Main Foundations of Research on Teacher Effectiveness
Combining Teacher Effectiveness Research with Research
Initial Evaluation
At the beginning of the 2008-2009 school year, the teaching skills of the participants were evaluated by external observers. Data on student achievement were collected using external written assessment forms designed to assess the knowledge and skills in mathematics identified in the Cyprus Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 1994). Teacher questionnaires were administered to collect data on teachers' background characteristics and measure their perceptions of teaching.
In addition, a student questionnaire was administered in order to collect information related to students' background characteristics. Observational data were then analyzed using the same procedure as described by Kyriakides, Creemers and Antoniou (2009) in order to classify teachers according to their teaching skills into developmental stages. Using the Rasch and Saltus models, it was found that teachers can be classified into the same five developmental stages that emerged from the previous study (see Table 9.1.
The Formation of the Two Experimental Groups
The Establishment of the Training Sessions
First session: The first session could be considered equivalent to the first stage of the DIA, as it aimed to build consensus in relation to the main objectives of the improvement initiative. Especially in the first session, the rationale for the professional development program as well as DIA's main characteristics and value assumptions were analyzed. In addition, the main objectives of the program (ie, improving teaching practices and student outcomes) as well as the program procedures and other administrative issues were discussed.
The importance of evaluating the impact of the program on teacher behavior and student achievement was emphasized, and the appropriate procedures for classroom observations, questionnaires, and test administration at both time points were explained. It was also made clear to the participants that measures had been taken to ensure the anonymity of the participants and the confidentiality of the results of the evaluation. Second session: In the second session, the teachers who used DIA were assigned to four groups according to their own developmental stage, based on the results of their evaluation of teaching skills.
The monthly sessions also allowed teachers to systematically revise and develop their action plans with the assistance of the A&RT team. Thus, the participating teachers had the opportunity to report on teaching practices and comment on them, to identify effective and ineffective teaching practices, to understand the importance of the teacher level factors in relation to their stage of the dynamic model and to understand how these factors could be linked to effective teaching and learning. Finally, members of the A&RTeam visited teachers in their schools to discuss issues regarding the implementation of their action plans in their daily teaching and also to provide support and feedback.
The content of the first session was the same for both groups (see first session on the section related to the DIA). Second Session: In the second session, the teachers who employed the HA (experimental group B) were divided into groups according to their own preferences. The elements of an action plan were described to teachers in all four groups, who then created their own action plan under the supervision of the A&RTeam.
Third and seventh sessions: After this second session, one session was scheduled every month until the end of the school year. Additionally, the intervention was designed to engage the participating teachers in writing narrative accounts of their experiences and to engage in guided reflective questions as part of the teacher inquiry and professional development process. Finally, as with the teachers in experimental group A, the A&RT team visited the teachers in their schools during this period to discuss new issues related to the implementation of their action plans in their daily teaching.
Final Evaluation and 8th Session: Measurement
The quality of teaching was measured through classroom observations by independent observers, both at the beginning (September 2008) and at the end (May 2009) of the intervention. In addition, you will find a summary of the most important findings at the end of this chapter. The Rasch model was applied to the baseline data (i.e., the teaching skills of teachers participating in the study).
In the data analysis below, intervention-related variables were added at the last stage of the multilevel modeling analysis. Nevertheless, prior knowledge was the strongest predictor of student achievement at the end of the school year. The results of the multilevel analysis presented above demonstrate that DIA produces better results in terms of student achievement.
Each analysis was applied only to the teachers in the same phase, not to the total teacher sample. Each analysis revealed similar effect sizes for the variable related to the use of the DIA on student performance. This provides support for the generalizability of the five developmental stages of teaching skills proposed in previous research findings (Antoniou et al., 2009).
Moreover, the use of the DIA had a significant impact on students' achievements in mathematics. In the next chapter we refer to projects that further investigate the impact of the DIA. This appendix presents the content of the teacher professional development program based on the DIA.
This chapter discusses two projects on using the DIA to improve teacher effectiveness. Measuring dimensions of the dynamic model (1) Planning/construction of instruments (1) Written assessment (1) Frequency (2) Test administration (2) Oral assessment (2) Focus (3) Registration of assessment. In addition, Table 10.2 summarizes the scale statistics for the entire sample and the two subgroups (female and male teachers).
