1 / 49

Teacher Evaluation in Early Childhood Classrooms:

Using the Danielson Framework for Observing and Growing Teacher Practice Lisa Hood, Ph.D. Debra Kasperski, NBCT Center for the Study of Education Policy Illinois State University. Teacher Evaluation in Early Childhood Classrooms:. Agenda. Setting the Context for the Work

breazeale
Télécharger la présentation

Teacher Evaluation in Early Childhood Classrooms:

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Using the Danielson Framework for Observing and Growing Teacher Practice Lisa Hood, Ph.D. Debra Kasperski, NBCT Center for the Study of Education Policy Illinois State University Teacher Evaluation in Early Childhood Classrooms:

  2. Agenda • Setting the Context for the Work • Connect to the PreK-3 Danielson Validation Project • Connect to the Danielson Framework and PreK-3 • Questions/Feedback

  3. How Many of You…? • Evaluate teachers? • Are a teacher who is evaluated? • Use the Danielson Framework for Teaching? • Use another teacher evaluation tool?

  4. Setting the Context • Performance Evaluation Reform Act of 2010 (PERA): Legislative Requirements • Concern from the field about the misalignment between early childhood programs and K-12 • Concern about the use of the Danielson Framework in early childhood classrooms (particularly PreK & K)

  5. Project Work to Date • September 2012 – Present: EC stakeholders developed early learning examples for the 2013 rubric • June 2014 – Present: Conducting the PreK-3 Danielson Validation Study & data analysis • October 2015: Training for EC principals, directors, and teachers through IL Principals Association and The Center • Late Fall: Final research report • September – December 2015: Exploring need for EC videos to support training and professional development

  6. Connecting to the Research… White Paper Handout

  7. Study Participants • 7 Districts • 4 Early Learning Centers • 7 Schools • 1 Community-Based Center • North (3), Central (2), Southern (3); Urban (1), Rural (2), Small Urban/Big Town (5) • 26 Teachers(14 PreK, 12 Elementary) • Internal Observers: • 1 Teacher Leader • 2 PreK Coordinators • 9 Principals • External Observers • PreK-3 administration and teaching experience • Previous evaluation experience using the Danielson Framework

  8. Students per Grade (n=620)

  9. Student Ethnicity (N=548)

  10. Lunch Status (N=268) Special Education (N=191)

  11. Validation Study Purpose • To study whether the Danielson Framework is a valid and reliable tool for evaluating teachers in early childhood classrooms. • To study whether the framework provides accurate and reliable data that PreK-3rd grade teachers and their supervisors can use to • identify strengths and areas for growth; • use that data to engage in professional conversations, coaching, and targeted PD to promote teachers’ growth. • To develop training and resources that support EC teachers and their supervisors in their use of the Framework and implement their teacher evaluation system.

  12. Handout

  13. Validating the Framework • Quantitative Measures • Student assessment scores—is there a correlation between the observation data and student growth on assessments? If not, what does it tell us about the Framework or the assessments? • Evaluator and external observer evidence comparisons—is there a discrepancy in the critical attributes identified as a result of the evidence collected between the evaluator and the external observer? If not, where are the discrepancies?

  14. Validating the Framework • Qualitative Study • Qualitative analysis of the observation data • Alignment to component, specific/descriptive data, alignment to critical attributes • Interviews, focus groups, document analysis • Collect data on how the Framework is used by evaluators and PreK-3 teachers to identify strengths and weaknesses in professional practice and support professional development • Where are there challenges, misuses, or misinterpretations? • What training and resources are need to support the Framework’s use and to support a useful and effective teacher evaluation process?

  15. Danielson Framework for Teaching Overview

  16. Assumptions and Features of the Danielson Framework • Constructivist: teacher and student working together to engage learning • Teaching is purposeful: teachers make choices based on instructional goals • Comprehensive & coherent: focused on entire teaching process (in the classroom and out) • Generic: common features of teaching regardless of grade level or setting • Aligned with research and teaching standards • Public: accessible to teachers; advises book studies and discussions to modify language to fit context • Cycle of Inquiry and professional growth (PTRA cycle) • Independent of a particular teaching methodology

  17. Framework Vocabulary 4 Domains 22 Components 76 Elements

  18. Framework Domains Domain 1 – Planning and Preparation What a teacher knows and does in preparation for teaching. Domain 2 – The Classroom Environment All aspects of teaching that lead to a culture for learning in the classroom. Domain 4 – Professional Responsibilities Professional responsibilities and behavior in/out of the classroom. Domain 3 – Instruction What a teacher does to engage students in learning. SmartCard Handout

  19. The Danielson Framework for Teaching

  20. PTRA within the Collaborative Process Collaborative Observation Process

  21. Unsatisfactory – Professional practice shows evidence of not understanding the concepts underlying the component - may represent practice that is harmful - requires intervention Needs Improvement (Basic)– Professional practice shows evidence of knowledge and skills related to concepts underlying the component- but inconsistent performance due to lack of experience, expertise, or commitment Levels of Performance

  22. • Proficient – Professional practice shows evidence of thorough knowledge of concepts underlying the component. This is successful, accomplished, and effective professional practice. Excellent (Distinguished) – Professional practice shows evidence of thorough knowledge of concepts at highest level of expertise and commitment. Professional practice provides leadership and facilitation for others in this professional area. Classroom evidence is based upon student assumption of responsibility for learning. Levels of Performance

  23. Framework for Teaching Levels of Performance EXCELLENT Level 4 NEEDS IMPROVEMENT Level 2 UNSATISFACTORY Level 1 PROFICIENT Level 3 Lack ofUnorganizedHarmfulRefusalUnclearNon-Participatory InconsistentPartialGeneralAttemptsLimitedParticipatory ConsistentAppropriateSuccessfulFrequentSpecificCollaborative SeamlessSubtleSkillfulPreventativeExtensive Leadership • New or Developing • Focused Mentoring or Coaching • Below Licensing Standard • “Cease and Desist” • Teacher-Directed Success • Collaborative Learning • Student-Directed Success • Collaborative Leadership Experience, Expertise and Commitment

  24. Do you have any… Comments? Questions?

  25. Connecting to the Research… White Paper Handout

  26. EC Validation Research Fact #1 After reviewing the rating results from EC Validation Research Study, several Framework components were found to have consistently lower teaching scores by both internal and external evaluators OR to have a large variance in rating agreement between internal and external raters (67% or less agreement). What are these high-focus components?

  27. Inter-Rater Reliabilities (67% average) Graph 1: Internal and External Domain Agreement

  28. Inter-Rater Reliabilities

  29. Inter-Rater Reliabilities Graph 3: Overall Internal and External Evaluator Agreement, Domain 2

  30. Inter-Rater Reliabilities Graph 4: Overall Internal and External Evaluator Agreement, Domain 3

  31. 1c Selecting Instructional Outcomes

  32. 1d Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources

  33. 1f Designing Student Assessments

  34. 2a Creating an Environment of Respect and Rapport

  35. 2b Establishing a Culture for Learning

  36. 3d Using Assessment in Instruction

  37. 3e Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness

  38. What are your thoughts… Surprises? Questions? Others…?

  39. EC Validation Research Fact #2 • The planning conference for the PreK-3 classroom observations is essential • Discuss the intentionality of the learning environment • Situate the learning within the planned curriculum • Ask about the differentiated learning needs of the students • Recognize the special role of play-based learning strategies and curriculum (lesson planning is unique) • Utilize teaching expertise when collecting data for Domain 1 – listen and ask questions

  40. EC Validation Research Fact #3 2. Specific and descriptive evidence is key for more accurate and reliable feedback inall Domains but in Domain 2 and 3… • Tighter correspondence between evidence and critical attributes • Create “a story” of the teaching and learning process through descriptive evidence

  41. EC Validation Research Fact #4 3. Learning environments in EC classroom is an essential learning tool (Domain 2) • Intentional links between standards, outcomes, and learning environment • Academics and other domains (e.g., social-emotional, language, physical) • Interactions between the teacher and students is essential • Teacher-child proximity, respect, demonstrate interest

  42. EC Validation Research Fact #5 4. EC teachers and administrators have difficulty with the following: • Identifying measurable outcomes • Planning for and describing formative authentic assessments • Implementing and observing formative authentic assessments

  43. What questions and reactions do you have after reading the research findings?

  44. Are you ready to be an evaluator? Activity Materials

  45. QUESTIONS/SUGGESTIONS/FEEDBACK… Have a great school year supporting early childhood teaching & student learning! Best of Luck…Lisa & Debbie! Additional Questions? Contact Lisa Hood: lhood@ilstu.edu http://teecc.illinoisstate.edu/

More Related