the indigenization of evaluation

THE INDIGENIZATION OF EVALUATION:

DEVELOPING A TEACHER EVALUATION TOOL FOR LITTLE WOUND SCHOOL

by

Alexander John Mackey

A School / Community Action Project

submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

Master of Arts

(Educational Administration)

in the

Graduate Studies Department

Oglala Lakota College

2016

Committee Members

Lisa White Bull, committee chair

Dr. Geraldine Gutwein

Phinette Little Whiteman

George Apple

ii

Master’s Committee

The members of the committee appointed to examine the school / community action project and

the accompanying master’s thesis of Alexander John Mackey find it satisfactory and recommend

it to be accepted.

______________________________________________

Lisa White Bull, committee chair

______________________________________________

Dr. Geraldine Gutwein

______________________________________________

Phinette Little Whiteman

______________________________________________

George Apple

iv

Copyright 2016 by Alexander John Mackey. All Rights Reserved.

v

Yupćećela Oyake

Wauŋspewića-kiya pi kta ća uŋ Charlotte Danielson ća egle pi wowapi ća 1996 hehan oṫokaheya

wowapi ki le kaġa pi. Woiyuŋge wowapi waŋ etaŋ owayawa el oiṫaŋcaŋ yaŋkapi na

wauŋspewica-kiye na wayawa, iya waŋiyetu ake-śagloġaŋ sam iya pi ća hena tukte woecuŋ

iyotaŋhaŋḣći wauŋspewica-kiye wopika ća yua’taŋiŋ kta ća kaḣniga pi. Le wowapi suta ki

woiyuŋspewica-kiye wowaśi ecuŋpi ki iwaŋwicayaŋka pi kte ki uŋ ća le kaġa pi. Ṫaopi cik’ala

owayawa ki wauŋspewića-kiye taŋyaŋ ecuŋpi iwaŋwićayaŋka pi wowapi waŋ kaḣniga pi.

vi

Abstract

The Charlotte Danielson Framework for Teaching, first published in 1996, sought to create a

uniform understanding of the characteristics that make an effective teacher by categorizing

teacher behaviors into four domains of practice. This effort was in response to a fractured history

of teacher evaluation systems in the United States. In 2015, the State of South Dakota published

its requirements for instructional supervisors’ evaluations, based on the Framework for

Teaching. Schools, in beginning the implementation process, are required to choose one

component from within the Framework’s four domains. This research project was designed to

determine which components should be utilized at Little Wound School, located on the Pine

Ridge Indian Reservation. A survey was distributed to administrators, teachers, and students over

eighteen years old to determine which components are the most reflective of an effective teacher.

The data collected was analyzed using statistical tests to determine the existence of discernable

predilections among respondents. This was confirmed. Across domains one, two, three, and four,

components B, A, C, and F, respectively, proved to be preferred choices. Taking this information

into account, a model teacher evaluation tool is proposed for Little Wound School.

vii

Acknowledgements

This thesis would not be completed without the encouragement and support of those around me,

especially Mr. Russell Childree and Mr. Jesus Fuentes. Similarly, I thank my advisory

committee. Ms. Lisa White Bull’s support as the chair was a welcome foundation to my work,

and her kind words and guiding suggestions have shaped this paper greatly. Similarly, I am

thankful for Dr. Geraldine Gutwein and her discerning eyes, which have crafted this paper into a

readable and presentable work while Ms. Phinette Little Whiteman and Mr. George Apple have

influenced the orientation toward the Lakota Way. I thank my family for their work in preparing

me as a writer. And I thank Ms. Taylor Christensen for spotting an errant “dana” that was meant

to be “data.” This paper would not be the same without Mr. Jon Wenger—whose mathematical

proclivities were central to the analysis of collected data—and the time that he spent teaching an

English teacher to use SyStat and make sense of its output; this will be eternally appreciated.

Finally, I thank all the students in my classes throughout this past academic year who have heard

me talk about my time at Oglala Lakota College and my effort in writing this thesis. Regardless

of if they wanted to hear about this school community action project, they did, and the

confessional of my classroom was gallantly staffed by them.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT (Lakota) ………………………………………………………… v

ABSTRACT (English) ………………………………………………………… vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ………………………………………………………… vii

LIST OF TABLES ………………………………………………………… x

LIST OF FIGURES ………………………………………………………… xi

LIST OF APPENDICES ………………………………………………………… xii

CHAPTER

1. INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………… 1

Statement of Problem

Importance of Study

Definition of Terms

Limitations

Delimitations

Assumptions

2. HISTORICAL CONTEXTUALIZATION OF EVALUATION ……… 16

A History of Teacher Evaluation in the U.S.

Contemporary Research and Findings

The Implementation of Evaluation

3. METHODOLOGY …………………………………………………… 43

Subjects

Procedures and Data Collection

Data Analysis

Summary

4. FINDINGS ………………………………………………………… 61

Response Rate

Demographic Data

Findings

Statistical Symbols

5. DISCUSSION ………………………………………………………… 72

Summary

Discussion

Conclusions

Recommendations

ix

6. IMPLEMENTATION ………………………………………………… 83

BIBLIOGRAPHY ………………………………………………………… 89

APPENDICES ………………………………………………………… 107

x

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Rate of survey responses ………………………… 44

Table 2. Responses for Domain 1 across groups (n = 88) … 50




Table 6. Rate of survey responses ………………………… 61

Table 7. Demographics of survey respondents ………… 62

Table 8. Statistical symbols ………………………………… 71

Table 9. Variance among student, teacher, and

administrator responses ………………………… 76

Table 10. Percentage of responses for top

component preferences ………………………… 79

Table 11. Recommended Danielson Framework components

for effective teacher evaluation ………………… 81

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Danielson Framework for Teaching

in comparison to the NBPTS’s Core

Propositions ………………………………………… 26

Figure 2. Distribution of Domain 1 component preferences

in relation to years of teaching experience … 52







Figure 6. Evaluation tool for Little Wound School ………… 83

xii

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A. Charlotte Danielson Framework for Teaching … 107

Appendix B. South Dakota S. B. No. 24: An Act ………………… 110

Appendix C. Determining Teacher Effectiveness in South

Dakota ………………………………………… 111

Appendix D. Calculating Teacher Effectiveness ………………… 112

Appendix E. Key Excerpts from the South Dakota Teacher

Effectiveness Handbook ………………………… 114

Appendix F. Teacher Effectiveness: State Requirements Checklist 115

Appendix G. Tripod Survey ………………………………… 117

Appendix H. Survey Provided to Little Wound School

Administrators, Teachers, and Students ………… 119

Appendix I. Statistical Symbols ………………………………… 123

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Melody Schopp, Secretary of the South Dakota Department of Education, expressed her

frustration with the patchwork of teacher evaluation models profligate across the state to the

legislature. During a public hearing in Pierre, the state’s capital, on the department’s plan to

devise a new framework for evaluation, Schopp proclaimed that “we just never had clear

expectations for what’s expected of teachers” (Gahagan, 2010). But it was not enough to merely

develop a framework for the sake of having one. Schopp continued that “what I don’t want to

have happen is, ‘We’ve adopted it, and it’s done.’ We really want to move into an era of good

collaborative feedback and ‘How can I grow as a professional?’” (Gahagan, 2010).

The reasons behind her support for developing a new teacher evaluation model became

more evident as the hearing continued when she mentioned that more than ninety-five per cent of

collected evaluations ranked the observed teacher as satisfactory or above (Guilfoyle, 2013). The

panel concluded that any collected information from existing evaluations was essentially

meaningless. As a result, South Dakota realized the need to devise a new model for statewide

observation and evaluation; the state would also need to “take away the mystique of evaluations”

and provide teachers with a clearer understanding of how their own professional responsibilities

can be improved with the aid of their principals along with a more comprehensive system of

evaluation and feedback from trusted and trained supervisors (Gahagan, 2010). Any developed

framework needed to meet this primary goal: to provide a clear view of how to become a more

efficacious teacher in the classroom, therefore improving classroom instruction itself.

After the public hearing, Schopp said “you have to start somewhere” (Gahagan, 2010).

During the eighty-fifth session of the South Dakota legislature both the House of

Representatives and the Senate took up this charge and passed what came to be known as S. B.

2

24 (2010), “An act to establish standards for teaching, to require teacher evaluations, and to

provide for the development of a model evaluation instrument.” The bill did not outline what the

adopted framework for teaching should include, but instead established the mandate that the state

board of education would need to “promulgate rules... to establish minimum professional

performance standards for certified teachers in South Dakota public schools, and to establish best

practices for the evaluation of the performance of certified teachers that may be used by

individual school districts” (S. B. No. 24, 2010). (See Appendix A for S. B. No. 24’s full text.)

The state board’s working group, composed of administrators, teachers, and community

members, created an evaluation framework that ranked teachers as “distinguished, proficient,

basic, or unsatisfactory, using equal parts qualitative and quantitative measures” with the end

goal being to “make teacher evaluation more meaningful, giving school leaders better

information about which teachers deserve to be rewarded, dismissed or coached up” (Verges,

2012). In an update to the annual meeting of the Associated School Boards and School

Administrators joint convention in Sioux Falls, held August 9, 2012, the dean of the education

school at the University of South Dakota, a co-chair of the framework development working

group, expressed the importance of feedback in the state’s new evaluation model, saying that

teachers need to become active participants in their own evaluations. “Sitting down with a

teacher and saying, ‘Tell me how you know your students are learning,’ I don’t think is a bad

question to ask,” Melmer said. “We think it’s time for teachers to be more reflective” (Verges,

2012). What makes observation work is the conversation that naturally follows, the panel argued,

not the act of observation.

These ideas and others were published in April, 2015, as the South Dakota Teacher

Effectiveness Handbook: Requirements, Support Systems, and State Model Recommendations,

3

the consequence of four years of internal development, community input, and work with local

education agencies—including schools, districts, and leaders—across the state. Published by the

South Dakota Commission on Teaching and Learning, this document outlined the state’s

practical guidelines for implementing the group’s supervisory evaluation program.

The state decided to base its observation model on an established guideline first

organized and published in 1996 by Charlotte Danielson, who developed her framework for

teaching while working for Educational Testing Service (ETS), the world’s largest maker and

administrator of standardized assessments (Mercer, 2013; Singer, 2013).

The Charlotte Danielson Framework for Teaching. As it has come to be known, the

Danielson Framework (throughout this writing, the phrase “Danielson Framework” is used

interchangeably with variations including “the Danielson Model,” the “Framework for

Teaching,” or “Framework for Effective Teaching,” for instance) was chosen to serve as the state

model for observation, evaluation, and feedback. Outlined in Enhancing Professional Practice:

A Framework for Teaching, the book first published in 1996 by Charlotte Danielson, her

framework is divided into four primary domains—these include planning and preparation, the

classroom environment, instruction, and professional responsibilities—each comprised of

between five and six components, which serve to add depth and provide a more concreate

understanding of what the four domains include. The components are broken down into seventy-

two elements that further elaborate on the components. For example, within the first domain,

“planning and preparation,” the first component is 1a: “demonstrating knowledge of content and

pedagogy,” which itself is sub-divided into three elements: “knowledge of content and the

structure of the discipline,” “knowledge of prerequisite relationships,” and “knowledge of

4

content-related pedagogy” (Danielson, 2007). (For a listing of the Danielson Framework’s

entirety, see Appendix A.)

Danielson postulates that a “framework for professional practice” is important “because

teaching is complex, [and therefore] it is helpful to have a road map through the territory,

structured around a shared understanding of teaching” (p. 2). The Danielson Model is important,

its developer argues, because “a framework for teaching offers educators a means of

communicating about excellence.” As such, when “conversations are organized around a

common framework, teachers are able to learn from one another” and the framework’s domains,

components, and elements “are validated for any particular setting” (p. 6).

South Dakota has adopted the Danielson Framework under its own moniker: the South

Dakota Framework for Teaching, which is an exact reproduction of Danielson’s work (South

Dakota Commission on Teaching and Learning, 2015, p. 10). Districts within the state are not

required to utilize this particular measurement framework, but any district seeking an exemption

must provide their own model that is directly aligned to the South Dakota Framework for

Teaching. The State of South Dakota further notes that while the framework “includes twenty-

two individual teaching components clustered into four domains,” district “effectiveness systems

must include professional performance evaluations based on a minimum of four teaching

components, including one from each domain” (p. 10). The Commission on Teaching and

Learning, however, recommends that eight components be used as the basis of teacher

observation and evaluation; it is the purview of the local education agency to determine which

components are the most beneficial to the development of strong teachers (p. 16).

Based on these domains and their components, and being coupled with student learning

outcomes on state, standardized, and district assessments, the framework is designed to provide a

5

particular evaluation outcome: principals derive a Summative Teaching Effectiveness Rating that

leads to a teacher being identified as below expectations, meeting expectations, or exceeding

expectations. This summative teacher rating “includes an evaluation of student growth that

serves as one significant factor and an evaluation of professional practices as the other significant

factor” (p. 12). (See Appendix C for an outline for how effectiveness is measured; see Appendix

D for a model provided by the state on how to calculate a teacher’s effectiveness score.)

According to a timeline for implementation, the as-designed South Dakota Framework

for Teaching will be fully implemented in public schools in the state for the 2015–2016 school

year (South Dakota Commission on Teaching and Learning, 2015, Appendix B).

Statement of Problem

This research project seeks to identify what those elements of instruction are in a single

school located on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, which is in southwestern South Dakota and

home to the Oglala Sioux Tribe: Little Wound School. As the State of South Dakota and Bureau

of Indian Education begin to require that schools adopt a teacher evaluation tool based on the

Charlotte Danielson Framework for Teaching, it is necessary that local education agencies

identify aspects of the framework most pertinent to teaching and learning in a classroom setting at

each unique school site. Furthermore it is especially true for a school that serves primarily Native

American students.

Because schools have the leeway to decide how many and which components of the

Danielson Framework will be evaluated (so long as it meets the minimum requirements of

observation outlined by the South Dakota Department of Education) by supervisors, it is

important that decisions made in this process be well informed and data-driven. In a search of

literature, no published, peer-reviewed journal articles expressly sought to apply the Danielson

6

Framework to a tribally operated school, but existing research has shown time and again that

students of diverse demographic backgrounds have inimitable educational needs (Koon,

Petscher, & Foorman, 2014).

This school-community action project sets out to determine which components of the

Danielson Framework make the most effective teacher, as identified by students, teachers, and

administrators at Little Wound School. With this information in hand, results can be reviewed,

trends tracked, and proposals for practice proffered. Up to this point, data has not been collected

from the Little Wound School District that answers this question. Through this collection

process, answers to the following questions will be sought:

1. Will students, teachers, and administrators have different or similar views about the

components of the Danielson Framework that make for a most effective teacher?

2. Can variations in the data collected from teachers and administrators be attributed to

differences in the length of teaching experience, gender, position of employment, or

other identifiable factors?

3. Will the results from students mirror or juxtapose those collected from teachers and

administrative staff?

4. Are there particular components of the Danielson Framework that are unanimously

believed by those individuals surveyed to be the most important factor in identifying

a most effective teacher?

It is the belief of the researcher that within each of the four domains of the Danielson

Framework, one particular component will stand out as the most often cited factor in making for

a most effective teacher. The information collected from this process will be used to guide the

creation of a proposed evaluation tool for supervisors and principals to use as they observe

7

teachers and classrooms for instructional effectiveness. This proposed evaluation tool will reflect

the beliefs and views of teachers throughout all grade levels of the school, principals and other

administrators, as well as a sample of adult-aged students.

Importance of Study

This school-community action project seeks to indigenize the Danielson Framework for

application at Little Wound School. By explicitly working to identify which components of the

framework are viewed by students and staff as the most applicable in determining teacher

effectiveness in this one particular setting, the Danielson Framework shifts from being an

imposed method of evaluation to becoming a locally influenced tool for gauging teacher

effectiveness. This process allows Little Wound School to utilize its own people’s knowledge in

discerning this important measure.

Schools that operate within the province of the Bureau of Indian Education (B.I.E.), of

which Little Wound School is included, have for the past seven years been encouraged to utilize

the Danielson Framework to evaluate teacher effectiveness. But the B.I.E.’s requirement to

utilize the Danielson Model comes within a larger group of recommendations as part of the

NativeStar regimen of “rapid improvement indicators” and “transformation implementation

indicators” (Bureau of Indian Education, 2015). These different indicator groups (there are

ninety-nine individual indicators for school improvement in the former group and twenty-four in

the latter) only allude to the importance of utilizing the Danielson Framework as a foundation for

classroom and instructional improvement. Each of these indicators are termed a “WiseWay.”

For example, in WiseWay indicator forty one—“Indicator: The principal maintains a file

of the agendas, work products, and minutes of all [instructional] teams”—schools are specifically

directed to observe Danielson’s encouragement that “teacher evaluation should serve as an

8

opportunity for professional development,” (Academic Development Institute, 2013a). Likewise,

in WiseWay indicator one-hundred-four—“Indicator: Yearly learning goals are set for the school

by the Leadership Team utilizing student learning data”—Charlotte Danielson’s seminal book,

Framework for Teaching, is referenced as being an important tool in being able to both

understand and evaluate “multiple methods of assessment to engage learners in their own

growth, to monitor learner progress, and to guide the educator’s and learner’s decision making.”

(Academic Development Institute, 2013b). In totality, out of the collection of indicators, the

works and ideas of Charlotte Danielson are directly referenced ten times. Consequently, in order

for a Bureau of Indian Education grant school to fully adopt the NativeStar improvement

indicators, it is central that schools adopt the Danielson Framework as a matrix by which to

evaluate teachers and learning.

All schools that operate within the Bureau of Indian Education are expected to adopt a

NativeStar-based school improvement mindset. Once this is established, it is up to internal

school policy-makers to determine how this is done—the Bureau does not provide additional

direction. Schools are encouraged to look at their home state’s recommendations.

For Little Wound School, this is South Dakota. More specifically, it is the state’s report,

the South Dakota Teacher Effectiveness Handbook: Requirements, Support Systems, and State

Model Recommendations. This monograph additionally requires schools utilize the Danielson

Framework (or the “South Dakota Framework for Teaching,” whose content is the same) for

teacher evaluation. Consequently, Little Wound School—on both the state and federal side—is

being prodded to adopt this framework.

Little Wound, in the first years of implementation, need only evaluate teachers on at least

one component in each domain—four total. This school has yet to establish a standard to be used

9

across all schools (elementary, middle, and high) by all supervising administrators. While the

school may wish to seek established recommendations about which components to choose, no

existing research has been conducted that indicates which components are most efficacious to

determine this information; similarly, there have been no internal research activities or surveys to

determine what currently employed staff members and enrolled students believe to be the

components that elucidate this information.

The development of a teaching evaluation framework for Little Wound School is

important because not only is it a requirement of the State of South Dakota and the Bureau of

Indian Education, but little research has been conducted about what elements of teaching are the

most important in determining effectiveness in a Native American school setting, especially

when aligned to the Danielson Framework, which this research seeks to do.

While some research indicates ways that Native American students generally learn best in

a classroom setting (Tharp & Yamauchi, 1994; Morgan, 2009), no discernable research has been

conducted about what Native American educators, students, and administrators believe are the

traits that lead to effective teaching, especially when considered on the Pine Ridge Indian

Reservation, the home of Little Wound School. This research project aims to unveil some of

these individual perceptions and yield a teacher evaluation framework that is indigenous to Little

Wound School and its students and staff.

Definition of Terms

In order that this thesis be understood in its entirety, it is important to define some key

terms used throughout the paper. These definitions are curated from selected publications and

reviews and articles that provide the most complete sense of the word’s true contextual meaning.

10

Achievement and Learning: Student achievement is “the status of subject-matter

knowledge, understandings, and skills at one point in time” while student learning is “growth in

subject-matter knowledge, understandings, and skill over time. In essence, a change in

achievement constitutes learning. It is student learning—not student achievement—that is most

relevant to defining and assessing accomplished teaching” (Linn, Bond, Carr, Darling-

Hammond, Harris, Hess, & Shulman, n.d., p. 28).

Clinical supervision: A process of supervision with three features: (1) autonomy: “the

goal is for the teacher to become more self-directed and analytical,” (2) evidence: “the evidence

for change in behavior arises from the observational data,” and (3) continuity: “the process

unfolds over time” (Kilbourn, 1982).

Domain: A particular “sphere of activity or knowledge” (“domain,” 2015). Within proper

context, a domain is also one of four areas of supervision as identified in the Danielson

Framework, which include: planning and preparation, classroom environment, instruction, and

professional responsibilities (Danielson, 2007).

Effective: This term is used to describe a teacher who has been “the most successful in

helping [students] to learn” information and content (Walker, 2008, p. 63).

Evaluation: A process to determine various aspects of teaching (a teacher’s effectiveness)

that includes three essential elements: (1) “a coherent definition of the domain of teaching (the

‘what?’), including decisions concerning the standard for acceptable performance,” (2) analysis of

“techniques and procedures for assessing all aspects of teaching (the ‘how?’),” and (3) the process

is done by “trained evaluators who can make consistent judgments about performance, based on

evidence of the teaching as manifested in the procedures” (Danielson & McGreal, 2000).

11

Improvement: A progressively unfolding process whereby achievement in a particular

subject or area gets better in a measurable manner; it does not “have a fixed or predetermined

end point, and that is sustained over extended periods of time” (Hidden Curriculum, 2014).

Instruction: From the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, a

definition of instruction is provided: “Instruction consists of any steps taken in planning and

conducting programs of studies and lessons that suit them to the… students’ learning needs,

learning readiness, and learner characteristics” (Heathers, 1977, p. 342)

Model / framework: Used interchangeably, broadly, it is a “system of concepts,

assumptions, expectations, beliefs, and theories that supports and informs your research” and

practice (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Specifically, in the field of education, within a context of

supervision and evaluation, it is a “blueprint for implementation” of a particular theory or

practice to improve classroom instruction (California Department of Education, 2015).

Observation: As provided by the South Dakota Commission on Teaching and Learning,

there are two distinct types of observations: formal observations, which are “scheduled

observation[s] of teaching practice conducted by an evaluator that is at least 15 minutes in length

and includes structured conversations before and after the observation takes place” and informal

observations, which is “an observation of teaching practice, which may or may not be

announced, that is conducted by an evaluator, and is at least five minutes in length, and results in

feedback to the teacher” (2015, p. 38).

Professional development: This term means a “comprehensive, sustained, and intensive

approach to improving teachers’ and principals’ effectiveness in raising student achievement”

that “is aligned with rigorous state [and local] student academic achievement standards,” “is

conducted among learning teams of educators, including teachers, paraprofessionals, and other

12

instructional staff at the school,” and finally “engages established learning teams of educators in

a continuous cycle of improvement” (National Staff Development Council, n.d.).

Value-added model: An assessment that analyzes “test data that can measure teaching

and learning” which is based on “a review of students’ test score gains from previous grades” in

order to determine whether students have “made the expected amount of progress, have made

less progress than expected, or have been stretched beyond what they could reasonably be

expected to achieve” (University of Pennsylvania, 2004).

Limitations

Limitations within this school-community action project are beyond the control of the

researcher but may impact the study’s overall worth. Although this research was carefully

planned, organized, analyzed, and presented, some of the limitations that affect this particular

thesis include the following:

First, not all teachers have had professional training on the Charlotte Danielson

Framework and, consequently, do not have a full understanding of the material surveyed. In the

spring of 2013, Little Wound School hosted a full-teaching staff professional development with a

representative from the Danielson Group and all teachers were given a copy of Enhancing

Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching. No teachers have been formally trained on

the framework in the three subsequent years and no further books have been given out. Teachers

who became employed by Little Wound School in subsequent years may not have ever been

exposed to the Danielson Group’s Framework for Teaching.

Also, the population surveyed was narrow—staff, administration, and some students at

Little Wound School during the 2015/2016 school year—and therefore cannot be immediately

generalized beyond this one particular local education agency. Results or suggestions for

13

implementation may not be generalizable, even to schools that share similar demographics or

environments.

Not all students at the school were surveyed—only students over the age of eighteen shall

be participants in this research. This eliminates the study’s work with a vulnerable population

(below eighteen years of age) while simultaneously permitting the researcher to provide

identically worded survey to all participants and, subsequently, removing concerns about the

reading level of the material provided. This group will still provide valuable information.

It must also be noted that the data collected is a snapshot of one particular point in time.

Each individual who completed the survey will only take the survey once. Consequently,

circumstances within the school environment may change and, as a result, impact people’s

perceptions of supervisory observation and evaluation. For example, a change in school

leadership or within the school board could see a reevaluation of teacher evaluation, new focuses

in what to evaluate, and new metrics by which to gauge how effective individual teachers are.

Similarly, as teachers come and go, overall staff perceptions may shift or change, endangering

the long-term usability of this information.

Finally, any identified correlation does not equal causation. Even if all the individuals

surveyed provided the same responses, there could be no direct line drawn between what people

think makes for a most effective teacher and what truly does make a teacher great.

Delimitations

Delimiting factors fall within the control of the researcher and could impact the quality of

the work collected. In pursuit of transparency, some of the most important decisions that could

produce altered results are included below. These decisions have been carefully weighed,

14

however, and were made with the intention of reducing errant outcomes and minimizing the

opportunity that research collected cannot be used.

First, only individuals employed by or attending Little Wound School at the time the

survey was conducted were eligible to be included in the research.

Second, on the survey, reference was made to the Danielson Framework for Teaching,

which is often associated with evaluation and observation, but on the survey utilized, the

question posed for the individual answering survey read: “What is the most important element in

each box that makes for the most effective teacher?” The Danielson Framework is designed to

measure excellence in teaching, which warrants the identification of the effectiveness of

particular teachers. If teachers were asked which of the components of the Danielson Framework

are most important in a principal’s observation of a classroom, the information might merely

reflect what is observable, what is base, and (potentially) what is easiest.

It should also be noted that a survey was the sole method of information collection for

this research. There is no included ethnographic element, and the methodological evaluation is

entirely quantitative. It should be noted, however, that because of the sample size, data collected

is legitimate and can be utilized to create a localized teacher evaluation system.

Finally, the content of the survey distributed utilizes the same wording and phrasing as

developed by Charlotte Danielson. The vocabulary is of a high level and some participants might

not be fully versed in the vocabulary. The decision has been made to maintain this wording

because it provides the most accurate reflection of the school’s present understanding of the

Framework as well as maintains Danielson’s original intent.

15

Assumptions

The following assumptions are made regarding the research for this writing and for the

continued use of any data collected or patterns discerned.

A first major assumption of this thesis is that Little Wound School will, per the directive

of the Bureau of Indian Education, continue to utilize the Danielson Framework as the primary

tool of classroom observation and teacher evaluation. Should policy change at the national, state,

or local level, and the Danielson Framework were to be replaced or modified, the survey and the

results collected and analyzed herein would be moot.

This survey also anticipates that answers collected are based on truthful and honest

responses from the survey participants.

16

CHAPTER 2: HISTORICAL CONTEXTUALIZATION OF EVALUATION

A History of Teacher Evaluation in the United States

Evaluation of teachers in the United States can be tracked back to the days that schools

were first being established in disparate communities in the 1700s. At this time, there was no

unified professional discipline of education, and responsibility for both founding and monitoring

schools and teachers fell on the town in which it was located and upon the parents whose

children attended that particular school; the community often appointed an individual or

established a supervisory committee that set the standards by which a teacher served the town

(Burke & Krey, 2005). As a result of this lack of pedagogical consistency, the quality of teachers

could vary greatly from place to place and school to school.

This school-by-school variation began to coalesce into centralized administration in the

1800s with the “common school” movement, whose biggest proponent was Horace Mann, the

first secretary of the State Board of Education in Massachusetts (Simpson, 2004). While these

informal early school districts had a superintendent, the burden of administration typically fell

upon a ‘principal teacher,’ who, in time, become simply the ‘principal,’ as the title is understood

today (Marzano, Frontier, & Livingston, 2011).

As schools become more professionally managed, a debate began to arise in the late 19th

and early 20th century—education’s first crisis of purpose. One of these two competing views of

education was spearheaded by John Dewey, who proposed that democracy was the true

underpinning of societal progress and that the purpose of schools can only properly be measured

by how well they encouraged civic action and participation in civil society (DeCesare, 2012). In

Dewey’s view, “Progressive ideas such as a student-centered education, connecting the

classroom to the real world, differentiation based on student learning needs, and integration of

17

content areas were espoused” by the thinker as “ways of bridging the gap between students’

passive role as learners and the active role they would need to play as citizens” (Marzano et al.,

2011).

The opposing camp was manifested by Frederick Taylor, who believed that any

organization must find the most effective manner by which to accomplish their goals, then

universalize and standardize that particular practice (Freedman, 1992). This latter philosopher’s

ideas, in the early 20th century, came to embody how schools evaluated their success. Pushed

forward by the writings of a Harvard professor, Edward Thorndike, and applied to education by

Ellwood Cubberley, schools evaluated teachers in a same way that factories measured their own

productivity. In Cubberley’s 1916 book Public School Administration, the author states that:

Our schools are, in a sense, factories in which the raw products (children) are

to be shaped and fashioned into products to meet the various demands of life.

The specifications for manufacturing come from the demands of twentieth

century civilization and is the business of the school to build its pupils

according to the specifications laid down (p. 338).

It was from this factory-model of education that Cubberley established his understanding for

how school success should be measured, which emphasized “measurement and analysis of data

to ensure that teachers and schools were productive” (Marzano et al., 2011).

These two competing views stood in opposition to one another for decades to come,

reinforced by various philosophers, academics, and school leaders. But as time progressed,

individuals within the educational field began to see this as a false dichotomy; the views of

Taylor and Cubberley provided a feedback loop that encouraged teachers to be more effective,

leading students to a greater involvement in civil society, which was the idea that Dewey

18

espoused more than a century earlier (Raths & McAninch, 2005, p. 164). It is from here that a

school’s dual purpose, which became more pronounced in the post-World War Two era, become

evident: that schools must be data-driven institutions in pursuit of broad goals established by

society and the community (Marzano et al., 2011). It is this two-pronged approach that gave rise

to one of the most widely adopted methods of school and teacher evaluation: clinical

supervision.

Coming into the forefront of educational thought in the 1950s, clinical supervision is best

known as culminating to and emanating from a 1969 book written by Robert Goldhammer,

Clinical supervision: Special methods for the supervision of teachers; this book established the

basic need of school leadership to maintain close communication with their teachers, observing

their practice, and providing appropriate and immediate feedback for improved instruction

(Goldhammer, 1969). By 1980, surveys found that more than ninety percent of school leaders

used Goldhammer’s approach to school evaluation in their practice (Marzano et al., 2011).

A 1973 work by Morris Cogan—Clinical Supervision—further elaborated on the

intricacy of the practice, stating that:

A cornerstone of the supervisor’s work with the teacher is the assumption that

clinical supervision constitutes a continuation of the teacher’s professional

education. This does not mean that the teacher is “in training,” as is sometimes

said of preservice programs. It means that he is continuously engaged in

improving his practice, as is required of all professionals. In this sense, the

teacher involved in clinical supervision must be perceived as a practitioner

fulfilling one of the first requirements of a professional—maintaining and

developing his competence. He must not be treated as a person being rescued

19

from ineptitude, saved from incompetence, or supported in his stumblings. He

must perceive himself to be engaged in the supervisory processes as a

professional who continues his education and enlarges his competences (p. 21).

The clinical supervisory model, however, had its downfalls and detractors: it was considered

“didactic” and “formulaic,” and that “supervisory and evaluative approaches that were more

developmental and reflective were sometimes viewed as not specific enough to enhance

pedagogical development” (Wise, Darling-Hammond, McLaughlin, & Bernstein, 1984). It was

believed among surveyed teachers that there were four primary issues with the clinical

observation model of teacher evaluation: (1) principals did not have the “resolve and

competence” to accurately evaluate teachers; (2) teachers, overtly or covertly, resented receiving

critical feedback; (3) there was no uniform evaluation measures by which standards of

instruction could be applied to all teachers evenly; and (4) was that little or no training was

available for principal-evaluators, which led to inconsistency in implementation (Wise et al.,

1984, p. 22).

From these critiques rose a seminal work, written by Charlotte Danielson in 1984:

Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching. Danielson’s background was

working for Educational Testing Services (ETS), and in particular working on identifying

measurable ways by which to effectively “measure the competence of teachers” (Marzano et al.,

2011). Historical models of evaluation focused on singular aspects of the teacher’s actions, be it

the steps of the teaching process or the supervisory process, for instance, but Danielson sought to

create a comprehensive model for supervisory observation that captured the dynamic processes

involved in classroom teaching.

20

The Danielson Framework, as it has come to be known, is composed of four domains:

Planning and Preparation, the Classroom Environment, Instruction, and finally Professional

Responsibilities; each of these domains is then broken down into subdomains, seventy six in all,

which seek to work in tandem and provide a common language of evaluation for all stages in the

teaching process, from planning to reporting of data (Danielson, 1984).

The twenty-first century saw a modification of Danielson’s Framework in an effort to

incorporate a more student-centered view. This new paradigm was championed by Tucker and

Stronge and outlined in their 2005 book Linking Teacher Evaluation and Student Achievement,

which advocated the “importance of student achievement as a criterion in the evaluation process”

and “argued for evaluation systems that determine teacher effectiveness using evidence from

student gains in learning as well as observations of classroom instruction” (Marzano et al.,

2011). It is the work of these two individuals that is accredited with the popular rise of value-

added (quantitatively-based) teacher evaluations, similar to the ones adopted and published by

the Los Angeles Times in 2010 and 2011. The authors forcefully state in their recommendations

that, “given the clear and undeniable link that exists between teacher effectiveness and student

learning,” this should “support the use of student achievement information in teacher assessment.

Student achievement can, and indeed should be, an important source of feedback on the

effectiveness of schools, administrators, and teachers” (p. 102).

In the last decade, many of the models of teacher evaluation have come under siege and

are chided as “superficial, capricious, and often don’t even directly address the quality of

instruction, much less measure students’ learning” (Toch & Rothman, 2008, p. 1). Toch and

Rothman, in their 2008 study Rush to Judgement, found that, in spite of No Child Left Behind’s

requirements for more rigorous forms of teacher evaluation, only fourteen states, at the time,

21

even required a single observation of a principal for a teacher; many of these evaluations only

required supervisors to check boxes that teachers were “satisfactory” or “unsatisfactory” (Toch

& Rothman, 2008). Additional contemporary reports found similarly troubling findings that

demonstrated that a rigorous form of teacher observation and evaluation was still nothing more

than an ethereal end-point. Research that took the authors to twelve school districts across four

states—data was collected including on more than fifteen thousand teachers, one thousand three

hundred administrators, and nearly one hundred district-level administrators—identified trends

that were troubling portents illustrating deep flaws in teacher evaluations in major American

school districts (Weisberg, Sexton, Mulhern, & Keeling, 2009). These researchers found that

school districts tend to assume that classroom effectiveness is:

the same from teacher to teacher. This decades-old fallacy fosters an

environment in which teachers cease to be understood as individual

professionals, but rather as interchangeable parts. In its denial of individual

strengths and weaknesses, it is deeply disrespectful to teachers; in its

indifference to instructional effectiveness, it gambles with the lives of

students (p. 4).

Weisberg, Sexton, Mulhern, and Keeling, the writers of the report (who were assisted by

contributing authors including Schunck, Palcisco, and Morgan) propose that the history of

teacher evaluations is fraught with failures of understanding; inconsistent application of

evaluations by principals, schools, districts, and states; a false understanding of the differences in

instructional styles of teachers; and too short and too infrequent to be beneficial. All of these

results, in the end, create a system where “excellent teachers cannot be recognized or rewarded,

chronically low-performing teachers languish, and the wide majority of teachers performing at

22

moderate levels do not get the differentiated support and development they need to improve as

professionals” (p. 6). It is clear, the report concludes, that the current system of evaluation is not

a practical or useful model and must be abandoned for something more useful and responsive.

Contemporary Research and Findings

In order to gain a more thorough understanding of contemporary forms of observation

and evaluation, it is necessary to abandon a general historiographical approach in favor of a more

sharpened approach—it is necessary to analyze recent research reports that look at what, in fact,

these types of evaluative and supportive relationships between principal and teacher look like in

practice and in the field of education itself. Consequently, in the pursuit of a modern view of

educational observation, it is central that only research from the twenty-first century be

incorporated into a review of literature on this particular topic.

Before exploring how to measure an effective teacher, though, it is important to look at

how an effective teacher is being defined. In a 2008 report by Robert Walker, entitled Twelve

Characteristics of an Effective Teacher: A Longitudinal, Qualitative, Quasi-Research Study of

In-Service and Pre-Service Teachers’ Opinions, the loaded term “effectiveness” in education is

defined as a “particular teacher who had been the most successful in helping respondents to

learn” (p. 63). While broad in scope, it permits Walker to discern twelve characteristics that are

generally associated with the most effective classroom instructors: being prepared; maintaining a

positive attitude; holding students to high expectations; encouraging creativity; treating students

equitably and fairly; displaying a “personable, approachable touch with students”; cultivating a

sense of belonging among students; dealing with students compassionately; the possession of a

sense of humor; demonstrating respect; being forgiving; and the admission of mistakes (p. 64).

23

Beginning in the year 2002, a not-for-profit organization, Teach For America, which

takes primarily recent college graduates and, with one month of training, places these individuals

into low-income, high-need communities, began to study its internal data in the pursuit of what

makes for phenomenal teachers, whose students often grow by more than one and a half years

within the timeframe of a single academic year (Ripley, 2010). This research was led by a chief

researcher within the organization, Stephen Farr, who published a book with many of his

findings in 2010: Teaching as Leadership: The Highly Effective Teacher’s Guide to Closing the

Achievement Gap. In the book, Farr boldly claims that his primary finding is that “strong

teachers insist that effective teaching is neither mysterious nor magical. It is neither a function of

dynamic personality nor dramatic performance” but instead can be clearly delineated in a style

that can be applied to many teachers (Farr, 2010). (Farr is careful to qualify his findings in that

this is not the only way to achieve effectiveness in classroom instruction.) In his book, Farr

outlines concrete and actionable examples that were common traits in high-level classrooms.

These findings include the presence of “big goals” that drive classroom teaching and learning,

consistent and meaningful checks of understanding, building investment with students and their

families, purposeful planning, and continually seeking personal and professional growth, among

others (Farr, 2010, p. vii–ix). Many of these findings were independently confirmed by a

Mathimatica Policy Research report, which not only found similar common traits among

effective teachers, but also that students in classrooms with Teach For America trained and

supported teachers, “significantly outperformed those [classrooms led by] their more

experienced counterparts” (Decker, Mayer, & Glazerman, 2004; Ripley, 2010).

One of the selling points of Teach For America for prospective school districts seeking to

hire its participants, or “corps members,” is that the organization provides a significant amount

24

of classroom support (including observation, evaluation, suggestions, and professional

development) for teachers that supplements what schools and districts seek to do with their

principal’s supervisory responsibilities (Cody, 2012). Teach for America seeks to employ

multiple measures of student and teacher growth to develop a holistic, but nonetheless data-

backed, system of measurement to determine effectiveness (Sawchuk, 2009).

This multifaceted approach to teacher observation and evaluation has been practiced in

Pittsburgh for an extended period of time and is the subject of a research paper, published in

2014. The researchers look at how Pittsburgh Public Schools utilizes a three-pronged approach to

gauge a teacher’s effectiveness. These three domains of evaluation (professional practice, student

surveys, and value-added measures) are positively correlated, which suggests, according to the

researchers, that “they are valid and complementary measures of teacher effectiveness” (Chaplin,

Gill, Thompkins, & Miller, 2014).

The first component of the observation and evaluation regimen that the Pittsburgh Public

Schools requires is a professional practice measure that is based on the Charlotte Danielson

Framework for Teaching, known as the Research-based Inclusive System of Evaluation (RISE),

which relies on principal evaluations of teachers. This is coupled with a student survey that seeks

to “incorporate students’ perceptions of teachers’ practices and was developed by Ronald

Ferguson of Harvard University as part of the Tripod Project and administered by Cambridge

Education” (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 2012). The third component of evaluation is

based on a value-added measure that charts student changes on test scores over the three

previous years’ worth of teaching (Chaplin et al., 2014). This multi-domain approach allows

school leaders and administrators to develop a more well-rounded approach to teacher

observation and evaluation that could not be obtained by merely looking at any one of these three

25

areas independently. The researchers suggest, through their findings, that the comparability and

positive correlation of the three types of evaluations strengthens the fact that they should be used

to complement one another, not supplant other measures of effectiveness. “Although none of the

measures represent a gold-standard benchmark, the correlations across them suggest that they are

capturing various aspects of effective teaching in complementary ways” (Chaplin et al., 2014, p.

iii). It is the use of a modified version of the Danielson Framework that warrants continued

analysis and discussion.

Thomas Viviano, in a 2012 research paper published in the Journal of Career and

Technical Education titled “Charlotte Danielson or National Board Certification: A Comparison

and Contrasting of Two Major National Frameworks for Teaching,” seeks to differentiate

between the two major national models of teacher evaluation, identified in his quasi-eponymous

title. The Danielson Framework includes four domains of professional operation (planning and

preparation, the classroom environment, professional responsibilities, and instruction) that are

divided into twenty three sub-domains that provide additional areas for observation and

evaluation. Teachers operating in this framework are classified—within each domain or sub-

domain—as one of “four levels of competency to include distinguished, proficient, needs

improvement or progressing, and unsatisfactory” (Viviano, 2012, p. 114). The National Board

for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) measures “five core propositions on what teachers

should know and be able to do” and within these five areas there “are a total of sixteen subject

matter areas that a teacher can earn a certificate in within various developmental levels for a total

of twenty five certificates in all” (p. 115). These Danielson domains are compared with their

most closely related NBPTS propositional area in the figure below, Figure 1, “looks at the

comparisons of the two national frameworks and how they cross reference.” (p. 116).

26

Figure 1

Danielson Framework for Teaching in comparison to the NBPTS’s Core Propositions

Charlotte Danielson’s

Four Domains

NBPTS’s Core

Propositions

Planning and Preparation

Teachers are committed to students and their learning

Classroom

Management

Teachers know the subjects they teach and how to teach

those subjects to students

Instruction

Responsible for monitoring

and organizing student

learning

Professional

Responsibilities

Teachers think

systematically

about their practice and learn from their experience

Teachers are members of

learning communities

This figure “looks at the comparisons of the two national frameworks and how

they cross reference. NBPTS has two categories that engulf professional

responsibilities and two for instruction” (Viviano, 2012, p. 116).

Between the Danielson Framework and the NBPTS, there are two minor differences that

Viviano identifies; these differences relate to “using data to help guide and plan curriculum and

teaching methods, and showing professionalism. Danielson’s framework addresses both of these

categories and NBPTS addresses neither” (2012, p. 118). In the national standards for teaching

excellence outlined in the legislation and policy surrounding the George W. Bush-era No Child

Left Behind Act, “data collection to improve teaching and learning has become very important

27

and is not only the responsibility of administration but also now the responsibility of teachers,”

and the presence of this measurement within the Danielson Framework lends credence to this

model’s inclusivity of contemporary issues in educational instruction and supervision (p. 118).

Apart from the non-inclusion of data in the NBPTS, he also discusses the Danielson

Framework’s incorporation of professionalism as a matter of professional practice, further stating

that it is “an essential component if you are going to use a framework for assessment and

evaluation” because it is important for educators to “look at the comprehensive teaching

professional and professionalism as crucial in that so many young lives are dependent on role

models to pave the way toward strong and responsible citizenship” (p. 118).

Viviano, in his conclusions, brings up important points that relate to how the Danielson

Framework and the NBPTS should be used in evaluations and assessments, bringing up the

important observation that any time a principal or supervisor “evaluates a teacher, he or she is

placing a worth on another human being’s skills” (p. 118). It is important, he conveys, that after

an assessment, “the administrator and teacher should concern themselves with what can be done

to ameliorate any problems or skill deficiency that was revealed during the assessment process in

order to benefit students.” It is from here, with the understanding that comes from utilizing a

professionally developed standard of evaluation such as the Danielson Framework, that the

administrator then “merely becomes the facilitator to make sure that the teacher goes through the

right professional development needed such as a workshop, mentoring from a fellow teacher, a

coach, the administrator, or research” (p. 118).

It is this intricate professional relationship shared between teachers and their supervisors

that is the subject of Callahan and Sadeghi’s research, published in 2015, that looks at teacher

perceptions of evaluation models in New Jersey’s public schools. In 2012, the state legislature of

28

the State of New Jersey—in response to motivation from the Obama administration’s Race to the

Top program—signed into law a program that “calls for a four level evaluation system of

teachers that links individual student data to teachers and creates a more difficult process for

teachers to earn tenure” (p. 47). Boldly, the law also “targets teachers who have already earned

tenure” and, “in a major change to educational policy, tenured teachers may lose their jobs after

two consecutive years of ineffective evaluations” (p. 47). In order to gain a greater understanding

about this valued-added coupled with principal evaluation approach, the researched conducted a

survey of more than six hundred eighteen public school teachers across the state. The findings of

this survey prove illuminating.

Callahan and Sadeghi identified that the state-required minimum observation

requirements did increase the quality and duration of classroom evaluations by principals: in

2012, the first year of implementation, “formal evaluations were conducted infrequently with a

varying degree of accuracy and impact” and “nearly half of the teachers indicated the formal

evaluations did not lead to improvements in their practice” (p. 56). But in a follow up survey

conducted in 2014, two academic years after the program’s start, teachers did identify an

increase in the rate of observation, but concerns were raised about the diminishing value of the

observations themselves. A formulaic observation regimen, they argued, led teachers to be more

concerned with the technical process of observation as compared to its supposed end goal:

improving classroom instruction. Several teachers “noted that their principals were more focused

on entering observations in real time then on teacher-centered observations. They appeared more

focused on entering information on tablets, then in actually observing.” Teachers further noted

that “the technology and demands of observing numerous required elements made the

observation scripted” and, therefore, unproductive (p. 56).

29

In their conclusion, the authors anchor their findings to the programmatic intentions of

the teacher evaluation and tenure system, known as ACHIEVE NJ, identifying that the process of

required minimum observation standards by principals has transformed, with detrimental effects,

what was once “an organic, albeit infrequent, process” into a scripted one. This shift has

produced generally demoralized educators, of which one contributing factor is the state-

mandated emphasis on rating teachers (p. 56). The writers’ findings are summarized in the final

paragraph of this particular piece of peer-reviewed literature, remarking that:

teacher evaluation systems are not perfect and effective teachers are not the

product of formulas. Research shows us that much of what effective teachers

do cannot be measured by categorical ratings. However, that is not to say we

should not attempt to define what effective teachers do and make every effort

to replicate it. We need to move beyond checklists and rubrics that fail to

acknowledge teaching excellence and we need to identify and offer

professional development strategies that are most effective in improving

teaching pedagogy and ultimately improving student achievement (p. 56).

But if teachers are demoralized from being categorically ranked and evaluated, then not provided

adequate or appropriate professional development, what does a working model look like?

Shaha, Glassett, and Copas seek to answer this question with a twenty seven state study

that aims to identify the “impact of teacher observations in alignment with professional

development on teacher efficacy,” which was quantified by analyzing two hundred ninety two

schools, operating in one hundred ten districts and more than two dozen states.

These three authors argue that the end goal of observation and evaluation within a school

setting is to provide the proper environment and interactions that “result in improved student

30

capabilities and achievements” (2015, p. 55). However, a significant amount of research has

shown that this relationship is strained and that schools chronically find the most appropriate

manner to “identify ways to continuously improve the impact teachers have on their students” (p.

55; Duke & Stiggins, 1990; U.S. Department of Education, 2013). The most common approach

to pursue the continued enhancement of instruction is professional development (Buczynski &

Hansen, 2010). A cannon of documentation and research bears light on the truth of the

effectiveness of professional development, however, which does not necessarily jive with the

expected findings. In spite of increased attention and focus on the role of professional

development in teacher improvement and support, “data substantiating improved impact of

teachers on students remains sparse” (p. 55; Avalos, 2011; Desimone, Porter, Garet, Yoon, &

Burman, 2002; Farnsworth, Shaha, Bahr, Lewis, & Benson, 2002; Garet, Porter, Desimone,

Birman, & Yoon, 2001; Lewis et al., 2003; Shaha, Lewis, O’Donnel, & Brown, 2004).

“Teacher observation is another technique widely used wherein school leaders, experts,

or designated coaches watch teachers and then provide feedback or guidance aimed at improving

impact for classrooms and student learning” (Shaha et al., 2015, p. 56). Many researchers since

the turn of the new millennium have indicated, nevertheless, that traditional teacher evaluations

fail to appropriately inform teachers of areas for improvement, rarely occur often enough to be

beneficial, and have not proved consistently effective beyond simply being a necessary action to

fulfill bureaucratic responsibilities (Darling-Hammond, 1986; Hazi & Arredondo Rucinski,

2009; Jacob & Lefgren, 2008; Peterson, 2000; Stiggins & Bridgeford, 1985; Weisberg et al.,

2009). Consequently, Shaha, Glassett, and Copas all argue in their writing that supervisory

observation as a means of teacher improvement provides only minimal or mixed outcomes that

do not drive toward improved student achievement (p. 56). It is in the pursuit of identifying best

31

practices of evaluation and observation (followed by appropriate professional development) that

these authors have conducted their research.

One of the most central findings of Shaha, Glassett, and Copas’s research is that, when

teacher observation is combined with appropriately matched professional development, student

performance in class improves (2015, p. 58). Similar research-based conclusions point to a direct

and positive correlation between the amount of time a teacher is observed in the classroom by

their supervisor and greater gains in student accomplishments on standardized math and English

assessments (p. 58). The recommendations based on this research point to the important relation

between a principal’s observation of a teacher and the pertinent recommendation of professional

development opportunities, whether in an on-demand, online program or through a more

traditional approach. Consequently, when schools and districts and states “work to improve the

education in their schools and in those throughout America and the broader educational world,

the central focus of validation and verification efforts must include the evaluation of teachers for

the purpose of improving their impact on students” (p. 60). And if schools seek to improve

student academic outcomes, it is important that, “although observation-based teacher evaluations

might be criticized and disconnected from the needs of students” research indicates that “a

coordinated approach involving [professional development] recommendations and executions is

impactful for student advances” (p. 60).

A new trend in education research seeks to identify how this customary approach to

observation (conducted solely by the principal or supervisor) can be supported and supplemented

by peer observation of teaching (Eri, 2014). In order to contextualize peer observation of

teaching, Eri, in his 2014 publication Peer Observation of Teaching, provides a definition for the

practice as a “reciprocal process where a peer observes another’s teaching” and then “provides

32

constructive feedbacks that would enable teaching professional development through the mirror

of critical reflection by both the observer and the observed” (p. 625; Brookfield, 1995). Eri

identifies five primary benefits of peer observation of teaching which include: (1) enhancing the

quality and skills of the observed teacher, (2) participants gain confidence in their teaching

methods, (3) new ideas are acquired for more effective instruction, (4) teaching methods and

resources can be shared more easily, and (5) it creates a mutually shared assurance of “continued

commitment to teaching” (Eri, 2015, p. 625). The author further identifies the procedure that

peer observation of teaching should follow in order to be most effective. The process begins with

a pre-observation, where the observer and observee identify the milieu of the observation,

including time and location, as well as the particular classroom practices to be observed. After

this initial meeting comes the observation itself, which should be for a more than merely cursory

amount of time and include detailed note taking and critical observation. This is followed by the

post-observation meeting where feedback is provided and a conversation is held that explores the

nature of the observation and the thoughts of both participants. Subsequently, both individuals

engage in a personal process of critical reflection, a semi-metacognitive effort, to truly think

about the teaching and observation and discern the value that has been borne of it. The final stage

is to implement any suggestions for change and improvement (p. 626–629).

This background on peer observation of teaching leads to a more in-depth discussion on

the topic of providing appropriate feedback to practicing teachers, whether this be from

colleagues or supervisors. In the 2011 research study “Teacher Conferencing and Feedback:

Necessary but Missing,” published in the International Journal of Educational Leadership

Preparation, Anast-May, Penick, Schroyer, and Howell seek to address a common concern. The

authors note that because “there is an absence of systematic feedback for teachers to facilitate

33

[the] professional growth [of teachers and to] improve instruction,” evaluators “tend not to

provide detailed and concrete feedback after they have observed teachers” and that “without

objective feedback and regular reports on progress and performance, an individual is less likely

to achieve his or her professional goals” (p. 2).

On the other hand, “constructive and meaningful feedback is needed to promote

reflection and allow teachers to plan and achieve new goals, which will ultimately lead to an

increased sense of efficacy in their teaching” (p. 2). The researchers have found that a significant

portion of supervisory feedback tends to be shallow, unhelpful, and inaccurate, rarely verging on

helpful or encouraging (p. 2; Frase, 1992). At the end of the day, it is argued, “an evaluation has

no meaning if it is not interpreted, questioned, discussed, and reflected on, ultimately leading to

making different and more effective decisions” (p. 2; Feeney, 2007).

Turnbull, Haslam, Arcaira, Riley, Sinclair, and Coleman (2009) identified that one of the

chronic shortfalls in the evaluation of teachers is that there is a disconnect between the amount of

time a teacher is observed and the amount of feedback received. These researchers also found it

common that “principals provided no individual feedback, choosing instead to focus on group

feedback based on a checklist criteria” (Turnbull et al., 2009). Two other researchers have found

that this is not merely an issue affecting the most inexperienced teachers, but that meaningful

feedback for teachers outside their probationary periods was almost non-existent (Kelley &

Maslow, 2005). This knowledge is what inspired Anast-May, Penick, Schroyer, and Howell to

conduct research that sought some answers as to why teachers tended to be skeptical about

increased observation, then provide recommendations for professional practice.

Although their research was on a more limited scale (three elementary schools with a

combined total of two thousand two hundred twenty five students), the research team was able to

34

safely conclude that “the process of evaluation should involve conferencing and feedback that

will lead teachers to construct their own understandings and set professional goals that are

measured in terms of student learning” (p. 6; Wheatley, 2005). Similarly, the researchers support

the notion that data collection should play a role in the effective evaluation of teachers, stating

that “measurement [should] be used from a deeper place of understanding, the understanding that

the real capacity of an organization arises when colleagues willingly struggle together in

common work that they find meaningful” and, additionally, that measurement provides “the kind

and quality of feedback that supports and welcomes people to step forward with their desire to

contribute, to learn, and to achieve” (p. 6).

But the incorporation of data into teacher evaluation does not solely come from the

analysis of student test scores on standardized assessments. Student surveys are becoming more

prevalent in determining the effectiveness of particular teachers (Liu et al., 2014). Liu and her

colleagues seek to answer a poignant question through research: “Does adding teacher and

student survey measures to existing measures (such as supervisor ratings and student attendance

rates) increase the power of principal evaluation models to explain across-school variance in

value-added achievement gains?” (para. 1).

The findings are starkly evident and reassuring. Utilizing a two-step multivariate

regression analysis, it was determined that incorporating “teacher and student survey measures

on school conditions to the principal evaluation model can strengthen the relationship between

principals’ evaluation results and their schools’ average value-added achievement gains in math

and in a composite of math and reading” (p. i).

A significant number of states, spurred on by their legislatures and state departments of

education, have begun to seek out multi-variable measures for teacher effectiveness. Many

35

districts have shown a keen interest in incorporating teacher evaluations conducted by students

(Illinois State Board of Education, 2011; Mattson Almanzán, Sanders, & Kearney, 2011;

National Conference of State Legislatures, 2011; Wacyk, Reeves, McNeill, & Zimmer, 2011).

This drive to incorporate student surveys follows a recognition of the need to bring in

more than simply one evaluator’s observations as the basis for determining an effective teacher.

New models being developed rely on multiple performance measures such as growth in student

achievement, leadership competency assessments, and school climate surveys. This creates a

more complete picture of principal effectiveness (Clifford, Behrstock-Sherratt, & Fetters, 2012;

Illinois Principals Association & Association of School Administrators, 2012; Mattson

Almanzán, Sanders, & Kearney, 2011; The New Teacher Project, 2012; Ohio Department of

Education, 2011; Roeber, 2011; Wisconsin Educator Effectiveness Design Team, 2011).

In the research conducted by Anast-May, Penick, Schroyer, and Howell, new information

is contributed to the discussion that schools and districts are currently having about whether to

include student surveys about teachers in the supervisory evaluation of teacher effectiveness. The

answers to this contemporary question were discerned by studying one particular school district

within the American Midwest region in depth during the 2011–2012 school year, encompassing

more than thirty nine total schools (2015, p. 2). The research sought to determine if student

surveys of teachers correlated in any way to standardized test scores in English, math, and

science, utilizing the Measure of Academic Progress (developed and administered by the

Northwest Evaluation Association) (p. 2). The student survey used was the Tripod Student

Perception Survey, which was developed by Harvard researcher Ronald Ferguson. This survey

“consists of thirty-six items measuring students’ perceptions of their classroom instructional

environment in seven domains and six items measuring students’ perceptions of school safety

36

and climate” (p. 3). Through the administration of this survey, it was confirmed—as numerous

previous studies have also shown—that the quality of the classroom teacher significantly impacts

student achievement (p. 6; Aaronson, Barrow, & Sander, 2007; Gordon, Kane, & Staiger, 2006;

Kane & Cantrell, 2010; Kane, Rockoff, & Staiger, 2006; Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2005).

What Anast-May et al. have been able to show is that this survey accurately predicts value-added

measures of teacher and school academic success on standardized tests, a novel finding (p. 7).

One of the primary supporting findings is the importance of school-level leadership on

student outcomes (p. A1–A2). In supporting literature, especially in a meta-analysis of more than

twenty existing research papers, it was determined that the “average effects of instructional

leadership practices on student achievement and other outcomes (such as absenteeism and

engagement) was three to four times as large as the average effects of other leadership practices

that do not explicitly focus on curriculum and instruction” (Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008). By

measuring student perceptions of school leadership (which the aforementioned Tripod Survey

includes) it is possible to draw a direct connection between the efficacies of a school’s principal

and the outcomes that students are expected to achieve.

One state that has begun the process of implementing a multi-domain teacher

effectiveness evaluation program that includes both value-added measures as well as traditional

observation coupled with student survey responses is Arizona (Lazarev, Newman, & Sharp,

2014). This program of teacher evaluation began as a pilot project in five varying school districts

(four public and a charter network) throughout the state (p. i). Arizona chose to change its

teacher evaluation models in the wake of changes to the Elementary and Secondary Education,

Act, when states were required to submit various plans to the United States Department of

Education including their plans on how teacher evaluations needed to change to support a more

37

rigorous focus on instructional outcomes (U.S. Department of Education, 2012). Arizona was

one of the “two-thirds of U.S. states [that] have made changes to their teacher evaluation policies

since 2009” (Jerald, 2012).

Significant bodies of evidence have been compiled which have “yielded empirical

evidence of correlations between various teacher effectiveness metrics, including scores from

several widely used classroom observation instruments, student surveys, and estimates of

teachers’ value-added contributions to student test achievement” (Lazarev et al., 2014, p. 1; Kane

& Staiger, 2012). States, however, are often left with little existing research about how best to

integrate these varying evaluation tools in a meaningful way and to analyze and utilize collected

data (Rothstein & Mathis, 2013). It is to provide this empirical background for implementation

that Lazarev, Newman, and Sharp began to explore how this multi-domain evaluation system

was being implemented in the Grand Canyon State (p. 1).

The State of Arizona’s three domains of teacher evaluation include: (1) teacher

observation, (2) student academic progress, and (3) surveys (p. 2). Arizona chose to base their

state’s observation instrument on the Danielson Framework (Danielson Group, 2011). This study

chose to focus its effort on determining the relationship between the observation of teachers by

principals and the other two data collection instruments. And for good reason—one of the most

startling findings of the report is that the collected “results suggest that the observation

instrument was not used in a manner that effectively differentiated among levels of teacher

practice” (Lazarev et al., 2014, p. 5). Consequently, “there is evidence that observations by

school principals tend to produce inflated scores—in particular, many teachers with students

[who demonstrate] low academic progress receive high observation scores” (p. 5). Despite the

tendency of principals to over-praise a teacher’s effectiveness in the classroom, the researchers

38

were able to draw lines of positive correlation between the scores that a principal provided

utilizing the Danielson Framework and student academic achievement measures and surveys.

This means that the Arizona teaching framework (a replica of that produced by Charlotte

Danielson), consisting of twenty-two sub-domains for evaluation, can prove to be a statistically

validated measurement tool and, “if the observation items measure a single underlying aspect of

teaching effectiveness, a single aggregated observation score obtained by summing or averaging

item scores would be a valid measure of teaching” (p. 9).

Of the four domains of the Danielson Framework (planning and preparation, the

classroom environment, professional responsibilities, and instruction), the two areas that were

most highly associated with increased student achievement were the two that must be assessed

outside the classroom: planning and preparation and professional responsibilities (p. 17). Lazarev

and his colleague-researchers, then, cautioned any districts seeking to implement a multi-domain

evaluation tool to make sure that principals are well trained and know how to accurately evaluate

a teacher utilizing the most empirically-sound observation models (U.S. Government

Accountability Office, 2013). But the opportunity exists for strong adoption in other states.

The literature and history of teacher evaluation points to a continual endeavor to find the

most appropriate manner by which to evaluate an educator’s craft and effectiveness in the

classroom. It is a task that must be done, regardless of its challenges, because a failure to

appropriately evaluate a teacher is a failure to control and monitor and cultivate the best learning

environment possible for students in educational settings. As the MET Project (Measures of

Effective Teaching), funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, succinctly points out:

“effective teaching is teaching that leads to student success” (MET Project, n.d.). In order to do

this most effectively, today’s educational researchers have begun to place a heavy emphasis on

39

finding reliable and valid measures of teacher effectiveness that strongly correlate to student

academic success; after all, “teaching evaluations are only valuable if they can be counted on to

accurately reflect what a teacher is doing in his or her classroom that is helping students

succeed” (MET Project, n.d.). Because teaching is recognized as a multi-faceted discipline, it

becomes evident that no single measure of success can accurately portray how effective a teacher

is performing in the classroom; for example, teaching takes significant amounts of planning and

preparation, and while circumstantial evidence might be present when a principal observes a

classroom, it can only be truly measured by other means.

The Implementation of Evaluation

It was the fourth century B.C. Greek philosopher Aristotle who, as quoted by Diogenes

Laertius in Lives of the Philosophers, stated that “the roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is

sweet” (Laertius, 1925). While the history of evaluation illustrates the manifold transformations

that supervisory observation has undergone, and the struggles between competing ideas and

ambitions, one end goal has remained: that a teacher evaluation must, in its final calculations,

lead to the most efficacious of teachers providing a powerful and transformative and

academically rich educational environment for students. But the path toward this final realization

is often fraught with the question of practical implementation, this point being illustrated with

the case of a disappeared Los Angeles teacher in 2010.

Rigoberto Ruela’s body was eventually found in the wooded slopes of Big Tujunga

Canyon (Zavis & Barboza, 2010). Twenty-six miles from the school he loved so dearly, where

he had taught fifth grade for fourteen years, the Angeles National Forest’s overgrown redwoods

could only hide Ruela’s body from the search-and-rescue team for so long before emancipating

40

its martyred educator. But this was not a hiking accident: the Los Angeles County Coroner

quickly ruled that the cause of death was suicide (Strauss, 2010).

The search-and-rescue team was only dispatched when Mr. Ruela failed to show up for

work at Miramonte Elementary School, a public school located in south Los Angeles, tucked

inside a community riddled with gang-violence and aching poverty (Zavis & Barboza, 2010). His

coworkers knew how dedicated Ruela was; the school’s administration confirmed that it was a

rare occasion that he did not show up to school—his record of attendance was nearly perfect over

his more than decade tenure—and never unannounced (Lovett, 2010).

His colleagues, however, could tell that he was slipping into a depression in the weeks

before his absence and death. In spite of the time that Mr. Ruela put into tutoring students after

school or communicating with parents (or even the complimentary review that he received from

his supervisor during the previous 2009/2010 school year), his family blames one particular

event for pushing him into a tailspin that ended with a base-jump from a bridge: a poor teacher

review and ranking, as calculated in a value-added manner by the Los Angeles Times and

published publically online, which rated him as a teacher who was “less effective than average”

(Romero, 2010; Lovett, 2010). Rigoberto’s brother Alejandro, in an interview with a Los

Angeles public radio station, announced that he does “blame the [Los Angeles] Times [for his

brother’s death] for the fact that they did publicize [his scores and ranking]… When you have the

L.A. Times labeling him that way that really hits you hard. He took his job seriously” (Romero,

2010).

This story’s beginning lies, however, back in the year 2010 when the Los Angeles Times,

the major metropolitan daily newspaper in Southern California, posed a bold question: “Who’s

teaching L.A.’s kids?” (Felch, Song, & Smith, 2010). Working with the Los Angeles Unified

41

School District, the newspaper evaluated the previous seven years of teachers’ impacts on

student test scores. (Abramson, 2010). These scores, designed to measure the effectives of

teacher instruction by a value-added measure, were supposed to be a non-biased, mathematical

means by which to judge the worth of a classroom instructor (Hancock, 2011).

Despite warnings and concern from researchers and leaders in education that the findings

provided by the Los Angeles Times were unreliable, the newspaper decided that it would publish

the data, and this was hailed as a monumental step by Arne Duncan, the then-U.S. Secretary of

Education, who encouraged other newspapers to follow the Times’s example (Anderson 2011;

Felch & Song, 2010). “What’s there to hide?” Duncan is quoted as saying the day after the Times

first published the teacher evaluation; “in education, we’ve been scared to talk about success”

(Freedberg, 2011). This message from the administration of the Barack Obama mirrored the

federal government’s push for localized value-added measurement of teacher effectiveness, as

spurred on by “Race to the Top.” This federal program sought to financially encourage states to

make it a legal requirement that teacher evaluations include, as their basis, quantifiable data on

how well teachers were improving student scores on standardized tests. It is a seemingly logical

evaluation, its developers argued, as any district should be willing to make a student’s growth in

knowledge a central component of determining a teacher’s value to a particular district and the

students he or she teaches (Strauss, 2012). The Association of Supervision and Curriculum

Development (a not-for-profit organization of principals, superintendents, teachers, and others in

the field of education) defines value-added assessment simply as measures that capture “how

much students learn during the school year, thereby putting teachers on a more level playing

field as they aim for tenure or additional pay” (David, 2010).

42

As the debate in Los Angeles heated up in the aftermath of Mr. Ruela’s death, the head of

the union of Los Angeles’s public school teachers said that these types of “value-added

assessments are a flawed system.” The Los Angeles Times subsequently released a statement of

its own, declaring both its sympathy for the death of the teacher, but also that

The Times published the database, which is based on seven years of state test

scores in the L.A.U.S.D. schools, because it bears directly on the performance of

public employees who provide an important service, and in the belief that parents

and the public have a right to judge the data for themselves (Lovett, 2010).

These two camps, on opposing sides of the debate, illuminate a larger trend in the evaluation of

teachers and schools, and the debate about which particular factors best fit into the calculus of

determining how effective a particular educator is in the classroom.

43

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

This school-community action project seeks to indigenize the Danielson Framework for

application at Little Wound School. This will be accomplished by surveying students, teachers,

and administrators from Little Wound School to identify internal beliefs about which

components of the Danielson Framework (adopted by South Dakota as the South Dakota

Framework for Teaching) are the most closely associated with what makes for a most effective

teacher. The collected information will be used to devise a uniform evaluation model for use

when principals and supervisors observe classroom teachers.

Subjects

In order to evaluate the school’s perceptions of the importance of the various components

that comprise the Danielson Framework for Teaching, it is important to identify the population

of individuals who were surveyed for their opinions. Three primary groups were identified to

take the survey: (1) students over eighteen years old, (2) teachers, and (3) administrators.

Because only students who are over eighteen years old will be surveyed, these students

will be in the twelfth grade. Only students at this age juncture will be surveyed to eliminate the

participation of vulnerable populations in the study, which includes youth below eighteen years

of age. While this limits the amount of student input, the presence of any of this population’s

input will still provide an opportunity for analysis. This group includes both male students (8)

and female students (19). All students surveyed were Native American (based on the designation

on the survey) and attended school between February 22 and February 26, 2016.

All teachers within the school between kindergarten and twelfth grade were provided a

survey; interventionist teachers were also included, as were teachers of specials in the elementary

school. (These two latter groups were included because they are subject to the same model of

44

evaluation by their direct supervisors.) The gender breakdown of teacher research participants

were male (19) and female (34). A majority of the teachers surveyed were Native American

(71%; 63 out of 88). The average tenure of teaching experience for a teacher-respondent was

10.8 years (median = 6), with some teachers having no prior teaching experience (zero years of

experience), while the most experienced teacher has taught a total of 34 years. Teachers were

surveyed the same week as the students.

Administrators were also surveyed. This group was the smallest of those surveyed, with a

total of eight individuals. This group included three principals (elementary, middle, and high

school), the superintendent, and other high level individuals. Of this group, seven are female and

one is male; all identify as Native American.

The following table, Table 1, identifies the rates of response from broken-out groups who

were surveyed for this research. (Information for the section of the table labeled “sample pool

size” is current as of the Friday of the week the survey was taken; all teachers and administrators

within the total pool of available survey-takers were provided with a survey.)

TABLE 1.

Rate of survey responses.

Sample pool

size:

Returned

surveys:

Percentage

completed:

Students

Over eighteen years of age 28 27 96%

Total: 28 27 96%

Teachers

Elementary (K–5) 20 18 90%

Middle school (6–8) 11 11 100%

High school (9–12) 24 24 100%

Total: 55 53 96.4%

Administrators

Total: 8 8 100%

45

In order to ensure privacy, no identifying information was collected from survey

respondents. Because of the sample size, it is impossible to track back one survey to the student

who took that particular survey. The privacy of teachers has also been considered, and no

identifying information appears within this report or on the surveys distributed to teachers.

Similar precautions apply to the administrators.

In order to confirm that the privacy and additional rights of all subjects were protected,

the research proposal for this report was submitted and approved by relevant area actors,

including the Oglala Sioux Tribe’s Research and Review Board, the Oglala Lakota College

Institutional Review Board, and the Little Wound School Board and superintendent.

Procedures and Data Collection

The Little Wound School Board approved this research project to be conducted through

the school itself—the research collected and the development of a model teacher evaluation in

compliance with state and BIE requirements will directly benefit the school and its teacher

observation and evaluation needs.

Consequently, all teachers in the school will be provided with a survey asking them to

identify, within each of the four domains of the Danielson Framework, the one component that

makes for a most effective teacher. Teachers will also be asked for their gender, their total years

of teaching experience, whether they are an enrolled member of a federally recognized tribe, and

if they have previously had any formal training on the Danielson Framework. In total, there will

be twenty surveys distributed to elementary school teachers—this includes all classroom

instructors, two Lakota language instructors, one physical education teacher, and two

intervention teachers: one English, one math. Within the elementary school, only these teachers

46

will be surveyed because it is only these staff members who are formally evaluated by their

direct administrators in compliance with state and Bureau expectations.

In the middle school, eleven teaching staff will be surveyed; this includes eight core-

subject teachers, two Lakota language instructors, and the instructor of the middle school’s

alternative education program. In the high school, the survey will be distributed to a total of

twenty classroom teachers. Like the elementary school, these staff members are formally

evaluated by their principal supervisors, and thus will be surveyed for their input about the most

central domain components to be utilized in a model teacher evaluation form.

A total of eight school administrators will also be provided with a survey. These

administrators will be asked to identify their number of years of administrative experience, their

total years of teaching experience, if any, and whether the survey-taker has had any training

provided by the originators of the Charlotte Danielson Framework for Teaching.

For all teachers and administrators, the survey—with an accompanying letter explaining

the purpose of the survey, the fact that it is voluntary, and that no identifying information will be

collected—will be placed in their individual mailboxes on a Monday morning before school

starts. (All teachers and administrators will be informed the week before by email that the survey

will be handed out the following week.) Teachers and administrators will fill out the survey

independently and submit the document to a sealed box located near all participants’ respective

mailbox clusters (one in the elementary school, one in the middle school, one in the high school,

one in the administrative offices). Staff members will have until the Friday of that week to return

their completed surveys for inclusion in the research project. In this manner, all returned surveys

will remain entirely anonymous and the non-identifying information will be held confidential.

47

Because of the inclusion of only students above eighteen years of age, students will be

selected in a non-randomized manner. These students will be provided the same survey as staff

and administrators with only some minor changes for the information collected, and will include

a letter of informed consent—like all prospective participants. These adult-aged students will be

instructed to return their completed surveys to the same locked box for high school staff

members. (These students will all be in the high school.)

Because the survey will be conducted at a school operated under the auspices of the

Bureau of Indian Education on a Native American reservation, it is an assumption of the

researcher that most respondents will identify as enrolled members of a federally recognized

Indian tribe. In order to confirm that this is, in fact, accurate, survey takers will be asked to

identify if they are enrolled. While this question could have been rephrased to ask if a participant

identifies as Native American, asking for confirmation of tribal enrollment is a method by which

to gather this information in the same manner that the U.S. Census Bureau conducts its

demographic research (Norris, Vines, & Hoeffel, 2012). Information collected is not limited to

enrolled tribal members, and the responses from individuals who are not enrolled members will

prove similarly enlightening when the data collected is analyzed.

The participants are all informed that the survey is entirely voluntary in nature and the

completion of the survey is not required. Similarly, in line with making sure that all the

participants taking the survey are engaging in the activity with informed consent, the letter

provided also points survey-takers to the lead researcher and research committee chairperson in

case of discontent, and also includes information on contacting the Oglala Lakota College and

tribal institutional review boards in case of concern. These letters of consent were attached to the

front of all surveys distributed, and were returned with completed surveys. In a similar manner to

48

the storage of the completed the surveys, these consent letters were also maintained according to

review board protocols. All participants are reminded that none of their information is

identifying of them, and that all responses will be kept entirely confidential and cannot be used

to identify individual respondents.

Once the surveys have been collected, they will be stored under lock and key in a secure

environment and only the researcher will have access to the documents for the duration of the

research endeavor. Once the research has been completed, all surveys will be shredded and

destroyed.

Data Analysis

Data will be analyzed across a number of axes, which is done to determine the existence

of any statistically valid measures that point to particular components of the Danielson

Framework being preferenced by all or most groups of survey takers. This will be done by

aggregating the collected data and comparing different groups of survey takers. For example, are

there any components identified as important in determining a most effective teacher that is most

commonly selected by teachers, students, and administrators? Is there variation in answers

between teachers in the elementary, middle, and high school? Perhaps there is no clear answer

and no uniformity in determining the most important component in each domain.

Data will be combined and coordinated using the most recent version of SyStat and

analyzed with chi-squared tests for homogeneity, logistic regression, and box and whisker plots.

In order to make the evaluation of this data more approachable, graphs and charts and tables will

be made to accompany the raw data; this will yield a visual result that allows all researchers and

readers to clearly identify how the information collected was used to determine a model teacher

evaluation. (Appendix I provides background on statistical symbols used in the analysis.)

49

All information collected is quantitative in nature. Research participants are identifying

which components of the Danielson Framework are most critical to effective teaching, and other

information collected will be combined and used for statistical evaluation, including years of

teaching and administrative experience, for instance, or the grade of a student participant.

Instrumentation for the collection of data will not target individual staff members because

the information it collects is not evaluative in nature. Once this data is collected, it will be

analyzed in relation to the four research questions guiding this project:











These guiding questions provide insight into how the data will be analyzed, especially in

relation to each other. The use of inferential statistics will guide this section of the research

project in order to determine the most natural components of the Danielson Framework to be

used in Little Wound School teacher evaluations. With this perspective, it becomes clear how the

data will be organized to provide localized conclusions.

50

The first area of analysis includes response rates to Domain 1—Planning and

Preparation—of the Danielson Framework for Teaching. Table 2 outlines this survey data.

TABLE 2.

Responses for Domain 1 across groups (n = 88)

n

Components

χ2 p Respondent

Characteristics A B C D E F

Roles

Teacher 53 9 19 5 2 17 1 33.151 ***< .001

Administration 8 3 3 1 1 0 0 2.000 0.572

Students 27 1 16 1 1 8 0 32.815 ***< .001

Gender

Male 60 9 24 5 2 20 0 30.500 ***< .001

Female 28 4 14 2 2 5 1 24.714 ***< .001

Tribal Membership

Enrolled 63 7 31 3 4 18 0 44.857 ***< .001

Not enrolled 25 6 7 4 0 7 1 5.200 0.267

Test performed was chi-squared tests for homogeneity.

*p < 0.05 **p < 0.01 ***p < 0.001

To test for statistical differences between component preferences, a chi-squared test for

homogeneity was performed (Rao & Scott, 1984). (Note: The chi-squared test compares the data

from the collected sample to a hypothetical sample derived from the expected value for each cell.

The greater the derivation of observed from expected counts, the greater the test statistics, and

thus the lower the p value measured.) Chi-squared tests for Little Wound School teachers,

students, and administrators indicates non-homogenous preference distributions between

components within the teacher (χ2 (5, n = 53) = 33.151, p< .001) and student (χ2 (5, n = 27) =

32.815, p< .001) sub-populations. It is notable that while the null hypothesis cannot be rejected

for the administration, the administrative sample size (n = 8) is underpowered to produce

statistically significant results in this instance (χ2 (5, n = 8) = 2.00, p< .57). In sum, these tests

show that students and teachers do not prefer all components of Domain 1 equally. This author

51

believes that the same is true for the administration, though restraints of this study prevent the

testing of this claim.

Table 2 indicates that teachers prefer categories B and E with 68% of teachers preferring

one of these two components. B and E remained the most popular choices among students, where

88% of respondents chose between these two categories. Administrators, similarly, support B

with 38% of respondents choosing this domain, while another 38% showed preference for A.

Due to the categorical nature of this response variable, logistic regression was used as opposed to

the more typical ANOVA in order to parse between group differences in component

preferences1. In accordance with the author’s original intent, a logistic regression model was

created where the most preferred choice was compared against the aggregate of all of choices for

each domain. For Domain 1 the most preferred component was B. The model used to test

Domain 1 was thus designed to predict the probability of choosing B versus the probability of

choosing any component other than B. By transforming the response variable into a binary

variable, logistic regression was made appropriate. Logistic regression analysis was used to test

if role significantly impacts component preference. Using a model selection process whereby

non-significant predictors were removed, the author was left with a logistic regression model

using teacher and student as independent variables (R2 = .065, χ2 = 3.982, p = .046)2. The role of

teacher (β = .582, p < .05, 95% CI [.021, 1.143]) as well as student (β = -0.957, p < .05, 95% CI

[-1.908, -0.006]) were statistically significant in predicting choice B. While both of these roles

were significant predictors, the role of administrator was not a significant predictor for

aforementioned reasons.

1 In order to test whether or not these differences in component preferences were statistically significant, the author

performed logistic regression modelling on each of the preferred categories as per Peduzzi, Concato, Kemper,

Holford, and Feinstein (1996). 2 R2 estimate utilized the Naglekerke method. This and all future assessments will utilize this method.

52

Turning attention to how years of teaching experience impacts the choices of teachers, a

box and whisker plot was used to elucidate this information.

Figure 2

Distribution of Domain 1 component preferences in relation to years of teaching experience

A box and whisker plot divides data into quartiles; an interquartile range representing the

middle 50% of respondents is represented by the shape of the box, whereas the “whiskers”

demonstrate the two most extreme quartiles (<25% and >75%). A broad group of teachers were

inclined to choose A, spread among novice teachers (less than ten years’ experience),

intermediate teachers (ten to twenty years), and experienced teachers (more than twenty years’

teaching experience). Choice C, meanwhile, was an infrequently chosen component, and those

individuals who did choose this component were all teachers with less than ten years’

experience. In the sample of surveyed teachers, the median years of experience was six. In both

A B C D E F

Domain 1

0

10

20

30

40Y

ea

rs T

ea

ch

ing

53

components A and D, the median years of teaching experience for respondents was significantly

greater than the between group median of 6 years.

Looking at Domain 2—The Classroom Environment—the following Table 3 highlights

the chi-squared test results of an initial analysis.

TABLE 3.


n

Components

χ2 p Respondent

Characteristics A B C D E

Roles

Teacher 53 18 20 9 5 1 25.396 ***p< .001

Administration 8 3 3 1 1 0 2.00 .572

Students 27 12 4 4 6 1 12.444 *p< .05

Gender

Male 28 8 8 5 7 0 0.857 0.836

Female 60 25 19 9 5 2 31.333 ***p< .001

Tribal Membership

Enrolled 63 23 18 9 11 2 21.048 ***p< .001

Not enrolled 25 10 9 5 1 0 8.120 *p< .05


*p < 0.05 **p < 0.01 ***p < 0.001

Within the three roles of surveyed respondents, teachers (χ2 (4, n = 53) = 2.00, p< .001)

demonstrated the most non-homogenous response, highly preferencing answers A and B with

71.6% of respondents choosing one of these two choices. Students (χ2 (4, n = 27) = 3.00, p<

.014) preferred choice A with 44% of respondents identifying this as the most important of the

domain’s components. It is again of note that while the null hypothesis cannot be rejected for the

administration, the administrative sample size (n = 8) is underpowered to produce statistically

significant results in this instance (χ2 (4, n = 8) = 3.00, p< .57). Administrators preferred A and B

equally (three responses per component) as the most common answers.

Within gender, females (χ2 (4, n = 60) = 4.00, p< .001) demonstrated a strong proclivity

for answers A and B, with more than 70% of respondents referencing these two components.

54

Men (χ2 (4, n = 28) = 3.00, p = .836), in contrast, had no clear answers with results showing

homogeneity across all responses.

Tribal enrollment (χ2 (4, n = 63) = 4.00, p< .001) demonstrated a proclivity toward

responses A and B with 65% of answers in these two components. A lack of tribal enrollment (χ2

(4, n = 8) = 3.00, p< .05) demonstrated marginal proclivity; answers still biased toward A and B,

but responses also appeared more regularly in other components.

For Domain 2 the most preferred component was A. The model used to test Domain 2

was thus designed to predict the probability of choosing A versus the probability of choosing any

component other than A. For Domain 2, the selected model was not a significant predictor of

choice (R2 = .013, χ2 = .831, p = .660). In spite of the insignificant model, the role of teacher (β =

.665, p < .05, 95% CI [.096, 1.233]) was statistically significant in predicting choice B.

Figure 3


A B C D E

Domain 2

0

10

20

30

40

Ye

ars

Te

ach

ing

55

While chi-squared assessments showed a number of p values indicating statistical

significance, the logistic regression model developed was not significant. Figure 3 presents this

information for Domain 2.

In all components with teacher preferences, the median response closely mirrored the

expected outcome; the median years of teaching experience for survey respondents was 6 and all

plots presented in Figure 2 show a median response around 6 as well. Looking at both

component A and component B, the range of responses are wider compared to the others. This

indicates a general acceptance among all teachers for these two areas. This stands in direct

contrast to component D, which was the preferred choice only among teachers who possess

fewer than ten years’ worth of teaching experience. No individuals chose component E, and the

responses to component C, while demonstrating a range of preference among teachers with

varying years of experience, remains more concentrated than A and B. The mark above

component D represents a statistical outlier in the responses.

Survey responses to Domain 3—Instruction—are shown in Table 4.

TABLE 4.


n

Components

χ2 p Respondent

Characteristics A B C D E

Roles

Teacher 53 10 1 31 3 8 54.075 ***p< .001

Administration 8 2 2 4 0 0 1.000 .607

Students 27 13 1 7 4 2 17.259 **p< .01

Gender

Male 28 11 1 11 1 4 18.429 **p< .01

Female 60 14 3 31 6 6 43.167 ***p< .001

Tribal Membership

Enrolled 63 20 3 29 6 5 41.048 ***p< .001

Not enrolled 25 5 1 13 1 5 19.200 **p< .01


*p < 0.05 **p < 0.01 ***p < 0.001

56

Across Domain 3, analyzed based on role, gender, and tribal membership, results showed

largely non-homogenous responses across components. Teachers (χ2 (4, n = 53) = 4.00, p<

.0001) strongly preferred choice C with 58% of respondents choosing this component. Students

(χ2 (4, n = 27) = 4.00, p< .001) also demonstrated in their responses a preference: 48% chose A

while C was chosen by 26% of survey-taking students. Again, the administration’s small sample

size (n = 8) resulted in an underpowered test. Thus, the inability to reject the null hypothesis for

the administration (χ2 (4, n = 8) = 2.00, p< .607) is not altogether surprising and may be an

artifact of the limitations of this study rather than the absence of actual differences in preferences

between administrators. While not statistically significant, visual analysis of the data showed

administrators chose C the most, in 50% of instances.

Both males (χ2 (4, n = 28) = 4.00, p< .01) and females (χ2 (4, n = 60) = 4.00, p< .001)

showed non-homogeneous choice patterns preferring choices A and C—notably, females chose C

at a rate of 51%; males were evenly divided between A and C, choosing each 39% of the time.

Tribal enrollment was similarly demonstrative of non-homogeneous responses. Enrolled

tribal members (χ2 (4, n = 63) = 4.00, p< .001) strongly preferred components A and C, choosing

these two responses more than 75% of the time. Survey respondents who are not enrolled in a

federally recognized tribe (χ2 (4, n = 25) = 4.00, p< .01) also had marginal proclivity to response

C—52% of survey-takers answered this component.

For Domain 3 the most preferred component was C. The model used to test Domain 3

was thus designed to predict the probability of choosing C versus the probability of choosing any

component other than C. Within Domain 3, the selected model was a significant predictor of

choice (R2 = .114, χ2 = 7.881, p = .019). In Domain 3, the role of student (β = 1.939, p < .05,

95% CI [0.373, 2.412]) was statistically significant in predicting choice C. Neither the role of

57

teacher (β = -0.343, p = .219, 95% CI [-.889, .203]) nor administrator (β = .343, p = .652, 95%

CI [-1.147, 1.833]) were statistically significant predictors of choosing choice C.

Figure 4


A box and whisper plot was again used to look at how years of teaching experience

impacted teachers’ responses toward this domain’s components.

Similar to Domain 2, Domain 3’s graphed medians remain around 6 years, which is also

the median years’ teaching experience among all teachers. Components A and C were the most

widely preferred responses, whereas component D was almost exclusively preferred by novice

teachers, not intermediate or experienced ones.

Finally, looking at Domain 4—Professional Responsibilities—Table 5 outlines survey

responses from students, staff, and administration at Little Wound School.

A B C D E

Domain 3

0

10

20

30

40Y

ea

rs T

ea

ch

ing

58

TABLE 5.


n

Components

χ2 p Respondent

Characteristics A B C D E F

Roles

Teacher 53 9 6 7 5 9 17 10.509 .062

Administration 8 0 0 3 1 1 3 2.000 .572

Students 27 5 5 4 2 6 5 2.111 .834

Gender

Male 28 3 2 4 3 7 9 8.00 .156

Female 60 11 9 10 5 9 16 6.400 .269

Tribal Membership

Enrolled 63 10 8 11 6 11 17 6.619 .251

Not enrolled 25 4 3 3 2 5 8 5.480 .360


*p < 0.05 **p < 0.01 ***p < 0.001

Of immediate note in the analysis of Domain 4’s chi-squared test results is the absence of

any category of survey respondents whose collective answers pointed toward a statistically

significant preference in component choice. All responses showed statistical homogeneity,

including by role, gender, and status of tribal membership.

Among teachers (χ2 (5, n = 53) = 5.00, p = .062), 32% of respondents indicated their

preference for component F, which is the most statistically significant finding from the data

regarding this domain. Administration (χ2 (5, n = 8) = 3.00, p = .572) showed proclivity to

choose C and F with roughly 75% of respondents choosing these components, but the small

sample size (n = 8) is underpowered to provide a statistically significant answer. Student

responses were the most homogenous (χ2 (5, n = 27) = 5.00, p = .834) with no clear preference

discernable based on given responses.

Looking at responses based on gender and tribal enrollment, no significant answers are

provided to determine the most clearly preferred responses. Using logistic regression to identify

any underlying proclivity to choose modal answers is discussed below.

59

In Domain 4, the most preferred component was F. The selected model was not a

statistically significant predictor of choice (R2 = .033, χ2 = 2.064 p = .356). However, within the

particular role, teacher (β = .750, p = .011, 95% CI [0.174, 1.327]) proved to be a significant

predictor in choosing F. Neither the role of administrator (β = -0.239, p = .761, 95% CI [-1.783,

1.304]) nor student (β = .731, p = .204, 95% CI [-0.398, 1.861]) were statistically significant

predictors of choosing choice F.

A box and whisker plot is again used to view the relationship of choice and experience.

In Domain 4’s responses, components A and E were only chosen by teachers with less

than ten years’ teaching experience. On the other hand, component B demonstrates a greater

proclivity to be chosen by intermediate (ten to twenty years’ experience), as the median of 14 is

more than twice the median years of teaching experiences for all teachers, 6. Of note, component

D is most preferred by experienced teachers and intermediate teachers. The median experience

within component D is greater than 20.

Figure 5


A B C D E F

Domain 4

0

10

20

30

40

Ye

ars

Te

ach

ing

60

Summary

This survey-based research project asked teachers, administrators, and adult-aged

students to identify, in accordance with the domains of the Danielson Framework, the qualities

that make for a most effective teacher. The surveys distributed to all teaching and administrative

staff at Little Wound School, as well as select students, determine what a model teacher

evaluation should look like for this school.

The research methods are highly localized and do not include respondents from other

schools, even ones that are structurally, geographically, or demographically similar to this

individual school; in this manner, the research project becomes a reflection of a moment in time,

in a particular setting, and the collected information will be used to create a model evaluation for

this school based on its teachers’, its administrators’, and its students’ perceptions of excellence

in teaching and instruction.

These inferential statistics will be used to determine the most appropriate components to

be included in the model evaluation. While there are twenty-two total components that can be

used to create a teacher evaluation, only four are required by the State of South Dakota’s

Department of Education and the Bureau of Indian Education.

61

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS

The information collected from the surveys, when analyzed and contextualized with

research and Little Wound School’s environment, yields an understanding of which of the

Danielson Framework’s components—within each of the four domains—should be included in

an initial adaptation of a teacher evaluation tool.

Response Rate

This research survey had a high rate of response. During the week when the survey was

distributed and requested for submission, a total of 97.5% of surveys provided to teachers,

students, and administrators were returned. The high rate of return has permitted this researcher

to determine that the information collected and analyzed is not only accurate, but inferential, and

that the data collected can underwrite the development of a teacher evaluation tool specifically

designed for Little Wound School based on its context and needs.

The disaggregated rates of return are illustrated in Table 6.

TABLE 6.

Rate of survey responses

Sample pool

size:

Returned

surveys:

Percentage

completed:

Students 28 27 96%

Teachers 55 53 96.4%

Administrators 8 8 100%

Demographic Data

The demographic data of survey respondents is reflective of the demographics of Little

Wound School as a whole. The demographics of survey respondents remained outside the

researcher’s control: only individuals working at, or attending, Little Wound School at the time

of the survey’s distribution were included.

62

Non-identifying demographic information can be found in Table 7.

TABLE 7.

Demographics of survey respondents

Teachers Students Administrators

Male 36% 30% 12%

Female 64% 60% 88%

Enrolled in a federal tribe 53% 100% 100%

Not enrolled in a tribe 47% 0% 0%

Because only students over the age of eighteen were surveyed in order to avoid working

with a vulnerable population (minors), all students were in the twelfth grade.

Teachers had a range of experience, with an average experiential tenure of 10.8 years.

The most inexperienced teachers at the time of the survey had less than a year’s worth of

classroom experience, whereas the two most experienced teachers had each spent thirty-four

years as instructors. In order to review the box and whisker plots most readily, teachers were

divided by their years of experience in the classroom. Those teachers with less than ten years of

experience (novel teachers), those with between ten and twenty (intermediate teachers), and

those with more than twenty years of experience (experienced teachers). Given this

categorization, this survey’s fifty-three teachers included thirty-four novel (64%), seven

intermediate (13%), and twelve experienced (23%).

Eighteen teachers (34% of total) taught in the elementary school, eleven teachers (21%)

taught in the middle school, and twenty-four teachers worked in the high school (45%).

Findings

Within domains one (planning and preparation), two (the classroom environment), and

three (instruction), there are evidently clear statistical preferences across all three groups of

survey respondents: students, teachers, and administrators. Because of the small sample size of

63

administrators, most statistical tests were underpowered in identifying overt preferences. (A

recommended future study might include surveying school leaders across the reservation to

collect enough samples to warrant a statistically valid sample size.) Domain four (professional

responsibilities) had no statistically preferred answers from any survey respondent group.

Attention will be first turned toward Domain 1—Planning and Preparation. In this

domain, focus should be placed on the responses from teachers. The reason for this is two-fold:

students, by virtue of their experience, cannot be fully inclined to understand the pedagogical

choices of teachers in preparing class lessons and curriculums. Second, while some of the

administrators surveyed for this research possessed teaching experience, others did not, which

consequently continued to shrink a valid sample size to analyze.

When looking at teacher responses, then, there are two components of the first domain

that stand out as the most preferred: B and E. Component B states that teachers “demonstrate

knowledge of students” while component E proposes that teachers “design coherent instruction”

(Danielson, 1984).

Teacher responses demonstrated a lack of homogeneity to an extent that warranted

classification as statistically significant. Nineteen of fifty three respondents (36%) preferred B

and seventeen (32%) E. The proximity of these two numbers, standing alone, does not lead to a

clear understanding of which Little Wound School should adopt for its internal measure of

teacher effectiveness; thus, it must be contextualized with other collected data.

It is notable that students preferred the same two answer choices, B and E, and in a

similar order—preferring B by a two-to-one margin. This author believes that in this domain,

students were most inclined to preference B because of its direct and explicit connection to the

students themselves. As referenced in the review of literature, student perception of teacher

64

effectiveness is becoming more accepted in the evaluation realm (Ferguson, 2013). Therefore,

the student preference for component B serves to buttress teachers’ marginal preference for

component B over E as well.

When disaggregating the data collected, males and females both preferenced B—

knowledge of students—as the most important component in the domain for identifying teacher

effectiveness. But it was individuals who are enrolled tribal members that highlighted this divide

most; thirty-one of sixty-three, nearly half of respondents, showed proclivity toward B. The only

non-statistically significant finding within the first domain (other than in administrators, whose

sample size was too small to elucidate valid information) was that non-enrolled tribal members

demonstrated a homogenous response to the components of this domain.

The preference for components B and E by teachers in Domain 1 is further identified in

the box and whisker analysis, identified in Figure 2. B and E had the second and third widest

ranges of preference, respectively. (Component A had the widest range of responses when cross-

analyzed for teachers’ years of experience, but the absolute number of respondents do not rival

those of B and E.) What is of note is that for both B and E, the median years of teaching

experience for these components falls roughly in line with the median years of overall teaching

experience: six years. This indicates that the responses within these two components fall roughly

in line with anticipated expectations for how all teachers would respond.

Component B’s student-centered model of planning and preparation aligns well with

Little Wound School’s mission to “provide a sacred environment for students to achieve

academic… excellence” (Little Wound School, n.d.). When looking at the six discrete

components of the first domain of the Framework, component B (demonstrating knowledge of

students) stands out at the most preferred among respondents within Little Wound School.

65

Domain 2 shifts focus to the classroom environment. Within this domain, two

components were the most preferenced among the five: components A and B. Component A

identifies effective classroom teachers as “creating an environment of respect and rapport” and

component B shows effective teachers to “establish a culture of learning” (Danielson, 1984).

Teachers had a statistically significant preference which showed B to be the most

popular, with twenty respondents choosing this component (38% of teachers) and a close second

being A, which was the choice of eighteen teachers (34% of teachers). Students had a measured

marginal proclivity toward A, establishing a culture of respect and rapport.

While B, a culture of learning, is marginally more popular among teachers than A,

students indicated their preference for A. Notably, a strong statistical support for A is measured

in female respondents; while surveyed males showed no proclivity toward any answer in this

domain, females showed a strong preference for A. And while individuals who are not enrolled

in a federally recognized tribe showed marginal preference for A over B, it becomes more

resolute among enrolled tribal members—A is preferred to a point of statistical significance.

This support among enrolled tribal members could stem from Lakota belief in the

centrality of respect as a defining human characteristic (Verbos, Gladstone, & Kennedy, 2011). It

is respect, wówačhiŋtȟaŋka, that Joseph Marshall III identifies in The Lakota Way as being a

core component of what constitutes a life of wólakȟota, or harmony (Marshall, 2002). Thus, it

might be said that this preference for a component which emphasizes a culture of respect is an

outgrowth of a broader cultural preference for the same character trait. Little Wound School’s

vision of operation incorporates this same emphasis, noting that it must “provide for the needs of

the individuals and incorporate the Lakota values in assisting students to acquire academic and

social skills necessary for a productive life in modern society” (Little Wound School, n.d.). The

66

rise of character education in school evaluation recognizes the important role that schools play in

shaping the mindsets of students (Lahey, 2013). One of the primary methods by which to

accomplish this task is by creating an environment where teachers and staff model behaviors that

they seek to impart in their own students (Lumpkin, 2008).

The box and whisker plot cross-analyzing the role of years of teaching experience in

respondent choice of the second domain’s components (Figure 3) continues to point toward a

broad preference for components A and B, but no clear preference in either direction. Similar to

Domain 1, the median years of teaching experience for respondents to A and B falls roughly in

line with the median years of teaching experience for all surveyed teachers.

While teachers showed slight preference for component B over A (twenty to eighteen

respondents, respectively), a broader lens shows that component A—building an environment of

respect and rapport—is more generally acceptable among survey respondents, which indicates to

this researcher that in the development of a teacher evaluation tool for Little Wound, and taking

into account the school’s stated relationship with the Lakota values, component A of Domain 2

should be used as a characteristic marker of effective teachers.

Responses within Domain 3 are non-homogenous, and bias toward components A and C.

The third domain of the Danielson Framework for Teaching focuses on instruction. Component

A proposes that an effective teacher “communicate with students” and C identifies an effective

teacher as someone who “engages students in learning” (Danielson, 1984). Within the five total

components of this domain, these are, notably, the only two that overtly mention the role of

students in the instructional process.

Turning attention first toward the responses of students, then, a preference for A over C is

clear, but only marginally significant in terms of the responses’ homogeneity; however, in spite

67

of this, there is a near two-to-one preference among students for this answer choice. Of note is

that only students demonstrate a tendency toward A of all the deconstructed groups.

While 48% of students chose component A, communicating with students, a higher

percentage of teachers, 58%, chose C, focusing on getting students engaged in learning. This is

not outside the mainstream of educational thinking. The Association for Supervision and

Curriculum Development (ASCD) has published research that indicates it is student engagement

that drives student learning, noting that “engagement is an essential prerequisite for the

development of understanding” (Voke, 2002). Furthermore, the National Education Association,

the largest labor union for American school teachers, advises that “when students are actively

engaged in their learning, they are processing and retaining information and using higher order

thinking” (Lorain, 2015). Traditional teacher education programs often include courses and

curriculums that focus on how to engage students in the learning process—based on the belief

that an engaged student is a learning student—and this may flow into the thinking of teachers

when identifying this component as the most important (Gorzycki, n.d.).

When analyzed between all male and all female respondents, both of these groups show

statistically significant preference for C. Women prefer component C to A by a more than two-

to-one ratio. Men, interestingly, equally prefer C and A. Both individuals enrolled in a tribe and

those who are not demonstrate an absolute preference for component C.

This generalized preference for component C is confirmed through the analysis of the

box and whisker plot in Figure 4. Both A and C have the widest range of responses based on

teachers’ years of experience. While the median years’ experience both reflect what is similar to

the median years’ experience for all teachers, choice C is closer.

68

While the statistics point marginally toward the choice of component C (engagement)

over A (communication) as an indicator of teacher effectiveness at Little Wound School, federal

policy provides a strong defense of this decision. Public Law 114–95, the Every Student

Succeeds Act (ESSA)—passed in December 2015 and replacing No Child Left Behind—clearly

indicates the need for schools to increase student engagement. Student engagement is clearly

listed as a primary manner by which schools can measure their efficacy (Blad, 2016). The law

itself states that student engagement is a fundamental part of offering a “well-rounded

educational experience to all students,” especially those who are “female students, minority

students, English learners, children with disabilities, and low-income students who are often

underrepresented” in academic success (Every Student Succeeds Act, 2015). This indication of

the federal government’s belief in the centrality of student engagement as a measure of teachers’

and schools’ effectiveness is a strong encouragement that component C and its focus on student

engagement be utilized in evaluating which teachers are effective in a classroom setting. This act

of federal government remains relevant at Little Wound because of its impact on schools funded

by the Bureau of Indian Education. The Bureau, under the ESSA, becomes a more independent

arbitrator of federal interpretation and is able to identify the methods by which they will increase

student engagement (Lee, 2016).

The Danielson Framework’s fourth domain, professional responsibility, is unique in that

no disaggregated survey data yields a statistically significant finding.

Among surveyed teachers, the most common response was component F, which indicates

that an effective teachers “demonstrates professionalism” (Danielson, 1984). Seventeen of fifty-

three teachers (32%) identified component F as the most central trait of an effective teacher. Of

all the tests run to analyze this domain’s data, this proved to be the most statistically significant

69

finding; the p value of teachers’ responses was 0.062, indicating this as the most non-

homogenous of all the responses.

Students, on the other hand, showed the most homogenous responses (p = 0.834). No

clear indication of preference is discernable.

Both males and females, however, among all three roles (administrators, teachers, and

students) identified F more consistently than the other components, but never to a point where

statistical significance could be discerned. This is similar to those individuals who both are and

are not enrolled members of a federally recognized tribe; when disaggregated in this manner, the

most common responses remain component F, but never to a point where statistical significance

definitively points toward agreement.

Within Domain 4, the second most commonly selected components by all three roles are

A, C, and E. These components, respectively, indicate that effective teachers “reflect on

teaching,” “communicate with families,” and “grow and develop professionally” (Danielson,

1984). Utilizing the box and whisker plot for this domain, Figure 5, it is clear that for component

F, the median years’ of experience is close to the whole sample size’s median year of six and

that this component has a wide range of support from teachers of all experience levels. However,

looking at components A, C, and E, the figure illuminates an interesting observation: these

components are strongly preferred by teachers with less than ten years’ experience. This

dichotomy points to confirm that component F (showing professionalism) is the most widely

preferred of this domain to be used in determining the effectiveness of a teacher.

These statistical findings are confirmed by other research. In a study from Stetson

University, J. Tichenor and M. Tichenor reiterated the longstanding understanding that a teacher

can be the “single most important individual in directing student success” (2005, p. 89). The

70

Tichenors’ research identified that teachers understood professionalism in many different lights,

but the most commonly referenced was “the ‘character’ component of professionalism more than

any other aspect” (p. 94). The Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development further

corroborates this research, noting that professionalism goes beyond maintaining professional

demeanors, but also drives those same professionals to seek out opportunities for growth,

development, and to further drive those individuals’ student success; this growth “requires

teachers to look honestly at their weaknesses and strengths,” to hold both themselves and their

students to higher levels of accountability, and “commitment to the important professional goals

of competence and quality performance” (Tucker & Stronge, 2005).

Thus, even though no statistically significant results were found in the data regarding

responses to Domain 4’s components, the information collected from the survey, coupled with

existing research, points toward component F as the most widely supported, believing that

teachers demonstrate professionalism in their work.

Because of the representative nature of the sample, the data gleaned from the survey

responses can be used to soundly create a teacher evaluation framework for Little Wound School

given the teachers’, students’, and administrators’ stated preferences. Domains 1, 2, and 3

present clearly non-homogenous responses and largely significant p values and, coupled with

research and cultural context, point to clear answers about which components to incorporate into

this evaluation tool. Domain 4, while presenting the—initially—least convincing statistical

indication of respondent preference similarly, in the end, provides insight about which of its

components to include in a Little Wound School teacher evaluation.

71

This information on the most commonly preferred responses among the four domains

was garnered using established statistical processes and further confirmed by a review of

literature and an understanding of Little Wound School’s local and cultural context.

Statistical Symbols

The statistical methods used to come to these conclusions on component preference

among survey respondents from Little Wound School utilized a number of statistical symbols

that are outlined in Table 8.

TABLE 8.

Statistical symbols

Symbol

Name

Meaning

β beta coefficient the coefficient(s) in a regression mode

χ2 chi-squared test statistic; test of homogeneity between

categorical variables

CI confidence interval the range of beta values obtained such that

one can be 95% certain that a true statistic—as opposed to the test statistic—lies within

DF degree of freedom the number of groups in a test, minus 1

n sample size number of people used to determine relevant

test statistics

p probability; p value the likelihood of obtaining the related test

statistic, given the associated n and DF; higher p values means more likely

R2 variance reports the degree to which observed

responses deviate from predicted responses

72

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION

Summary

Based on expectations from the State of South Dakota and the Bureau of Indian

Education, Little Wound School must develop its own teaching evaluation tool based on the

Danielson Framework for Teaching (South Dakota Commission on Teaching and Learning,

2015, p. 10). The South Dakota Department of Education has decided to utilize the Danielson

Framework both because of its national recognition as a tool to determine and communicate

those characteristics of effective teachers, but also because it allows for flexibility in how

schools can utilize it within their own local contexts (Sawchuk, 2011).

The Charlotte Danielson Framework, outlined in the eponymous author’s 1996 book

Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching, is divided into four primary

domains, each outlining the practices of an effective teacher. These domains include planning

and preparation, the classroom environment, instruction, and professional responsibilities; these

domains include multiple components that elaborate on their implementation (Danielson, 1984).

Little Wound School is expected, as a local education agency, to implement this model of

evaluation by starting with one component from each domain. The research presented in this

school-community action project report has been designed to discern which component from

within these domains should be utilized as a first battery of assessments to gauge the

effectiveness of teachers employed at Little Wound. In order to determine this, surveys were

distributed to all teachers, including from the elementary, middle, and high schools. In order to

provide points of comparison, administrators were also surveyed. This was coupled with survey

responses from students over eighteen years old. Together, this information is believed to be an

73

accurate representation of the preferences people have regarding which components of the

Danielson Framework highlight the most effective practices of teaching.

Because Little Wound School has the freedom to decide how many and which

components of the Danielson Framework will be evaluated (so long as it meets the minimum

requirements of observation outlined by the South Dakota Department of Education) by

supervisors, this process has been important in discerning which components to initially use.

In order to provide appropriate contextualization to the theories undergirding the

evaluation of teachers, an in-depth review of existing literature was conducted. This review

began with an understanding of the origins of teacher evaluation in American history; throughout

the 1700s, teachers remained an agent of local families to educate their own children, and

therefore evaluation varied greatly from one community to another (Burke & Krey, 2005). It was

only in the nineteenth century that a more uniform method of school and teacher evaluation came

to the forefront with Horace Mann’s “common school” movement, where schools were

encouraged to utilize similar curriculums and programs to ensure that all students had access to

the same caliber of education (Simpson, 2004).

John Dewey and Frederick Taylor, operating in the late 19th and early 20th centuries,

proposed two varying understandings of the education system’s purpose, and therefore two

competing views of how to evaluate that system’s effectiveness. Dewey proposed that schools

were the bedrock of American democracy and should be judged by whether they prepared their

pupils for participation in the democratic process. Taylor, on the other hand, proposed a more

utilitarian view of schools—just like a factory is measured on its output, schools must be seen as

factories of knowledge, where they can only be truly evaluated by objective measures of

academic understanding (DeCesare, 2012; Freedman, 1992).

74

These two competing views coexisted as distinct pedagogical philosophies for years until

the post-World War Two-era’s Robert Goldhammer published work recommending a more

clinical understanding of schools and teacher effectiveness. This book established the need of

school principals and instructional supervisors to closely communicate with their teachers,

observe their practice, and provide appropriate and immediate feedback for improved instruction

(Goldhammer, 1969). By 1980, research found that nearly all school leaders used Goldhammer’s

approach in the evaluation of effectiveness (Marzano et al., 2011).

An offspring of Goldhammer’s research was Charlotte Danielson, whose work focused

on identifying measurable ways by which to effectively “measure the competence of teachers”

(Marzano et al., 2011). The Danielson Framework for Teaching, first produced in 1984 and later

published for wider distribution, sought to standardize the language of effective teaching and

provide clear, measurable, and observable criteria for evaluators.

In the 2000s, states began to adopt this framework for internal use among their schools,

and this is true for South Dakota, which formally adopted this model in 2015. Published as the

South Dakota Teacher Effectiveness Handbook: Requirements, Support Systems, and State

Model Recommendations, schools are required to determine which components of the framework

will be implemented for evaluation internally (South Dakota Commission on Teaching and

Learning, 2015). This, then, is the understanding that drives this research—in order to determine

which components should be used for evaluation at Little Wound School, invested parties must

be included in the conversation, their responses should be analyzed using data and statistics, then

contextualized and localized, and finally a model evaluation tool developed.

75

Discussion

The research conducted throughout this process revealed answers to the research

questions. While the initial guiding question asked if students, teachers, and administrators have

different or similar views about the components of the Danielson Framework that make for a

most effective teacher, four research questions were also presented. These research questions

formed the basis for the statistical analysis of the collected data and the data-based answers to

these questions are subsequently presented.











Utilizing the chi-squared test for homogeneity, the following data, presented in Table 9,

was exposed about the relationship between teacher, student, and administrator responses.

76

TABLE 9.

Variance among student, teacher, and administrative responses

Role (n =)

Top

Response: n =

Second

Response: n = p =

Domain 1

Teacher (53) B 19 E 17 ***< .001

Administration (8) A, E 3 each C, D 1 each .572

Student (27) B 16 E 8 ***< .001

Domain 2

Teacher (53) B 20 A 18 ***< .001

Administration (8) A, B 3 each C, D 1 each .572

Student (27) A 12 D 6 *< .05

Domain 3

Teacher (53) C 31 A 10 ***< .001

Administration (8) C 4 A, B 1 each .607

Student (27) A 13 C 7 **< .01

Domain 4

Teacher (53) F 17 A, E 9 each .062

Administration (8) C, F 3 each D, E 1 each .572

Student (27) E 6 A, B, F 5 each .834


*p < 0.05 **p < 0.01 ***p < 0.001

Notably, when comparing the first choice and second choice responses of students,

teachers, and administrators, there are significant commonalities. If first and second choice

answers are not identical, they most frequently become transposed. For example, looking at the

responses in Domain 3, both teachers’ and students’ first and second choices are A and C. This

indicates that while the particular order of first and second differ between the roles, they are

nearly always inclusive of the same components.

Table 9 indicates that responses between the different roles overlap more often than they

diverge. Unfortunately, as previously mentioned, the sample size of administrators remains too

small to provide statistically significant results for definite comparison.

77

The second research question wondered if variations in the data collected from teachers

and administrators could be attributed to differences in the length of teaching experience, gender,

position of employment, or other identifiable factors. This information was most evident in the

analysis of years of teaching experience among teachers in determining component preference. It

was through the box and whisker plots that this information was visually presented. As the

research progressed, it becomes necessary to qualify the data from administrators—the sample

size is too small to draw statistically significant conclusions.

The box and whisker plots clearly showed that different components drew support from

teachers of different experience levels. Within Domain 1, in Figure 2, component C (setting

instructional outcomes) was only picked by novel teachers. Component D (demonstrating

knowledge of resources), on the other hand, was most popular with intermediate and experienced

teachers. Other components, especially A (knowledge of content and pedagogy), had a wide

range of support from all teachers. This is true for other domains as well.

Figure 3 outlines this for the second domain of the Danielson Framework. Component D

was only chosen by novel teachers, noting the importance of managing behavior. Components A

and B (respectively, creating an environment of respect and rapport and establishing a culture of

learning) garnered a wide range of support from all teachers, regardless of years’ of teaching

experience.

In Domain 3 (Figure 4), three components were widely appreciated as a trademark of

effective teachers, regardless of years of teaching experience: A, C, and to a lesser extent E—in

order, communication with students, engaging students in learning, and demonstrating flexibility

and responsiveness. A majority of novel teachers supported D, utilizing assessment in

instruction, as the component most reflective of effective teaching.

78

In Domain 4, which had no statistically significant indication of preference, the box and

whisker plot (Figure 5) was used to discern broad preferences. Two components within this

domain—A and E, reflecting on teaching and growing and developing professionally—had no

support outside novel teachers. Component D, which indicates that an effective teacher

participate in a professional community, interestingly, had an extraordinarily high rate of support

from the most experienced teachers. Among all teaching staff surveyed, the median years of

experience was six. For D, the median experience of a respondent was upward of twenty years.

Similarly, but less so, component B of Domain 4 had most of its support from intermediate

teachers; the median experience of this component was fourteen years.

Years of teaching experience, clearly, impacts component preference. Between men and

women, there are also notable variations.

In Domain 1, 2, and 3, the responses of men and women served to support each other. In

all three of these instances, with regard to the first and second preference of components, the

choice of female respondents was identical to the top choice of male respondents. These answers

include male and female participants from all three roles: teachers, students, and administrators.

The only domain where this is not the case was Domain 4; in this domain, while men’s and

women’s first preference was identical, the second choice preference varied.

A similar finding occurred when looking at how tribal enrollment affects respondent

choices. In all four domains, the first choice component of tribal members mirrored that of

individuals who are not enrolled in a federally recognized tribe. In domains one, two, and three,

the second choice of tribal and non-tribal members are also the same; the only instance where

this is not true is Domain 4, where the homogeneity of responses prohibits this discernment.

79

The third guiding question of this research asked if the results from students mirror or

juxtapose those collected from teachers and administrative staff. This question ended up being

answered within the first guiding question. In almost all cases, the first and second choices of

students and teachers were the same, even though they might be reversed.

The fourth research question asked if there are particular components of the Danielson

Framework that are unanimously believed by those individuals surveyed to be the most

important factor in identifying a most effective teacher. Table 10 looks at the percentage of

responses within each domain to select the most popular component as well as the percentage of

responses that fall within the two most preferred components combined.

TABLE 10.

Percentage of responses for top component preference

Domain: % of responses for top

choice component:

% of combined

responses for top two

components:

Domain 1 43% (B) 71% (B + E)

Domain 2 38% (A) 68% (A + B)

Domain 3 48% (C) 76% (C + A)

Domain 4 28% (F) 46% (F + E)

Though each domain includes one component that a plurality of survey respondents

preferred, no domain includes a majority-garnering vote of confidence for one particular

component. Domains one, two, and three, when combining the percentage of respondents who

preferred the top two domains combined, clearly demonstrate a bifurcated preference. It is only

in the fourth domain where this does not hold true—even when combining the responses of all

respondents’ first and second most popular choices, it does not cross into a majority of

participants. In Domain 4, this is an expected outcome, considering the homogeneity of

responses and high p values among all respondent groups. Consequently, this fourth research

question has proven largely true. Within three of the four domains, clear preferences exist.

80

Conclusions

Through the analysis of data collected from surveys distributed to teachers,

administrators, and students at Little Wound School, a clearer picture begins to emerge about

which components of the Danielson Framework for Teaching to include in a localized evaluation

tool regarding the effectiveness of teachers.

A teacher evaluation tool can be developed. Data collected from the distributed surveys

points to components of the Framework for Teaching that can be generally accepted as a most

preferred trait of effective teaching. When survey responses are analyzed with statistics,

contextualized with local needs, culture, and academic literature, a clear picture emerges about

how Little Wound School can develop an internal framework to measure the effectiveness of its

instructional staff. Table 11 outlines the preferred components for an evaluation tool.

A general, preferential consensus exists. Table 10 points to the fact that in every

domain, there is a component that a plurality of survey respondents prefer. In the first three

domains, when the first and second choices of respondents are combined, these components form

a large majority of the stated preferences. The only domain where this is not as true is four,

where no statistically significant results are found, but the two top components still, when

combined, constitute nearly half the stated components of preference.

Teacher, students, and administrators have similar views. In Table 9, it is shown that

among all three of these roles, more often than not, the top two component preferences are either

identical, or transposed. This further shows that even when considering the diverse roles of these

individuals, Little Wound School survey respondents have a generally overlapping preference for

which components are most central to the description of an effective teacher.

81

Recommendations

Most fundamentally, recommendations for practice based on this study’s findings point

Little Wound School in the direction of which components to initially utilize for the evaluation

of teacher effectiveness. Table 11 highlights this research study’s final recommendations for

those components of the Danielson Framework to be adopted as an indigenized evaluation of

effective teachers at Little Wound School.

TABLE 11.

Recommended Danielson Framework1 components for effective teacher evaluation

Domain: Domain Area: Recommended

Component: Component Text:

1 Planning and

Preparation B Demonstrating knowledge of students

2 Classroom

Environment A

Creating an environment of respect and

rapport

3

Instruction

C

Engaging students in learning

4 Professional

Responsibilities F Demonstrating professionalism

1 Danielson, C. (1984). Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching.

Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Each component of the Danielson Framework includes multiple elements, which further

illustrate the manifestation of that component in an effective teacher’s classroom. An additional

recommendation for implementation is that these elements serve as the basis of instructional

supervisors’ in-class evaluations.

The research conducted in this paper opens up the door for continued study. One of the

primary limitations of this research was that Little Wound School does not employ enough

administrators to deliver a statistically significant sample size of survey responses. In broadening

this research, potential for further study might include surveying administrators at all the schools

82

across the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. This larger sample size could then be used to confirm

or disprove the findings presented in this report.

Furthermore, research could be conducted in a way that takes into account responses

from teachers and administrators across all this reservation’s schools. This study included a

highly localized sample of teachers, employed at a single school. While this information is

helpful in decision-making at Little Wound, surveys distributed to teachers and administrators

across the reservation could corroborate what was found in this research or show that greater

variation exists among the schools than initially anticipated.

Finally, additional research could take into account the views of students who are less

than eighteen years old. This research project chose not to include this vulnerable population, but

additional research might seek this information. (Because this process by its nature required

parent or guardian permission, this same research project could seek out as well the component

preferences of parents and guardians.) The Tripod Survey, mentioned previously in this research,

has shown that students, by spending significant time with their teachers in the classroom, often

have the best view of teacher effectiveness; this sample group of survey respondents could prove

helpful in providing a more complete picture of the components of the Danielson Framework and

their relationship to a most effective teacher.

83

CHAPTER 6: IMPLEMENTATION

This school-community action project includes recommendations for implementation, but

does not seek to implement the findings itself. Based on the data gathered from surveys of eighty

eight individuals on the characteristics within the Danielson Framework that make for an

effective teacher, a general consensus was discerned about how Little Wound School can take

this information and implement an indigenized and localized tool for instructional evaluation.

Based on the findings of the research, a modification of the full South Dakota Framework

for Evaluation tool is proposed for use at Little Wound School. Within the four domains of

practice, four clearly identified components for principal supervision are identified and the

relevant elements constituting each are included as well. This model takes into account the

preferences of teachers, students, and administrators and utilizes the Charlotte Danielson

Framework for Teaching’s organizational structure of broad domains, divided into more specific

components, which are subsequently broken down into discrete elements.

While the evaluation tool presented in Figure 6 is just that, another evaluation tool, this

particular structure is based on the stated preferences of people at Little Wound School and

therefore reflects those individuals’ beliefs about what the characteristics of effective teaching

are and how they can be documented to support evaluation.

Figure 6

Evaluation tool for Little Wound School

LITTLE WOUND SCHOOL TEACHER EVALUATION

Based on the South Dakota Framework for Teaching.*

Teacher Evaluated: Date of Evaluation: Instructional Supervisor:

Duration of Evaluation: Location of Evaluation:

84

DOMAIN 1—Planning & Preparation

Component for Evaluation: B—Demonstrating Knowledge of Students

1a Knowledge of Characteristics Age Group

□ Unsatisfactory1 □ Basic2 □ Proficient3 □ Distinguished4

Justification:

1b Knowledge of Students’ Varied Approaches to Learning

□ Unsatisfactory □ Basic □ Proficient □ Distinguished

Justification:

1c Knowledge of Students’ Skills and Knowledge


Justification:

1d Knowledge of Students’ Interests and Cultural Heritages


Justification:

1 Unsatisfactory: The teacher displays minimal understanding of how students learn—and little knowledge of

their varied approaches to learning, knowledge and skills, special needs, and interests and cultural heritages—and

does not indicate that such knowledge is valuable.**

2 Basic: The teacher displays generally accurate knowledge of how students learn and of their varied approaches

to learning, knowledge and skills, special needs, and interests and cultural heritages, yet may apply this

knowledge not to individual students but to the class as a whole.

3 Proficient: The teacher understands the active nature of student learning and attains information about levels of

development for groups of students. The teacher also purposefully acquires knowledge from several sources

about groups of students’ varied approaches to learning, knowledge and skills, special needs, and interests and

cultural heritages.

4 Distinguished: The teacher understands the active nature of student learning and acquires information about

levels of development for individual students. The teacher also systematically acquires knowledge from several sources about individual students’ varied approaches to learning, knowledge and skills, special needs, and

interests and cultural heritages.

85

DOMAIN 2—The Classroom Environment

Component for Evaluation: A—Creating an Environment of Respect and Rapport

2a Teacher Interactions with Students


Justification:

2b Student Interactions with Other Students


Justification:

5 Unsatisfactory: Patterns of classroom interactions, both between teacher and students and among students, are

mostly negative, inappropriate, or insensitive to students’ ages, cultural backgrounds, and developmental levels.

Student interactions are characterized by sarcasm, put-downs, or conflict. The teacher does not deal with

disrespectful behavior

6 Basic: Patterns of classroom interactions, both between teacher and students and among students, are generally

appropriate but may reflect occasional inconsistencies, favoritism, and disregard for students’ ages, cultures, and

developmental levels. Students rarely demonstrate disrespect for one another. The teacher attempts to respond to disrespectful behavior, with uneven results. The net result of the interactions is neutral, conveying neither warmth

nor conflict.

7 Proficient: Teacher-student interactions are friendly and demonstrate general caring and respect. Such

interactions are appropriate to the ages, cultures, and developmental levels of the students. Interactions among

students are generally polite and respectful, and students exhibit respect for the teacher. The teacher responds

successfully to disrespectful behavior among students. The net result of the interactions is polite, respectful, and

business-like, though students may be somewhat cautious about taking intellectual risks.

8 Distinguished: Classroom interactions between the teacher and students and among students are highly

respectful, reflecting genuine warmth, caring, and sensitivity to students as individuals. Students exhibit respect

for the teacher and contribute to high levels of civility among all members of the class. The net result is an

environment where all students feel valued and are comfortable taking intellectual risks.

DOMAIN 3—Instruction

Component for Evaluation: C—Engaging Students in Learning

3a Activities and Assignments


Justification:

3b Instructional Materials and Resources


Justification:

86

3c Grouping of Students


Justification:

3d Structure and Pacing


Justification:

9 Unsatisfactory: The learning tasks/activities, materials, and resources are poorly aligned with the instructional

outcomes, or require only rote responses, with only one approach possible. The groupings of students are

unsuitable to the activities. The lesson has no clearly defined structure, or the pace of the lesson is too slow or

rushed.

10 Basic: The learning tasks and activities are partially aligned with the instructional outcomes but require only

minimal thinking by students and little opportunity for them to explain their thinking, allowing most students to

be passive or merely compliant. The groupings of students are moderately suitable to the activities. The lesson has a recognizable structure; however, the pacing of the lesson may not provide students the time needed to be

intellectually engaged or may be so slow that many students have a considerable amount of “downtime.”

11 Proficient: The learning tasks and activities are fully aligned with the instructional outcomes and are designed

to challenge student thinking, inviting students to make their thinking visible. This technique results in active

intellectual engagement by most students with important and challenging content and with teacher scaffolding to

support that engagement. The groupings of students are suitable to the activities. The lesson has a clearly defined

structure, and the pacing of the lesson is appropriate, providing most students the time needed to be intellectually

engaged.

12 Distinguished: Virtually all students are intellectually engaged in challenging content through well-designed

learning tasks and activities that require complex thinking by students. The teacher provides suitable scaffolding

and challenges students to explain their thinking. There is evidence of some student initiation of inquiry and

student contributions to the exploration of important content; students may serve as resources for one another.

The lesson has a clearly defined structure, and the pacing of the lesson provides students the time needed not only

to intellectually engage with and reflect upon their learning but also to consolidate their understanding.

DOMAIN 4—Professional Responsibilities

Component for Evaluation: F—Showing Professionalism

4a Integrity and Ethical Conduct


Justification:

4b Service to Students


87

Justification:

4c Advocacy


Justification:

4d Decision-Making


Justification:

4e Compliance with School and District Regulations


Justification:

13 Unsatisfactory: The teacher displays dishonesty in interactions with colleagues, students, and the public. The teacher is not alert to students’ needs and contributes to school practices that result in some students being ill

served by the school. The teacher makes decisions and recommendations that are based on self-serving interests.

The teacher does not comply with school and district regulations.

14 Basic: The teacher is honest in interactions with colleagues, students, and the public. The teacher’s attempts to

serve students are inconsistent, and unknowingly contribute to some students being ill served by the school. The

teacher’s decisions and recommendations are based on limited though genuinely professional considerations. The

teacher must be reminded by supervisors about complying with school and district regulations.

15 Proficient: The teacher displays high standards of honesty, integrity, and confidentiality in interactions with

colleagues, students, and the public. The teacher is active in serving students, working to ensure that all students receive a fair opportunity to succeed. The teacher maintains an open mind in team or departmental decision

making. The teacher complies fully with school and district regulations.

16 Distinguished: The teacher can be counted on to hold the highest standards of honesty, integrity, and

confidentiality and takes a leadership role with colleagues. The teacher is highly proactive in serving students,

seeking out resources when needed. The teacher makes a concerted effort to challenge negative attitudes or

practices to ensure that all students, particularly those traditionally underserved, are honored in the school. The

teacher takes a leadership role in team or departmental decision making and helps ensure that such decisions are

based on the highest professional standards. The teacher complies fully with school and district regulations,

taking a leadership role with colleagues.

*Little Wound School utilizes the South Dakota Framework for Teaching, first outlined and required in the 2015

publication South Dakota Teacher Effectiveness Handbook: Requirements, Support Systems, and State Model

Recommendations, which is also utilized by Bureau of Indian Education schools within the state.

**Descriptions of unsatisfactory, basic, proficient, and distinguished are based on the Danielson Framework for

Teaching’s 2013 Evaluation Instrument (Danielson, 2013).

88

While schools may seek to use additional tools in determining the fit of a particular

teacher within a school, this model evaluation tool includes what teachers, administrators, and

students—in alignment to the Danielson Framework—currently see as those components that

make for a most effective teacher.

Developed only in 2015, the State of South Dakota’s move toward full implementation of

the Danielson Framework will take time. This analysis and recommendation, if adopted, can set

that process in motion for Little Wound School. Tȟašúŋke Witkó, the Oglala Chief Crazy Horse,

said around 1850 that “a great vision is needed, and… it must be followed as the eagle seeks the

deepest blue of the sky” (Lake, 1991, p. 43). This document’s proposed first step in determining

the factors of effective teaching as interpreted by those at Little Wound may not be the final

vision, but can serve instead as a first collective realization that localized and contextualized

evaluation methods exist and can be implemented within the guidelines of the state and with the

intention to better serve the students and the community.

89

Bibliography

Aaronson, D., Barrow, L., & Sander, W. (2007). Teachers and student achievement in the

Chicago public high schools. Journal of Labor Economics, 25(1), p. 95–135. Retrieved

from http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/10.1086/508733.pdf

Abramson, L. (2010, August 27). ‘L.A. Times’ teacher ratings database stirs debate. National

Public Radio. Retrieved from

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129456212

Academic Development Institute. (2013a). Indicator: The principal maintains a file of the

agendas, work products, and minutes of all teams (41). WiseWays. Retrieved online from

www.indistar.org/app/wiseways/41.pdf

Academic Development Institute. (2013b). Indicator: Yearly learning goals are set for the school

by the Leadership Team utilizing student learning data (104). WiseWays. Retrieved from

www.indistar.org/app/wiseways/104.pdf

Anast-May, L.; Penick, D.; Schroyer, R.; & Howell, A. (2011, April–June). Teacher

conferencing and feedback: Necessary but missing! International Journal of Educational

Leadership Preparation, 6(2), p. 1–6. Retrieved from

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ973835.pdf

Anderson, N. (2011, February 8). Researchers fault L.A. Times methods in analysis of California

teachers. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-

dyn/content/article/2011/02/07/AR2011020705556.html

Avalos, B. (2011). Teacher professional development in teaching and teacher education over ten

years. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), p. 10-20. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.08.007.

90

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. (2010). Learning about teaching: Initial findings from the

Measures of Effective Teaching project [Policy Brief, MET Project]. Seattle,

Washington: Author. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED528388

Blad, E. (2016, January 5). ESSA law broadens definition of school success. Education Week.

Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2016/01/06/essa-law-broadens-

definition-of-school-success.html

Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Buczynski, S., & Hansen, C. B. (2010). Impact of professional development on teacher practice:

Uncovering connections. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), p. 599-607.

Bureau of Indian Education. (2015, July 24). Title I—schoolwide programs. Bureau of Indian

Affairs. Retrieved from http://www.bie.edu/Programs/supprog/TitleI/index.htm

Burke, P. J., & Krey, R. D. Supervision: A guide to instructional leadership. Springfield, Illinois:

Charles C. Thomas, Publisher LLC.

California Department of Education. (2015, April 1). Curriculum frameworks. California State

Board of Education. Retrieved online 21 July 2015 from http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/fr/

Callaham, K., & Sadeghi, L. (2015, April). Teacher perceptions of the value of teacher

evaluations: New Jersey's ACHIEVE NJ. International Journal of Educational

Leadership Administration, 10(1), p. 46–59. Retrieved from


Chaplin, D., Gill, B., Thompkins, A., & Miller, H. (2014, June). Professional practice, student

surveys, and value-added: Multiple measures of teacher effectiveness in the Pittsburgh

Public Schools. Mathematica Policy Research. Retrieved from

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED545232.pdf

91

Clifford, M., Behrstock-Sherratt, E., & Fetters, J. (2012). The ripple effect: A synthesis of

research on principal influence to inform performance evaluation design. Quality School

Leadership Issue Brief. Washington, D.C.: American Institutes for Research. Retrieved

from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED530748

Cody, A. (2012, April 2). Tough questions for Teach for America. Education Week. Retrieved

from http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-

dialogue/2012/04/tough_questions_for_teach_for.html

Cogan, M. (1973). Clinical supervision. New York City: Houghton Mifflin.

Cubberley, E. P. (1916). Public school administration: A statement of the fundamental principles

underlying the organization and administration of public education. New York City:

Houghton Mifflin Company.

Danielson, C. (1984). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. Alexandria,

Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Danielson, C. (2013). The framework for teaching: Evaluation instrument: 2013 edition.

Danielson Group. Retrieved from https://www.danielsongroup.org/framework/

Danielson Group. (2011). The Framework for Teaching. Retrieved from

http://www.danielsongroup.org/article.aspx?page=frameworkforteaching

Danielson, C., & McGreal, T. L. (2000). Teacher evaluation to enhance professional practice.


Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/100219/chapters/A-Blueprint-

for-Teacher-Evaluation.aspx

Darling-Hammond, L. (1986). A proposal for evaluation in the teaching profession. The

Elementary School Journal, 86(4), 530-551.

92

David, J. L. (2010, May). The key to changing the teaching profession. Educational Leadership,

67(8), p. 81–82. Retrieved from

http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational_leadership/may10/vol67/num08/Using_Va

lue-Added_Measures_to_Evaluate_Teachers.aspx

DeCesare, T. (2012). The Lippmann-Dewey “debate” revisited: The problem of knowledge and

the role of experts in modern democratic theory. Philosophical Studies in Education, 43,

p. 106–116. Retrieved from

http://eric.ed.gov/?q=john+dewey+democracy+education&pr=on&ft=on&id=EJ1000304

Deckerman, P. T., Mayer, D. P., & Glazerman, S. (2004, June 9). The effects of Teach for

America on students: Findings from a national evaluation. Mathematica Policy Research.

[special report]. Retrieved from http://www.mathematica-

mpr.com/~/media/publications/PDFs/teach.pdf

Desimone, L. M., Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F. (2002). Effects of

professional development on teacher's instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal

study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81-112

Domain. (2015). Oxford English Dictionary. Retrieved from

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/domain

Duke, D. & Stiggins, R. J. (1990). Beyond minimum competence: Evaluation for professional

development. In J. Millman & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), The new handbook of

teacher evaluation: Assessing elementary and secondary school teachers (pp. 116-132).

Newbury Park, California: Sage.

Eri, R. (2014). Peer observation of teaching: Reflections of an early career academic. Universal

Journal of Educational Research, 2(9), p. 625–631. doi: 10.13189/ujer.2014.020905

93

Every Student Succeeds Act. P.L. 114–95. U.S.C. § 4104. Retrieved from

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-114s1177enr/html/BILLS-114s1177enr.htm

Farnsworth, B., Shaha, S., Bahr, D., Lewis, V., & Benson, L. (2002). Preparing tomorrow's

teachers to use technology: Learning and attitudinal impacts on elementary students.

Journal of Instructional Psychology, 29(3).

Farr, S. (2010). Teaching as leadership: The highly effective teacher’s guide to closing the

achievement gap. New York City: Jossey-Bass.

Feeney, E. J. (2007, April). Quality feedback: The essential ingredient for teacher success. The

Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues, and Ideas, 80(4), p. 191-

197. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ771291

Felch, J., & Song, J. (2010, August 16). U.S. schools chief endorses release of teacher data. The

Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/16/local/la-me-

0817-teachers-react-20100817

Felch, J., Song, J., & Smith, D. (2010, August 14). Who’s teaching L.A.’s kids? The Los Angeles

Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/14/local/la-me-teachers-

value-20100815

Ferguson, R. (2013, June 27). Using student surveys to monitor teacher effectiveness. Regional

Educational Laboratory Mid-Atlantic. [special report]. Eric Number: ED562500.

Frase, L.E. (1992). Constructive feedback on teaching is missing. Education, 113(2), p. 176-81.

Freedberg, L. (2011, May 10). U.S. schools chief backs off on publication of teacher ratings.

California Watch—Center for Investigative Reporting. Retrieved online 12 July 2015

from http://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/us-schools-chief-backs-publication-teacher-

ratings-10199

94

Freedman, D. H. (1992, November/December). Is management still a science? Harvard Business

Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/1992/11/is-management-still-a-science

Gahagan, K. (2010, November 30). State moves toward new teaching standards. The Rapid City

Journal. Retrieved from http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/state-moves-toward-new-

teaching-standards/article_bdc48ea8-fd03-11df-9f77-001cc4c03286.html

Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes

professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers.

American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915.

Goldhammer, R. (1969). Clinical supervision: Special methods for the supervision of teachers.

New York City: Harcourt.

Gordon, R., Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. O. (2006). Identifying effective teachers using

performance on the job. [Hamilton Project Discussion Paper]. Washington, DC:

Brookings Institution. Retrieved from

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Papers/2006/4/education%20gordon/2

00604hamilton_1.PDF

Gorzycki, M. (n.d.). Engaging students. San Francisco State University. Retrieved from

http://ctfd.sfsu.edu/content/engaging-students

Guilfoyle, C. (2013, spring). Quantifying teacher effectiveness. Association for Supervision and

Curriculum Development: Policy Priorities, 19(1), p. 1–7. Retrieved online 21 July 2015

from http://www.ascd.org/publications/newsletters/policy-

priorities/vol19/num01/Quantifying-Teacher-Effectiveness.aspx

95

Hancock, L. (2011, March/April). Tested: Covering schools in the age of micro-measurement.

The Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved from

http://www.cjr.org/cover_story/tested.php

Hazi, H. M., & Arredondo Rucinski, D. (2009). Teacher evaluation as a policy target for

improved learning: A fifty-state review of statute and regulatory action since NCLB.

Education Policy Analysis Archives, 17(5). Retrieved online 15 July 2015 from

http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v17n5/

Heathers, G. (1977, February). A working definition of individualized instruction. Educational

Leadership. Retrieved from

http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_197702_heathers.pdf

Hidden Curriculum. (2014, August 26). In S. Abbott (Ed.), The glossary of education reform.

Retrieved from http://edglossary.org/hidden-curriculum

Illinois Principals Association & Illinois Association of School Administrators. (2012). A guide

to implementing principal performance evaluation in Illinois. Springfield, IL: Illinois

Principals Association. Retrieved from http://www.ilprincipals.org/resources/resource-

documents/principal-

evaluation/ipep/Guide%20to%20Implementing%20Principal%20Performance%20Evalua

tion%20in%20Illinois.pdf

Illinois State Board of Education. (2011). 2011 teacher/principal evaluation systems: Final

collection. Springfield, IL: Author. Retrieved from

http://www.isbe.net/peac/pdf/survey/teacher_prin_eval_survey11_final.pdf

96

Jacob, B. A., & Lefgren, L. (2008). Can principals identify effective teachers? Evidence on

subject performance evaluation in education. Journal of Labor Economics, 26(1), p. 101-

136.

Jerald, C. D. (2012). Movin’ it and improvin’ it! Using both education strategies to increase

teaching effectiveness. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress. Retrieved online

17 July 2015 from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED535645

Kane, T. J., & Cantrell, S. (2010). Learning about teaching: Initial findings from the Measures of

Effective Teaching Project. Seattle, WA: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Kane, T. J., Rockoff, J. E., & Staiger, D. O. (2006). What does certification tell us about teacher

effectiveness? Evidence from New York City. [NBER Working Paper No. 12155].

Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from

http://www.nber.org/papers/w12155.pdf

Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. O. (2012). Gathering feedback for teaching: Combining high-quality

observations with student surveys and achievement gains. [research report]. Seattle, WA:

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Retrieved online 17 July 2015 from

http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED540960

Kelley, C., & Maslow, V. (2005). Effects of teacher evaluation on equity and system changes in

large diverse high schools. [Paper presented at the annual meeting of the America

Education Research Association]. Retrieved from

http://cnx.org/contents/W155KnBn@2/Teacher-Conferencing-and-Feedb

Kilbourn, L. (1982). Linda: A case study in clinical supervision. Canadian Journal of Education,

3(1), p. 1–24. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-

leadership/oct93/vol51/num02/[email protected]

97

Koon, S., Petscher, Y., & Foorman, B. R. (2014, May). Beating the odds: Finding schools

exceeding achievement expectations with high-risk students. National Center for

Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. [special report]. Retrieved from


Lahey, J. (2013, May 6). The benefits of character education. The Atlantic. Retrieved from

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/05/the-benefits-of-character-

education/275585/

Lake, M. G. (1991). Native healer: Initiation into an ancient art. Wheaton, IL: Quest Books.

Lazarev, V., Newman, D., & Sharp, A. (2014, October). Properties of the multiple measures in

Arizona’s teacher evaluation model. Regional Educational Laboratory West. Retrieved

from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED548027.pdf

Laertius, D. (1925). Lives of Eminent Philosophers, Volume I, Books 1-5. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press. Retrieved from

http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780191735240.001.0001/q-oro-

00000434

Lee, T. H. (2016, February 1). 9 ways the new education law is a win for Indian Country. Indian

Country Today Media Network. Retrieved from

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2016/02/01/9-ways-new-education-law-

win-indian-country-163237

Linn, R., Bond, L., Carr, P., Darling-Hammond, L., Harris, D., Hess, F., & Shulman, L. (n.d.).

Student learning, student achievement: How do teachers measure up? National Board for

Professional Teaching Standards. [special report]. Retrieved from

98

http://www.nbpts.org/sites/default/files/documents/research/NBPTS_Student%20Learnin

g%20Student%20Achievement%20(2).pdf

Little Wound School. (n.d.). Taopi Cikala Owayawa: Little Wound School. Little Wound School.

[organizational website]. Retrieved from http://www.littlewound.us/index.html

Liu, K., Stuit, D., Springer, J., & Wan, Y. (2014, November). The utility of teacher and student

surveys in principal evaluations: An empirical investigation. Regional Education

Laboratory at the American Institutes for Research. [special report]. Retrieved from


Lorain, P. (2015). Teaching that emphasizes active engagement. National Education Association.

Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/tools/16708.htm

Lovett, I. (2010, November 9). Teacher’s death exposes tensions in Los Angeles. The New York

Times. Retrieved from

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/10/education/10teacher.html?_r=0

Lumpkin, A. (2008, February). Teachers as role models: Teaching character and moral virtues.

Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, & Dance, 79(2), pp. 45–49. ERIC ID:

EJ795640.

Marshall III, J. M. (2002). The Lakota way: Stories and lessons for living. New York: Compass.

Marzano, R. J., Frontier, T., & Livingston, D. (2011). Effective supervision: Supporting the art

and science of teaching. New York City: Heinle-Cengage.

Mattson Almanzán, H., Sanders, N., & Kearney, K. (2011). How six states are implementing

principal evaluation systems. San Francisco: WestEd. Retrieved from

http://www.wested.org/online_pubs/resource1105.pdf

99

Mercer, B. (2013, October 2). State board gives its OK to rules for teacher evaluation flexibility.

The Pierre Capital Journal. Retrieved from http://www.capjournal.com/news/state-

board-gives-its-ok-to-rules-for-teacher-evaluation/article_838846de-2b23-11e3-ac15-

0019bb2963f4.html

MET Project. (n.d.). MET FAQs. Measures of Effective Teachers Project. Retrieved from

http://www.metproject.org/faq.php

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook.

New York City: SAGE Publications. Retrieved from

http://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/48274_ch_3.pdf

Morgan, H. (2009, Summer). What every teacher needs to know to teach Native American

students. Multicultural Education, 16(4), pp. 10–12. Retrieved from

files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ858583.pdf

National Conference of State Legislatures. (2011, November 15). State approaches to evaluating

school principal effectiveness webinar. [Slide presentation]. Washington, DC: Author.

Retrieved from

http://www.ncsl.org/documents/educ/EvaluatingPrinpcipalEffecitvenessPowerPointSlides

.pdf

National Institutes of Health. (2012, March 5). Human subjects protection and inclusion of

women, minorities, and children. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

[special report]. Retrieved from

http://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer/guidelines_general/Human_Subjects_Protection_and_In

clusion.pdf

100

National Staff Development Council. (n.d.). NSDC definition of professional development.

[amendment proposed for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, title IX,

section 9101(34)]. Retrieved from

http://www.aypf.org/documents/62609NSDCDefinitionofProfessionalDevelopment908.p

df

Norris, T., Vines, P. L., & Hoeffel, E. M. (2012, January). The American Indian and Alaska

Native population: 2010. United States Census Bureau. Retrieved from

http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-10.pdf

Ohio Department of Education. (2011). Ohio Principal Evaluation System: Model packet.

Columbus, OH: Author. Retrieved from

http://www.onetohio.org/library/Documents/OPES%20Model%20Final%20(3)09272011

%20(2)_km-2.pdf.

Peduzzi, P., Concato, J., Kemper, E., Holford, T. R., & Feinstein, A. R. (1996, December). A

simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis.

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 49(12), pp. 1373–1379. Retrieved online 03 March

2016 from http://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(96)00236-3/abstract?cc=y=

Peterson, K. D. (2000). Teacher evaluation: A comprehensive guide to new directions and

practices 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.

Rao, J. N. K. & Scott, A. J. (1984). On chi-squared tests for multiway contingency tables with

cell proportions estimated from survey data. The Annals of Statistics, 12(1), pp. 46–60.

Retrieved from http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.aos/1176346391

Raths, J. D., & McAninch, A. C. (2005). Advances in teacher education: What counts as

knowledge in teacher education? Santa Barbara, California: Praeger.

101

Ripley, A. (2010, January/February). What makes a great teacher? The Atlantic. Retrieved from

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/01/what-makes-a-great-

teacher/307841/

Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic

achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), p. 417–458.

Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student

outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational

Administration Quarterly, 44(5), p. 635–674. Retrieved from

http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ818931

Roeber, E. (2011). Educator evaluation—Models, parameters, issues, and implementation. East

Lansing, MI: Michigan Education Association. Retrieved from

http://www.michiganassessmentconsortium.org/sites/default/files/MAC-Whitepaper-

Roeber-Evaluation-Models.pdf

Romero, D. (2010, September 30). Teacher Rigoberto Ruelas, whose suicide UTLA blames on

mediocre scores in L.A. Times, got glowing review from bosses; discrepancies over

tragedy’s cause grow. Los Angeles Weekly. Retrieved from

http://www.laweekly.com/news/teacher-rigoberto-ruelas-whose-suicide-utla-blames-on-

mediocre-scores-in-la-times-got-glowing-reviews-from-bosses-discrepancies-over-

tragedys-cause-grow-2391637

Rothstein, J., & Mathis, W. J. (2013). Review of “Have we identified effective teachers?” and “A

composite estimator of effective teaching: Culminating findings from the Measures of

Effective Teaching Project.” Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved

online 17 July 2015 from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED539299

102

Sawchuk, S. (2009, September 16). Growth model. Education Week. Retrieved from

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009/09/11/03tfa_ep.h29.html

Sawchuck, S. (2011, October 24). University of Michigan project scales up ‘high leverage’

teaching practices. Education Week. Retrieved from

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/teacherbeat/2011/10/high_leverage_teaching_practices.h

tml

Shaha, S. H., Glassett, K. F., & Copas, A. (2015). The impact of teacher observations with

coordinated professional development on student performance: A 27-state program

evaluation. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 12(1), p. 55–64. Retrieved from

http://eric.ed.gov/?q=The+Impact+Of+Teacher+Observations+With+Coordinated+Profes

sional+Development+On+Student+Performance%3a+A+27-

State+Program+Evaluation&id=EJ1050979

Shaha, S. H., Lewis, V. K., O'Donnell, T. J., & Brown, D. H. (2004). Evaluating professional

development: An approach in verifying program impact on teachers and students. Journal

of Research in Professional Learning, 1(1), p. 1.

Shakman, K., Riordan, J., Sanchez, M. T., Cook, K. D., Fournier, R., & Brett, J. (2012,

February). An examination of performance-based teacher evaluation systems in five

states. Issues and Answers: Regional Educational Laboratory. [special report]. Retrieved

from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED529800.pdf

Singer, A. (2013, June 10). Who is Charlotte Danielson and why does she decide how teachers

are evaluated? The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-

singer/who-is-charlotte-danielso_b_3415034.html

103

Simpson, B. D. (2004, November 29). The common school movement and compulsory

education. The Mises Institute. Retrieved from https://mises.org/library/common-school-

movement-and-compulsory-education

South Dakota Commission on Teaching and Learning. (2015, April). South Dakota teacher

effectiveness handbook: Requirements, support systems, and state model

recommendations: Featuring recommendations of the South Dakota Commission on

Teaching and Learning. South Dakota Department of Education. Retrieved from

http://doe.sd.gov/oatq/documents/TeachEff.pdf

Stiggins, R. J., & Bridgeford, N. J. (1985). Performance assessment for teacher development.

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 7(1), p. 85-97.

Strauss, V. (2010, September 28). About the suicide of an L.A. teacher. The Washington Post.

Retrieved from http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/teachers/about-the-

suicice-of-an-la-tea.html

Strauss, V. (2012, December 23). The fundamental flaws of ‘value added’ teacher evaluation.

The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-

sheet/wp/2012/12/23/the-fundamental-flaws-of-value-added-teacher-evaluation/

Tharp, R. G. & Yamauchi, L. A. (1994). Effective instructional conversation in Native American

classrooms. Educational Practice Report. Office of Educational Research and

Improvement. (10). Retrieved from files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED372896.pdf

The New Teacher Project. (2012). The Indiana evaluation pilot: Mid-year report and

recommendations. Indianapolis: Indiana Department of Education. Retrieved from

http://www.riseindiana.org/sites/default/files/files/IN_MidYear_FINAL.pdf

104

Tichenor, M. S. & Tichenor, J. M. (2005, Spring). Understanding teachers’ perspectives on

professionalism. The Professional Educator, 1, pp. 89–95. Retrieved from


Toch, T., & Rothman, R. (2008, January). Rush to judgement: Teacher evaluation in public

education. Education Sector. [special report]. Retrieved from

https://www.sde.idaho.gov/site/charter_schools/research/Administrator/Rush%20to%20J

udgement%20Teacher%20Evaluation.pdf

Tucker, P., & Stronge, J. H. (2005). Linking Teacher Evaluation and Student Achievement.


Turnbull, B., Haslam, B., Arcaira, E., Riley, D., Sinclair, B. & Coleman, S. (2009). Evaluation of

the school administration manager project. Washington D.C.: Wallace Foundation.

Retrieved from http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/school-

leadership/effective-principal-leadership/Documents/Evaluation-of-the-School-

Administration-Manager-Project.pdf

University of Pennsylvania. (2004). Value-added assessment. The Center for Greater

Philadelphia: Operation Public Education. Retrieved from

http://www.cgp.upenn.edu/ope_value.html

U.S. Department of Education. (2012). ESEA flexibility [Web page]. Washington, DC. Retrieved

from https://www.ed.gov/esea/flexibility

U.S. Department of Education (2013). For each and every child—a strategy for education equity

and excellence. [special report]. Washington, D.C.: Author.

105

U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2013). Race to the Top: States implementing teacher

and principal evaluation systems despite challenges. GAO-13–777 Race to the Top

Evaluation Systems. Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/657936.pdf

Verbos, A. K., Gladstone, J. S., & Kennedy, D. M. (2011, February). Native American values

and management education: Envisioning an inclusive, virtuous circle. Journal of

Management Education, 35(1), pp. 1–10. ERIC ID: EJ911237.

Verges, J. (2012, August 11). Judging teachers requires time: Officials reflect on new state

requirements. The Argus Leader. Retrieved online 21 July 2015 from

http://archive.argusleader.com/article/20120812/NEWS/308120032/Judging-teachers-

requires-time

Viviano, T. (2012, winter). Charlotte Danielson or National Board Certification: A comparison

and contrasting of two major national frameworks for teaching. Journal of Career and

Technical Education, 27(2), p. 114–119. Retrieved from


Voke, H. (2002, February). Motivating students to learn. The Association for Supervision and

Curriculum Development, 28. Retrieved from

http://www.ascd.org/publications/newsletters/policy-priorities/feb02/num28/Motivating-

Students-to-Learn.aspx

Wacyk, L., Reeves, P., McNeill, P., & Zimmer, D. (2011, September 26). School ADvance: An

administrator evaluation system. [Slide presentation] Presented at the 2011 MASA Fall

Conference, Lansing, Michigan. Retrieved from

http://gomasa.org/sites/default/files/ADvance%20MASA%20presentation%20-%209–

26.pptx

106

Walker, R. J. (2008, Fall). Twelve characteristics of an effective teacher: A longitudinal,

qualitative, quasi-research study of in-service and pre-service teachers’ opinions.

Educational Horizons, 87(1), p. 61–68. Retrieved from


Weisberg, D., Sexton, S., Mulhern, J., & Keeling, D. (2009). The widget effect: Our national

failure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher effectiveness. The New Teacher

Project. [special report]. Retrieved from

http://carnegie.org/fileadmin/Media/Publications/widget.pdf

Wheatley, M. (2005). Finding our way: Leadership for an uncertain time. San Francisco:

Berrett-Koehler.

Wisconsin Educator Effectiveness Design Team. (2011). Preliminary report and

recommendations. Retrieved from http://ee.dpi.wi.gov/files/ee/pdf/ee_report_prelim.pdf

Wise, A. E., Darling-Hammond, L., McLaughlin, M. W., & Bernstein, H. (1984). Teacher

evaluation: A study of effective practice. The RAND Corporation. [online report].

Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R3139.html

Zavis, A., & Barboza, T. (2010, September 28). Teacher’s suicide shocks school. The Los

Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/28/local/la-me-south-

gate-teacher-20100928

107

Appendix A

Charlotte Danielson Framework for Teaching

This framework has been, according to Charlotte Danielson, its eponymous creator, empirically proven through both studies and

research as identifying the responsibilities of teachers to improve student learning.

Domains, Components, and Elements of the Framework for Teaching3

Domain 1: Planning and Preparation Domain 2: The Classroom Environment

Component 1a: Demonstrating knowledge of content and pedagogy

• Knowledge of content and the structure of the discipline

• Knowledge of prerequisite relationships

• Knowledge of content-related pedagogy

Component 1b: Demonstrating knowledge of students

• Knowledge of child and adolescent development

• Knowledge of the learning process

• Knowledge of students’ skills, knowledge, language proficiency • Knowledge of students’ interests and cultural heritage

• Knowledge of students’ special needs

Component 1c: Setting instructional outcomes

• Value, sequence, and alignment

• Clarity

• Balance

• Suitability for diverse learners

Component 1d: Demonstrating knowledge of resources

• Resources for classroom use

• Resources to extend content knowledge and pedagogy • Resources for students

Component 2a: Classroom environment

• Teacher interaction with students

• Student interactions with other students

Component 2b: Establishing a culture for learning

• Importance of the content

• Expectations for learning and achievement

• Student pride in work

Component 2c: Managing classroom procedures

• Management of instructional groups

• Management of transitions

• Management of materials and supplies

• Performance of non-instructional duties

• Supervision of volunteers and paraprofessionals

Component 2d: Managing student behavior

• Expectations

• Monitoring of student behavior

• Response to student misbehavior

3 Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching 2nd edition. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and

Curriculum Development. p. 3–4.

108

Domain 1: Planning and Preparation, continued Domain 2: The Classroom Environment, continued

Component 1e: Designing coherent instruction

• Learning activities

• Instructional materials and resources

• Instructional groups

• Lesson and unit structure

Component 1f: Designing student assessments

• Congruence with instructional outcomes

• Criteria and standards

• Design of formative assessments • Use for planning

Component 2e: Organizing physical space

• Safety and accessibility

• Arrangement of furniture and use of physical resources

Domain 3: Instruction Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities

Component 3a: Communicating with students

• Expectations for learning

• Directions and procedures

• Explanations of content

• Use of oral and written language

Component 3b: Using questioning and discussion techniques

• Quality of questions • Discussion techniques

• Student participation

Component 3c: Engaging students in learning

• Activities and assignments

• Grouping of students

• Instructional materials and resources

• Structure and pacing

Component 4a: Reflecting on teaching

• Accuracy

• Use in future teaching

Component 4b: Maintaining accurate records

• Student completion of assignments

• Student progress in learning

• Non-instructional records

Component 4c: Communicating with families

• Information about the instructional program

• Information about individual students

• Engagement of families in the instructional program

109

Domain 3: Instruction, continued Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities, continued

Component 3d: Using assessment in instruction

• Assessment criteria

• Monitoring of student learning

• Feedback to students

• Student self-assessment and monitoring of progress

Component 3e: Demonstrating flexibility and responsiveness

• Lesson adjustment

• Response to students

• Persistence

Component 4d: Participating in a professional community

• Relationships with colleagues

• Involvement in a culture of professional inquiry

• Service to the school

• Participation in school and district projects

Component 4e: Growing and developing professionally

• Enhancement of content knowledge and pedagogical skill

• Receptivity to feedback from colleagues

• Service to the profession

Component 4f: Showing professionalism

• Integrity and ethical conduct

• Service to students

• Advocacy

• Decision making

• Compliance with school and district regulations

110

Appendix B

South Dakota S. B. No. 24

An Act4

ENTITLED, An Act to establish standards for teaching, to require teacher evaluations, and to

provide for the development of a model evaluation instrument.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:

Section 1. The Board of Education shall, no later than July 1, 2011, promulgate rules

pursuant to chapter 1-26 to establish minimum professional performance standards for certified

teachers in South Dakota public schools, and to establish best practices for the evaluation of the

performance of certified teachers that may be used by individual school districts.

Section 2. Any public school district seeking state accreditation shall evaluate the

performance of each certified teacher in years one through three not less than annually, and each

certified teacher in the fourth contract year or beyond, not less than every other year.

Each school district shall adopt procedures for evaluating the performance of certified

teachers employed by the school district that:

(1) Are based on the minimum professional performance standards established by the

Board of Education pursuant to section 1 of this Act;

(2) Require multiple measures;

(3) Serve as the basis for programs to increase professional growth and development

of certified teachers; and

(4) Include a plan of assistance for any certified teacher, who is in the fourth or

subsequent year of teaching, and whose performance does not meet the school

district’s performance standards.

Section 3. A work group appointed by the secretary of education shall provide input in

developing the standards and shall develop a model evaluation instrument that may be used by

school districts. The work group shall consist of the following:

(1) Six teachers: two from an elementary school, two from a middle school, and two

from a high school;

(2) Three principals: one from an elementary school, one from a middle school, and

one from a high school;

(3) Two superintendents;

(4) Two school board members;

(5) Four parents who have students in various levels of the K-12 system;

(6) One representative of the South Dakota Education Association;

(7) One representative of the School Administrators of South Dakota; and

(8) One representative of the Associated School Boards of South Dakota.

Section 4. Nothing in this Act may diminish a school district’s right to not renew a

teacher’s contract pursuant to § 13-43-6.3.

4 An Act to Establish Standards for Teaching. S. B. No. 24. (2010). Retrieved from the South Dakota State

Legislature: http://legis.sd.gov/docs/legsession/2010/Bills/SB24ENR.pdf

111

Appendix C

Determining Teacher Effectiveness in South Dakota

Outlined in the South Dakota Commission on Teaching and Learning’s 2015 publication South

Dakota Teacher Effectiveness Handbook: Requirements, Support Systems, and State Model

Recommendations, the following is a figure5 designed to outline how teacher effectiveness is

determined utilizing the Danielson Framework for Teaching.

5 South Dakota Commission on Teaching and Learning. (2015, April). South Dakota teacher effectiveness

handbook: Requirements, support systems, and state model recommendations: Featuring recommendations

of the South Dakota Commission on Teaching and Learning. South Dakota Department of Education.

Retrieved from http://doe.sd.gov/oatq/documents/TeachEff.pdf

112

Appendix D

Calculating Teacher Effectiveness

All public school districts within South Dakota are required to devise a standardized rubric for

assessing the chosen components of the Danielson Framework. An overall teacher score can be

derived regardless of the number of domain components chosen by the district. The following

abridged version is provided by the South Dakota Commission on Teaching and Learning.6

Step 1: “Numerical values are assigned to teaching performance for each component

evaluated: A distinguished rating is assigned 4 points; a proficient rating is assigned 3 points; a

basic rating is assigned 2 points; and an unsatisfactory rating is assigned 1 point” (p. 19).

Step 2: “An average score across all components is calculated by dividing the total of all

points earned by the number of components evaluated. The average will range from one to four

and “all components are given equal weight” (p. 19).

Step 3: “The average component-level score is used to assign a Professional Practice

Rating of Unsatisfactory, Basic, Proficient, or Distinguished. The chart below presents the score

ranges aligned to the four performance categories” (p. 19).

Aggregate Professional Ranking Score Conversion Table

Range: 1.00 to 1.49 1.50 to 2.49 2.49 to 3.49 3.50 to 4.00

Rating: Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Distinguished

6 South Dakota Commission on Teaching and Learning. (2015, April). South Dakota teacher effectiveness

handbook: Requirements, support systems, and state model recommendations: Featuring recommendations

of the South Dakota Commission on Teaching and Learning. South Dakota Department of Education.

Retrieved online 21 July 2015 from http://doe.sd.gov/oatq/documents/TeachEff.pdf

113

Sample observation rubric and determination of a teacher’s overall effectiveness rating:

Component Level Performance

Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Advanced

Points

Earned

(1 pt.) (2 pts.) (3 pts.) (4 pts.)

Com

ponen

ts S

elec

ted

1c: Set Instructional

Outcomes √

3

1e: Designing

Coherent Instruction √

5

2b: Establishing a

Culture for Learning √

2

2d: Managing

Student Behavior √

2

3b: Use Questioning

& Discussion √

3

3c: Engaging

Students in Learning √

3

4a: Reflecting on

Teaching √

3

4c: Communicating

with Families √

4

Total Points: 24

Average Component-Level Score 3.00

Overall Professional Practice Scoring Range Overall Practice Rating

1.00 to 1.49 1.50 to 2.49 2.50 to 3.49 3.50 to 4.00 PROFICIENT

Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Advanced

114

Appendix E

Key Excerpts from the South Dakota Teacher Effectiveness Handbook

This document is a state publication that seeks to outline the “requirements, support systems, and

state model recommendations featuring recommendations of the South Dakota Commission on

Teaching and Learning” in response to S.B. No. 24 (2010).7

From the Foreword: “South Dakota’s Teacher Effectiveness System is not a checklist.

Successful implementation requires time, training, resources, and support. The System is not

designed to fade away in a few years. The work of improving instruction and student learning

should be a central focus for all who provide public education. That is true today, and will

remain true 50 years from now. The Commission encourages school districts across South

Dakota to create local Teacher Effectiveness design teams – made up of teachers, administrators,

and other stakeholders – to make key decisions and monitor implementation” (para. 3).

From the Introduction: “2016-17: RESULTS USED TO INFORM PERSONNEL DECISIONS

FOR 2017-18: No later than the start of the 2016-17 school year, all South Dakota public school

districts must define a process by which Summative Teacher Effectiveness Ratings are used to

inform personnel decisions. Considering the timeline as it applies to the school calendar, teacher

evaluation results provided at the end of the 2016-17 school year must inform personnel

decisions for the 2017-18 school year. South Dakota public school districts, through the adoption

of local policies and procedures, should determine how best to use teacher evaluation results to

inform personnel decisions” (p. 4).

From the Minimum State Requirements: “Standards-based Evaluations of Professional

Practice: Local teacher evaluation systems must assess teaching performance relative to the

South Dakota Framework for Teaching based on the Danielson Framework for Teaching” (p.

10).

From Evaluations of Professional Teaching Practices: “Improving teaching performance

begins with a clear definition of effective teaching. The South Dakota Framework for Teaching

based on the Danielson Framework offers a description of professional practices that, based on

research and empirical evidence, have been shown to promote student learning. Evaluations of

professional practice relative to the Framework contribute to the Summative Teacher

Effectiveness Rating and serve as a basis for developing individual professional growth plans

focused on improving instruction” (p. 15).

7 South Dakota State Department of Education. (2015, April). South Dakota teacher effectiveness handbook. Pierre,

South Dakota: Author. Retrieved from the South Dakota State Department of Education:


115

Appendix F

Teacher Effectiveness: State Requirements Checklist

This “Teacher Effectiveness State Requirements Checklist identifies components of evaluation

systems that conform to state and federal requirements”; district-level administrators are required

to “use the checklist to determine which requirements must still be addressed in your local

school district” (p. 61).8

Does your current evaluation system address the following teacher effectiveness system components?

YES NO

1. EVALUATIONS OF PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

A. The district has selected professional teaching standards aligned to

the South Dakota Framework for Teaching (Danielson Model).

B. The district has identified the number of teaching standards that

will serve as the basis of professional practice evaluations.

C. The district has identified procedures to assess teacher performance

relative to non-observable teaching standards.

D. The district has identified procedures to assess teacher performance

relative to observable performance standards.

E. The district has determined a method to assign a professional

practice rating.

2. EVALUATIONS OF STUDENT GROWTH

A. The district has adopted Student Learning Objectives as one measure of teacher performance, or has adopted an alternative

measure to assess teacher impact on student growth.

B. The district has identified procedures to guide teachers through analyzing student needs and establishing priorities for student

learning.

C. The district has identified procedures to guide teachers through the selection or development of assessment to measure student learning

between two or more points in time.

D. The district has identified procedures by which teachers develop

and document rigorous, realistic student growth goals.

E. The school district has determined a method to assign a student

growth rating.

8 South Dakota State Department of Education. (2015, April). South Dakota teacher effectiveness handbook. Pierre,

South Dakota: Author. Retrieved from the South Dakota State Department of Education:


116

Does your current evaluation system address the following teacher effectiveness system components?

YES NO

3. SUMMATIVE TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS RATINGS

A. The district has determined a method to combine a professional practice rating and student growth rating into a summative teacher

effectiveness rating.

4. RESULTS AND OUTCOMES

A. The school district has identified an evaluation process that provides teachers with clear, timely, and useful performance

feedback.

B. The school district has identified procedures to use performance evaluation results as a basis to guide professional growth for all

teachers.

C. The school district has identified procedures to provide a plan of assistance to non-probationary teachers that do not meet the school

district’s minimum performance standards.

5. EVALUATION CYCLE

A. The school district has established an evaluation cycle in which probationary teachers receive a summative evaluation at least once

per year and non-probationary teachers receive a summative

evaluation at least once every two years.

117

Appendix G

Tripod Survey

The survey items shown here are limited to those that were publicly released with the survey

developer’s permission in a 2010 report by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Measures of

Effective Teaching Project (Kane & Cantrell, 2010). The student survey items used to measure

school safety and climate are not presented because Cambridge Education maintains exclusive

intellectual property rights to those items (p. E1).9 All survey items are scored as one of the

following by the survey-taker: totally untrue, mostly untrue, somewhat true, mostly true, and

totally true.

Please indicate how true each statement is by checking the appropriate box.

Car

e

1. My teacher in this class makes me feel that s/he really cares about me.

2. My teacher seems to know if something is bothering me.

3. My teacher really tries to understand how students feel about things.

Co

ntr

ol

4. Student behavior in this class is under control.

5. I hate the way that students behave in this class.

6. Student behavior in this class makes the teacher angry.

7. Student behavior in this class is a problem.

8. My classmates behave the way my teacher wants them to.

9. Students in this class treat the teacher with respect.

10. Our class stays busy and doesn’t waste time.

Cla

rify

11. If you don’t understand something, my teacher explains it another way.

12. My teacher knows when the class understands, and when we do not.

13. When s/he is teaching us, my teacher thinks we understand even when we don’t.

14. My teacher has several good ways to explain each topic that we cover in this class.

15. My teacher explains difficult things clearly.

9 Anast-May, L.; Penick, D.; Schroyer, R.; & Howell, A. (2011, April–June). Teacher conferencing and feedback:

Necessary but missing! International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 6(2), p. 1–6.

Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ973835.pdf

118

Please indicate how true each statement is by checking the appropriate box. C

apti

vat

e 16. My teacher asks questions to be sure we are following along when s/he is teaching.

17. My teacher asks students to explain more about answers they give.

18. In this class, my teacher accepts nothing less than our full effort.

19. My teacher doesn’t let people give up when the work gets hard.

20. My teacher wants us to use our thinking skills, not just memorize things.

21. My teacher wants me to explain my answers—why I think what I think.

22. In this class, we learn a lot almost every day.

23. In this class, we learn to correct our mistakes.

Chal

lenge 24. This class does not keep my attention—I get bored.

25. My teacher makes learning enjoyable.

26. My teacher makes lessons interesting.

27. I like the ways we learn in this class.

Co

nfe

r

28. My teacher wants us to share our thoughts.

29. Students get to decide how activities are done in this class.

30. My teacher gives us time to explain our ideas.

31. Students speak up and share their ideas about class work.

32. My teacher respects my ideas and suggestions.

Co

nso

lid

ate 33. My teacher takes the time to summarize what we learn each day.

34. My teacher checks to make sure we understand what s/he is teaching us.

35. We get helpful comments to let us know what we did wrong on assignments.

36. The comments that I get on my work in this class help me understand how to improve.

119

Appendix H

Survey Provided to Little Wound School Administration, Teachers, and Students

Survey provided to Little Wound School administration (page one of two)

120

Survey provided to Little Wound School instrucational staff members (page one of two)

121

Survey provided to adult-aged students enrolled at Little Wound School (page one of two)

122

Reverse of survey, which was the same for all research participants (page two of two)

123

Appendix I

Statistical Symbols

The statistical methods used to come to the conclusions on component preference among survey

respondents from Little Wound School utilized the following statistical symbols.

Statistical symbols

Symbol

Name

Meaning

β beta coefficient the coefficient(s) in a regression mode

χ2 chi-squared test statistic; test of homogeneity between

categorical variables

CI confidence interval the range of beta values obtained such that

one can be 95% certain that a true statistic—

as opposed to the test statistic—lies within

DF degree of freedom the number of groups in a test, minus 1

n sample size number of people used to determine relevant

test statistics

p probability; p value the likelihood of obtaining the related test

statistic, given the associated n and DF;

higher p values means more likely

R2 variance reports the degree to which observed

responses deviate from predicted responses