This study examined classroom practices of effective versus less effective teachers (based on student achievement gain scores in reading and mathematics). In Phase I of the study, hierarchical linear modeling was used to assess the teacher effectiveness of 307 fifth-grade teachers in terms of student learning gains. In Phase II, 32 teachers (17 top quartile and 15 bottom quartile) participated in an in-depth cross-case analysis of their instructional and classroom management practices. Classroom observation findings (Phase II) were compared with teacher effectiveness data (Phase I) to determine the impact of selected teacher behaviors on the teachers’ overall effectiveness drawn from a single year of value-added data.
AdamsC.SinghK. (1998). Direct and indirect effects of school learning variables on the academic achievement of African American 10th graders. Journal of Negro Education, 67(1), 48-66.
2.
AgneK. J. (1992). Caring: The expert teacher’s edge. Educational Horizons, 70(3), 120-124.
3.
AllingtonR. L. (2002). What I’ve learned about effective reading instruction. Phi Delta Kappan, 83, 740-747.
4.
AndersonL. W.KrathwolD. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
5.
Assessment Reform Group. (1999). Assessment for learning: Beyond the black box. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge School of Education.
6.
BainH. P.JacobsR. (1990, September). The case for smaller classes and better teachers. Streamlined Seminar—National Association of Elementary School Principals, 9(1).
7.
BembryK. L.JordanH. R.GomezE.AndersonM. C.MendroR. L. (1998, April). Policy implications of long-term teacher effects on student achievement. Paper presented at the 1998 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
8.
BerlinerD. C.RosenshineB. V. (1977). The acquisition of knowledge in the classroom. In AndersonR. C.SpiroR. J.MontagueW. E. (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge (pp. 375-396). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
9.
BernardB. (2003). Turnaround teachers and schools. In WilliamsB. (Ed.), Closing the achievement gap: A vision for changing beliefs and practices (pp. 115-137). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
10.
BlackP.HarrisonC.LeeC.MarshallB.WiliamD. (2004). Working inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(1), 9-21.
11.
BlackP.WiliamD. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-148.
12.
BlackR.Howard-JonesA. (2000). Reflections on best and worst teachers: An experiential perspective of teaching. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 34(1), 1-13.
13.
BloomB. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals: Handbook I. Cognitive domain. New York: Longmans Green.
14.
BondL.SmithT.BakerW. K.HattieJ. A. (2000). The certification system of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards: A construct and consequential validity study. Greensboro: University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Center for Educational Research and Evaluation.
15.
CampbellJ.KyriakidesL.MuijsD.RobinsonW. (2004). Assessing teacher effectiveness: Developing a differential model. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
16.
CarrollJ. M. (1994). The Copernican plan evaluated: The evolution of a revolution. Topsfield, MA: Copernican Associates.
17.
CaweltiG. (Ed.). (2004). Handbook of research on improving student achievement (2nd ed.). Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
18.
ChappuisS.StigginsR. J. (2002). Classroom assessment for learning. Educational Leadership, 60(1), 40-43.
19.
ColemanJ. S.CampbellE. Q.HobsonC. J.McPartlandJ.MoodA. M.WeinfeldF. D.YorkR. L. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
20.
CollinsonV.KilleavyM.StephensonH. J. (1999). Exemplary teachers: Practicing an ethic of care in England, Ireland, and the United States. Journal for a Just and Caring Education, 5(4), 349-366.
21.
CottonK. (2000). The schooling practices that matter most. Portland, OR, and Alexandria, VA: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
22.
CovinoE. A.IwanickiE. (1996). Experienced teachers: Their constructs on effective teaching. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11, 325-363.
23.
CradlerJ.McNabbM.FreemanM.BurchettR. (2002). How does technology influence student learning?Learning and Leading With Technology, 29(8), 46-50.
24.
Darling-HammondL. (1996). What matters most: A competent teacher for every child. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 193-200.
25.
Darling-HammondL. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Educational Policy Analysis Archive, 8(1). Retrieved from http://olam.ed.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1
26.
Darling-HammondL.BransfordJ. (2005). (Eds.). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
27.
EmmerE. T.EvertsonC. M.AndersonL. M. (1980). Effective classroom management at the beginning of the school year. Elementary School Journal, 80 (5), 219-231.
28.
EmmerE. T.EvertsonC. M.WorshamM. E. (2003). Classroom management for secondary teachers. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
29.
FidlerP. (2002). The relationship between teacher instructional techniques and characteristics and student achievement in reduced size classes. Los Angeles: Los Angeles Unified School District.
30.
GoeL. (2008, May). Key issue: Using value-added models to identify and support highly effective teachers. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.
GoldhaberD.HansenM. (2010). Using performance on the job to inform teacher tenure decisions: Brief 10. Washington, DC: Urban Institute, National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research.
34.
GoodT. L.BrophyJ. E. (1997). Looking in classrooms (7th ed.). New York: Addison-Wesley.
35.
GoodT. L.McCaslinM. M. (1992). Teacher licensure and certification. In AlkinM.C. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational research (6th ed., pp. 1352-1388). New York: Macmillan.
36.
GuskeyT. R. (Ed.). (1996). Communicating student learning: 1996 yearbook of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
37.
HanushekE. (1971). Teacher characteristics and gains in student achievement: Estimation using micro data. American Economic Review, 61(2), 280-288.
HanushekE. A.KainJ. F.O’BrienD. M.RivkinS. G. (2005). The market for teacher quality. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w11154.pdf
40.
HattieJ.TimperleyH. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.
41.
HeistadD. (1999, April). Teachers who beat the odds: Value-added reading instruction in Minneapolis 2nd grade. Paper presented at the Annual American Educational Research Association Conference, Montreal, Canada.
42.
JohnsonB. L. (1997). An organizational analysis of multiple perspectives of effective teaching: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11, 69-87.
43.
JordanH. R.MendroR. L.WeerasingheD. (1997, July). Teacher effect on longitudinal student achievement. Paper presented at the CREATE Annual Meeting, Indianapolis, IN.
44.
KnappM. S.ShieldsP. M.TurnbullB. J. (1992). Academic challenge for the children of poverty: Summary report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Policy and Planning.
45.
LangerJ.A. (2001). Beating the odds: Teaching middle and high school students to read and write well. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 837-880.
46.
LewisL.ParsadB.CareyN.BartfaiN.FarrisE.SmerdonB. (1999). Teacher quality: A report on the preparation and qualifications of public school teachers. Education Statistics Quarterly, 1(1). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/quarterly/Vol_1/1_1/2-esq11-a.asp
47.
MarzanoR. J. (2003). What works in schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
48.
MarzanoR. J. (2006). Assessment and grading that work. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
49.
MarzanoR. J.PickeringD.McTigheJ. (1993). Assessing student outcomes: Performance assessment using the dimensions of learning model. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
50.
MasonD. A.SchroeterD. D.CombsR. K.WashingtonK. (1992). Assigning average-achieving eighth graders to advanced mathematics classes in an urban junior high. Elementary School Journal, 92(5), 587-599.
51.
MatsumuraL. C.Patthey-ChavezG. G.ValedsR.GarnierH. (2002). Teacher feedback, writing assignment quality, and third-grade students’ revision in lower- and higher-achieving urban schools. Elementary School Journal, 103, 3-26.
52.
McBerH. (2000). Research into teacher effectiveness: A model of teacher effectiveness (Research Report No. 216). Nottingham, UK: Department for Education and Employment.
53.
MendroR. L. (1998). Student achievement and school and teacher accountability. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12, 257-267.
54.
MolnarA.SmithP.ZahorikJ.PalmerA.HalbachA.EhrleK. (1999). Evaluating the SAGE program: A pilot program in targeted pupil-teacher reduction in Wisconsin. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(2), 165-178.
55.
MunozM. A.ChangF. C. (2007). The elusive relationship between teacher characteristics and student academic growth: A longitudinal multilevel model for change. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 20, 147-164.
National Association of Secondary School Principals. (1997). Students say: What makes a good teacher?Schools in the Middle, 6(5), 15-17.
58.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1997). Time spent teaching core academic subjects in elementary schools: Comparisons across community, school, teacher, and student characteristics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
59.
NyeB.KonstantopoulosS.HedgesL. V. (2004). How large are teacher effects?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(3), 237-257.
60.
OddenA. (2004). Lessons learned about standards-based teacher evaluation systems. Peabody Journal of Education, 79(4), 126-137.
61.
PalardyG. J.RumbergerR. W. (2008). Teacher effectiveness in first grade: The importance of background qualifications, attitudes, and instructional practices for student learning. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(2), 111-140.
62.
PeartN. A.CampbellF. A. (1999). At-risk students’ perceptions of teacher effectiveness. Journal for a Just and Caring Education, 5(3), 269-284.
63.
PetersonK. D. (2000). Teacher evaluation: A comprehensive guide to new directions and practices (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
64.
PetersonK. D. (2006). Using multiple data sources in teacher evaluation. In StrongeJ. H. (Ed.), Evaluating teaching: A guide to current thinking and best practice (2nd ed., pp. 212-232). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
65.
PressleyM.Wharton-McDonaldR.AllingtonR.BlockC. C.MorrowL. (1998). The nature of effective first-grade literacy instruction (CELA Research Report No. 11007). Albany, NY: Center on English Learning and Achievement.
66.
RandallR.SekulskiJ. L.SilbergA. (2003). Results of direct instruction reading program evaluation longitudinal results: First through third grade, 2002-2003. Milwaukee, WI: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Retrieved from http://www.uwm.edu/News/PR/04.01/DI_Final_Report_2003.pdf
67.
RileyR. W. (1998). Our teachers should be excellent, and they should look like America. Education and Urban Society, 31, 18-29.
68.
RivkinS. G.HanushekE. A.KainJ. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417-458.
69.
RockoffJ. E. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: Evidence from panel data. American Economic Review, 94(2), 247-252.
70.
RothsteinJ. (2010). Teacher quality in educational production: Tracking, decay, and student achievement. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125(1),175-214.
71.
RowanB.ChiangF. S.MillerR. J. (1997). Using research on employees’ performance to study the effects of teachers on student achievement. Sociology of Education, 70, 256-284.
72.
RowanB.CorrentiR.MillerR. J. (2002). What large-scale, survey research tells us about teacher effects on student achievement: Insights from the Prospects study of elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 104(8), 1525-1567.
73.
SandersW. L.HornS. P. (1994). The Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS): Mixed-model methodology in educational assessment. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 8, 299-311.
74.
SassT. R. (2008). The stability of value-added measures of teacher quality and implications for teacher compensation policy. Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/1001266_stabilityofvalue.pdf
75.
SchacterJ. (1999). The impact of education technology on student achievement: What the most current research has to say. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Exchange on Educational Technology.
76.
SchalockH. D.SchalockM. D.CowartB.MytonD. (1993). Extending teacher assessment beyond knowledge and skills: An emerging focus on teacher accomplishments. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 7, 105-133.
77.
SternbergR. J. (2003). What is an “expert student”?Educational Researcher, 32(8), 5-9.
78.
StraussR. P.SawyerE. A. (1986). Some new evidence on teacher and student competencies. Economics of Education Review, 5, 41-48.
79.
StrongeJ. H. (2002). Qualities of effective teachers. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
80.
StrongeJ. H. (2006). Teacher evaluation and school improvement: Improving the educational landscape. In StrongeJ. H. (Ed.), Evaluating teaching: A guide to current thinking and best practice. (2nd ed., pp. 1-23). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
81.
StrongeJ. H. (2007). Qualities of effective teachers (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
82.
StrongeJ. H.McColskyW.WardT.TuckerP. (2005). Teacher effectiveness, student achievement, and National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. Greensboro, NC: SERVE, University of North Carolina at Greensboro.
83.
StrongeJ. H.TuckerP. D. (2003, Summer). Handbook on teacher evaluation. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
84.
StrongeJ. H.WardT. J.TuckerP. D.HindmanJ. L. (2008). What is the relationship between teacher quality and student achievement? An exploratory study. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 20(3-4), 165-184.
85.
TaylorB. M.PearsonP. D.ClarkK. F.WalpoleS. (1999). Center for the improvement of early reading achievement: Effective schools/accomplished teachers. Reading Teacher, 53(2), 156-159.
86.
Tschannen-MoranM. (2000, Spring). The ties that bind: The importance of trust in schools. Essentially Yours, 4, 1-5.
87.
Tschannen-MoranM.HoyA. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805.
88.
TuckerP. D.StrongeJ. H. (2006). Use of student achievement in teacher evaluation. In StrongeJ. H. (Ed.), Evaluating teaching: A guide to current thinking and best practice. (2nd ed., pp. 152-169). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
89.
ViaderoD. (2008a, May7). Scrutiny heightens for “value added” research method. Education Week, 27(36), 1, 12-13.
90.
ViaderoD. (2008b, May7). “Value-added” pioneer says stinging critique of method is off-base. Education Week, 27(36), 13.
91.
WahlageG.RutterR. (1986). Evaluation of model program for at-risk students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
92.
WangM.HaertelG. D.WalbergH. (1993). What helps students learn?Educational Leadership, 51(4), 74-79.
93.
WeissI. R.PasleyJ. D.SmithP. S.BanilowerE. R.HeckD. J. (2003). A study of K-12 mathematics and science education in the United States. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.
94.
WenglinskyH. (1998). Does it compute? The relationship between educational technology and student achievement in mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
95.
WenglinskyH. (2000). How teaching matters: Bringing the classroom back into discussions of teacher quality. Princeton, NJ: Milken Family Foundation and Educational Testing Service.
96.
WenglinskyH. (2004). Closing the racial achievement gap: The role of reforming instructional practices. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(64). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n64/
97.
WentzelK. (2002). Are effective teachers like good parents? Teaching styles and student adjustment in early adolescence. Child Development, 73, 287-301.
98.
WolkS. (2002). Being good: Rethinking classroom management and student discipline. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
99.
WrightS. P.HornS. P.SandersW. L. (1997). Teacher and classroom context effects on student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11, 57-67.
100.
YesseldykeJ.BoltD. M. (2007). Effect of technology enhanced continuous progress monitoring on math achievement. School Psychology Review, 36(3), 453-467.
