Leadership for teacher
learning
Dylan Wiliam
www.dylanwiliam.net1
Outline
 In the UK, teacher quality is
 highly consequential, and
 highly variable
 Teacher quality can be improved by
 replacing existing teachers with better ones
 by investing in the teachers we already have
 Only investing in existing teachers produces
enough improvement to produce the changes that
we need
 This is not happening systematically in most
schools, but could be
2
Educational Endowment Fund (EEF) toolkit
3
Intervention Cost Quality of
evidence
Extra months
of learning
Feedback ££  +8
Metacognition and self-regulation ££  +8
Peer tutoring ££  +6
Early years intervention £££££  +6
One to one tuition ££££  +5
Homework (secondary) £  +5
Collaborative learning £  +5
Phonics £  +4
Small group tuition £££  +4
Behaviour interventions £££  +4
Digital technology ££££  +4
Social and emotional learning £  +4
Educational Endowment Fund (EEF) toolkit
4
Intervention Cost Quality of
evidence
Extra months
of learning
Parental involvement £££  +3
Reducing class size £££££  +3
Summer schools £££  +3
Sports participation £££  +2
Arts participation ££  +2
Extended school time £££  +2
Individualized instruction £  +2
After school programmes ££££  +2
Learning styles £  +2
Mentoring £££  +1
Homework (primary) £  +1
Educational Endowment Fund (EEF) toolkit
5
Intervention Cost Quality of
evidence
Extra months
of learning
Teaching assistants ££££  0
Performance pay ££  0
Aspiration interventions £££  0
Block scheduling £  0
School uniform £  0
Physical environment ££  0
Ability grouping £  -1
Important caveats about research findings
6
 Educational research can only tell us what was, not
what might be.
 Moreover, in education, “What works?” is rarely
the right question, because
 everything works somewhere, and
 nothing works everywhere, which is why
 in education, the right question is, “Under what
conditions does this work?”
An illustrative example: feedback
7
 Kluger and DeNisi (1996) review of 3000 research reports
 Excluding those:
 without adequate controls
 with poor design
 with fewer than 10 participants
 where performance was not measured
 without details of effect sizes
 left 131 reports, 607 effect sizes, involving 12652
individuals
 On average, feedback increases achievement
 Effect sizes highly variable
 38% (50 out of 131) of effect sizes were negative
Getting feedback right is hard
Response type Feedback indicates performance…
falls short of goal exceeds goal
Change behavior Increase effort Exert less effort
Change goal Reduce aspiration Increase aspiration
Abandon goal Decide goal is too hard Decide goal is too easy
Reject feedback Feedback is ignored Feedback is ignored
Teacher quality
9
Teacher quality and student learning
Subject Correlation
Woodhead All 0*
Rivkin, Hanushek and Kain (2005) Reading 0.10
Rivkin, Hanushek and Kain (2005) Mathematics 0.11
Rockoff (2004) Reading 0.20
Rockoff (2004) Mathematics 0.25
Aaronson, Barrow and Sander (2007) Mathematics 0.13
Annual growth in achievement, by age
11
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
annualgrowth(SDs)
Age
Bloom, Hill, Black, and Lipsey (2008)
12
 Assuming that
 one year’s student growth is 0.3 standard deviations
 the correlation between teacher quality and student
achievement is 0.15
 Then with a good teacher (1sd above the mean)
students learn 50% more
 And with an outstanding teacher (2sd above the mean)
they learn 100% more
 Note also that students make some progress through
maturation so these are probably underestimates of
the true effect (Fitzpatrick, Grissmer,  Hastedt, 2011)
Teacher quality
13
 The impact of teacher quality (Hanushek  Rivkin, 2006)
 In the classroom of the best teacher in a group of 50
teachers, students learn twice as fast as average.
 In the classroom of the least effective teacher in a group of
50, students learn half as fast as average
 And in the classrooms of the best teachers, students from
disadvantaged backgrounds learn as much as others (Hamre
 Pianta, 2005)
 Teachers make a difference
 But what makes the difference in teachers?
 In particular, can we predict student progress from:
 Teacher qualifications?
 Value-added?
 Teacher observation?
Teacher qualifications
14
Teacher qualifications and student progress
15
Mathematics Reading
Primary Middle High Primary Middle High
General theory of
education courses
Teaching practice
courses
Pedagogical
content courses
Advanced
university courses
Aptitude test
scores
Harris and Sass (2007)
Mathematics Reading
Primary Middle High Primary Middle High
General theory of
education courses —
Teaching practice
courses — +
Pedagogical
content courses + +
Advanced
university courses — +
Aptitude test
scores —
Teacher observations
16
Framework for teaching (Danielson 1996)
 Four domains of professional practice
1. Planning and preparation
2. Classroom environment
3. Instruction
4. Professional responsibilities
 Links with student achievement (Sartain, et al. 2011)
 Domains 1 and 4: no impact on student achievement
 Domains 2 and 3: some impact on student achievement
17
A framework for teaching (Danielson, 1996)
 Domain 2: The classroom environment
 2a: Creating an environment of respect and rapport
 2b: Establishing a culture for learning
 2c: Managing classroom procedures
 2d: Managing student behavior
 2e: Organizing physical space
 Domain 3: Instruction
 3a: Communicating with students
 3b: Using questioning and discussion techniques
 3c: Engaging students in learning
 3d: Using assessment in instruction
 3e: Demonstrating flexibility and responsiveness
Reading
-0.6
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Distinguished
Teachervalue-added
2a
2b
2c
2d
2e
3a
3b
3c
3d
3e
Mathematics
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Distinguished
Teachervalue-added
2a
2b
2c
2d
2e
3a
3b
3c
3d
3e
Observations and teacher quality
21
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Distinguished
Percentagechangeinrateoflearning
Reading Mathematics
Sartain, Stoelinga, Brown, Luppescu, Matsko, Miller, Durwood, Jiang, and Glazer (2011)
So, the highest rated teachers are 30%
more productive than the lowest rated
But the best teachers are 400% more
productive than the least effective
Imprecision of lesson observations
22
Achieving a reliability of
0.9 in judging teacher
quality through lesson
observation is likely to
require observing a
teacher teaching 6
different classes, and for
each lesson to be judged
by 5 independent
observers.
Hill, Charalambous and Kraft (2012)
23
 To recap
 The highest rated teachers generate learning 30% faster
than the lowest rated teachers
 But the most effective teachers generate learning 400%
faster than the least effective teachers
 So the best observation systems we have capture less than
10% of teacher quality (in reality, less than this because
most teachers are in the middle two categories)
 There is therefore a real danger that teachers will
“game the system” by aping features of observation
protocols while becoming less effective.
Teacher value-added
24
Teacher value-added
Student fixed-effects model
Traditionalmodel
1 2 3 4 5
1 38 22 24 16 0
2 26 28 15 20 11
3 20 20 20 24 16
4 13 24 26 13 24
5 9 5 12 28 47
Goldhaber, Goldschmidt, and Tseng (2013)
Mathematics
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0 1 2 3 4
Value-added(studentSDs)
Years of teaching experience
Quintile of teacher value-added
5th 4th 3rd 2nd 1st
Atteberry, Loeb and Wyckoff (2013)
Correlation of initial and later performance
27
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Base+1 Base+2 Base+3 Base+4 Base+5
Correlationofvalue-addedwithbaseyear
Year of prediction
All teachers New teachers
Mathematics
Correlation of initial and later performance
28
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Base+1 Base+2 Base+3 Base+4 Base+5
Correlationofvalue-addedwithbaseyear
Year of prediction
All teachers New teachers
Reading
Issues with value-added models for teachers
29
 Different (reasonable) models of value-added give
very different estimates of teacher quality
(Goldhaber, Goldschmidt and Tseng, 2013)
 Teacher value-added in their first year accounts for
less than 5% of the variation in teacher quality in
their fifth year of teaching (Atteberry, Loeb and
Wyckoff, 2013)
 Teachers benefit students for at least three years
after they stop teaching them (Rothstein, 2010)
What makes effective teacher
learning?
30
Expertise
 According to Berliner (1994), experts:
 Excel mainly in their own domain
 Often develop automaticity for the repetitive operations that
are needed to accomplish their goals
 Are more sensitive to the task demands and social situation
when solving problems
 Are more opportunistic and flexible in their teaching than
novices
 Represent problems in qualitatively different ways than novices
 Have faster and more accurate pattern recognition capabilities
 Perceive meaningful patterns in the domain in which they are
experienced
 Begin to solve problems slower but bring richer and more
personal sources of information to bear
31
The role of deliberate practice
 Music professors at the Hochschule der Kuenst (Academy of
Music) Berlin identified 10 violin students who had the
potential for careers as international soloists (“best”
students)
 The professors also identified a sample of 10 good, but not
outstanding students (“good” students)
 Researchers recruited another 10 students training to be
music teachers who specialised in the violin (“Music Ed”
students)
 An additional 10 middle-aged professional violinists from
two local orchestras were recruited to the study
 Groups were matched in sex (7f, 3m) and for the first three
groups, age
32
How much do violinists practice?
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
4 9 14 19
Hoursofpractieperweek
Age
Music Ed Good Best Professionals
Ericsson, Krampe,  Tesch-Römer (1993)
33
Violinists’ hours of practice (cumulative)
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Cumulativehoursofpractice
Age
Music Ed Good Best Professionals
34
These differences are substantial…
Hours of practice by age 18
Music Education students 3420
Good violin students 5301
Best violin students 7410
Professional musicians 7336
 By the age of 18, the best violinists have accumulated 40%
more practice than good violinists
 Since the amount of deliberate practice being undertaken
by the best students once they are adults is close to the
maximum possible, it is, essentially, impossible for the
good students to catch up to the best.
35
Psychomotor skills and surgical skill…
 Ten junior surgical residents were tested on their ability
to perform five anastomoses on fresh porcine jenunum
 Performance evaluated on:
a. Time taken in minutes
b. A “clumsiness” score (0 to 100), taking into account
“unproductive movements, fumbles and gross errors”
c. An anastomosis score found by rating on a 1 to 3 scale:
 suture spacing
 knots
 overall tidiness
 integrity of the anastomosis (tested with 10 cm head of water)
 accuracy of suture in terms of extramucosal placement
 Cumulative error score: a + b + 2 x (15 – c)
…are only weakly related
37
 Residents also took three psychomotor tests:
 Small parts manual dexterity test (Crawford  Crawford, 1981)
 Spiral maze test (Gibson, 1961)
 Embedded figures test (Witkin, Oltman,  Karp, 1971)
 Results:
 Surgical performance correlated negatively with tests of manual
dexterity, but
 Improvement in surgical skill correlated positively with the
hidden figures score
 The ability to create, and hold in mind, mental
representations appears to be more important than
manual dexterity in predicting surgical performance
Steele, Walder, and Herbert (1992)
Visual-spatial ability and surgical skill
38
 37 junior surgical residents at the University of
Toronto given six tests of visual/spatial ability
 Snowy pictures test (Ekstrom et al., 1976)
 Gestalt completion test (Street, 1931)
 Shape memory test (Ekstrom et al., 1976)
 Cube comparison test (Ekstrom et al., 1976)
 Form board test (Sylvester, 1881)
 Mental rotations test (Vandenberg  Kuse, 1978)
Visual-spatial ability and surgery skills
 Residents were then tested on their ability to learn
and perform complex surgical procedures (two-flap
and four-flap Z–plasty on pig thighs)
Correlation of surgical skill with spatial ability
40
Procedure Try SPT GCT SMT CCT FBT MRT
Total global
rating
Two-flap 1st — — — — — 0.40
Two-flap 2nd — — — — — —
Four-flap — — — — 0.34 0.47
Quality of
result
Two-flap 1st — — — — — 0.40
Two-flap 2nd — — — — — —
Four-flap — — — — 0.40 0.49
Wanzel, Hamstra, Anastakis, Matsumoto  Cusimano (2002)
General conclusions about expertise
 Elite performance is the result of at least a decade
of maximal efforts to improve performance
through an optimal distribution of deliberate
practice
 What distinguishes experts from others is the
commitment to deliberate practice
 Deliberate practice is
 an effortful activity that can be sustained only for a
limited time each day
 neither motivating nor enjoyable—it is instrumental in
achieving further improvement in performance
41
Talent is over-rated…
42
Effects of experience in teaching
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
0 1 2 3 to 5
Extramonthsperyearoflearning
Years of teaching experience
43
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
0 1 2 3 to 5
Years of teaching experience
Mathematics Reading
Rivkin, Hanushek and Kain (2005)
Implications for education systems
 Pursuing a strategy of getting the “best and brightest”
into teaching is unlikely to succeed
 Currently all teachers slow, and most actually
stop, improving after two or three years in the
classroom
 Expertise research therefore suggests that they are
only beginning to scratch the surface of what they are
capable of
 What we need is to persuade those with a real passion
for working with young people to become
teachers, and to continue to improve as long as they
stay in the job.
 There is no limit to what we can achieve if we support
our teachers in the right way
Supportive accountability
 What is needed from teachers:
 A commitment to:
 The continual improvement of practice
 Focus on those things that make a difference to students
 What is needed from leaders:
 A commitment to engineer effective learning
environments for teachers by:
 Creating expectations for continually improving practice
 Keeping the focus on the things that make a difference to
students
 Providing the time, space, dispensation, and support for
innovation
 Supporting risk-taking
45
References
Aaronson, D., Barrow, L.,  Sander, W. (2007). Teachers and student
achievement in the Chicago Public High Schools. Journal of Labor
Economics, 25(1), 95-135.
Atteberry, A., Loeb, S.,  Wyckoff, J. (2013). Do first impressions
matter? Improvement in early career teacher effectiveness.
Washington, DC: Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in
Educational Research.
Berliner, D. C. (1994). Expertise: the wonder of exemplary
performances. In J. N. Mangieri  C. C. Block (Eds.), Creating
powerful thinking in teachers and students: diverse perspectives
(pp. 161-186). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College.
Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing professional practice: a framework
for teaching. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T.,  Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of
deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance.
Psychological Review, 100(3), 363-406.
Fitzpatrick, M. D., Grissmer, D.,  Hastedt, S. (2011). What a
difference a day makes: Estimating daily learning gains during
kindergarten and first grade using a natural experiment. Economics
of Education Review, 30(2), 269-279.
Goldhaber, D. D., Goldschmidt, P.,  Tseng, F. (2013). Teacher value-
added at the high-school level: Different models, different
answers? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. doi:
10.3102/0162373712466938
Hamre, B. K.,  Pianta, R. C. (2005). Academic and social advantages
for at-risk students placed in high quality first grade classrooms.
Child Development, 76(5), 949-967.
Hanushek, E. A.,  Rivkin, S. G. (2006). Teacher quality. In E. A.
Hanushek  F. Welsh (Eds.), Handbook of the Economics of
Education (Vol. 2, pp. 1051-1078). Amsterdam, Netherlands:
Elsevier.
Harris, D. N.,  Sass, T. R. (2007). Teacher training, teacher quality
and student achievement (Vol. 3). Washington, DC: National Center
for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research.
Hill, H. C., Charalambous, C. Y.,  Kraft, M. A. (2012). When rater
reliability Is not enough: Teacher observation systems and a case
for the generalizability study. Educational Researcher, 41(2), 56-84.
Kluger, A. N.,  DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback
interventions on performance: a historical review, a meta-
analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory.
Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254-284.
Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A.,  Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools
and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417-458.
Rockoff, J. E. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on student
achievement: evidence from panel data. American Economic
Review, 94(2), 247-252.
Rothstein, J. (2010). Teacher quality in educational production:
Tracking, decay, and student achievement. Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 125(1), 175–214.
Sartain, L., Stoelinga, S. R., Brown, E. R., Luppescu, S., Matsko, K.
K., Miller, F. K., Durwood, C.E., Jiang, J.Y.,  Glazer, D. (2011).
Rethinking teacher evaluation in Chicago: Lessons learned from
classroom observations, principal-teacher conferences, and district
implementation. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School
Research.
Steele, R. J. C., Walder, C.,  Herbert, M. (1992). Psychomotor testing
and the ability to perform an anastomosis in junior surgical trainees.
British Journal of Surgery, 79(10), 1065–1067.
Wanzel, K. R., Hamstra, S. J., Anastakis, D., Matsumoto, E. D., 
Cusimano, M. D. (2002). Effects of visual-spatial ability on learning
of spatially-complex surgical skills. Lancet, 359(9302), 230–231.
46

Dylan Willam- Leadership for Teacher Learning- Times Festival of Education

  • 1.
    Leadership for teacher learning DylanWiliam www.dylanwiliam.net1
  • 2.
    Outline  In theUK, teacher quality is  highly consequential, and  highly variable  Teacher quality can be improved by  replacing existing teachers with better ones  by investing in the teachers we already have  Only investing in existing teachers produces enough improvement to produce the changes that we need  This is not happening systematically in most schools, but could be 2
  • 3.
    Educational Endowment Fund(EEF) toolkit 3 Intervention Cost Quality of evidence Extra months of learning Feedback ££ +8 Metacognition and self-regulation ££ +8 Peer tutoring ££ +6 Early years intervention £££££ +6 One to one tuition ££££ +5 Homework (secondary) £ +5 Collaborative learning £ +5 Phonics £ +4 Small group tuition £££ +4 Behaviour interventions £££ +4 Digital technology ££££ +4 Social and emotional learning £ +4
  • 4.
    Educational Endowment Fund(EEF) toolkit 4 Intervention Cost Quality of evidence Extra months of learning Parental involvement £££ +3 Reducing class size £££££ +3 Summer schools £££ +3 Sports participation £££ +2 Arts participation ££ +2 Extended school time £££ +2 Individualized instruction £ +2 After school programmes ££££ +2 Learning styles £ +2 Mentoring £££ +1 Homework (primary) £ +1
  • 5.
    Educational Endowment Fund(EEF) toolkit 5 Intervention Cost Quality of evidence Extra months of learning Teaching assistants ££££ 0 Performance pay ££ 0 Aspiration interventions £££ 0 Block scheduling £ 0 School uniform £ 0 Physical environment ££ 0 Ability grouping £ -1
  • 6.
    Important caveats aboutresearch findings 6  Educational research can only tell us what was, not what might be.  Moreover, in education, “What works?” is rarely the right question, because  everything works somewhere, and  nothing works everywhere, which is why  in education, the right question is, “Under what conditions does this work?”
  • 7.
    An illustrative example:feedback 7  Kluger and DeNisi (1996) review of 3000 research reports  Excluding those:  without adequate controls  with poor design  with fewer than 10 participants  where performance was not measured  without details of effect sizes  left 131 reports, 607 effect sizes, involving 12652 individuals  On average, feedback increases achievement  Effect sizes highly variable  38% (50 out of 131) of effect sizes were negative
  • 8.
    Getting feedback rightis hard Response type Feedback indicates performance… falls short of goal exceeds goal Change behavior Increase effort Exert less effort Change goal Reduce aspiration Increase aspiration Abandon goal Decide goal is too hard Decide goal is too easy Reject feedback Feedback is ignored Feedback is ignored
  • 9.
  • 10.
    Teacher quality andstudent learning Subject Correlation Woodhead All 0* Rivkin, Hanushek and Kain (2005) Reading 0.10 Rivkin, Hanushek and Kain (2005) Mathematics 0.11 Rockoff (2004) Reading 0.20 Rockoff (2004) Mathematics 0.25 Aaronson, Barrow and Sander (2007) Mathematics 0.13
  • 11.
    Annual growth inachievement, by age 11 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 annualgrowth(SDs) Age Bloom, Hill, Black, and Lipsey (2008)
  • 12.
    12  Assuming that one year’s student growth is 0.3 standard deviations  the correlation between teacher quality and student achievement is 0.15  Then with a good teacher (1sd above the mean) students learn 50% more  And with an outstanding teacher (2sd above the mean) they learn 100% more  Note also that students make some progress through maturation so these are probably underestimates of the true effect (Fitzpatrick, Grissmer, Hastedt, 2011)
  • 13.
    Teacher quality 13  Theimpact of teacher quality (Hanushek Rivkin, 2006)  In the classroom of the best teacher in a group of 50 teachers, students learn twice as fast as average.  In the classroom of the least effective teacher in a group of 50, students learn half as fast as average  And in the classrooms of the best teachers, students from disadvantaged backgrounds learn as much as others (Hamre Pianta, 2005)  Teachers make a difference  But what makes the difference in teachers?  In particular, can we predict student progress from:  Teacher qualifications?  Value-added?  Teacher observation?
  • 14.
  • 15.
    Teacher qualifications andstudent progress 15 Mathematics Reading Primary Middle High Primary Middle High General theory of education courses Teaching practice courses Pedagogical content courses Advanced university courses Aptitude test scores Harris and Sass (2007) Mathematics Reading Primary Middle High Primary Middle High General theory of education courses — Teaching practice courses — + Pedagogical content courses + + Advanced university courses — + Aptitude test scores —
  • 16.
  • 17.
    Framework for teaching(Danielson 1996)  Four domains of professional practice 1. Planning and preparation 2. Classroom environment 3. Instruction 4. Professional responsibilities  Links with student achievement (Sartain, et al. 2011)  Domains 1 and 4: no impact on student achievement  Domains 2 and 3: some impact on student achievement 17
  • 18.
    A framework forteaching (Danielson, 1996)  Domain 2: The classroom environment  2a: Creating an environment of respect and rapport  2b: Establishing a culture for learning  2c: Managing classroom procedures  2d: Managing student behavior  2e: Organizing physical space  Domain 3: Instruction  3a: Communicating with students  3b: Using questioning and discussion techniques  3c: Engaging students in learning  3d: Using assessment in instruction  3e: Demonstrating flexibility and responsiveness
  • 19.
    Reading -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Unsatisfactory Basic ProficientDistinguished Teachervalue-added 2a 2b 2c 2d 2e 3a 3b 3c 3d 3e
  • 20.
    Mathematics -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 Unsatisfactory Basic ProficientDistinguished Teachervalue-added 2a 2b 2c 2d 2e 3a 3b 3c 3d 3e
  • 21.
    Observations and teacherquality 21 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Distinguished Percentagechangeinrateoflearning Reading Mathematics Sartain, Stoelinga, Brown, Luppescu, Matsko, Miller, Durwood, Jiang, and Glazer (2011) So, the highest rated teachers are 30% more productive than the lowest rated But the best teachers are 400% more productive than the least effective
  • 22.
    Imprecision of lessonobservations 22 Achieving a reliability of 0.9 in judging teacher quality through lesson observation is likely to require observing a teacher teaching 6 different classes, and for each lesson to be judged by 5 independent observers. Hill, Charalambous and Kraft (2012)
  • 23.
    23  To recap The highest rated teachers generate learning 30% faster than the lowest rated teachers  But the most effective teachers generate learning 400% faster than the least effective teachers  So the best observation systems we have capture less than 10% of teacher quality (in reality, less than this because most teachers are in the middle two categories)  There is therefore a real danger that teachers will “game the system” by aping features of observation protocols while becoming less effective.
  • 24.
  • 25.
    Teacher value-added Student fixed-effectsmodel Traditionalmodel 1 2 3 4 5 1 38 22 24 16 0 2 26 28 15 20 11 3 20 20 20 24 16 4 13 24 26 13 24 5 9 5 12 28 47 Goldhaber, Goldschmidt, and Tseng (2013)
  • 26.
    Mathematics -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 1 23 4 Value-added(studentSDs) Years of teaching experience Quintile of teacher value-added 5th 4th 3rd 2nd 1st Atteberry, Loeb and Wyckoff (2013)
  • 27.
    Correlation of initialand later performance 27 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Base+1 Base+2 Base+3 Base+4 Base+5 Correlationofvalue-addedwithbaseyear Year of prediction All teachers New teachers Mathematics
  • 28.
    Correlation of initialand later performance 28 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Base+1 Base+2 Base+3 Base+4 Base+5 Correlationofvalue-addedwithbaseyear Year of prediction All teachers New teachers Reading
  • 29.
    Issues with value-addedmodels for teachers 29  Different (reasonable) models of value-added give very different estimates of teacher quality (Goldhaber, Goldschmidt and Tseng, 2013)  Teacher value-added in their first year accounts for less than 5% of the variation in teacher quality in their fifth year of teaching (Atteberry, Loeb and Wyckoff, 2013)  Teachers benefit students for at least three years after they stop teaching them (Rothstein, 2010)
  • 30.
    What makes effectiveteacher learning? 30
  • 31.
    Expertise  According toBerliner (1994), experts:  Excel mainly in their own domain  Often develop automaticity for the repetitive operations that are needed to accomplish their goals  Are more sensitive to the task demands and social situation when solving problems  Are more opportunistic and flexible in their teaching than novices  Represent problems in qualitatively different ways than novices  Have faster and more accurate pattern recognition capabilities  Perceive meaningful patterns in the domain in which they are experienced  Begin to solve problems slower but bring richer and more personal sources of information to bear 31
  • 32.
    The role ofdeliberate practice  Music professors at the Hochschule der Kuenst (Academy of Music) Berlin identified 10 violin students who had the potential for careers as international soloists (“best” students)  The professors also identified a sample of 10 good, but not outstanding students (“good” students)  Researchers recruited another 10 students training to be music teachers who specialised in the violin (“Music Ed” students)  An additional 10 middle-aged professional violinists from two local orchestras were recruited to the study  Groups were matched in sex (7f, 3m) and for the first three groups, age 32
  • 33.
    How much doviolinists practice? 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 4 9 14 19 Hoursofpractieperweek Age Music Ed Good Best Professionals Ericsson, Krampe, Tesch-Römer (1993) 33
  • 34.
    Violinists’ hours ofpractice (cumulative) 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Cumulativehoursofpractice Age Music Ed Good Best Professionals 34
  • 35.
    These differences aresubstantial… Hours of practice by age 18 Music Education students 3420 Good violin students 5301 Best violin students 7410 Professional musicians 7336  By the age of 18, the best violinists have accumulated 40% more practice than good violinists  Since the amount of deliberate practice being undertaken by the best students once they are adults is close to the maximum possible, it is, essentially, impossible for the good students to catch up to the best. 35
  • 36.
    Psychomotor skills andsurgical skill…  Ten junior surgical residents were tested on their ability to perform five anastomoses on fresh porcine jenunum  Performance evaluated on: a. Time taken in minutes b. A “clumsiness” score (0 to 100), taking into account “unproductive movements, fumbles and gross errors” c. An anastomosis score found by rating on a 1 to 3 scale:  suture spacing  knots  overall tidiness  integrity of the anastomosis (tested with 10 cm head of water)  accuracy of suture in terms of extramucosal placement  Cumulative error score: a + b + 2 x (15 – c)
  • 37.
    …are only weaklyrelated 37  Residents also took three psychomotor tests:  Small parts manual dexterity test (Crawford Crawford, 1981)  Spiral maze test (Gibson, 1961)  Embedded figures test (Witkin, Oltman, Karp, 1971)  Results:  Surgical performance correlated negatively with tests of manual dexterity, but  Improvement in surgical skill correlated positively with the hidden figures score  The ability to create, and hold in mind, mental representations appears to be more important than manual dexterity in predicting surgical performance Steele, Walder, and Herbert (1992)
  • 38.
    Visual-spatial ability andsurgical skill 38  37 junior surgical residents at the University of Toronto given six tests of visual/spatial ability  Snowy pictures test (Ekstrom et al., 1976)  Gestalt completion test (Street, 1931)  Shape memory test (Ekstrom et al., 1976)  Cube comparison test (Ekstrom et al., 1976)  Form board test (Sylvester, 1881)  Mental rotations test (Vandenberg Kuse, 1978)
  • 39.
    Visual-spatial ability andsurgery skills  Residents were then tested on their ability to learn and perform complex surgical procedures (two-flap and four-flap Z–plasty on pig thighs)
  • 40.
    Correlation of surgicalskill with spatial ability 40 Procedure Try SPT GCT SMT CCT FBT MRT Total global rating Two-flap 1st — — — — — 0.40 Two-flap 2nd — — — — — — Four-flap — — — — 0.34 0.47 Quality of result Two-flap 1st — — — — — 0.40 Two-flap 2nd — — — — — — Four-flap — — — — 0.40 0.49 Wanzel, Hamstra, Anastakis, Matsumoto Cusimano (2002)
  • 41.
    General conclusions aboutexpertise  Elite performance is the result of at least a decade of maximal efforts to improve performance through an optimal distribution of deliberate practice  What distinguishes experts from others is the commitment to deliberate practice  Deliberate practice is  an effortful activity that can be sustained only for a limited time each day  neither motivating nor enjoyable—it is instrumental in achieving further improvement in performance 41
  • 42.
  • 43.
    Effects of experiencein teaching -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 0 1 2 3 to 5 Extramonthsperyearoflearning Years of teaching experience 43 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 0 1 2 3 to 5 Years of teaching experience Mathematics Reading Rivkin, Hanushek and Kain (2005)
  • 44.
    Implications for educationsystems  Pursuing a strategy of getting the “best and brightest” into teaching is unlikely to succeed  Currently all teachers slow, and most actually stop, improving after two or three years in the classroom  Expertise research therefore suggests that they are only beginning to scratch the surface of what they are capable of  What we need is to persuade those with a real passion for working with young people to become teachers, and to continue to improve as long as they stay in the job.  There is no limit to what we can achieve if we support our teachers in the right way
  • 45.
    Supportive accountability  Whatis needed from teachers:  A commitment to:  The continual improvement of practice  Focus on those things that make a difference to students  What is needed from leaders:  A commitment to engineer effective learning environments for teachers by:  Creating expectations for continually improving practice  Keeping the focus on the things that make a difference to students  Providing the time, space, dispensation, and support for innovation  Supporting risk-taking 45
  • 46.
    References Aaronson, D., Barrow,L., Sander, W. (2007). Teachers and student achievement in the Chicago Public High Schools. Journal of Labor Economics, 25(1), 95-135. Atteberry, A., Loeb, S., Wyckoff, J. (2013). Do first impressions matter? Improvement in early career teacher effectiveness. Washington, DC: Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Educational Research. Berliner, D. C. (1994). Expertise: the wonder of exemplary performances. In J. N. Mangieri C. C. Block (Eds.), Creating powerful thinking in teachers and students: diverse perspectives (pp. 161-186). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College. Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing professional practice: a framework for teaching. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363-406. Fitzpatrick, M. D., Grissmer, D., Hastedt, S. (2011). What a difference a day makes: Estimating daily learning gains during kindergarten and first grade using a natural experiment. Economics of Education Review, 30(2), 269-279. Goldhaber, D. D., Goldschmidt, P., Tseng, F. (2013). Teacher value- added at the high-school level: Different models, different answers? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. doi: 10.3102/0162373712466938 Hamre, B. K., Pianta, R. C. (2005). Academic and social advantages for at-risk students placed in high quality first grade classrooms. Child Development, 76(5), 949-967. Hanushek, E. A., Rivkin, S. G. (2006). Teacher quality. In E. A. Hanushek F. Welsh (Eds.), Handbook of the Economics of Education (Vol. 2, pp. 1051-1078). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier. Harris, D. N., Sass, T. R. (2007). Teacher training, teacher quality and student achievement (Vol. 3). Washington, DC: National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research. Hill, H. C., Charalambous, C. Y., Kraft, M. A. (2012). When rater reliability Is not enough: Teacher observation systems and a case for the generalizability study. Educational Researcher, 41(2), 56-84. Kluger, A. N., DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: a historical review, a meta- analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254-284. Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417-458. Rockoff, J. E. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: evidence from panel data. American Economic Review, 94(2), 247-252. Rothstein, J. (2010). Teacher quality in educational production: Tracking, decay, and student achievement. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125(1), 175–214. Sartain, L., Stoelinga, S. R., Brown, E. R., Luppescu, S., Matsko, K. K., Miller, F. K., Durwood, C.E., Jiang, J.Y., Glazer, D. (2011). Rethinking teacher evaluation in Chicago: Lessons learned from classroom observations, principal-teacher conferences, and district implementation. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research. Steele, R. J. C., Walder, C., Herbert, M. (1992). Psychomotor testing and the ability to perform an anastomosis in junior surgical trainees. British Journal of Surgery, 79(10), 1065–1067. Wanzel, K. R., Hamstra, S. J., Anastakis, D., Matsumoto, E. D., Cusimano, M. D. (2002). Effects of visual-spatial ability on learning of spatially-complex surgical skills. Lancet, 359(9302), 230–231. 46