The following is an excerpt from Chapter 12: “Study Findings” of Dr. Dianna Whitlock’s published book, “Teacher Evaluation as a Growth Process.” To purchase the full book, visit Amazon or Barnes&Noble.
Part 1, Chapter 12: Study Findings
This study analyzed the relationship between teacher effectiveness ratings and use of a teacher evaluation system. Specifically, the research questions were 1) Was there improvement in teacher performance as represented by evaluation data of those teachers whose schools have utilized Standard for Success consistently over a three-year period? and 2) What was the impact of Standard for Success as a system of teacher evaluation management and feedback?
In the analysis of trend data, a significant difference existed among the highly effective, improvement necessary, and ineffective category ratings. There was no significant difference in the effective category rating from the 2013-14 school year to the 2015-16 school year.
In the comparative study between the cohort and non-cohort groups, a significant difference was found in all rating categories for the instructional indicators during observations of teachers.
Less Than Proficient Markings
Teacher evaluation data from both groups (cohort and non-cohort) of teachers was collected in the Standard for Success evaluation software. While specific percentages by sub indicator were excluded from the statistical portion of this study, researchers examined percentages of the representative sample of Indiana teachers who were marked less than proficient in instructional indicators under the instructional domain. This data was analyzed for support of the statistical findings in this study, and could be utilized to drive professional development and programming for teacher education preparation.
The area with the largest number of teachers marked less than proficient was 2.7, maximizing instructional time, with 14.09% of teachers in this sample marked less than proficient. This was a slight increase from 2013, when 13.75% of teachers were marked less than proficient in this indicator. Since the cohort group showed statistical improvement in this indicator, the decrease in overall proficiency may have been within the non-cohort group, as this group scored significantly higher in the improvement necessary and ineffective areas than the cohort group for this indicator.
The second highest percentage was found in indicator 2.3, student engagement, with 12.75% of teachers scoring less than proficient. However, this 2016 percentage was actually a decrease from 2013 (13.46%). The next two areas of concern for practicing teachers were 2.1 (student understanding and mastery of lesson objective) and 2.4 (checks for understanding). Indicator 2.1 had 11% of teachers practicing below the level of proficiency, and 2.4 demonstrated 11.9%.
To continue reading the full study findings, click here to purchase the full book.