Student Perceptions of Teaching Effectiveness - Harvard Graduate ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Challenge. Nonetheless, the Five Support Cs and Challenge as an amorphous group (like the non-distinct features on the sides of buildings) account for half of the classroom-to-classroom variation that we see in this collection of variables (specifically, 52 percent). Like helicopter views of chimneys and air conditioning units on rooftops, classroom-to-classroom differences in Test-Prep Emphasis and Classroom Emotional Climate are easy to distinguish even though they do not account for much of the observable variation between classrooms (9 percent and 5 percent, respectively). Of the two “press” C’s, which are distinguishable from this view, Control is the most distinguishable and accounts for 22 percent of the between-classroom variation in student responses. Finally in Panel A, Challenge appears both as a distinct dimension of classroom quality (Column 4)—a measure of press distinct from Control—and also as part of the amorphous group with the other Five Support Cs (Column 1). 2 There is almost no difference between ELA and Math in the distinctions that Panel A highlights. For both ELA and math, the major dimensions that distinguish classrooms from one another are Five Support Cs and Challenge as an amorphous group, classroom Control, Challenge, Test-Prep Emphasis and Classroom Emotional Climate. Panel B: The Ground-Level View. Imagine now standing on the ground where all you can see is the sides of the same buildings, not the tops. The chimneys and air conditioning units are hidden from view, but features on the sides of the buildings are much more discernable than they were from the helicopter. The analysis in Panel B omits the “rooftop” measures—Control, Test-Prep Emphasis and Classroom Emotional Climate—that were most distinguishable in Panel A, but it includes Challenge because it was part of the amorphous group with the Five Support C’s. Observing “from the ground level”—as though looking up at windows, doors and siding materials—we can see that classrooms are distinguished by different combinations of Care, Clarify, Challenge, Captivate, Confer and Consolidate. We learn in Panel B that the Seven C’s function a bit differently for ELA as compared with math. For ELA, the quality in that most strongly distinguishes classes from one another appears to be Captivation (hence the blackened rectangle for Captivation in Column 1). But Care, Clarify, Confer and Consolidate are associated with this dimension as well (thus shaded in grey), as though in support of Captivation. One interpretation is that English teachers make lessons captivating when they connect with students through caring, explaining lessons clearly, conferring with students about their views and summarizing lessons to make them coherent. However, the second most distinguishing dimension for ELA is Challenge (for both effort and rigor), with supporting roles for Clarify and Consolidate. An interpretation here is that English teachers make lessons more challenging when they also make them clear and coherent. The only additional distinguishing dimension for ELA is Confer. ELA teachers are distinguished from one another by their tendency to confer with students, for example, by inviting them to share ideas. Math is different. Survey items for Care and Captivate dominate two major dimensions of classroom quality, each of which strongly distinguishes math classrooms from one another. Perhaps caring is more important for math than for ELA because math is a more difficult subject and caring teachers are more effective at reducing math anxiety. Clarify does not dominate any dimension, but 2 In other words, the items in the Challenge index load heavily on the factor for the Five Support C’s and also on a separate factor, where the Challenge items are the only ones with heavy loadings. 6 | P a g e
instead shows up in a supporting role on both the Care and Captivate dimensions. Apparently, the capacity to clarify difficult math concepts supports the communication of caring and the ability to make lessons captivating. A frustrated teacher may communicate less care; and math that is confusing is unlikely to be captivating. Finally, for math but not for ELA, Challenge for effort and Challenge for rigor appear as two separate dimensions. The math teachers that challenge students to work hard—for example, to do a lot of homework—are not necessarily the same teachers that challenge them to think hard. The two types of Challenge constitute separate ways of distinguishing among math teachers. Classrooms Differ Tremendously Finally, recall the discussion above where we used a composite index of survey items to consider stability of classroom rankings from December to March. Here in this section, we use a similar ranking, but we employ the data for all of the 1094 math and 1264 ELA classrooms from the analysis directly above. This produces a ranking with 2358 classrooms that range from the lowest to the highest rated overall. The ranking can be broken into deciles and we can examine the differences in levels of agreement with survey items in different parts of the quality distribution. With 2358 classrooms, there are roughly 236 classrooms and almost twenty times that many students in each decile. How much do classrooms differ? Exhibit 2 shows average levels of agreement with each of the Seven C’s in the first, fifth and tenth deciles of the overall composite teaching quality distribution. The disparity is massive. Fewer than 20 percent of students in the first decile of the quality distribution agree with statements in the Care index, while almost 80 percent in the tenth decile agree with the same statements. Captivate follows a similar pattern to Care, except that the level of agreement is somewhat higher, especially in the tenth decile, where 85 percent agree with statements in the Captivate index. Items in the Challenge index generate the highest levels of agreement for all three segments—at the bottom, middle and top of the quality ranking. Imagine how different life must be in these three segments of the classroom quality distribution! Conclusion Researchers over many decades have suggested that students will engage more deeply and master their lessons more thoroughly when their teachers care about them, control the classroom well, clarify complex ideas, challenge them to work hard and think hard, deliver lessons in ways that captivate, confer with them about their ideas and consolidate lessons to make learning coherent. Building upon Tripod surveys developed over the past decade, MET student perception surveys are giving students in thousands of classrooms the opportunity to demonstrate that they can distinguish their classrooms on these key dimensions. Student responses are reliable, valid and stable over time at the classroom level. MET constitutes an unprecedented opportunity to combine these student perceptions with information collected by other methods and to measure how together they predict learning outcomes. Classroom-level student surveys are a high-potential mechanism for incorporating students’ voices in massive numbers into school, district, state and national efforts to improve teaching and learning in elementary, middle and high schools. 7 | P a g e
Page 1 and 2: Student Perceptions of Teaching Eff
Page 3 and 4: accepts nothing less than our full
Page 5: Class Emotional Climate items. The

Student Perceptions of Teaching Effectiveness - Harvard Graduate ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?