Get documents about "How Principals Affect Teachers Performance
Description
How Principals Affect Teachers Performance document sample
Document Sample
THE RIPPLE EFFECT OF PRINCIPAL
BEHAVIOR:
Improving Teacher Instructional
Practices through Principal-Teacher
Interactions
Kim Banta & Brennon Sapp
A Dissertation Defense presented to
the University of Louisville
in partial fulfillment
of the requirements of the Degree
of Doctor of Education
Goal of the Study
To discover how a specific set of
principal-teacher interactions affect:
Key Constructs
Teacher Instructional Practices
Student Performance
Frequency & Focus of Teacher
Conversations
Page 11
Research Questions
RQ-1 How will the treatment of principal-teacher
interactions affect teachers’ instructional
practices?
RQ-2 How will changes in teachers’ instructional
practices, initiated by the set of principal-teacher
interactions, affect student performance?
RQ-3 How will changes in principal-teacher
interactions affect the frequency and focus of
teacher conversations with principals, students,
and other teachers?
Page 11
Conceptual Framework
Page 8-11, Figure 1
Organization of Methodology
Research Question Research Design Measures Analysis
Quality Instruction
Teacher Instructional
1 Pretest/Post test Rubric (4 Domains & ANOVA
Practices
Overall)
Single Cross-Sectional
Student Grades & Linear
2 Student Performance Interrupted Time
Discipline Referrals Regression
Series
Freq & Focus of
Teacher & Student
3 Teacher Pre-Mid-Post test Chi Square
Surveys
Conversations
Teacher Instructional Practices
RQ-1
Research Question Research Design Measures Analysis
Quality Instruction
Teacher Instructional
1 Pretest/Post test Rubric ANOVA
Practices
(4 Domains & Overall)
RQ 1 - How will the treatment of principal-teacher interactions affect teachers’
instructional practices?
Methodology
Table 15
*Indicates a small effect size (0.2<d< 0.5); **Indicates a medium effect size (0.5<d< 0.8); ***Indicates a large effect size (d >0.8). (Cohen, 1988)
Pre Post Effect size
t p-value
(SD) (SD) (Cohen’s d)
TEACHER-COMPLETED
Planning & Preparation 3.56 3.74 2.75 0.008 0.42*
(0.48) (0.38)
Learning Environment 3.69 3.85 2.75 0.008 0.39*
(0.46) (0.36)
Instruction 3.51 3.58 0.90 0.374 –
(0.50) (0.48)
Assessment 3.30 3.39 1.17 0.249 –
(0.62) (0.48)
Overall 3.52 3.64 2.23 0.031 0.26*
(0.51) (0.42)
PRINCIPAL-COMPLETED
Planning & Preparation 3.16 3.2 1.32 0.194 –
(0.78) (0.770)
Learning Environment 3.26 3.29 0.858 0.395 –
(0.72) (0.70)
Instruction 2.84 3.09 4.99 < 0.001 0.40*
(0.64) (0.60)
Assessment 2.69 2.98 4.29 < 0.001 0.42*
(0.76) (0.60)
Overall 2.98 3.14 3.75 < 0.001 0.23* Table 15
(0.73) (0.67) Page 85
Teacher Instructional Practices
(Change in instructional practices)
• Teachers and principals differed in where they
perceived improvement.
• According to teachers, instructional practices improved
in two domains – Planning & Preparation and Learning
Environment.
• According to principals, instructional practices
improved in two domains – Instruction and Assessment
• It is more difficult for principals to observe Planning &
Preparation. Teachers have closer personal knowledge
of Planning & Preparation and Learning Environment.
Pages 110
Teacher Principal Effect size
t p-value
(SD) (SD) (Cohen’s d)
PRETEST
Planning & Preparation 3.56 3.16 3.39 0.001 0.62***
(0.48) (0.78)
Learning Environment 3.69 3.26 3.95 < 0.001 0.71***
(0.46) (0.72)
Instruction 3.51 2.84 6.54 < 0.001 1.17***
(0.50) (0.64)
Assessment 3.3 2.69 4.78 < 0.001 0.88***
(0.62) (0.76)
Overall 3.52 2.98 5.03 < 0.001 0.86***
(0.51) (0.73)
POSTEST
Planning & Preparation 3.74 3.2 4.54 < 0.001 0.89***
(0.38) (0.770)
Learning Environment 3.85 3.29 5.42 < 0.001 1.01***
(0.36) (0.70)
Instruction 3.58 3.09 4.65 < 0.001 0.90***
(0.48) (0.60)
Assessment 3.39 2.98 3.95 < 0.001 0.75***
(0.48) (0.60)
Overall 3.64 3.14 5.18 < 0.001 0.89*** Table 16
(0.42) (0.67) Page 86
Teacher Instructional Practices
(Differences in the Ratings of Instructional Practices)
• Principals’ ratings of instructional practices were
significantly different than teacher’s ratings of
instructional practices in each domain.
• Principals’ ratings of instructional practices were
lower than the teachers instructional practices
ratings in each domain.
Page 87-89 & 112
Teacher Instructional Practices
(Differences in the Ratings of Instructional Practices)
• Principals’ ratings of instructional practices are hypothesized to be
more valid and reliable than teachers ratings.
– Extensive procedures were used throughout the study to increase the
reliability and validity of principal ratings – (see chapter three).
– Principals are trained to be observers of instruction and therefore see
changes in instruction that the teacher may not signify as
improvement. (Fullan, 2005b)
– According to Ross, 1985, Schacter & Thum 2004, found that teachers
over-rated their quality of instructional practices on effort.
• A review of the literature revealed that within other professions the
validity of self evaluations vary depending on the actual quality of
the individual performing the self-evaluation. (Dunning et al.,2003;
Kruger & Dunning, 1999; and Yariv, 2009)
Page 87-89 & 112
Grouping Teachers into
Performance Levels
(Cohen’s d)
(Cohen’s d)
(Cohen’s d)
Table 17
Effect size
Effect size
Effect size
p-value
p-value
p-value
Teacher Principal Teacher Principal Teacher Principal
Page 90 (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD)
PRETEST-HIGH PERFORMING PRETEST-MEDIUM PERFORMING PRETEST-LOW PERFORMING
TEACHERS TEACHERS TEACHERS
Planning &
Preparation
3.60 3.83 0.333 – 3.66 3.28 0.005 0.77** 3.43 2.41 < 0.001 2.52***
(0.56) (0.61) (0.51) (0.47) (0.35) (0.45)
Learning
Environment
3.68 3.79 0.583 – 3.77 3.47 0.023 0.75** 3.64 2.59 < 0.001 2.13***
(0.46) (0.64) (0.44) (0.35) (0.50) (0.49)
Instruction 3.60 3.34 0.168 – 3.53 2.99 0.001 1.28*** 3.42 2.23 < 0.001 2.75***
(0.53) (0.55) (0.55) (0.23) (0.42) (0.45)
Assessment 3.34 3.28 0.775 – 3.40 2.85 0.013 1.00*** 3.15 2.02 < 0.001 2.31***
(0.71) (0.66) (0.61) (0.48) (0.54) (0.44)
Overall 3.56 3.56 0.987 – 3.59 3.15 0.002 1.11*** 3.41 2.31 < 0.001 2.80***
(0.50) (0.57) (0.47) (0.31) (0.38) (0.41)
POSTTEST-HIGH PERFORMING POSTTEST-MEDIUM PERFORMING POSTTEST-LOW PERFORMING
TEACHERS TEACHERS TEACHERS
Planning &
Preparation
3.85 4.09 0.072 – 3.68 3.26 0.001 1.27*** 3.70 2.45 < 0.001 3.15***
(0.40) (0.380) (0.33) (0.33) (0.39) (0.40)
Learning
Environment
3.93 4.03 0.384 – 3.86 3.38 < 0.001 1.81*** 3.78 2.62 < 0.001 2.36***
(0.37) (0.33) (0.31) (0.21) (0.42) (0.56)
Instruction 3.77 3.71 0.677 – 3.38 3.17 0.039 0.71** 3.60 2.52 < 0.001 2.22***
(0.51) (0.35) (0.35) (0.23) (0.51) (0.47)
Assessment
3.48 3.56 0.642 – 3.32 3.01 0.013 1.03*** 3.37 2.41 < 0.001 2.07***
(0.53) (0.50) (0.38) (0.19) (0.52) (0.40)
Overall 3.76 3.85 0.423 – 3.56 3.21 < 0.001 1.73*** 3.61 2.50 < 0.001 2.87***
(0.39) (0.31) (0.25) (0.14) (0.40) (0.37)
(Cohen’s d)
(Cohen’s d)
(Cohen’s d)
Table 17
Effect size
Effect size
Effect size
p-value
p-value
p-value
Teacher Principal Teacher Principal Teacher Principal
Page 90 (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD)
PRETEST-HIGH PERFORMING PRETEST-MEDIUM PERFORMING PRETEST-LOW PERFORMING
TEACHERS TEACHERS TEACHERS
Planning &
Preparation
3.60 3.83 0.333 – 3.66 3.28 0.005 0.77** 3.43 2.41 < 0.001 2.52***
(0.56) (0.61) (0.51) (0.47) (0.35) (0.45)
Learning
Environment
3.68 3.79 0.583 – 3.77 3.47 0.023 0.75** 3.64 2.59 < 0.001 2.13***
(0.46) (0.64) (0.44) (0.35) (0.50) (0.49)
Instruction 3.60 3.34 0.168 – 3.53 2.99 0.001 1.28*** 3.42 2.23 < 0.001 2.75***
(0.53) (0.55) (0.55) (0.23) (0.42) (0.45)
Assessment 3.34 3.28 0.775 – 3.40 2.85 0.013 1.00*** 3.15 2.02 < 0.001 2.31***
(0.71) (0.66) (0.61) (0.48) (0.54) (0.44)
Overall 3.56 3.56 0.987 – 3.59 3.15 0.002 1.11*** 3.41 2.31 < 0.001 2.80***
(0.50) (0.57) (0.47) (0.31) (0.38) (0.41)
POSTTEST-HIGH PERFORMING POSTTEST-MEDIUM PERFORMING POSTTEST-LOW PERFORMING
TEACHERS TEACHERS TEACHERS
Planning &
Preparation
3.85 4.09 0.072 – 3.68 3.26 0.001 1.27*** 3.70 2.45 < 0.001 3.15***
(0.40) (0.380) (0.33) (0.33) (0.39) (0.40)
Learning
Environment
3.93 4.03 0.384 – 3.86 3.38 < 0.001 1.81*** 3.78 2.62 < 0.001 2.36***
(0.37) (0.33) (0.31) (0.21) (0.42) (0.56)
Instruction 3.77 3.71 0.677 – 3.38 3.17 0.039 0.71** 3.60 2.52 < 0.001 2.22***
(0.51) (0.35) (0.35) (0.23) (0.51) (0.47)
Assessment
3.48 3.56 0.642 – 3.32 3.01 0.013 1.03*** 3.37 2.41 < 0.001 2.07***
(0.53) (0.50) (0.38) (0.19) (0.52) (0.40)
Overall 3.76 3.85 0.423 – 3.56 3.21 < 0.001 1.73*** 3.61 2.50 < 0.001 2.87***
(0.39) (0.31) (0.25) (0.14) (0.40) (0.37)
(Cohen’s d)
(Cohen’s d)
(Cohen’s d)
Table 17
Effect size
Effect size
Effect size
p-value
p-value
p-value
Teacher Principal Teacher Principal Teacher Principal
Page 90 (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD)
PRETEST-HIGH PERFORMING PRETEST-MEDIUM PERFORMING PRETEST-LOW PERFORMING
TEACHERS TEACHERS TEACHERS
Planning &
Preparation
3.60 3.83 0.333 – 3.66 3.28 0.005 0.77** 3.43 2.41 < 0.001 2.52***
(0.56) (0.61) (0.51) (0.47) (0.35) (0.45)
Learning
Environment
3.68 3.79 0.583 – 3.77 3.47 0.023 0.75** 3.64 2.59 < 0.001 2.13***
(0.46) (0.64) (0.44) (0.35) (0.50) (0.49)
Instruction 3.60 3.34 0.168 – 3.53 2.99 0.001 1.28*** 3.42 2.23 < 0.001 2.75***
(0.53) (0.55) (0.55) (0.23) (0.42) (0.45)
Assessment 3.34 3.28 0.775 – 3.40 2.85 0.013 1.00*** 3.15 2.02 < 0.001 2.31***
(0.71) (0.66) (0.61) (0.48) (0.54) (0.44)
Overall 3.56 3.56 0.987 – 3.59 3.15 0.002 1.11*** 3.41 2.31 < 0.001 2.80***
(0.50) (0.57) (0.47) (0.31) (0.38) (0.41)
POSTTEST-HIGH PERFORMING POSTTEST-MEDIUM PERFORMING POSTTEST-LOW PERFORMING
TEACHERS TEACHERS TEACHERS
Planning &
Preparation
3.85 4.09 0.072 – 3.68 3.26 0.001 1.27*** 3.70 2.45 < 0.001 3.15***
(0.40) (0.380) (0.33) (0.33) (0.39) (0.40)
Learning
Environment
3.93 4.03 0.384 – 3.86 3.38 < 0.001 1.81*** 3.78 2.62 < 0.001 2.36***
(0.37) (0.33) (0.31) (0.21) (0.42) (0.56)
Instruction 3.77 3.71 0.677 – 3.38 3.17 0.039 0.71** 3.60 2.52 < 0.001 2.22***
(0.51) (0.35) (0.35) (0.23) (0.51) (0.47)
Assessment
3.48 3.56 0.642 – 3.32 3.01 0.013 1.03*** 3.37 2.41 < 0.001 2.07***
(0.53) (0.50) (0.38) (0.19) (0.52) (0.40)
Overall 3.76 3.85 0.423 – 3.56 3.21 < 0.001 1.73*** 3.61 2.50 < 0.001 2.87***
(0.39) (0.31) (0.25) (0.14) (0.40) (0.37)
(Cohen’s d)
(Cohen’s d)
(Cohen’s d)
Table 17
Effect size
Effect size
Effect size
p-value
p-value
p-value
Teacher Principal Teacher Principal Teacher Principal
Page 90 (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD)
PRETEST-HIGH PERFORMING PRETEST-MEDIUM PERFORMING PRETEST-LOW PERFORMING
TEACHERS TEACHERS TEACHERS
Planning &
Preparation
3.60 3.83 0.333 – 3.66 3.28 0.005 0.77** 3.43 2.41 < 0.001 2.52***
(0.56) (0.61) (0.51) (0.47) (0.35) (0.45)
Learning
Environment
3.68 3.79 0.583 – 3.77 3.47 0.023 0.75** 3.64 2.59 < 0.001 2.13***
(0.46) (0.64) (0.44) (0.35) (0.50) (0.49)
Instruction 3.60 3.34 0.168 – 3.53 2.99 0.001 1.28*** 3.42 2.23 < 0.001 2.75***
(0.53) (0.55) (0.55) (0.23) (0.42) (0.45)
Assessment 3.34 3.28 0.775 – 3.40 2.85 0.013 1.00*** 3.15 2.02 < 0.001 2.31***
(0.71) (0.66) (0.61) (0.48) (0.54) (0.44)
Overall 3.56 3.56 0.987 – 3.59 3.15 0.002 1.11*** 3.41 2.31 < 0.001 2.80***
(0.50) (0.57) (0.47) (0.31) (0.38) (0.41)
POSTTEST-HIGH PERFORMING POSTTEST-MEDIUM PERFORMING POSTTEST-LOW PERFORMING
TEACHERS TEACHERS TEACHERS
Planning &
Preparation
3.85 4.09 0.072 – 3.68 3.26 0.001 1.27*** 3.70 2.45 < 0.001 3.15***
(0.40) (0.380) (0.33) (0.33) (0.39) (0.40)
Learning
Environment
3.93 4.03 0.384 – 3.86 3.38 < 0.001 1.81*** 3.78 2.62 < 0.001 2.36***
(0.37) (0.33) (0.31) (0.21) (0.42) (0.56)
Instruction 3.77 3.71 0.677 – 3.38 3.17 0.039 0.71** 3.60 2.52 < 0.001 2.22***
(0.51) (0.35) (0.35) (0.23) (0.51) (0.47)
Assessment
3.48 3.56 0.642 – 3.32 3.01 0.013 1.03*** 3.37 2.41 < 0.001 2.07***
(0.53) (0.50) (0.38) (0.19) (0.52) (0.40)
Overall 3.76 3.85 0.423 – 3.56 3.21 < 0.001 1.73*** 3.61 2.50 < 0.001 2.87***
(0.39) (0.31) (0.25) (0.14) (0.40) (0.37)
(Cohen’s d)
(Cohen’s d)
(Cohen’s d)
Table 17
Effect size
Effect size
Effect size
p-value
p-value
p-value
Teacher Principal Teacher Principal Teacher Principal
Page 90 (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD)
PRETEST-HIGH PERFORMING PRETEST-MEDIUM PERFORMING PRETEST-LOW PERFORMING
TEACHERS TEACHERS TEACHERS
Planning &
Preparation
3.60 3.83 0.333 – 3.66 3.28 0.005 0.77** 3.43 2.41 < 0.001 2.52***
(0.56) (0.61) (0.51) (0.47) (0.35) (0.45)
Learning
Environment
3.68 3.79 0.583 – 3.77 3.47 0.023 0.75** 3.64 2.59 < 0.001 2.13***
(0.46) (0.64) (0.44) (0.35) (0.50) (0.49)
Instruction 3.60 3.34 0.168 – 3.53 2.99 0.001 1.28*** 3.42 2.23 < 0.001 2.75***
(0.53) (0.55) (0.55) (0.23) (0.42) (0.45)
Assessment 3.34 3.28 0.775 – 3.40 2.85 0.013 1.00*** 3.15 2.02 < 0.001 2.31***
(0.71) (0.66) (0.61) (0.48) (0.54) (0.44)
Overall 3.56 3.56 0.987 – 3.59 3.15 0.002 1.11*** 3.41 2.31 < 0.001 2.80***
(0.50) (0.57) (0.47) (0.31) (0.38) (0.41)
POSTTEST-HIGH PERFORMING POSTTEST-MEDIUM PERFORMING POSTTEST-LOW PERFORMING
TEACHERS TEACHERS TEACHERS
Planning &
Preparation
3.85 4.09 0.072 – 3.68 3.26 0.001 1.27*** 3.70 2.45 < 0.001 3.15***
(0.40) (0.380) (0.33) (0.33) (0.39) (0.40)
Learning
Environment
3.93 4.03 0.384 – 3.86 3.38 < 0.001 1.81*** 3.78 2.62 < 0.001 2.36***
(0.37) (0.33) (0.31) (0.21) (0.42) (0.56)
Instruction 3.77 3.71 0.677 – 3.38 3.17 0.039 0.71** 3.60 2.52 < 0.001 2.22***
(0.51) (0.35) (0.35) (0.23) (0.51) (0.47)
Assessment
3.48 3.56 0.642 – 3.32 3.01 0.013 1.03*** 3.37 2.41 < 0.001 2.07***
(0.53) (0.50) (0.38) (0.19) (0.52) (0.40)
Overall 3.76 3.85 0.423 – 3.56 3.21 < 0.001 1.73*** 3.61 2.50 < 0.001 2.87***
(0.39) (0.31) (0.25) (0.14) (0.40) (0.37)
High, Medium, and Low Performing
Teachers (Validity of Ratings)
• High performing teachers rated their instructional
practices equivalent to principal ratings.
• Medium performing teachers rated their instructional
practices higher than the principals by .3 to .4 of a
performance level.
• Low performing teachers rated their instructional
practices higher than the principals by a full
performance level.
• Low performing and medium performing teachers
rated the quality of their instructional practices
equivalent to high performing teachers ratings. The
principals did not.
Page 87-89 & 112
Pretest Posttest Effect size
t p-value
(SD) (SD) (Cohen’s d)
TEACHER-COMPLETED
Planning & Preparation 3.60 3.85 1.82 0.088
–
(Change in the Quality of Instructional Practices)
High Performing Teachers
(0.56) (0.40)
Learning Environment 3.68 3.93 4.05 0.001 0.60**
(0.46) (0.37)
Instruction 3.60 3.77 1.63 0.124
–
(0.53) (0.51)
Assessment 3.34 3.48 0.96 0.351
–
(0.71) (0.53)
Overall 3.56 3.76 2.18 0.046 0.45*
(0.50) (0.39)
PRINCIPAL-COMPLETED
Planning & Preparation 3.83 4.09 2.04 0.060
–
(0.61) (0.380)
Learning Environment 3.79 4.03 2.35 0.033 0.47*
(0.64) (0.33)
Instruction 3.34 3.71 3.38 0.004 0.80***
(0.55) (0.35)
Assessment 3.28 3.56 2.42 0.029 0.48*
(0.66) (0.50)
Table 18
Overall 3.56 3.85 3.18 0.006 0.63**
Page 91
Pretest Posttest Effect size
t p-value
(SD) (SD) (Cohen’s d)
TEACHER-COMPLETED
Medium Performing Teachers
Planning & Preparation 3.66 3.68 0.19 0.852
–
(Change in the Quality of Instructional Practices)
(0.51) (0.33)
Learning Environment 3.77 3.86 0.75 0.462
–
(0.44) (0.31)
Instruction 3.53 3.38 1.08 0.296
–
(0.55) (0.35)
Assessment 3.40 3.32 0.50 0.626
–
(0.61) (0.38)
Overall 3.59 3.56 0.26 0.795
–
(0.47) (0.25)
PRINCIPAL-COMPLETED
Planning & Preparation 3.28 3.26 0.18 0.862
–
(0.47) (0.33)
Learning Environment 3.47 3.38 0.87 0.396
–
(0.35) (0.21)
Instruction 2.99 3.17 2.29 0.036 0.78**
(0.23) (0.23)
Assessment 2.85 3.01 1.36 0.194
–
(0.48) (0.19)
Table 19
Overall 3.15 3.21 0.69 0.500
– Page 93
Pretest Posttest Effect size
t p-value
(SD) (SD) (Cohen’s d)
TEACHER-COMPLETED
Planning & Preparation 3.43 3.70 2.83 0.012 0.72**
(Change in the Quality of Instructional Practices)
Low Performing Teachers
(0.35) (0.39)
Learning Environment 3.64 3.78 1.34 0.200
–
(0.50) (0.42)
Instruction 3.42 3.60 1.50 0.152
–
(0.42) (0.51)
Assessment 3.15 3.37 1.74 0.101
–
(0.54) (0.52)
Overall 3.41 3.61 2.35 0.032 0.51**
(0.38) (0.40)
PRINCIPAL-COMPLETED
Planning & Preparation 2.41 2.45 0.35 0.728
–
(0.45) (0.40)
Learning Environment 2.59 2.62 0.26 0.797
–
(0.49) (0.56)
Instruction 2.23 2.52 2.88 0.011 0.63**
(0.45) (0.47)
Assessment 2.02 2.41 3.86 0.001 0.94***
(0.44) (0.40)
Table 20
Overall 2.31 2.50 2.84 0.012 0.49*
Page 94
High, Medium, and Low Performing
Teachers (Change in instructional practices)
• High Performing teachers improved according to
teacher self-ratings (.2*) and principal ratings
(.29**).
• Medium performing teachers perceived no
change in the quality of their instructional
practices and principals perceived essentially no
change.
• Low performing teachers improved according to
teacher self-ratings (.2**) and principals (.19*)
Page 113-116
Student Performance
RQ-2
Research Question Research Design Measures Analysis
Single Cross-Sectional
Student Grades & Linear
2 Student Performance Interrupted Time
Discipline Referrals Regression
Series
RQ 2 -How will changes in teachers’ instructional practices, initiated by the set of
principal-teacher interactions, affect student performance?
Figure 6
Page 97
d
Figure 7
Page 100
Figure 8
Page 101
Figure 9
Page 102
Classroom Grade Distributions and
Discipline Referrals Improved
• Percentage of As were higher than expected.
• Percentage of Ds were higher than expected
• Percentage of Fs were lower than expected.
• Discipline referrals were lower than expected.
– Mainly due to decreases in aggressive discipline
and male discipline.
– Freshman and senior discipline were impacted
more than other grades.
Page 116
Conceptual Framework
Page 8-11, Figure 1
Student Performance Indicators for High,
Medium and Low Performing Teachers
• According to QIR ratings, high performing
teachers, had the highest quality of instructional
practices and improved them the most over the
course of the year.
• According to QIR ratings, medium performing
teachers fell in the middle of the spectrum of
teacher quality and did not improve.
• According to QIR ratings, low performing teachers
had the lowest quality of instructional practices
according to the QIR and improved similarly to
the high performing teachers.
Page 120-121
Student Performance Indicators for High,
Medium and Low Performing Teachers
• If the overall quality of instructional practices were the
main reason for improved grade distributions and
discipline referrals then,
• High Performing teachers would have the best grade
distributions and lowest discipline referral number.
• Medium Performing teachers would have the next best
grade distributions and next lowest discipline referrals.
• Low Performing teachers would have the worst grade
distributions and the highest discipline referrals.
• But according to data analysis, the classroom grade
distributions and discipline referrals for high, medium
and low performing teachers were equivalent.
Table 25 & Page 120-121
Frequency & Focus of Teacher
Conversations
Research Question Research Design Measures Analysis
Freq & Focus of
Teacher & Student
3 Teacher Pre-Mid-Post test Chi Square
Surveys
Conversations
RQ 3-How will changes in principal-teacher interactions affect the frequency and
focus of teacher conversations with principals, students, and other teachers?
Frequency and Focus of Teacher
Conversations
Spring 071
Spring 081
Spring 091
χ2 χ2
(df=2) (df=2)
Question Response 07/08 08/09
Principal-Teacher Conversations
How often do you discuss 14 16 8
Weekly or Daily
curriculum issues with a
principal? Monthly 21 24 24 0.44 3.14
Never or Annually 36 33 39
How often do you discuss 25 28 22
Weekly or Daily
discipline issues with a
principal? Monthly 19 30 22 6.04* 5.35
Never or Annually 27 15 27
How often do you discuss 8 10 3
Weekly or Daily
teaching strategies with a
principal? Monthly 19 20 27 0.23 4.83
Never or Annually 44 43 41
Table 26 & Page 122
Frequency and Focus of Teacher
Conversations
Spring 071
Spring 081
Spring 091
χ2 χ2
(df=2) (df=2)
Question Response 07/08 08/09
Teacher-Teacher Conversations
How many times per day do you 8 or more times 5 35 33
speak to another teacher?
2-4 or 5-7 53 38 38 37.95*** 0.03
None or One 13 0 0
How often do you discuss Daily or Weekly 32 65 54
curriculum issues with other
teachers? Monthly 25 4 14 31.97*** 6.69*
Never or Annually 14 4 3
How often do you discuss Daily or Weekly 30 55 61
discipline issues with other
Monthly 8 14 7 31.70*** 2.76
teachers?
Never or Annually 33 4 3
Table 26 & Page 124
Frequency and Focus of Teacher
Conversations
• According to teacher surveys, the frequency of
principal-teacher conversations improved, but
the focus remained unchanged.
• According to teacher surveys, the frequency and
focus of teacher-teacher conversations improved
during the pilot year and maintained in the year
of full implementation.
• According to student surveys, the frequency and
focus of teacher-student conversations remain
unchanged.
Pages 103-108 & 122
Findings
• Teacher instructional practices improved
according analysis of QIR data.
• Student performance increased according to
the analysis of student grade distributions and
discipline.
• Freq & Focus of some teacher conversations
changed according to analysis of teacher and
student surveys.
Pages 109
Implications
• Principal Visits and Collaboration with
Teachers
• Rubric Based Assessment of Instructional
Practices
• Working with Teachers of Differing Qualities of
Instructional Practices
Page 126-128
Unintended Outcomes
• Exiting Teachers
• Principal-Student Relationships
• Principal-Parent Discussions
• Increased Job Satisfaction for the Principals
Page 130-132
Recommendations for Future Research
• Further research on particular treatment needed
for teachers at various levels of performance
• How principal interactions in the classroom could
strengthen and support the walk-through model
currently used by many schools and districts
• Research on this treatment in other settings
(generalizability)
• Individual effects of each of the four
interventions used in this study
Page 133
This Study’s Resolutions to Central
Dilemmas of Nearly all Principals
• How can I find time to get into classrooms?
• How do I engage teachers in job related conversations
about instructional practices?
• How do I get teachers to look at performance data of their
students?
• How can I increase principal job satisfaction?
• How can I reduce discipline referrals?
• How can I decrease failure rates (improve student grades)
while increasing the quality of instructional practices?
• How can I know the actual quality of instructional
practices?
Table 28
Page 135
Thank You
Brennon Sapp Kim Banta
www.bsapp.com/administrative_behavior/index.htm
Related docs
