths.
Figure 5. Path diagram of the sub-variable structural equation model. ET: Equal Treatment; DT: Differentiated Treatment; EE: Equitable Experiences; EEt: Emotional Engagement; BE: Behavioral Engagement; CE: Cognitive Engagement; PLE: Perceived Learning Effect. *** p < 0.001; dashed lines represent non-significant paths.
Sustainability 17 09216 g005
Sustainability 17 09216 g006
Figure 6. Path diagram of the sub-variable structural equation model for the urban group. ET: Equal Treatment; DT: Differentiated Treatment; EE: Equitable Experiences; EEt: Emotional Engagement; BE: Behavioral Engagement; CE: Cognitive Engagement; PLE: Perceived Learning Effect. *** p < 0.001; dashed lines represent non-significant paths.
Figure 6. Path diagram of the sub-variable structural equation model for the urban group. ET: Equal Treatment; DT: Differentiated Treatment; EE: Equitable Experiences; EEt: Emotional Engagement; BE: Behavioral Engagement; CE: Cognitive Engagement; PLE: Perceived Learning Effect. *** p < 0.001; dashed lines represent non-significant paths.
Sustainability 17 09216 g006
Sustainability 17 09216 g007
Figure 7. Path diagram of the sub-variable structural equation model for the rural group. ET: Equal Treatment; DT: Differentiated Treatment; EE: Equitable Experiences; EEt: Emotional Engagement; BE: Behavioral Engagement; CE: Cognitive Engagement; PLE: Perceived Learning Effect. *** p < 0.001; dashed lines represent non-significant paths.
Figure 7. Path diagram of the sub-variable structural equation model for the rural group. ET: Equal Treatment; DT: Differentiated Treatment; EE: Equitable Experiences; EEt: Emotional Engagement; BE: Behavioral Engagement; CE: Cognitive Engagement; PLE: Perceived Learning Effect. *** p < 0.001; dashed lines represent non-significant paths.
Sustainability 17 09216 g007
Table 1. Reliability analysis of the Dual-Teacher Classroom scales: (a) Overall fit indices of the measurement model for the Dual-Teacher Classroom scales. (b) Psychometric properties of the Dual-Teacher Classroom scales.
Table 1. Reliability analysis of the Dual-Teacher Classroom scales: (a) Overall fit indices of the measurement model for the Dual-Teacher Classroom scales. (b) Psychometric properties of the Dual-Teacher Classroom scales.
DimensionNCronbach’s AlphaCronbach’s Alpha
Teaching EquityEqual Treatment120.9640.983
Differentiated Treatment70.954
Equitable Experiences80961
Learning EngagementEmotional Engagement50.9500.973
Behavioral Engagement50.951
Cognitive Engagement80.956
Perceived Learning Effect-5-0.950
(a)
X2/dfRMSEANFIRFICFIIFITLI
Standard<3<0.08>0.9>0.9>0.9>0.9>0.9
Value1.9330.0580.9790.9710.9890.9900.986
(b)
ConstructComposite Reliability (CR)Average Variance Extracted (AVE)HTMT Range with Other Constructs
Equal Treatment0.9650.7120.78–0.85
Differentiated Treatment0.9550.6980.80–0.87
Equitable Experiences0.9620.7050.82–0.88
Emotional Engagement0.9510.7340.65–0.75
Behavioral Engagement0.9520.7410.76–0.84
Cognitive Engagement0.9570.7180.78–0.85
Perceived Learning Effect0.9510.7610.70–0.82
Table 2. Descriptive statistics and intergroup difference analysis of variables for rural and urban groups in the Dual-Teacher Classroom.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics and intergroup difference analysis of variables for rural and urban groups in the Dual-Teacher Classroom.
VariableGroupNMeanSDp-Value
Teaching Equityurban1764.7710.4270.003
rural1024.5900.506
Learning Engagementurban1764.7250.4690.002
rural1024.5360.523
Perceived Learning Effecturban1764.7220.5250.013
rural1024.5510.591
Table 3. Descriptive statistics and intergroup difference analysis of sub-variables for rural and urban groups in the Dual-Teacher Classroom.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics and intergroup difference analysis of sub-variables for rural and urban groups in the Dual-Teacher Classroom.
Sub-VariableGroupNMeanSDp-Value
Equal Treatmenturban1764.7770.4300.005
rural1024.6120.518
Differentiated Treatmenturban1764.7480.4870.003
rural1024.5590.550
Equitable Experiencesurban1764.7900.4200.001
rural1024.5980.518
Emotional Engagementurban1764.6730.6370.065
rural1024.5310.573
Behavioral Engagementurban1764.7590.4750.001
rural1024.5370.546
Cognitive Engagementurban1764.7420.4340.001
rural1024.5390.531
Table 4. Correlations between sub-variables and perceived learning effect in the Dual-Teacher Classroom.
Table 4. Correlations between sub-variables and perceived learning effect in the Dual-Teacher Classroom.
12
Teaching Equity1.000
Learning Engagement0.808 **1.000
Perceived Learning Effect0.762 **0.793 **1.000
Note: ** At level 0.01 (two-tailed), a significant correlation.
Table 5. Correlation between sub-variables and perceived learning effect in the Dual-Teacher Classroom.
Table 5. Correlation between sub-variables and perceived learning effect in the Dual-Teacher Classroom.
1234567
ET1.000
DT0.857 **1.000
EE0.888 **0.893 **1.000
EEt0.608 **0.603 **0.626 **1.000
BE0.752 **0.761 **0.787 **0.763 **1.000
CE0.787 **0.793 **0.823 **0.725 **0.888 **1.000
PLE0.715 **0.733 **0.745 **0.652 **0.790 **0.782 **1.000
** At level 0.01 (two-tailed), a significant correlation. ET: Equal Treatment; DT: Differentiated Treatment; EE: Equitable Experiences; EEt: Emotional Engagement; BE: Behavioral Engagement; CE: Cognitive Engagement; PLE: Perceived Learning Effect.
Table 6. Urban group’s total effect, direct effect, and mediation effect decomposition.
Table 6. Urban group’s total effect, direct effect, and mediation effect decomposition.
EstimateseLLCIULCI% of Total
Total Effect0.9930.0550.8851.101-
Direct Effect0.5470.0770.3960.69955.086%
Indirect Effect0.4460.1450.1790.74444.914%
Model R2 for perceived learning effect = 0.621.
Table 7. Rural group’s total effect, direct effect, and mediation effect decomposition.
Table 7. Rural group’s total effect, direct effect, and mediation effect decomposition.
EstimateseLLCIULCI% of Total
Total Effect0.8060.0870.6340.978-
Direct Effect0.2560.135−0.0120.52331.762%
Indirect Effect0.5500.2390.1371.05468.238%
Model R2 for perceived learning effect = 0.587.
Table 8. Heterogeneity analysis of each path.
Table 8. Heterogeneity analysis of each path.
PathRural GroupUrban Group
ET → EEt−0.0770.550 ***
ET → BE0.0880.247 ***
ET → CE−0.0880.439 ***
DT → EEt0.403 ***0.088
DT → BE0.444 ***0.096
DT → CE0.452 ***0.093
EE → EEt0.491 ***0.256
EE → BE0.302 ***0.574 ***
EE → CE0.498 ***0.331 ***
EEt → PLE0.0890.051
BE → PLE0.2860.394 ***
CE → PLE0.3080.231
ET → PLE0.0410.102
DT → PLE0.1250.098
EE → PLE0.0160.272 ***
*** p < 0.001.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hu, G.; Zhu, Y.; Liu, D.; Liu, Z. Teaching Equity and Perceived Learning Effect in Dual-Teacher Classroom Under Education for Sustainable Development: A Comparative Study of Student Engagement Mechanisms Through the Opportunity-to-Learn Framework. Sustainability 2025, 17, 9216. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17209216

AMA Style

Hu G, Zhu Y, Liu D, Liu Z. Teaching Equity and Perceived Learning Effect in Dual-Teacher Classroom Under Education for Sustainable Development: A Comparative Study of Student Engagement Mechanisms Through the Opportunity-to-Learn Framework. Sustainability. 2025; 17(20):9216. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17209216

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hu, Guangwei, Yonghai Zhu, Di Liu, and Ziling Liu. 2025. "Teaching Equity and Perceived Learning Effect in Dual-Teacher Classroom Under Education for Sustainable Development: A Comparative Study of Student Engagement Mechanisms Through the Opportunity-to-Learn Framework" Sustainability 17, no. 20: 9216. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17209216

APA Style

Hu, G., Zhu, Y., Liu, D., & Liu, Z. (2025). Teaching Equity and Perceived Learning Effect in Dual-Teacher Classroom Under Education for Sustainable Development: A Comparative Study of Student Engagement Mechanisms Through the Opportunity-to-Learn Framework. Sustainability, 17(20), 9216. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17209216

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop