Teachers crave yet rarely receive qualitative performance feedback. Though student feedback has been studied, we know little about what kinds of feedback are useful to teachers for improving practice. This study begins to address the need in research on the nature of feedback teachers receive from classroom observations as well as on how teachers make sense of feedback. Written feedback to four teachers was analyzed using Feedback Intervention Theory. Teacher perceptions from “think-aloud” of feedback were also analyzed qualitatively.
Accomplished California Teachers. (2010). A quality teacher in every classroom: Creating a teacher evaluation system that works for California. Stanford, CA: National Board Resource Center, Stanford University.
2.
AtteberryA.BrykA.WalkerL.BiancarosaG. (2008). Variations in the amount of coaching in literacy collaborative schools. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.
3.
BakerE. L.BartonP. E.Darling-HammondL.HaertelE.LaddH. F.LinnR. L.. . . ShepardL. A. (2010, August27). Problems with the use of student test scores to evaluate teachers (Economic Policy Institute Briefing Paper #278). http://www.epi.org/publication/bp278/
4.
Bangert-DrownsR. L.KulikC. C.KulikJ. A.MorganM. (1991). The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61, 213-238.
5.
BlaseJ.BlaseJ. (2004). Handbook of instructional leadership: How successful principals promote teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
6.
BlumbergA. (1985). Where we came from: Notes on supervision in the 1840s. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 1(1), 56-65.
7.
BoydD.GrossmanP. L.LankfordH.LoebS.WyckoffJ. (2009). Teacher preparation and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31, 416-440.
8.
BranchG.HanushekE. A.RivkinS. G. (2009). Estimating principal effectiveness (CALDER Working Paper 32). Washington, DC: CALDER.
9.
BrewerD. J. (1993). Principals and student outcomes: Evidence from U.S. high schools. Economics of Education Review, 12, 281-292.
10.
BrinkoK. T. (1993). The practice of giving feedback to improve teaching: What is effective?Journal of Higher Education, 64, 574-593.
11.
CarverC. S.ScheierM. F. (1990). Origins and functions of positive and negative affect: A control-process view. Psychological Review, 97, 19-35.
12.
CharmazK. (2001). Grounded theory. In EmersonR. M. (Ed.), Contemporary field research (pp. 335-352). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
CubanL. (1988). The managerial imperative and the practice of leadership in schools. Albany: State University of New York Press.
15.
DanielsonC. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
16.
Darling-HammondL. (2013). Getting teacher evaluation right: What really matters for effectiveness and improvement. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
17.
EbertsR. W.StoneJ. A. (1988). Student achievement in public schools: Do principals make a difference?Economics of Education Review, 7, 291-299.
18.
EricssonK. A.SimonH. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (Rev. ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press.
19.
FraseL. E.StreshlyW. (1994). Lack of accuracy, feedback, and commitment in teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 8(1), 47–57.
20.
GlazermanS.LoebS.GoldhaberD.StaigerD. O.RaudenbushS.WhitehurstG. (2010). Evaluating teachers: The important role of value-added (Brown Center on Education Policy at Brookings). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
21.
GlickmanC. D. (1990). Supervision of instruction: A developmental approach (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
22.
GoldhammerR. (1969). Clinical supervision: Special methods for the supervision of teachers. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
23.
GrissomJ.LoebS.MasterB. (2013). Effective instructional time use for school leaders: Longitudinal evidence from observations of principals. Educational Researcher, 42, 433-444.
GrossmanP.LoebS.CohenJ.WyckoffJ. (2013). Measure for measure: The relationship between measures of instructional practice in middle school English language arts and teachers’ value-added scores. American Journal of Education, 119, 445-470.
26.
HallingerP.BickmanL.DavisK. (1996). School context, principal leadership, and student reading achievement. Elementary School Journal, 96, 527-549.
27.
HallingerP.HeckR. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980-1995. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5-44.
28.
HarlenW. (2007). Holding up a mirror to classroom practice. Primary Science Review, 100, 29-31.
29.
HattieJ.TimperleyH. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81-112.
30.
HillH. C.BlunkM.CharalambousC.LewisJ.PhelpsG. C.SleepL.BallD. L. (2008). Mathematical knowledge for teaching and the mathematical quality of instruction: An exploratory study. Cognition and Instruction, 26, 430-511.
31.
HorngE.KalogridesD.LoebS. (2009). Principal preferences and the unequal distribution of principals across schools (CALDER Working Paper No. 36). Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
32.
HunterM. C. (1982). Mastery teaching. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
33.
IlgenD. R.FisherC. D.TaylorM. S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(4), 349–371.
34.
KanferR.AckermanP. L. (1989). Motivation and cognitive abilities: An integrative/aptitude-treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 657-690.
35.
KinickiA. J.PrussiaG. E.WuB. J.McKee-RyanF. M. (2004). A covariance structure analysis of employees’ response to performance feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 1057–1069.
36.
KlugerA. N.DeNisiA. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A Historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254-284.
37.
KlugerA. N.DeNisiA. S. (1998). Feedback interventions: Towards the understanding of a double-edged sword. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7(3), 67-72.
38.
KoestnerR.ZuckermanM.KoestnerJ. (1987). Praise, involvement, and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 383-390.
39.
LeithwoodK. A.DukeD. L. (1999). A century’s quest to understand school leadership. In LouisK. S.MurphyJ. (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration (pp. 45-72). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
40.
LeithwoodK. A.LouisK. S. (2012). Linking leadership to student learning. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
41.
LeithwoodK. A.LouisK. S.AndersonS.WahlstromK. (2004). How leadership influences student learning: Review of research. New York, NY: Wallace Foundation.
LoebS.Darling-HammondL.LuczakJ. (2005). How teaching conditions predict teacher turnover in California schools. Peabody Journal of Education, 80(3), 44-70
44.
MargolisJ. (2012). Hybrid teacher leaders and the new professional development ecology. Professional Development in Education, 38(2), 291–315.
MatsumuraL. C.GarnierH. E.SpybrookJ. (2012). The effect of content-focused coaching on the quality of classroom text discussions. Journal of Teacher Education, 63, 214-228.
47.
McCollumJ. A.HemmeterM. L.HsiehW.Y. (2011). Coaching teachers for emergent literacy instruction using performance-based feedback. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 20(10), 1-10.
48.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
49.
NarcissS.HuthK. (2004). How to design informative tutoring feedback for multi-media learning. In NiegemannH. M.LeutnerD.BrunkenR. (Eds.), Instructional design for multimedia learning (pp. 181-195). Munster, NY: Waxmann.
50.
NyeB.KonstantopoulosS.HedgesL. V. (2004). How large are teacher effects?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 237-257.
PrestineN. A.NelsonB. S. (2005). How can educational leaders support and promote teaching and learning? New conceptions of learning and leading in schools. In FirestoneW. A.RiehlC. (Eds.), A new agenda for research in educational leadership (pp. 46-60). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
53.
PurkeyS.SmithM. (1983). Effective schools: A review. Elementary School Journal, 83, 427-453.
54.
RivkinS. G.HanushekE. A.KainJ. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73, 417-458.
55.
RossJ. A. (1992). Teacher efficacy and the effects of coaching on student achievement. Canadian Journal of Education, 17(1), 51-65.
56.
ScheelerM. C.RuhlK. L.McAfeeJ. K. (2004). Providing performance feedback to teachers: A review. Teacher Education and Special Education, 27, 396-407.
57.
SeidmanI. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
58.
ShulmanL. S. (1983). Autonomy and obligation: The remote control of teaching. In ShulmanL. S.SykesG. (Eds.), Handbook of teaching and policy (pp. 484-504). New York, NY: Longman.
59.
ShuteV. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78, 153-189.
60.
SteinM. K.SpillaneJ. (2005). What can researchers on educational leadership learn from research on teaching? Building a bridge. In FirestoneW. A.RiehlC. (Eds.), A new agenda for research in educational leadership (pp. 28-45). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
61.
StraussA. L.CorbinJ. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
62.
TaylorF. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management (Reprinted 1967). New York, NY: Norton.
63.
TochT.RothmanR. (2008). Rush to judgment: Teacher evaluation in public education. Washington, DC: Education Sector.
64.
TuytensM.DevosG. (2012). Importance of system and leadership in performance appraisal. Personnel Review, 41(6), 756–776.
65.
TracyS. J. (1995). How historical concepts of supervision relate to supervisory practices today. Clearing House, 68, 320-324.
66.
WatersT.MarzanoR. J.McNultyB. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about effects of leadership on student achievement (Working Paper). Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.
67.
WeisbergD.SextonS.MulhernJ.KeelingD. (2009). The widget effect: Our national failure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher effectiveness. Brooklyn, NY: New Teacher Project. Retrieved from http://widgeteffect.org/
68.
WeissR. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies. New York, NY: Free Press.
