FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W282985731> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W282985731 startingPage "79" @default.
• W282985731 abstract "The modernization of teacher evaluation systems, an increasingly common component of school reform efforts, promises to reveal new, systematic information about the performance of individual classroom teachers. Yet while states and districts race to design new systems, most discussion of how the information might be used has focused on traditional human resource-management tasks, namely, hiring, firing, and compensation. By contrast, very little is known about how the availability of new information, or the experience of being evaluated, might change teacher effort and effectiveness. In the research reported here, we study one approach to teacher evaluation: practice-based assessment that relies on multiple, highly structured classroom observations conducted by experienced peer teachers and administrators. While this approach contrasts starkly with status quo principal walk-through styles of class observation, its use is on the rise in new and proposed evaluation systems in which rigorous classroom observation is often combined with other measures, such as teacher value-added based on student test scores. Proponents of evaluation systems that include high-quality classroom observations point to their potential value for improving instruction (see Capturing the Dimensions of Effective Teaching, features, page 34). Individualized, specific information about performance is especially scarce in the teaching profession, suggesting that a lack of information on how to improve could be a substantial barrier to individual improvement among teachers. Well-designed evaluation might fill that knowledge gap in several ways. First, teachers could gain information through the formal scoring and feedback routines of an evaluation program. Second, evaluation could encourage teachers to be generally more self-reflective, regardless of the evaluative criteria. Third, the evaluation process could create more opportunities for conversations with other teachers and administrators about effective practices. In short, there are good reasons to expect that well-designed teacher-evaluation programs could have a direct and lasting effect on individual teacher performance. To our knowledge, however, ours is the first study to test this hypothesis directly. We study a sample of midcareer elementary and middle school teachers in the Cincinnati Public Schools, all of whom were evaluated in a yearlong program, based largely on classroom observation, sometime between the 2003-04 and 2009-10 school years. The specific school year of each teacher's evaluation was determined years earlier by a district planning process. This policy-based assignment of when evaluation occurred permits a quasi-experimental analysis. We compare the achievement of individual teachers' students before, during, and after the teacher's evaluation year. We find that teachers are more effective at raising student achievement during the school year when they are being evaluated than they were previously, and even more effective in the years after evaluation. A student instructed by a teacher after that teacher has been through the Cincinnati evaluation will score about 11 percent of a standard deviation (4.5 percentile points for a median student) higher in math than a similar student taught by the same teacher before the teacher was evaluated. Our data do not allow us to identify the exact mechanisms driving these improvements. Nevertheless, the results contrast sharply with the view that the effectiveness of individual teachers is essentially fixed after the first few years on the job. Indeed, we find that postevaluation improvements in performance were largest for teachers whose performance was weakest prior to evaluation, suggesting that rigorous teacher evaluation may offer a new way to think about teacher professional development. Evaluation in Cincinnati The data for our analysis come from the Cincinnati Public Schools. …" @default.
• W282985731 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W282985731 creator A5037149839 @default.
• W282985731 creator A5051882017 @default.
• W282985731 date "2012-09-22" @default.
• W282985731 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W282985731 title "Can Teacher Evaluation Improve Teaching? Evidence of Systematic Growth in the Effectiveness of Midcareer Teachers" @default.
• W282985731 hasPublicationYear "2012" @default.
• W282985731 type Work @default.
• W282985731 sameAs 282985731 @default.
• W282985731 citedByCount "7" @default.
• W282985731 countsByYear W2829857312012 @default.
• W282985731 countsByYear W2829857312014 @default.
• W282985731 countsByYear W2829857312015 @default.
• W282985731 countsByYear W2829857312016 @default.
• W282985731 countsByYear W2829857312017 @default.
• W282985731 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W282985731 hasAuthorship W282985731A5037149839 @default.
• W282985731 hasAuthorship W282985731A5051882017 @default.
• W282985731 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W282985731 hasConcept C119857082 @default.
• W282985731 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W282985731 hasConcept C145420912 @default.
• W282985731 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W282985731 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W282985731 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W282985731 hasConcept C19417346 @default.
• W282985731 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W282985731 hasConcept C2776291640 @default.
• W282985731 hasConcept C2776748549 @default.
• W282985731 hasConcept C2777212361 @default.
• W282985731 hasConcept C2779530757 @default.
• W282985731 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W282985731 hasConcept C47177190 @default.
• W282985731 hasConceptScore W282985731C111472728 @default.
• W282985731 hasConceptScore W282985731C119857082 @default.
• W282985731 hasConceptScore W282985731C138885662 @default.
• W282985731 hasConceptScore W282985731C145420912 @default.
• W282985731 hasConceptScore W282985731C154945302 @default.
• W282985731 hasConceptScore W282985731C15744967 @default.
• W282985731 hasConceptScore W282985731C17744445 @default.
• W282985731 hasConceptScore W282985731C19417346 @default.
• W282985731 hasConceptScore W282985731C199539241 @default.
• W282985731 hasConceptScore W282985731C2776291640 @default.
• W282985731 hasConceptScore W282985731C2776748549 @default.
• W282985731 hasConceptScore W282985731C2777212361 @default.
• W282985731 hasConceptScore W282985731C2779530757 @default.
• W282985731 hasConceptScore W282985731C41008148 @default.
• W282985731 hasConceptScore W282985731C47177190 @default.
• W282985731 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W282985731 hasLocation W2829857311 @default.
• W282985731 hasOpenAccess W282985731 @default.
• W282985731 hasPrimaryLocation W2829857311 @default.
• W282985731 hasRelatedWork W1482906742 @default.
• W282985731 hasRelatedWork W1502927000 @default.
• W282985731 hasRelatedWork W1520908535 @default.
• W282985731 hasRelatedWork W186433307 @default.
• W282985731 hasRelatedWork W1986639592 @default.
• W282985731 hasRelatedWork W2003674231 @default.
• W282985731 hasRelatedWork W2131804129 @default.
• W282985731 hasRelatedWork W2186221715 @default.
• W282985731 hasRelatedWork W2462297751 @default.
• W282985731 hasRelatedWork W2523575415 @default.
• W282985731 hasRelatedWork W257676368 @default.
• W282985731 hasRelatedWork W2755570090 @default.
• W282985731 hasRelatedWork W27803997 @default.
• W282985731 hasRelatedWork W299685856 @default.
• W282985731 hasRelatedWork W301615209 @default.
• W282985731 hasRelatedWork W3165650380 @default.
• W282985731 hasRelatedWork W52640225 @default.
• W282985731 hasRelatedWork W769158354 @default.
• W282985731 hasRelatedWork W854551410 @default.
• W282985731 hasRelatedWork W2599997912 @default.
• W282985731 hasVolume "12" @default.
• W282985731 isParatext "false" @default.
• W282985731 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W282985731 magId "282985731" @default.
• W282985731 workType "article" @default.