Walden University

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

This is to certify that the doctoral study by Tina Link has been found to be complete and satisfactory in all respects, and that any and all revisions required by the review committee have been made. Review Committee Dr. Michael Toliver, Committee Chairperson, Education Faculty Dr. Anastasia DAngelo, Committee Member, Education Faculty Dr. Michelle Brown, University Reviewer, Education Faculty

Chief Academic Officer Eric Reidel, Ph.D.

Walden University 2011

Abstract The Impact of Teacher Evaluation Models on Teacher Leadership, Teacher Collegiality, and Instructional Risk-Taking by Tina R. Link

EdS, University of South Carolina, 1998 MEd, University of South Carolina, 1994

Doctoral Study Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education Teacher Leadership

Walden University December 2011

Abstract There is an inherent relationship between professional development and teacher evaluation. Treated separately, professional development and teacher evaluation have not kept up with the complex demands the codification of No Child Left Behind placed on teachers. The purpose of this quasi-experimental study was to compare 2 teacher evaluation models, traditional and peer coaching. This study was based on adult learning theory. The 3 research questions asked if there was a difference between teacher perceptions as they relate to teacher leadership, collegiality, and instructional risk taking, respectively, based on the selected teacher evaluation model. Data were collected from a survey administered to 149 high school teachers located in a suburban public high school in the Southeast. The data were analyzed using analysis of variance and cross tabulations. The findings indicated the peer coaching group was more likely to be involved in leadership roles within the school but there were no significant differences in collegiality or instructional risk taking between the groups. However, there were differences in instructional risk taking between members within the peer coaching group. Respondents who continued to use peer coaching were more likely to try new instructional strategies and thought peer coaching met their professional development needs, compared to those who returned to the traditional model. Recommendations include exploring alternative forms of teacher evaluation that take advantage of the intellectual capacity and career cycles of teachers. Social change is engendered as teachers are empowered to direct their learning based on their professional needs and the needs of their students.

The Impact of Teacher Evaluation Models on Teacher Leadership, Teacher Collegiality, and Instructional Risk-Taking by Tina R. Link

EdS, University of South Carolina, 1998 MEd, University of South Carolina, 1994

Doctoral Study Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education Teacher Leadership

Walden University December 2011

UMI Number: 3488091

All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3488091 Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

Dedication I would like to dedicate this endeavor to the two most influential men in my life, my father and my husband. As a first generation American, my father and his family believed in the American dream. Education was the expected path and one not to be taken for granted. College was not optional. It was with this premise that our family foundation was laid. Early in this journey, I met my husband. He has been my greatest advocate. His support, editing, and advice have made this dream a reality. Together we are instilling this dream in our own three daughters.

Acknowledgments I would like to thank my family and friends for their support. I am very blessed to have a great family both immediate and extended. My mother, brother, and in-laws are without a doubt a gift for which I am sincerely thankful. I hope the conclusion of this endeavor inspires my brother, Mark, to complete his own. I thank my sister-in-law, Jenny, for starting this path with me and providing a sounding board when I needed one. I would like to thank Dr. Toliver for his guidance during this process. His patience and advice are greatly appreciated and I would happily support naming a butterfly in his honor! I would also like to thank Dr. DAngelo who gamely took on this challenge, jumping in midstream and never missing a beat. Finally, I would like to thank my immediate family; my husband, Michael, and our three daughters, Brittany, Alex, and Madison. My family helped me find balance when I needed it. They remind me of what is truly important. My husband is not only my best friend, he is my greatest role model. He forged the path and leads by example. Our daughters now continue the process they have witnessed their entire lives. I hope their journey is as wonderful as mine is. Communication is a process of sharing experience till it becomes a common possession. It modifies the disposition of both the parties who partake in it. That the ulterior significance of every mode of human association lies in the contribution which it makes to the improvement of the quality of experience is a fact most easily recognized in dealing with the immature. (Dewey, 1916, p. 9)

Table of Contents List of Tables .......................................................................................................................v Section 1: Introduction to the Study ....................................................................................1 Global Context ...............................................................................................................1 Background of the Problem ...........................................................................................4 Local Context .................................................................................................................4 Contextual Convergence ................................................................................................6 Problem Statement .........................................................................................................6 Nature of the Study ........................................................................................................7 Rationale for Paradigm and Study Design .....................................................................9 Research Questions and Hypotheses ...........................................................................10 Purpose Statement ........................................................................................................12 Theoretical Perspectives ..............................................................................................13 Definitions....................................................................................................................16 Assumptions.................................................................................................................18 Limitations ...................................................................................................................18 Scope and Delimitations ..............................................................................................19 Significance..................................................................................................................20 Summary ......................................................................................................................21 Section 2: Literature Review .............................................................................................23 Introduction ..................................................................................................................23 Relationship Between Student Achievement and Teacher Quality .............................24 i

Staff Development .......................................................................................................27 Collegiality and Professional Learning Communities .................................................31 Peer Coaching ..............................................................................................................33 Historical Perspective of Peer Coaching......................................................................34 Benefits of Peer Coaching ...........................................................................................34 Complexities of a Paradigm Shift ................................................................................35 Teacher Leaders ...........................................................................................................36 Teacher Leadership and Peer Coaching .......................................................................38 Instructional Risk Taking and Peer Coaching .............................................................39 Student Achievement and Peer Coaching ....................................................................40 Teacher Evaluation ......................................................................................................43 Survey Evaluation of New Programs ...........................................................................45 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................48 Summary ......................................................................................................................50 Section 3: Research Method ..............................................................................................52 Introduction ..................................................................................................................52 Research Design and Approach ...................................................................................52 Justification for Design ................................................................................................54 Setting and Sample ......................................................................................................55 Instrumentation and Materials .....................................................................................56 Data Collection and Analysis.......................................................................................59 Ethical Standards .........................................................................................................64 ii

Additional Ethical Considerations ...............................................................................65 Section 4: Results...............................................................................................................66 Introduction ..................................................................................................................66 Findings........................................................................................................................67 Method of Teacher Evaluation.............................................................................. 67 Research Question One: Leadership ..................................................................... 71 Research Question Two: Collegiality ................................................................... 78 Research Question 3: Instructional Risk Taking .................................................. 83 Peer Coaching Experiences................................................................................... 91 Summary ......................................................................................................................95 Section 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations.............................................98 Overview ......................................................................................................................98 Interpretation of Findings ..........................................................................................100 Research Question One: Leadership ................................................................... 100 Research Question Two: Collegiality ................................................................. 101 Research Question Three: Instructional Risk Taking ......................................... 102 Additional Findings ...................................................................................................104 Implications for Social Change ..................................................................................105 Recommendations for Further Research ....................................................................109 Final Thought .............................................................................................................109 References ........................................................................................................................111 Appendix A: Georgia Code .............................................................................................135 iii

Appendix B: County Teacher Evaluation ........................................................................137 Appendix C: County Evaluation Instrument....................................................................139 Appendix D: School Waiver ............................................................................................141 Appendix E: Research Design .........................................................................................142 Appendix F: School Peer Coaching Evaluation Option ..................................................143 Appendix G: Teacher Survey Instrument ........................................................................144 Appendix H: Advance Notice ..........................................................................................154 Appendix I: First Survey Follow-up ................................................................................155 Appendix J: Second Survey Follow-up ...........................................................................156 Appendix K: Final Survey Follow-up..............................................................................157 Appendix L: Permission to Use Surveys .........................................................................158 Curriculum Vitae .............................................................................................................160

iv

List of Tables Table 1. Trained in peer coaching and years using peer coaching consistently ............... 67 Table 2. Respondent Demographics by Evaluation Type ................................................. 70 Table 3. Question Set 3: Teacher Leadership by Roles Performed in this School ........... 73 Table 4. Question Set 3: Teacher Leadership by Total Number of Roles Performed in this School ....................................................................................................................... 75 Table 5. Question Set 4: Teacher Leadership by Roles Performed Outside this School .. 76 Table 6. Question Set 4: Teacher Leadership by Total Number of Roles Performed Outside this School ................................................................................................... 77 Table 7. Question Set 1: School Collegiality by Evaluation Type ................................... 79 Table 8. Question Set 2: Department or Subject Area Collegiality by Evaluation Type . 81 Table 9. Question Set 5: Instructional Risk Taking by Professional Development.......... 85 Table 10. Question Set 6: Instructional Risk Taking by Student Lesson Activities ......... 87 Table 11. Question Set 7: Instructional Risk Taking by Type of Student Assessments ... 88 Table 12. Question Set 8: Instructional Risk Taking by Emphasis of Criteria in Student Assessment ................................................................................................................ 90 Table 13. Question Set 9: Experience with Peer Coaching .............................................. 92 Table 14. Open-ended responses for question 10 ............................................................. 94

Section 1: Introduction to the Study Global Context Attention generated by No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2001) catapulted the position of the teacher to center stage (Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 2003). The law required states, districts, and schools to place highly qualified teachers in every classroom, such that all teachers in core academic subjects were determined to be highly qualified by the 2005-06 school year (Blant, 2003). Additionally, the law required schools to document student achievement by determining adequate yearly progress as defined by each state. Federal pressure sharpened the focus on the relationship between the student and the teacher, and under such scrutiny, myriad of recommendations and initiatives to improve the quality of teaching evolved (Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 2003; Harris & Sass, 2008; Kaplan & Owings, 2001). In response to this unprecedented policy analysis (Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 2003, p. 1), teachers are expected to engage in data-driven inquiry, align their instruction with state and local standards, and change their instructional practices accordingly (Bogner, 2002). Most notably, teachers are expected to participate in these activities in collaborative groups, functioning as instructional leaders (Bogner, 2002; Hughes, 2006; Valli & Buese, 2007). The typical model of school operations does not encourage and sustain such expectations (Barth, 2001; Bogner, 2002). This new paradigm requires sustained professional development and support for the teacher (Bogner, 2002; DarlingHammond & Sykes, 2003). Iwanicki (2001) claimed that the complexity of teaching requires a new model of evaluation, one in which teachers take a more participatory and active role.

Since the intent is to ensure quality instruction, professional development and teacher evaluation are two traditional conventions with a direct impact on the classroom teacher. In regard to the first practice, there has been a shift in staff development. Countering the limitations of previous professional growth initiatives; such as the lack of sustained support, and the absences of a needs assessment, and follow-up evaluation, there is a move away from the more traditional model of top-down mandates (Killion, 2008). This has not been the case for teacher evaluations. Teacher evaluations have remained passive, relying on an annual observation and checklists (Holland & Adams, 2002). Effective evaluation stimulates teachers to focus on their own professional growth (Beall, 1999). Additionally, teacher evaluations have the greatest efficacy when they are integrated with professional development and aligned with school improvement (Iwanicki, 2001). Since teachers are the direct focus of both activities, teachers need to collaborate and be actively involved in the development and administration of both processes. The place on which to focus is on the professional didactic and interpersonal relationships that already exist within a school (Barth, 2001). Marzano (2003) asserted that research-based collegial interactions have the potential to transform education, one classroom at a time and one school at a time. Within these professional relationships lies the ability to release intellectual capital (Laureate Education, Inc., 2005). According to Keedy (1991), collegiality is present in schools where the atmosphere is such that that teachers work together to help each other succeed. Collaboration allows for the give and take of ideas, fostering meaningful dialogue and reflective thinking (Knight, 2007). In a collegial environment, there is a sense of inter-dependence, of community (Jarzabowski,

2002). It is a place where co-equal parties are voluntarily engaged in shared decision making as they work toward a common goal (Friend & Cook, 2007, p. 7). The significance of such collegiality is the impact it has on student achievement (Abdaliah, 2009). In such an environment, students benefit from better instruction and the understanding that their teachers work collectively for their welfare (Abdaliah, 2009). Deference to the direct link between student and teacher means that professional learning opportunities should respect the voice of teachers (Knight, 1007, p. 43). The teachers relationship with student achievement is well established (Darling-Hammond & Youngs, 2002; Marzano, 2003; Sanders, Wright, Ross, & Wang, 2000); the challenge involves empowering and encouraging all teachers to extend their role beyond their own classroom. Researchers suggested that the traditional structure of the school hierarchy is an area on which to focus (Anderson & Pellicer, 2001; Darling-Hammond & Friedlaender, 2008; Gigante & Firestone, 2008). Instead of reorganizing the bureaucratic layers, the current initiative is to empower teachers. This idea is not new (Silva, Gimbert, & Nolan, 2000). Teacher leadership has long been a formal part of schools (Silva, Gimbert, & Nolan, 2000). In high schools, there are department chairpersons; in elementary and middle schools, there are grade level leaders and team leaders, respectively (Silva, Gimbert, & Nolan, 2000). Traditionally, only a few teachers took on leadership roles outside of the classroom (Barth, 1988). With this new paradigm, all teachers are expected to participate (Crowther, Kaagan, Ferguson, & Hann, 2002; Elmore, 2000; Lambert, 2002). Teachers can no longer afford to be passive in either the direction of their professional growth or in their evaluation. The scholarly literature is scarce in regard to

models in which professional development and teacher evaluations converge, specifically as they compare to traditional models of professional development programs and teacher evaluations. Background of the Problem Local Context I investigated the introduction of peer coaching as a joint model for both professional development and evaluation of experienced high school teachers. The teachers had to be in good standing, hereafter referred to as tenured teachers, in order to use peer coaching as an alternative to traditional evaluations conducted by an administrator. Georgia law requires the annual evaluation of teachers (see Appendix A). The county in which the study took place has established guidelines and an instrument that was used to fulfill the Georgia requirements (see Appendices B and C). As a charter school, the studys high school requested a waiver of the traditional evaluation process for experienced teachers in good standing (See Appendix D). Twenty four tenured teachers, trained in peer coaching, volunteered to pilot the alternative evaluation using the peer-coaching model during the 2008-2009 school year. During the 2009-2011 school years, the peer coaching model continued. Each school year additional teachers volunteered to use the peer-coaching model for their annual evaluation. All other teachers were evaluated using the school districts traditional administrative model during these 3 school years. The impetus behind the waiver is a reflection of the unique nature of the school compared to other local schools. The school has a reputation for both high academic achievement and athletic achievement. The school operates on a traditional 180 day,

academic year schedule with six 55-minute classes and the option to add up to two more classes, one before and one after the normal school day. The high school serves approximately 2,600 students grades 9 through 12. In a 2006 graduating class size of 591 students, 95% of the seniors enrolled in a 4-year college, 3% in a community college, 1% enrolled in vocational training, and 1% was classified as unknown (2006 - 2007, Application, No Child Left Behind Blue Ribbon Schools Program). Demographic data showed the racial/ethnic composition as 79% White, 4% Black or African American, 2% Hispanic or Latino, and 15% Asian/Pacific Islander. Additionally, 10% of the students receive special education services and 2% are eligible for free and reduced lunch (2006 2007, Application, No Child Left Behind Blue Ribbon Schools Program). The school offers 31 Advanced Placement (AP) courses with approximately 1,213 students taking over 2,622 AP exams in which over 73% of the tests receiving a score of three or higher (p.25, 2009-2010 State of Georgia K-12 Public Schools Annual Report Card). There are 149 teachers, of which 56% have 11 or more years teaching experience, and 76% have a masters degree or higher (p.39, 2009-2010 State of Georgia K-12 Public Schools Annual Report Card). In general, the parents are well-educated professionals and have a family median income of over $100,000 based upon data from the 2000 census, the highest median income in the county (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). The administration was concerned that the schools successes might propagate academic complacency among some of the faculty (T. Higgins, personal communication, April 19, 2007). Supporting this concern, one teacher stated, if it isnt broken, dont fix it (S.Breckenridge, personal communication, April 19, 2007). Another stated, What we are doing, works. Why change? (R.Greenburg, personal communication, April 19,

2007). The principal, inspired by challenges delineated in Collins (2001) book, Good to Great, met with his administrative team and the department chairpersons to determine a solution. The questions he asked were, How do we keep our teachers growing and trying new teaching techniques? How do we get our teachers to engage in professional dialogue? Our school is good, how do we become great? (T. Higgins, personal communication, April 19, 2007). These questions became the basis for a new school initiative. Contextual Convergence The merging of the global and local reactions to the current environment led the schools administration to rethink traditional practices. First, recognizing the facultys discontent with the districts professional development opportunities, the principal hired a consultant to train interested faculty and administrators in peer coaching. Second, after 3 consecutive years of summer training, during which a total of 50 teachers were trained, the principal determined that an alternative evaluation model was appropriate for teachers using peer coaching. This coincided with the charter renewal process. Considering the accountability trends in education and the focus on instruction, this change was timely. To follow school district and university policy to protect anonymity, the names have been changed. The studys school and district will be referred to as XYZ and ABC respectively. A comprehensive review of the literature as it relates to professional growth and teacher evaluation is provided in Section 2. Problem Statement The problem addressed in this study is that traditional staff development and evaluation methods do not foster the professional growth of teachers as they relate to the

new expectations in the areas of leadership, collegiality, and instructional risk taking. There is no direct correlation between staff development and teacher evaluation, even though the relationship between these two entities is coupled in Georgias education code, section (b) parts (1) and (3 [see Appendix A]). In an attempt to address this disconnect, the school has implemented a peer coaching model for teacher evaluation as an alternative to the traditional administrative evaluation. Teachers meeting specific criteria, as stated in the waiver, can select their evaluation method (see Appendix D). The intent is that the alternative approach provides both a platform for teacher growth and the foundation for teacher evaluation. The objective of this study was to examine the use of two different models of teacher evaluation (independent variable): peer coaching and the traditional evaluation by a trained supervisor. I analyzed the effect each model has on three dependent variables: (a) teacher leadership, (b) collegiality among teachers, and (c) risk-taking in instructional practice. This study was important because it provided additional literature with regard to staff development and teacher evaluation, practices used to improve and assess teacher quality, a strong correlate to student achievement (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 2010; Darling-Hammond & Youngs, 2002; Ding & Sherman, 2006; Marzano, 2003; Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2005; Rockoff, 2004; Sanders & Rivers, 1996; Sanders, Wright, Ross, & Wang, 2000). Nature of the Study The first step in addressing the disconnect between staff development and teacher evaluation necessitates a paradigm shift with respect to the professional growth of teachers. This involves how schools are fostering collegiality and preparing teachers,

both individually and collectively, for this new role as an instructional leader beyond the classroom. At a time when even more is expected of teachers, the methods to prepare teachers for the new responsibilities can no longer remain the same (Darling-Hammond, & Richardson, 2009). The second step involves a new method of teacher evaluation, one that encourages teachers to try different pedagogical practices, to work collaboratively, and to extend their reach beyond the walls of their own classroom. Teachers are more inclined to align their teaching habits with research, best practices, and national standards when teachers are a part of a school-based learning community (McLauglin & Talbert, 1993). In such a learning community, teams of teachers work together, evaluating lesson plans and student work, coaching each other (Crow, 2009). Teachers working together for the purpose of focusing on student needs are performing a teacher role as surely as when they spend time with a group of children in direct instruction (Shanker, 1990, p.100). Barth (1990) maintained that collegiality is essential for school improvement, stating: The relationships among adults in schools are the basis, the precondition, the sine qua non that allow, energize, and sustain all other attempts at school improvement. Unless adults talk with one another, observe one another, and help one another, very little will change. (p. 32) The collaborative effort pulls together the ideas of many, allows for examination, discussion and refinement, and from this the very best can be selected (Barth, 1990). While this task may appear daunting, it is not insurmountable. There is a formidable wealth of talent and expertise found in almost every school (Barkley, 2005; Gottesman, 2000; Knight, 2007). For change to occur, it is no longer sufficient to view

only the principal as the leader (Barth, 1988, Crowther, et al., 2008). The new formula regards leadership as relational instead of individual (Donaldson, 2006). Leadership requires liberating people to do what is required (Pellicer, 1999). The mantle of leadership needs to encompass those in the vanguard to determine what is best for the individual students. It will require clarifying and redefining the traditional roles of the classroom teacher (Donaldson, 2006). This study contributed to the body of knowledge needed to address this problem by comparing two different teacher evaluation models as they relate to the professional growth of teachers. In an effort to meet the new demands placed on schools and teachers, high school XYZ shifted from a traditional evaluation system to a peer coaching model of evaluation. In this paradigm, teachers are expected to engage in data driven inquiry, align their instruction with state and local standards, and assume leadership roles in addressing both their own professional growth and the professional growth of their colleagues. These expectations are embedded in the new evaluation process. These topics will be further addressed in Section 3. Rationale for Paradigm and Study Design The study followed an inferential quantitative tradition. The quasiexperimental design that best suited this descriptive quantitative study is the alternative treatment posttest only with nonequivalent groups design (see Appendix E). This design is implemented when two groups are each administered a different treatment. A posttest is administered after the treatments (Creswell, 2003; Gribbons & Herman, 1997). The first group was composed of 66 teachers who opted for the peer coaching model of evaluation between the years 2008-2011. The second group was composed of 83 teachers who

10

underwent the administrative model of evaluation. March, 2011, marked the end of the current evaluation process. Data were collected by using a closed-ended survey instrument to obtain statistical data collected at one point in time (Creswell, 2003). Surveys have been used for over a century to gather data for understanding the human condition and have become ubiquitous tools of management to improve the performance of an organization (Groves et al., 2004). It is a common practice among school districts, states, and the federal government to use surveys to collect data regarding various aspects of education. Since 2002, the North Carolina Teacher Working Conditions Survey has been administered to collect and analyze data with regard to teacher working conditions and student performance (New Teacher Center, 2010). The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) routinely uses surveys to collect data. NCESs School and Staffing Survey has been conducted since the mid-1980s to collect information on school climate, compensation, hiring practices, and student characteristics (NCES, 2011). The rationale for this design selection was based upon the constraints of implementation. The study involved a faculty within a single school. This design allows for the collection of data from the two groups that are formed based on the method of teacher evaluation. A case study was considered but the findings would be too narrow and limited in application (Cresswell, 2003). Based on the scale of the treatment, more data could be collected using the design selected and used by the school in planning for the next year. Research Questions and Hypotheses The following research questions were addressed in this study:

11

1. How do teachers perceptions of teacher leadership differ between teachers using the peer coaching model of evaluation and the teachers using the traditional model of teacher evaluation? H10: There is no significant difference between teachers undergoing the peer coaching model of teacher evaluation and the traditional model of teacher evaluation in terms of perceptions of teacher leadership opportunities. H1A: There is a significant difference between teachers undergoing the peer coaching model of teacher evaluation and the traditional model of teacher evaluation in terms of perceptions of teacher leadership opportunities. 2. How do teachers views of collegiality differ between teachers using the peer coaching model of evaluation and the teachers using the traditional model of teacher evaluation? H20: There is no significant difference between teachers undergoing the peer coaching model of teacher evaluation and the traditional model of teacher evaluation in perceptions of collegiality. H2A: There is a significant difference between teachers undergoing the peer coaching model of teacher evaluation and the traditional model of teacher evaluation in perceptions of collegiality. 3. How does teachers willingness to take instructional risks differ between teachers using the peer coaching model of evaluation and the teachers using the traditional model of teacher evaluation?

12

H30: There is no significant difference between teachers undergoing the peer coaching model of teacher evaluation and the traditional model of teacher evaluation in willingness to try different instructional. H3A: There is a significant difference between teachers undergoing the peer coaching model of teacher evaluation and the traditional model of teacher evaluation in willingness to try different instructional. Purpose Statement The purpose of this quasiexperimental study was to test the theory that the model of teacher evaluation, traditional teacher evaluation model versus a peer coaching model, (independent variable) impacts the professional growth of teachers in regard to perception of a teachers leadership opportunities (dependent variable), collegiality among the faculty (dependent variable) and a teachers risk taking or willingness to try new instructional practices (dependent variable) at XYZ High School. This study provided a comparison of teachers attitudes towards their professional growth and leadership roles, sense of collegiality, and willingness to try new teaching techniques, between teachers evaluated using a peer coaching model and teachers evaluated using the traditional model. Additionally, the data were used to assess the new evaluation process as it relates to the continuance of the aforementioned waiver request. An ethic of continuous improvement, with professional development close to the classroom central to that improvement, is a consistent approach for the most successful school systems (Barber, 2009; Wei, Andree, & Darling-Hammond, 2009). As states look for ways to implement programs designed to increase student achievement through instructional practices, teachers ideas must be included in the process (Knight, 2007).

13

Recognizing the ineffectiveness of traditional teacher evaluation models in fostering such an environment, the studys school piloted an alternative model to ascertain if a peer coaching evaluation model can fulfill both the role of a professional development model and a practical evaluation model simultaneously. Theoretical Perspectives Peer coaching involves two, sequentially related expectations. First, improved quality of instruction increases the quality of the teacher (Allen & LeBlanc, 2005; Barkley, 2005; Flaherty, 2005; Gottesman, 2000; Knight, 2007). Second, increased teacher quality leads to higher student achievement (Darling-Hammond & Youngs, 2002; Knight, 2007; Lambert et al., 2002; Rockoff, 2004). The implementation and success of peer coaching involves the juxtaposition of learning theories as they pertain to both adults and children. In addressing the collective ideologies for both adult and child learning, it is important to acknowledge the originators of cognitive theory, Bartlett (1932), Broadbent (1958), and Neisser (1967), as well as the contributions of subsequent major theorists in the area of cognitive development, including Kohlberg (1969), Piaget (1970), Hunt (1971), Loevinger (1976), and Vygotsky (1978). Each cognitive psychologist applied a different approach to the idea of thought processes as being derived from some means of internal feedback (Huitt, 2006). Their collective findings support the theory that reason is a cognitive structure that develops through a progression of qualitatively distinct stages occurring in a hierarchical manner, each stage increasing in complexity (Huitt, 2006; Reiman & Thies-Sprinthall, 1998). A divergence occurs in the accrued experience of the learner, distinguishing adult from child.

14

Conceptually newer, adult learning theories respect life experiences, self direction, and the need to solve real life problems as the preface for reflection, inquiry, relevance, purpose, and new learning (Jarvis, 1987; Knowles, 1980; Merriam & Caffarella, 1999; Ponticell & Zepeda, 2004 ). Knowles, a theorist on adult learning, used the term andragogy, defined as "the art and science of helping adults learn," to differentiate from the term pedagogy, which is the art and science of helping children learn (p. 43). Experience is a significant factor in the ability to create, retain, and transfer knowledge because it provide opportunities for trial and error (Argote, McEvily, & Reagans, 2003, p. 575). Adult learners need to find value and a place for the new learning as it pertains to their experience and responsibilities (Garvin, 1993; Reiman & Thies-Sprinthall, 1998). Bridging back to earlier learning theory, the concepts of andragogy and constructivist learning are also complimentary. Bartlett (1932) proposed the idea of schemata, unconscious mental structures based on an individuals assimilated knowledge of the world. The concept of a schema became the foundation for the constructivist approach, believing that a learners reality or knowledge hinges on the interpretation of prior physical and social experiences (Good & Brophy, 1990; Jonasson, 1991). Learning is a building process starting with a broad foundation and evolving, becoming more specific, as the learner constructs new ideas or concepts based upon existing knowledge (Brunner, 1990). Adults have many constructs or schema from which to build because they have had more time to create them. Current understanding of learning includes the psychobiological. Brain development is complex with many inputs related to both genetic and environmental

15

factors (Lenroot & Giedd, 2008). As such, brain research on experience, learning and memory supports broader learning theories such as the concept of scaffolding and the distinction between andragogy and pedagogy (Anderson , Sisti, Curlik, & Shors, 2011; Bontempi & Frankland, 2009; Geier, Garver, Terwilliger, & Luna, 2009). From conception to death, the brain undergoes a process of maturation (Anderson,et al., 2011; Bontempi & Frankland, 2009; Geier et al.,2009). Specifically, learning and memory are associated with the formation of hippocampal and cortical networks (Bontempi & Frankland, 2009). As a person ages and the brain is exposed to a variety of stimuli, that is, experiences, there is a memory or systems consolidation, analogous to Bartletts (1932) unconscious mental structures, which occurs in the cerebral cortex (Bontempi & Frankland, 2009; Morgado-Bernal, 2011). Psychobiologists have been able to track distinct developmental changes in brain circuitry between children, adolescents, and adults (Geier et al., 2009). In essence, the young brain is about encoding and consolidation, taking in all of the surrounding stimuli and processing it with a distributed circuitry (Geier et al., 2009). The adult brain is about memory storage and retrieval, focusing and fine-tuning specifics and processing it with more precise circuitry (Geier et al., 2009). In short, adults have a more elaborate system and a more extensive neuronal network from which to draw information (Bontempi & Frankland, 2009). Learning becomes more focused and the brain demands immediacy and relevance because it is adding to pre-existing structures. This does not mean that adults cannot experience completely new learning. In fact, there is much evidence to support the growth of the brain into old age (Anderson et al., 2011; Garland & Howard, 2009). According to Anderson et al. (2011), there is a

16

feedback system directly related to learning in which new neurons are integrated into the brain. Learning increases the number of immature neurons that survive and mature in the adult hippocampus and the new neurons that do not learn do not survive (Anderson, et al., 2011, p.175). Experience affects brain structure and brain structure determines learning. Peer coaching takes advantage of developed mental structures, augmented with education and experience, already in place. The coached teacher gains theory based strategies immediately applicable to teaching and the coach fine tunes and strengthens existing neuronal connections (Anderson et al., 2011; Lenroot & Giedd, 2008). The immediacy of the application is directly transferred to the classroom and the student (Hord, 2009). In return, the student gains more effective learning experiences from which to build new schema and networks. This ultimately leads to improved student achievement. Definitions Adult learning theory: Knowles (1980), based andragogy on five basic assumptions: 1. Self-Concept: maturity brings self-directedness. 2. Experience: aids learning. 3. Readiness: takes on new social roles. 4. Orientation: new knowledge is immediately applicable in problem solving. 5. Motivation: maturity leads to internal motivation. Collegiality: Authentic, professional interactions imbued with respect. This relationship allows for the sharing of failures and mistakes and a chance to constructively

17

analyze and criticize practices and procedures (Abdallah , 2009; Fullan, & Hargreaves, 1996). Experienced teachers: Describes teachers who have been classroom practitioners for a minimum of 5 years (Henke, Chen, & Geis, 2000). Five years was selected as the baseline based on data from the NCES (2000) which indicated that nearly one half of teachers leave the field of education prior to 5 years (Henke, Chen, & Geis, 2000, Ingersoll, 2006). This demarcation appears to be a natural break from which to distinguish between experienced and inexperienced teachers. Instructional practices risk-taking: The willingness to try new instructional practices (Blas & Blas, 2000). Peer coaching: An approach in which teachers work together in order to improve instruction, moving through a process similar to clinical supervision in the medical field (Costa & Garmston, 1994; Joyce & Showers, 1995; Joyce & Showers, 1996). Peer coaching involves inviting a peer into the classroom to observe a specific behavior or technique. In return, the observer provides specific and descriptive feedback regarding the behavior or technique (Barkley, 2005; Cogan, 1973; Glickman, Gordon, & RossGordon, 1995). Student achievement: The attainment of course standards as set by the Georgia Department of Education and measured by the classroom teacher (Kim & Sunderrman, 2005). Teacher quality: The meaning will be limited to meeting Georgias definition of a highly qualified teacher based on NCLB legislative requirements (U.S. Department of

18

Education, 2006) with the additional constraint including a minimum of 5 years teaching experience. Traditional teacher evaluation: The meaning will be limited to the administrative use of an observation instrument and check list. The process involves at least one announced observation and may or may not include a preconference. Formal feedback is given within ten days of the observation. The administrator is to have a final conference prior to April 1st of the school year (see Appendix B [Colby, Bradshaw, & Joyner, 2002]). Assumptions There were three key assumptions driving this study: (a) teachers using peer coaching will be trained using the same model, (b) experienced teachers will participate in peer coaching, and (c) peer coaching participation is voluntary. Limitations There were several limitations to this study. First was the selection of the peer coaching model to be implemented. According to Garmston (1987), there are three different approaches to peer coaching: technical coaching, collegial coaching, and challenge coaching. The collegial coaching model was selected due to the support this model provides in fostering professional learning communities (Darling-Hammond & Richardson, 2009). The use of only one approach, collegial coaching, proposed by Stephen Barkley (2005), was a limitation of this study. Teachers participating in the peer coaching model of evaluation were self-selected and not randomly assigned. As such, the characteristics of the volunteers may not be generalizable to all faculties. Teacher attributes such as years of experience, education

19

level, subject area, gender, and personality could affect differences found in all three areas under investigation; sense of leadership, sense of collegiality, and instructional risktaking. The study took place in a southeastern high school located 20 miles northwest of Atlanta, Georgia. At the time of this study, this was the only school using peer coaching as an alternative to the countys standard evaluation process. The findings of this study may be distinctive to this particular school. The use of one school also lowers sample size. A smaller sample size limits some subgroup analysis (i.e., gender, area of certification, number of years teaching, etc.). Finally, the school requested the waiver in order to facilitate teacher growth based on the recognition of the relationship between the quality of the classroom teacher and student achievement. Student achievement was not examined in this study. The study was limited to an investigation of the changes in teacher attitudes and behaviors that may impact student achievement. Scope and Delimitations Teachers involved in the study have participated in a 2 day training program facilitated by the consultant hired by the school, Barkley, or a Barkley trained facilitator. Following the philosophy of peer coaching, teaching partners were self-selected. Finally, peer coaches went through a minimum of three cycles focusing on selected instructional practices. The study was completed during the 2010-2011 school-year, the third year that the waiver permitted the school to use peer coaching as an evaluation. Teachers surveyed in the peer coaching group may have participated in the first or second year only, may

20

have participated in the third year only, or may have participated in 2 or all 3 years. The variability in this group ensures a sufficient number of participants as well as an opportunity to determine why teachers may opt to discontinue participation. Significance NCLB focuses attention on instructional practices, holding schools accountable for student achievement (Knight, 2007). Multiple researchers showed a direct correlation between teacher quality and student achievement (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Ding & Sherman, 2006; Marzano, 2003; Rice, 2003; Rockoff, 2004). As a result, teachers are the focus of many initiatives to improve student achievement (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 2010; Darling-Hammond & Berry, 2006; Printy & Marks, 2006). Addressing the relationships between peer coaching and quality of instruction has several outcomes. This study contributes to the body of literature on learning theory as it relates to adult learning. Acknowledging adult learning theory in order to facilitate meaningful staff development will provide opportunities for teachers to gain theory-based teaching strategies applicable to their classroom. As teachers increase their repertoire of instructional strategies, they are better able to meet the needs of their students. This study provides evidence facilitating the growth of teaching as a profession. As society struggles with defining accountability in public education, peer coaching provides educators a means to increase student achievement as barriers between classrooms and schools are diminished (Nolan & Hillkirk, 1991). Walls no longer keep teachers separated and the achievement of each student becomes a joint responsibility (Nolan & Hillkirk, 1991). Peer coaching fosters collegial climates, where the collective shares in both the challenges and successes of education (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1996).

21

Social change is engendered as peer coaching empowers teachers to direct their learning in accordance with their individual needs and the needs of their students. Barber (2009) maintained that the focus on learning creates an ethic of continuous improvement fostering the expectation that every child will succeed. Summary The purpose of this study was to assess the extent to which a peer coaching model of teacher evaluation versus the traditional model of teacher evaluation impacted the professional growth of teachers in the following areas: leadership, collegiality, and instructional risk-taking. Traditional summative evaluations have little impact of a teachers professional growth (Darling-Hammond & Richardson, 2009). The typical drive-by professional development workshops are ineffective (Darling-Hammond & Richardson, 2009; Stein, Smith, & Silver, 1999). A new paradigm for what constitutes meaningful professional development is emerging. The amalgamation of both evaluation and sustained professional development offered an opportunity to determine if this evaluation model affects teacher leadership, collegiality, and instructional risk-taking. Section 2 is a review of the literature as it explores the use of two different teacher evaluation models with regard to the professional development of teachers in the areas of teacher leadership, collegiality, and instructional risk taking. The literature describes the relationship from the perspective of improving and monitoring teacher performance through the implementation of peer coaching as both a vehicle for teacher growth and a tool for evaluation in comparison with the traditional supervisor evaluation and the conventional staff development. The literature review is organized by topic. The topics to be discussed in this section are: teacher quality, student achievement, staff development,

22

collegiality, professional learning centers, peer coaching, teacher leadership, instructional risk taking and teacher evaluation. Section 3 is the research design and methodology used in the study. Section 4 is the findings and Section 5 is an analysis of the findings and summary of the study.

23

Section 2: Literature Review Introduction Staff development and teacher evaluation are indigenous to the education profession. Historically, these processes exist as separate entities (Connelly, 1999). The purpose of this study was to compare two different evaluation models, the first, referred to as traditional, in which both processes remain separate and the second, peer coaching, in which the two processes are commingled. I analyzed the effect both the traditional administrator evaluation model and a peer coaching model have on teacher leadership, collegiality, and instructional risk taking as measured by a nonequivalent posttest. This study is significant because it demonstrates alternative methods to two common educational processes at a time when schools are seeking alternative methods to improve student achievement. As legislation continues to increase pressure to substantiate student achievement, the relationship between teacher quality and student performance has necessitated paradigm restructuring with regard to previous practices. The literature review begins with the relationship between student achievement and teacher quality and moves into methods for enhancing teacher quality and culminates with teacher evaluation. This information was gathered by looking at prior research and studies regarding student achievement and teacher quality, NCLB, peer coaching, professional learning communities and teacher evaluation using the local libraries, books, and two university search engines. The Walden University and Kennesaw State University databases including Proquest, Academic Search Premier, Education Research Complete, and EBSCO as well as Internet search engines allowed for cross-referencing of information as well as a way to find current, relevant, peer-reviewed literature and

24

dissertations. A thorough review of these sources was used to find current peer reviewed scholarly articles and dissertations regarding professional development, peer coaching, teacher evaluation, teacher leadership, instructional risk taking, and collegiality. These terms were used in Boolean searches as well as teacher quality, student achievement, and adult learning. Other sources for the literature review were found by using the references provided by scholarly journal articles and books. Additionally, the studys school implemented collegial peer coaching and provided training for program implementation. This provided additional access to literature and a professional library. Finally, primary sources found in my personal library were also used. Relationship Between Student Achievement and Teacher Quality The publication of A Nation at Risk in 1983 and the 1996 study, What Matters Most, fueled a national impetus to improve the academic performance of students (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983; National Commission on Teaching and Americas Future, 1996). As efforts to increase student achievement on standardized tests unfolded, so too did the focus on the teacher (Danielson, 2002; Hughes, 2006). In the mid 1980s, researchers focus shifted from school-level factors to teacher-level factors (Marzano, 2003). Marzano addressed the impact that an individual teacher has on student achievement. He stated that the individual teachers decisions have a far greater impact on student performance above and beyond the influences of schoollevel factors and student-level factors (Marzano, 2003). Rivkin, Hanushek, and Kain (2005) found a 7% variance in test-score gains attributed to differences in teachers (p. 454). Marzano maintained that students placed successively with the least effective

25

teachers can have a cumulative effect that is difficult, if not impossible for those students to overcome. Sanders and Rivers (1996) completed an analysis of data collected by the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS). TVAAS was designed to correlate student performance with specific teachers, schools, and school districts, free of the biases associated with standardized test data (Tennessee Department of Education, n.d.). The TVAAS scores indicate growth by measuring gains from one year to the next, regardless of initial performance levels (Sanders, Wright, Ross, & Wang, 2000). To substantiate the correlations, conclusions are based not only on each student's growth over the previous year, but also on averages of the student's growth over a three year period (Sanders & Horn, 1998, p. 250). Between 1990 and 1996, the TVAAS database housed approximately three million records for Tennessees entire Grade 2-8 student population (Sanders & Rivers, 1996, p. 1). The researchers focused on the cumulative teacher effects in Grades 3-5 mathematics in two of Tennessees larger metropolitan systems. Using a series of statistically mixed models, the authors demonstrated that, within grade levels, the teacher effect is the largest single factor affecting academic gain (Sanders & Rivers, 1996). Sanders and Rivers found the following: Groups of students with comparable abilities and initial achievement levels may have vastly different academic outcomes as a result of the sequence of teachers to which they are assigned. These analyses also suggest that the teacher effects are both additive and cumulative with little evidence of compensatory effects of more effective teachers in later

26

grades. The residual effects of both very effective and ineffective teachers were measurable two years later, regardless of the effectiveness of teachers in later grades. (p. 1) By developing a system for determining the teacher effect and coding this with student records, the researchers found that it was possible to determine whether teachers from previous grades affected current grade scores (Sanders & Rivers, 1996). Darling-Hammond and Youngs (2002) cited studies in which student achievement gains were significantly impacted by the assigned teacher as opposed to factors like class size and class composition. Rockoff (2004) presented evidence that the critical element to improving student achievement hinges on raising teacher quality. In addition to the impact teacher quality has on student performance, Ding and Sherman (2006) added an additional component, teacher preparation. The Teaching Commission (2004) asserted that one of the most important factors necessary to improve the nations competitiveness and security was directly related to teaching quality (Ding & Sherman, 2006). In an analysis done for the Teaching Commission, Stanford University economist Hanushek (2003) broadened the impact of student achievement by including individual productivity and national economic growth. Schools have a large impact on student outcomes and these are translated into fiscal outcomes (Hanushek, 2003). Ultimately, what goes on in the classroom has long term consequences beyond the classroom. Finally, in the first of four reports, Learning about Teaching, preliminary analysis of data collected by the project found empirical evidence to support the relationship between teacher effectiveness and student achievement (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 2010). The study included grades and subjects most states test. These

27

include mathematics, English language arts in grades 4 through 8, and biology, algebra I, and 9th grade English, in high school. The 2009-2010 study was conducted in six districts, mainly urban, spread across the country and included almost 3,000 teachers within 2,519 classrooms. Data were collected from several standardized assessments, classroom observations via videotaping, teacher reflections, and a teacher survey. The report stated, In every grade and subject, a teachers past track record of value-added [academic growth] is among the strongest predictors of their students achievement gains in other classes and academic years (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 2010, p. 9). Through a variety of measures, the project was able to support the relationship between effective teachers and student performance. While there are justifiable concerns in the bias that may be associated with valueadded studies due to the variations in student motivation and engagement, as well as parental engagement (Rothsteink, 2010), Kane and Staiger (2008) and Nye, Konstantopooulos, and Hedges (2004) found that they could not reject these biases but the biases were not misleading with regard to value-added measures. Finally, with all this focus on the relationship between the student and the teacher, a myriad of recommendations and initiatives to improve the quality of teaching evolved. Various forms of staff development programs emerged with the intent to improve instruction and increase student performance. Staff Development The last 2 decades have presented a plethora of research related to teachers professional development (Barth, 1990; Birman et al,. 2007; Blank, de las Alas, & Smith, 2007; Elmore; 2002; Flinders, 1988; Garet, Birman, Porter, Desimone, & Herman, 1999;

28

Joyce & Showers, 1995; Knight, 2007; Wei, Andree, & Darling-Hammond, 2009). According to Knight (2007), research has shown for years that the traditional methods of staff development are ineffective. Darling-Hammond and Richardson (2009) stated that current studies have begun to create a consensus about the components that make up effective high-quality professional development in that it must include sustained, jobembedded, collaborative teacher learning strategies (p. 49). Yet, despite this attention, schools are slow to change (Elmore, 2002; Smith & Gillespie, 2007; Yoon, & Birman, 2000). There are several explanations for this reticence. The first reason is political (Fullen, 1990). Staff development is a big business, as much related to power, bureaucratic positioning, and territoriality as it is to helping teachers and students (Fullen, 1990, p. 4). Little (1989) examined the staff development policies of 30 districts in California. Little showed that over two-thirds of the staff development initiatives were designed and delivered by central office administrators and staff development specialists. Not much has changed in the ensuing years (Elmore, 2002; Joyce & Showers, 1995; Joyce, Wolf, & Calhoun, 1993; Loucks-Horsley, Hewson, Love, & Stiles, 1998; Porter, Garet, Desimone, Yoon, & Birman, 2000; Smith & Gillespie, 2007). The second reason is technical, revolving around the wisdom, skill, and persistence (Fullen, 1990, p. 4) to design and implement staff development activities. School district personnel have a penchant for fads and quick-fix solutions, often underfunding the project or failing to address the incompatibility between the project and school environment (Pink, 1990). The traditional method typically involves an expert presenting material to an entire faculty with little, if any, follow-up (Knight, 2007). Bush

29

(1984) presented research gathered from a 5-year longitudinal study showing that the typical form of staff development, on average, has a 10% implementation rate (p. 226). Joyce and Showers (2002) claimed that the accurate use in class of such training is even less, at 5% (p. 6). A third reason is the entrenched isolationist attitude of many classroom teachers. The classroom walls provide a buffer, minimizing the opportunity for criticism as well as providing a protective barrier against the constant influx of changes (Dufour, 2005). Even as current problems in education are acknowledged, letting go of the familiar is difficult for people to do (Shanker, 1990). Fullen and Hargreaves (1996) explained that one obstacle is pressing immediacy things to be done, decisions to be made, childrens needs to be met, not just every day, but every minute, every second (p. 65). The result is that there is little energy left to put a new program into practice (Knight, 2007). Additionally, change is complicated (Loehr & Schwartz, 2003). Desire and willpower alone are usually insufficient for effecting change (Loehr & Schwartz, 2003). The authors contended that change involves modifying habits and creating new routines (Loehr & Schwartz, 2003). The Eisenhower Professional Development Program, Title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, is the largest investment ($335 million for the fiscal year 2000) made by the federal government in which developing the knowledge and skills of the classroom teacher are the sole focus (Porter et al., 2000) . A multiyear evaluation of the program, conducted by the American Institutes for Research, included a national profile, case studies, and a longitudinal study of teacher change. The authors found a large body of literature on professional development but little research on the effects of

30

professional development on teaching (Porter et al., 2000). The Longitudinal Study of Teacher Change (LSTC) was conducted over a 3 year period. Selecting five states, the researchers employed a purposeful sample of 30 schools, in 10 districts, with one elementary, one middle, and one high school chosen in each district. According to results from three waves of surveys administered during the longitudinal data collected from approximately 300 teachers, there are six features of professional development, divided into equal groups, characteristics of the structure of the activity and characteristics of the substance of the activity, that are effective in improving teacher practice: 1. The organization of the practice whether it is a reform type, such as a study group or teacher network, in contrast to traditional workshop or conference. 2. The duration of the activity, including the total number of contact hours and the span of time over which it extends. 3. The extent to which the activity has collective participation of groups of teachers from the same school, department, or grade. 4. The degree to which the activity has active learning opportunities for teachers. 5. The extent to which the activity has a content focus on mathematics or science. 6. The degree to which the activity promotes coherence in teachers professional development by incorporating experiences that are consistent with teachers goals and aligned with the state standards and assessments. (pp.ES-3-ES-4) On average, high-quality professional development, especially with regard to higher order teaching strategies, has not been available to teachers. Most schools lack structure for collective work on problems of practice (Wei, Andree, & Darling-Hammond, 2009,

31

p. 29). Incorporating the various needs of individual teachers makes the problem even more challenging. While the majority of researchers cited the continued difficulties, there are pockets of success. Yoon, Duncan, Lee, Scarloss, and Shapley (2007) reviewed nine studies in which professional development was directly related to student achievement. In their findings, they stated that teaching practices and student learning are more likely to be transformed by professional development that is sustained, coherent, and intense (p.48). The authors stated that the approach that supports this type of professional development is the professional learning community which fosters collegial work (Darling-Hammond & Richardson, 2009). Collegiality and Professional Learning Communities According to Barth (2004), building a school culture that is open to change and learning requires acknowledging, exchanging, and celebrating professional knowledge. Many school faculties are congenial, but few are collegial. Collegiality describes authentic, professional interactions imbued with respect. This relationship allows for the sharing of failures and mistakes and a chance to constructively analyze and criticize practices and procedures (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1996). There must be an authentic commitment and ownership among teachers, a level of trust and flexibility allowing teachers to look to colleagues, rather than authority figures for direction (Datnow, Hubbard, & Mehan, 2002; Gibb, 1999). The significance of collegiality in school improvement endeavors was documented in a 3 year case study which included 3 months of semistructured interviews, conducted in a historically disadvantaged school (Singh & Manser, 2002). The school, classified as dysfunctional,

32

implemented a collegial style of management in which teachers shared the instructional leadership of the school (Singh & Manser, 2002). The interviews suggested that teachers had an increase in morale and a sense of ownership and responded by increasing their level of participation and commitment (Singh & Manser, 2002). This increase in effort had a positive impact on the academic achievement of the students increasing the graduation rate from 26% to 60% during the 3 years of the study (Singh & Manser, 2002, p. 57). Collegiality is about the difficult task of examining student needs (Barth, 1990). In the same respect, Marzano (2003) indicated staff collegiality and professionalism are some of the most important school level factors influencing student achievement. In a collegial setting, school personnel are more inclined to take ownership and responsibility for leading improvement efforts in teaching and learning. Teachers working together for the purpose of focusing on student needs are performing a teacher role as surely as when they spend time with a group of children in direct instruction (Shanker, 1990, p.100). According to DuFour (2004), the natural progression of collegiality is the creation of a professional learning community. In this setting, professional development is not done to teachers; it is what teachers do to improve their professional practices (Shanker, 1990). Professional learning communities focus on learning rather than teaching (DuFour, 2004, p.6). This type of environment lends itself to school improvement. Collegial school systems magnify school improvement efforts, thereby substantially improving students opportunities to learn (Joyce, Bennett, & Rolheiser-Bennett, 1990). In this environment, norms are created that embrace collective responsibility for improving instruction and

33

supporting teacher initiatives and leadership as it relates to professional practice (DarlingHammond & Richardson, 2009). One such collaborative community structure includes the use of peer observations of instructional practices (Darling-Hammond, & Richardson, 2009). Peer Coaching There is a reciprocal relationship in peer coaching. Peer coaching fosters learning communities and learning communities support peer coaching (Gottesman, 2000). Peer coaching is a relationship between two equals, each being committed to his or her own achievements and taking ownership of his or her improvement (Barkley, 2005). Therein lies its power, stated Barkley (2005, p. 5).These relationships value mutual aid above privacy (Darling-Hammond & Richardson, 2009). Peer coaching is an invitation to a peer to come into the classroom and observe a specific behavior or technique. This process relates directly to the interactions between the teacher and the students. In return the observer provides specific and descriptive feedback regarding the behavior or technique (Barkley, 2005; Hord, 1997). In talking about the learner, Dewey (1943/2008) stated that: He has to see on his own behalf and in his own way the relations between means and method employed and results achieved. Nobody else can see for him, and he cant see just by being told, although the right kind of telling may guide his seeing and thus help him to see what he needs to see. (p. 57) Coaching requires reflection in action, while providing guidance, which allows for understanding and possible restructuring of situations (Schon, 1987).

34

Finally, in support of coaching, Russo (2004) stated that effective staff development must be a part of the everyday workings of a classroom, based on research and directly related to grade level and course content. These characteristics are inherent in the peer coaching process in which the learning community fosters norms of mutual aid in the collective effort to improve instruction (Darling-Hammond & Richardson, 2009). Historical Perspective of Peer Coaching Since its inception, peer coaching has gone through several iterations and a variety of foci (Costa & Garmston, 1994; Joyce & Showers, 1995, 1996). Regardless of the various subtleties, the general format remains fairly consistent. Peer coaching is an approach in which teachers work together in order to improve instruction, moving through a process similar to clinical supervision in the medical field. In general, the steps include a program orientation, a preconference, an observation, and a postconference for each teacher (Cogan, 1973; Glickman, Gordon & Ross-Gordon, 1995). Peer coaching involves inviting a peer into the classroom to observe a specific behavior or technique. In return, the observer provides specific and descriptive feedback regarding the behavior or technique (Barkley, 2005). Benefits of Peer Coaching Peer coaching fosters two essential needs for effective professional growth: it recognizes adult learning theory (Speck, 1996) and it addresses the needs of the individual (Costa & Marzano, 1987). Additionally, peer coaching impacts the whole learning environment, moving towards a climate of collegiality. As it breaks down the isolation created by classroom walls, peer coaching offers teachers a way to grow

35

professionally by engaging in meaningful discussion, action, and reflection (Nolan & Hillkirk, 1991). Critical colleagues have an opportunity to observe and analyze each other in a safe and trusting environment, critical components for the success of the process (Costa & Kallick, 2004). Peer coaching embraces constructivism, wedding social needs with shared learning (Hord, 2009; Lambert et al., 2002). Studies regarding effective staff development support the impact that peer coaching has on addressing the essential components which make up a successful classroom (Foltos, n.d.). Peer coaching offers a means to positively influence student achievement through both school-level factors and teacher-level factors. Complexities of a Paradigm Shift Changing the school culture to incorporate collegial problem solving has been difficult (Joyce, Bennett, & Rolheiser-Bennett, 1990). The concept of collegiality was already well articulated by Dewey (1916), Judd (1934), and Counts (1932), when Schaefer (1967) wrote his vision in a book which focuses on inquiry in the school. With so many educational giants espousing the virtues of collegiality, it is not known why it failed to take a systemic hold. According to Flinders (1988) one cannot assume autonomy is bad and collaboration is good. Often teachers adopt an isolationist strategy to get work done (Flinders, 1988). Change is difficult and pulling teachers out of the accustomed isolation will be more difficult than expected. (Fullen, 2007). Even as current problems in education are acknowledged, letting go of the familiar is difficult for people to do (Shanker, 1990). While this task may appear daunting, it is not insurmountable. There is a

36

formidable wealth of talent and expertise found in almost every school. For change to occur, it is no longer viable to view only the principal as the leader. The new formula regards leadership as relational instead of individual (Donaldson, 2006). Leadership requires liberating people to do what is required (Pellicer, 1999). The mantle of leadership needs to encompass those in the vanguard to determine what is best for the individual students. It will require clarifying and redefining the traditional roles of the classroom teacher (Donaldson, 2006). A policy window (p. 88) has opened (Kingdon, 1995). The time has come to take advantage of a solution that has been in the literature for decades. The problem is recognized, a solution is available, and the political climate makes the time right for change (Kingdon, 1995, p.88). Teacher leaders are emerging from the traditional constraints, engaging in work beyond their classrooms. As teachers engage in work outside of the job description, they are acting as teacher leaders (Bogner, 2002). Teacher Leaders Leadership has been challenging to delineate (Leithwood & Duke, 1999). Moving away from the traditional idea that leadership was a single definable characteristic or behavior of an individual, Spillane, Halverson, and Diamond, (2001), defined school leadership as a distributive model in which a set of practices evolve when leaders, followers, and the situation coalesce and leadership is exercised around a particular leadership task. This concept of leadership spreads the leadership over the school community. Continuing this philosophy is the current idea that leadership is a kind of work in which one can isolate a specific set of behaviors and duties (Camburn, Rowan, & Taylor, 2003) that must be completed for the organization to succeed. This new paradigm

37

creates the perfect environment for introducing teacher leadership. The concept of teacher leadership was articulated by Darling-Hammond, Bullmaster, and Cobb (1995) in a study of seven professional development schools. Through these case studies, the researchers found that time, support and incentives need to be built into the restructuring if teachers are to assume new responsibilities. Mistakes will be made; so those involved need to be comfortable with taking risks and supported in the decision making process. Teachers need to learn by doing, just as their students do. As the teacher leads and works outside of the classroom, learning takes place by both the teacher leader and her colleagues (Darling-Hammond et al., 1995). The diversity of teacher leadership can have a major influence on the collegial atmosphere, both extrinsically and intrinsically (Crowther, et al., 2002). The concept of teacher leaders recognizes that knowledge resides in teachers (Shanker, 1990). There is still work to be done as the role of teacher leaders evolves. Redistributing leadership is a form a delegation and requires a sharing of responsibilities. A study of five different elementary schools, all involved with a larger study at Rutgers University, showed that leadership can be distributed in a myriad of unforeseen ways due to the impact by both district and site influences (Martinez, Firestone, Mangin, & Polovsky, 2005). Even with potential obstacles, York-Barr and Duke (2004) are optimistic about efforts to empower teachers and create formal teacher leadership positions. Given the opportunity, teacher leadership will take on a more complex meaning. It will be not only what teachers do to improve educational practices, but also what teachers do in the course of their practice to enhance student success (Shanker, 1990, p. 102).

38

Teacher Leadership and Peer Coaching A peer coach, according to Guiney (2001), is a leader who is willing not to be recognized as such and who can foster teacher leadership (p. 741). Peer coaching and leadership are reciprocal relationships. Peer coaches become instructional leaders. While improving their own practices, they collaborate with peers to do the same. By establishing a coaching system within a school, teachers engage in leadership activities that dovetail with leadership functions (Heller & Firestone, 1995). This includes both professional support such as curriculum selection, development, and implementation to the more personal components of support and encouragement (Martinez et al., 2005). Leadership opportunities vary with the needs of the students, teachers, school, and community. The literature merging the two concepts of teacher leadership and peer coaching is general in nature, with very little focusing on the relationship between peer coaching and teacher leadership per se (Bogner, 2002; Darling-Hammond et al., 1995; Guiney, 2001; Hart, 1995, Lambert et al., 2002). There is a logical reason this gap exists. The explicit purpose of peer coaching is to improve teaching practices, ostensibly to increase student achievement. According to Bogner (2002), schools can broaden the purpose to include building teacher leadership as an objective of participating in peer coaching. In a single site study, Bogner (2002) found that teachers who engage in peer coaching increased their involvement in school-wide activities and increased their awareness about school-wide issues. Since one scope of the definition of teacher leadership is to partake of actions beyond the classroom, Bogner maintained that this is indeed a form of teacher leadership. To determine if teachers perceived peer coaching as

39

leadership behavior, Bogner used an ethnographic method to conceptualize school leadership, termed the Big Picture Thinker (p. 32). She found that in a more authentic language, teachers did connect peer coaching and teacher leadership. Instructional Risk Taking and Peer Coaching Instructional risk taking references the willingness to introduce new and novel instructional techniques or teaching methods into the classroom (Richards, 2007). Instructional risk taking is what occurs when a teacher steps away from his or her traditional teaching methods and tries something new. Peer coaching provides a safe platform from which to introduce and practice new instructional strategies (Barkley, 2005; Knight, 2007). Peer coaching provides opportunities for modeling and observing teaching. During the process, data are collected and then collaboratively reviewed. During this process positive support is provided to allow time for the learning to become more natural (Knight, 2007). In 2003-2004, the Center for Research on Learning administered a survey on the value of model lessons to 207 teachers and interviewed 13 teachers. The question regarding the support and help modeling provided had a mean score of 6.40, with 1 representing strongly disagree and 7 standing for strongly agree. The model lessons increased the confidence of teachers attempting new practices (Knight, 2007). Coaching provides synergy where good teachers continue to improve (Barkley, 2005). The process helps teachers stay focused on new learning and improving on what was being done. Over the course of 5 years, a coaching program in Stillwater, Oklahoma decreased teacher attrition rates from 13 percent to 5 percent. One of the main reasons for

40

such change was captured with this quote, I see people opening up, sharing their challenges, tips, and techniques helping one another grow (Knight, 2007, p.184). Finally, several studies support a strong association with participation in peer coaching and changes in instructional practices (Connelly, 1999; Truesdale, 2009). Through the use of a survey administered to 152 teachers, analysis showed a significant correlation between the use of peer coaching as teachers focused on the use of student directed activities and the implementation of a new range of assessments. Once teachers, including experienced teachers, developed a trusting partnership, they were willing try new instructional strategies appreciating the extra pair of eyes and constructive feedback (Connelly, 1999). These results were similar in a Chicago public elementary school study in which two groups of teacher were given opportunities to learn new classroom practices as part of a staff development initiative (Truesdale, 2009). In an experimental design, one group used peer coaching to implement the new practices and the second group observed the new practices but did not have any follow up beyond the initial exposure (Truesdale, 2009). Comparison of a pretest and posttest showed that there was a significant difference between two groups in trying and implementing new practices in their classrooms (Truesdale, 2009). Student Achievement and Peer Coaching It is difficult to gather data on student achievement that is directly related to staff development efforts. There is a plethora of research which supports coaching as a means of changing instructional strategies and improving the quality of teaching (Allen & LeBlanc, 2005; Barkley, 2005; Flaherty, 2005; Gottesman, 2000; Knight, 2007). There is also a substantial body of work devoted to the relationship of instruction and student

41

learning (Darling-Hammond & Youngs, 2002; Knight, 2007; Lambert et al., 2002; Rockoff, 2004). Historically the challenge arises in proving the correlation between specific staff development efforts and student achievement (Guskey, 2002; Guskey & Sparks, 1996). According to Poglinco et al. (2003), evidence of increased student learning as a direct result of coaching is in the beginning stages. A literature review provided very little data regarding the relationship between coaching and student achievement. (Poglinco et al., 2003). As a comparatively new methodology, there is a push to provide evidence that coaching to improve teaching practices has a measurable impact on student achievement. Yet, even as such difficulties exist, studies are emerging that show a direct link between student achievement and teacher development through peer coaching. Richard (2003) noted that San Diego implemented several initiatives at the same time, but asserted that coaching was instrumental in driving up test scores. Furthermore, district level data and teacher level data showed evidence of academic growth. Although the findings are more anecdotal in nature, teachers maintained that they saw an increase in the level of student performance, such as reading at higher levels and greater English language acquisition, at the classroom level (Richard, 2003). In 1997, Missouri started a project entitled Enhancing Missouris Instructional Networked Teaching Strategies (eMINTS), a program designed to couple technology and teaching. (University of Missouri Office of Academic Affairs, 2007). The project entailed an intensive staff development initiative as well as in-class coaching over a two-year period. In 2001, a study comparing 85 eMINTS classrooms and 203 non-eMINTS classrooms showed a statistically significant difference in test scores in both fouth-grade

42

mathematics and social studies (Branigan, 2002, p. 1). While positive differences were noted in third-grade communication arts and third-grade science, the difference was not enough to discount chance alone (Branigan, 2002, p. 2). By 2005, third-grade communication arts also showed a significant difference between eMINTS and noneMINTS classrooms (p. 2). According to eMINTS, the data collected over the past five years provided evidence that the differences in student performance were due to changes in instruction, in which peer coaching was a substantial component, and not due to other variables such as socioeconomic status or student placement (University of Missouri, 2007). In 2001, Boston Public Schools (BPS) implemented a collaborative program on literacy coaching. Determining that fundamental literacy and math skills are the crux of post-secondary success, Massachusetts students (starting with the Class of 2003) needed to pass the math and English Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) tests in order to graduate (Mass Insight Education & Research Institute, n.d.). After selecting models to foster student achievement in these areas, Boston implemented a pilot coaching program in 22 Effective Practice schools. After the first year of implementation, Guiney (2001) concluded that the program showed early evidence of success. Several of the schools showed significant gains on the MCAS test. The gains could be correlated directly to the teachers and their coaches (Guiney, 2001). The coaching program, Collaborative Coaching and Learning model (CCL), became district policy for all schools in the school year 2003-2004 (The Education Management Audit Council, 2005, p. 59). From 1998 to 2004, the percentage of students passing the 10th grade math test of the MCAS went from 24% to 74% and the percentage passing the English test went from

43

43% to 77% almost triple and double their respective scores (Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, 2005, 4). Additionally, BPS data showed the lowest dropout rate in 20 years as well as an increase in enrollment to postsecondary education or training. Tracking Bostons graduates, a follow-up study conducted annually for 18 years by the Boston Private Industry Council found that 74% of the Class of 2003 was enrolled in postsecondary education or training (Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, 2005, 4). Teacher Evaluation The earliest teacher evaluations were about inspection and control of the teachers and classroom, according to McHaney and Impey (1992). Since the 1960s, teacher evaluation was based upon the industrial factory model (Callahan, 1962). Within this model, bureaucratic layers, routine, and standardization became the convention (Lortie, 1975; Tyack, 1974). More recently, NCLB challenged states to examine their evaluation process. This push has highlighted problems related to the development of a meaningful evaluation process and these problems are well documented in the literature. These problems include the inability to agree on a definition of good teaching (DuFour & Marzano, 2009), emphasis on accountability rather than improved performance (Hanushek & Raymond, 2005; Weiss, & Weiss, 1998), limited feedback (DarlingHammond, 1984; Goldstein, 2007; Kelly, 1998; Painter, 2000), and low benefit to teachers as a means for improving instruction (Kelley & Maslow, 2005; McLaughlin, 1990; Searfoss & Enz, 1996). In a review of 21 states, most states employed evaluation processes that were both summative and formative in nature involving observations from zero to six times per year (Beckwith, Blair, Martinez, Times, Torres, 2008). Summative evaluations usually

44

involve a checklist of behaviors observed during direct instruction and fulfillment of professional responsibilities and duties outside of the classroom (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 2010; Enz & Searfoss, 1993; Searfoss & Enz, 1996; Weiss & Weiss, 1998) This type of assessment is often used to document minimal performance and make personnel decisions (Beckwith et al., 2008; Connelly, 1999; DuFour, & Marzano, 2009). Formative evaluations place more responsibility on the teacher with the purpose of improving performance (Beckwith et al., 2008). Teachers set goals and meet with the evaluator to assess progress (Connelly, 1999). Regardless of the type of evaluation schools implement, teacher evaluations are traditionally the responsibility of the principal, and are often delegated to assistant principals (Goldstein, 2007). In the end, almost all teachers are given the same satisfactory assessment (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 2010). Grant and Murray (1999) maintained that the hierarchical organization of dividing administration from teaching was organized for paternalistic reasons; thus, separating male teachers, i.e. administrators, from their mostly female peers (Abbott, 1988). Although there are an increasing number of female administrators, the culture persists. Little (1988) stated that this structure affected the relationship among teachers, who often view professional obligations among peers as intrusive, creating what Feiman-Nemser and Floden (1986, p. 506) call a norm of noninterference. Adding to this environment, are the constraints on a principals time. Principals are overwhelmed by a myriad of demands and expectations, often reducing their role as instructional leader, just as accountability for student achievement places increasing pressures on schools (Goldstein, 2007). Ultimately, this lack of time limits the attention

45

and thoroughness principals can place on the teacher evaluation process (Beckwith et al., 2008; Darling-Hammond, 1984; Kelly, 1998; Painter, 2000). In Goldsteins (2007) study, principals admitted to cutting corners on evaluations, most notably on teachers perceived to be performing satisfactorily. As such, formal teacher evaluations are even less likely to affect veteran teachers practices due to a history of successful evaluations (DuFour, & Marzano, 2009). Weiss and Weiss (1998) argued that in order for students to become life-long learners and thoughtful decision makers, schools need to embrace the constructivist perspectives found in professional learning communities as teacher learn from experience and each other, and these strategies are not suited to traditional evaluation models (p. 1). Survey Evaluation of New Programs As the paradigms shift regarding staff development and teacher evaluation, it is not enough to introduce new programs, their effectiveness needs to be evaluated (Guskey, 2000). As the pressure has increased on schools to measure student achievement, so too has the pressure to evaluate professional development programs. One technique employed in the evaluation of programs involves the use of surveys. Survey data provide quantitative information regarding conditions, attitudes, and opinions and are frequently used in a variety of areas including the evaluation of new programs and assessment of school climate (Creswell, 2003). Questionnaires are one of the most common methods for collecting information regarding the respondents reaction to professional development (Guskey, 2000) The efficient and discreet properties of a survey make this type of data collection popular in educational research (Guskey, 2000). Additionally, surveys offer considerable flexibility.

46

Effective surveys can be very structured with a Likert scale or multiple choice responses or less structured with open-ended responses (Guskey, 2000). Surveys can be used to collect data from a moment in time or longitudinal data. The NCES (2011) developed surveys for major undertakings such as the Schools and Staffing Survey which is actually comprised of four separate components: the School Questionnaire, the Teacher Questionnaire, the Principal Questionnaire, and the School District Questionnaire (NCES, 2011). This survey was designed to collect data regarding teacher compensation, teacher demand and shortage, teacher and administrator characteristics, school programs, and principals' and teachers' perceptions of school climate (NCES, 2011). Selected survey questions are repeated in cross-sectional cycles of the survey in order to examine trends over time. To evaluate professional development programs, The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) constructed a short, easy to read questionnaire which uses a Likert scale and provides space for comments in each section (Kent, 1985). This survey was designed to provide formative data for the program leaders and to guide the development of future professional training programs (Guskey, 2000). During efforts to reform science education, the National Science Foundation created a survey to assess the staff development program entitled the Local Systemic Change through Teacher Enhancement which was designed to investigate the relationship between teacher background characteristics, teacher professional development experiences, school environment characteristics, and teacher practices and classroom culture (Supovitz &Turner, 2000).

47

Educational researchers are not limited to surveys for collecting data. Other methods to evaluate new programs include case studies, focus groups, and interviews (Cresswell, 2003; Guskey, 2000). These methods allow for less structure, providing opportunities to delve deeper into the topic and gather rich data (Cresswell, 2003; Guskey, 2000). For example, case studies allow the researcher to track a program, from design, to implementation, and to the evaluation of professional development initiatives (Joyce & Showers, 2002). Case studies have been done to track the integration of technology into a high school (Herman, 2002) and to follow the development, implementation and outcomes of the Active and Reflective Teaching in Secondary Mathematics professional development program (Clarke, Carlin, & Peter, 1992). Additionally, case studies and interviews have been used to assess the effectiveness in the impact of the types of professional development activities supported by the Eisenhower Professional Development Program delineated in a study by the National Evaluation of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program (U.S. Department of Education, 2011). Cavely (1998) used focus groups to help evaluate a 3day staff development training which also included monthly follow up meetings. The information learned from focus groups helped the administration identify weaknesses in the staff-development program. Drawbacks to these methods are the time it takes to collect and analyze the data, and the loss of anonymity. Another consideration in choosing an evaluation method is consideration of the cost. Typically, the cost of the evaluation increases with the level of complexity. In choosing the appropriate methodology, it is important to consider topics

48

such as the purpose of the data collection, the burden on the respondents, as well as the cost versus benefits ratio (Cresswell, 2003; Guskey, 2000). Conclusion There are numerous studies documenting the importance of quality teaching as it relates to student achievement (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 2010; DarlingHammond, 2000; Ding & Sherman, 2006; Marzano, 2003; Rice, 2003; Rockoff, 2004). The reports showing the failures of these relationships are also as prevalent (DarlingHammond & Youngs, 2002; Marzano, 2003; Sanders & Rivers, 1996). In efforts to fix this relationship, a multitude of staff development initiatives and teacher evaluation tools have emerged. The literature shows that the historic problems with these initiatives still remain. Littles (1989) study of 30 California school districts showed that the majority of staff development initiatives were top down models. DuFour and Marzano (2009) cite the Teaching Commissions (2006) report which examined teacher evaluations as a way to improve schools, stating that teacher evaluations are arcane and ineffective ( p.16). According to Anderson and Pellicer (2001), with the convergence of these entities, we are at a unique time in our history to bring about the next substantive wave of educational reform. The traditional structure of the school hierarchy is an area on which to focus. Instead of reorganizing the bureaucratic layers, the current initiative is to empower the teachers. The idea is not new. Teacher leadership has long been a formal part of schools. In high schools, there are department chairpersons; in elementary and middle schools, there are grade level leaders and team leaders, respectively. Traditionally, only a few

49

teachers took on leadership roles outside of the classroom. With this new paradigm, all teachers are expected to participate. To encourage this participation, school climates must be collegial. In such an environment, school personnel are more inclined to become involved in school improvement efforts beyond their own classrooms (Barth, 1990). As the studies show, this process will have growing pains. Fullen (1993) presented the difficulties preceding and following such change forces. Teachers are accustomed to the isolation of the classroom. Analysis of the literature stresses the importance of the participants understanding the purpose behind the change and the value the changes will bring. In preparing for such a change, current leadership should become well versed in the potential resistance and determine appropriate, productive responses. Finally, attention generated by NCLB has catapulted the teacher to center stage. Endeavors to increase student achievement are causing the structure that is supporting staff development and teacher evaluations to be retooled. Teachers are becoming empowered to direct their own growth based on their unique situations. Research shows that any staff development initiative must have longevity, be immediately useful, and find purpose with the participants. Peer coaching appears to meet those demands. Peer coaching supports collegiality, respects teachers knowledge, and integrates well into the various teacher career stages. More importantly, there is a growing body of evidence supporting peer coaching as a means to improve student performance when linked to instructional strategies. Teachers are more inclined to try new instructional strategies when a part of a professional learning community.

50

There is a growing emphasis on teacher leadership in Americas schools. According to Anderson and Pellicer (2001), this shift mirrors a similar trend in industry. Participatory approaches are supplanting the traditional top down model (Anderson & Pellicer, 2001). In this time of high stakes testing and accountability, the roles of teachers are expanding beyond the classroom. Recognized as a primary linchpin in student achievement, teachers are in a unique position to foster a climate of collegiality and collaboration for a common purpose. In doing so, teachers have the opportunity to direct their own professional growth based on their unique needs and the unique needs of their students and community. Anderson and Pellicer asserted that the last time such an opportunity existed in education was during the Progressive Movement in the early 1900s. However, moving away from a tradition of isolationism has not been and will not be easy. The initial sensation is one of vulnerability. As schools respond to collaborative overtures such as peer coaching, collegiality will strengthen and afford teachers a powerful opportunity to demonstrate and display knowledge of practice. Summary In the literature review in Section 2, I introduced the relationship between student achievement and teacher quality, placing emphasis on the teacher component. Historically, staff development and teacher evaluation, respectively, have been used to improve and monitor teaching. Peer coaching was examined as it relates to professional development, specifically with regard to collegiality, instructional risk taking, and teacher leadership. Pressure placed on staff development and teacher evaluation created an opportunity to compare a traditional paradigm of teacher evaluation using a checklist and a new paradigm of teacher evaluation using peer coaching. The use of surveys to collect

51

data in educational research was discussed and elaborated on in Section 3. In Sections 3 through 5, I explained the methodology used in the study to compare the two evaluation models and discussed the results and conclusions.

52

Section 3: Research Method Introduction This quasiexperimental study employed a posttest only nonequivalent control group design to determine the effect of a new evaluation model when compared to a traditional model on three variables associated with teachers professional growth: teacher leadership, collegiality, and instructional risk taking. The administration of the participating school determined that the traditional teacher evaluation model did not meet the needs of the entire faculty. As such, a peer coaching model was introduced during the 2008-2009 school year and continued during the 2009-2011 school years. In order to pilot this new evaluation model, the school requested and was granted a 5-year waiver from the state department of education (see Appendix D). This waiver allowed the school to use a method other than the county approved method. During this time, this was the only school in the county offering these two options for teacher evaluation. This section is an explanation of the research design and approach as well as the rationale behind their selection. The rationale is followed by a description of the setting, population, survey instrument, and materials. The final section is an explanation of the data collection process and analysis including the role of the researcher and measures taken to protect the participants rights. Research Design and Approach Data were obtained through the use of a survey instrument designed to measure the dependent variables of teacher leadership, collegiality, and change in instructional practices (see Appendix G). According to Creswell (2003), surveys provide a quantitative description of attitudes and opinions. Surveys are commonly employed in education to

53

assess a variety of conditions, attitudes, and opinions. The NCES employs surveys for major undertakings such as The High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS:09) which is a nationally representative, longitudinal study of more than 23,000 9th graders in 944 schools who will be followed through their secondary and postsecondary years (NCES, 2011, . 1) and many school districts use a School Climate Survey to survey students, teachers, and community members to foster student engagement and student achievement. Since the purpose of this study involved collecting teacher attitudinal data regarding components of professional growth and evaluation, the administration of a survey was the least cumbersome method for the participants. I attempted to survey the entire population of certified teachers in the local high school. The survey was conducted via a hardcopy survey distributed during a faculty meeting with additional copies placed in teachers boxes in the mail room (with email follow-up). Placing a copy of the survey in teachers boxes with the completed survey placed in my box was equivalent to the processes involved in mail surveys. Advance notification (see Appendix H) of the survey with a copy of the survey was sent through the schools email two days prior to handing out a hard copy of the survey during a faculty meeting. A reminder email with an attachment of the survey was sent to the faculty three-days following the faculty meeting (see Appendix I). A second reminder and attachment of the survey was sent one-week following the initial reminder (see Appendix J). A final reminder and attachment of the survey was sent one-week following the second reminder (see Appendix K).

54

Justification for Design Surveys have traditionally relied on three basic data collection methods: paper questionnaires, telephone interviews, and face-to-face interviews (Groves et al., 2004). According to Groves et al., it is essential to be explicit about the features of the design to account for any effect that may be observed. As such, the dimensions include interviewer involvement, the level of interaction with the respondent, the degree of privacy for the respondent, which channels of communication are used, and the degree of technology use (Groves, 2004, p. 141). To address these dimensions, the questionnaire was self-administered (SAQ) without the presence of the interviewer. Although the absence of the interviewer did not allow for clarification of questions, it did provide the most privacy and greatest anonymity. Interaction was minimal, limited to school-wide emails not targeting any one individual. A paper SAQ placed the fewest constraints on the respondent but the option of responding via email allowed those who were comfortable with technology another option. The use of email eliminates initial anonymity; but, a hard copy could have been printed with the name removed and the original email deleted. None of the respondents chose this option so this issue did not need to be addressed within this study. An advance notification and sequential follow-up methodology was employed to increase response rate, that is, the percentage of individuals who participated out of the total invited to participate. According to Dillman (2000), multiple contacts have been the most effective way to improve response rates by mail. A system of multiple contacts included sending a brief prenotice letter prior to sending the questionnaire, sending the

55

questionnaire, sending replacement questionnaires, sending a thank you notification, and sending a final contact (Dillman, 2000). Setting and Sample The population of the study consisted of 149 teachers of Grades 9, 10, 11, and 12 in a public high school located northeast of Atlanta, Georgia. The participants were divided into groups based on the teacher evaluation method being employed, peer coaching versus traditional. Participation in the alternative model of peer coaching was voluntary; but, eligibility criteria were established by the administration and stated in the waiver (see Appendices D and F). Teacher criteria included having taught at the school for at least 1 year, having 3 or more years of experience, having met or exceeded standards on previous evaluations, and having been trained or currently being involved in peer-coaching training. In addition, the participants could not be on a Professional Development Plan (PDP). A PDP functions as a remediation plan to address an unsatisfactory rating on the annual evaluation (Georgia Department of Education, 2010). As long as the teachers met the criteria, they were allowed to select their evaluation model. During the pilot year (2008-2009), 24 teachers chose the peer-coaching model. During the 2009-2010 school year, 44 teachers chose the peer coaching model. Nineteen of the 44 teachers participated in both years. Sixty six teachers chose the peer coaching model for the 2010-2011 school year. Thirty seven of the teachers had previously participated in at least one year of peer coaching prior to the 2010-2011 school year. All teachers were asked to complete a survey. The total population for the peer coaching evaluation model was N = 66. The total population for the traditional model was N = 83.

56

The demographic portion of the data was used to determine eligibility for the traditional model group. Eligibility includes the criteria that needed to be met to participate in the peer-coaching evaluation minus the peer-coaching training: having taught at the school for at least 1 year, having 3 or more years of experience, and having met or exceeded standards on previous evaluations. The demographic data portion of the survey does not contain questions regarding previous evaluations. According to the schools principal, the school has not had a teacher on a PDP during the time frame affecting this study. Additionally, at the time of this study, there was only one school in the county offering the peer-coaching evaluation option. Instrumentation and Materials Data were collected using a survey designed to measure the dependent variables of teacher leadership, collegiality, and instructional risk-taking. The survey drew upon established modules from two existing surveys and a third component I generated. The two preexisting surveys, the Bay Area School Reform Collaborative (BASRC) Teacher Survey (Spring 2002) and the Teacher Survey 1991 Questionnaire, were developed by the Center for Research on the Context of Teaching (CRC) located at Stanford University. The CRC was founded in 1987 through a national center grant from the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education with a mission to advance knowledge on the ways in which school context conditions shape the quality of teaching and learning in high schools. The Center uses an embedded contexts

57

framework for analyzing environment effects on teaching and learning and has developed innovative research approaches to integrating longitudinal case studies and survey research methods. (CRC, n.d., 1) The CRC has been involved in educational change initiatives since 1987 collecting longitudinal data through case studies and the use of surveys, questionnaires, and interviews. Permission to use both the BASC and the CRC teacher surveys was granted by the Center (see Appendix H). The CRC was awarded a 5-year grant by the OERI to collect data to advance the knowledge on the ways in which school context conditions shape the quality of teaching and learning in secondary schools (CRC, n.d., 16). The program incorporated longitudinal qualitative and quantitative case studies including interviews and survey data from 16 California and Michigan high schools. The 1991 Teacher Survey is a product of that endeavor. Components of this studys survey address collegial relationships and leadership opportunities which explains the rationale behind the selection of questions from this survey for this study. The portions to be used are Part 2, questions 10 (a to h), 11 (a to f), 13 (a to j), and Part 3, questions 14 (a to h), and 29 (a to e). All of these questions employ a Likert scale ranging of 1 to 4, 1 to 5, or 1 to 6. The choice to use portions of this survey instrument was based on the nature of the survey, the questions presented, and the history of the study using the survey. The survey was administered twice to approximately 800 high school teachers over a 3-year period. Survey scales were constructed to represent coherent patterns in teachers responses to a set of similar survey items (CRC, 2001, p. 204 C). Scales were standardized using national norms with a difference of .5 or more standard deviation units

58

as significant (2001, p. 204 C). Alpha coefficients referencing questions regarding collegiality and leadership opportunities are .84 and .85 respectively (2001, p. 205 C, 209 C). In addition, there are several other indices referencing the quality of the instrument. First, the CRC data were compared to the NCESs High Schools and Beyond data. High Schools and Beyond was a longitudinal study with a national survey of 11,303 high school respondents. Second, the researchers have a reputable history, as does the CRC, a center of the Stanford University School of Education. Finally, the results have been peer-reviewed, published, and cited in leading journals such as the American Journal of Education (see Talbert & McLaughlin, 1994). The BASRC Teacher Survey (2002) was developed to gather school level data during an ongoing reform effort to build local system capacity for continuous improvement in the quality and equity of student achievement (CRC, 2). As part of the reform effort, also known as Springboard Schools or Pivot Learning Partners, multilevel coaching strategies were introduced. As such, the BASRC teacher survey asked questions regarding instructional strategies (questions 10, a to f; 11, a to f; and 12, a to g). These questions were selected for this study to facilitate data collection regarding the dependent variable of instructional risk-taking. During initial analysis, survey scales were derived using survey items determined to have a common factor which was ascertained by principal component analysis. Alpha coefficients were established for scales with in classroom teaching range from .60 to .95 with an average alpha of .80 (BASRC Teacher Survey Scale Definitions, pp 5 6). Additionally, findings are cited in journal articles (Copland, 2003; Gomez, 2001) and books (Lambert, 2003; Vargo, 2004).

59

I generated the final set of questions specifically for the teachers evaluated with the peer coaching model. To establish validity, these questions were reviewed and modified based on feedback from an expert panel composed of Link, Chief Methodologist at The Nielsen Company, Oldendick, Director of the Survey Research Laboratory at the University of South Carolina, and Carley-Baxter, Senior Survey Methodologist at Research Triangle Institute. The panel constituents are active members of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Additionally, the survey was reviewed by my dissertation committee. This section of the survey includes question 9 a to k with a Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Questions 9 (a to d, and k) address collegiality, 9 (e to i) address instructional risk-taking and 9 (j, k, and m) are questions related to teacher leadership. Question 10 is an open-ended question which allows for elaboration on peer coaching and question 11, a checkbox question, which relates to teacher leadership. Reliability analysis will be conducted after data collection. Data Collection and Analysis Returned surveys were divided into two groups based on the teachers chosen method for evaluation. The traditional evaluation group was screened for eligibility. Next, each group was labeled and numbered at the top to represent the group and to facilitate ease of data entry. For example, the peer coaching group was randomly labeled P 001 through P - 046, and the traditional evaluation group was randomly labeled T 047 through T - 110, respectively. Raw data were entered into an Excel spreadsheet. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used for further subdivision of the peer coaching group. The peer coaching group was divided into those that used peer

60

coaching during at least one school year other than the current school year, 2010-2011. The second group was composed of teachers that used peer coaching during the school year 2010-2011, regardless of prior years chosen method of evaluation. SPSS was used for all data analysis. The variable representing method of teacher evaluation was designated a one for those that choose the traditional model and a two for those that choose the peer coaching model. Demographic questions 4, 5, and 6 allowed for the subsequent breakdown of the peer coaching group. The survey questions were grouped into one of the three categories, each representing one of the dependent variables: teacher leadership (Questions 3, a to i; 4, a to g), collegiality (Questions 1, a to e; 2, a to t), or instructional risk-taking (Questions 5, a to i; 6, a to f; 7, a to f; 8, a to g). The following is a breakdown of the Likert scale used for questions 1 to 9: Question 1: 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Question 2: 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Questions 3 and 4: 1 (Yes, this year), 2 (Not this year, but within past 5 years), 3 (No, but interested), and 4 (No, not interested). Question 5 has a five point scale: 0 (none), 1 (1 to 2 days), 2 (3 to 5 days, 3 (6 to 10 days, and 4 (more than 10 days). Question 6 also has a five point scale: 1 (never), 2, (1 or 2 times per semester), 3 (1 or 2 times per month), 4 (once a week), 5 ( a few times a week) and 6 (everyday).

61

Question 7 has a five point scale ranging from one (not important) to five (very important).

Question 8 has a five point scale ranging from 1 (no emphasis) to 5 (heavy emphasis).

Question 9: 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

The questions regarding teacher leadership (Questions 3, a to i; 4, a to g) address the research question, How do teachers perceptions of teacher leadership differ between teachers using the peer coaching model of evaluation and the teachers using the traditional model of teacher evaluation? These questions were designed to determine if there was a significant difference between teachers undergoing the peer coaching model of teacher evaluation and the traditional model of teacher evaluation in terms of perceptions of teacher leadership (Hypothesis 1). Questions 3 and 4 provided nominal response options and the analysis was done using cross tabulation (cross tabs) to determine if there was a relationship between the independent variable regarding method of teacher evaluation and the dependent variable teacher leadership. This was followed by chi-square analysis to determine if any patterns in the cross tabs occurred by chance or were due to systematic assignment to particular cells. Additionally, an ANOVA was done to compare the number of leadership roles assumed by each group to determine if there was a relationship between the teachers, number of leadership roles, and method of evaluation. The next set of questions was used to determine if there was a significant difference between teachers undergoing the peer coaching model of teacher evaluation and the traditional model of teacher evaluation in terms of perceptions of collegiality

62

(Hypothesis 2). The questions representing collegiality (Questions 1, a to e; 2, a to t) are related to the research questions, How do teachers views of collegiality differ between teachers using the peer coaching model of evaluation and the teachers using the traditional model of teacher evaluation? Questions 1 and 2 provided continuous response options and an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was completed to determine if there were differences between the independent variable, method of evaluation, peer coaching model of evaluation and the traditional method of evaluation, on the dependent variable, collegiality (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2005). The final set of questions answered by all respondents involved instructional risktaking (Questions 5, a to i; 6, a to f; 7, a to f; 8, a to g). These questions were used to respond to the research question, How does teachers willingness to take instructional risks differ between teachers using the peer coaching model of evaluation and the teachers using the traditional model of teacher evaluation? This set of questions was used to address the final hypothesis to determine if there was a significant difference between teachers undergoing the peer coaching model of teacher evaluation and the traditional model of teacher evaluation in terms of perceptions of instructional risktaking. Questions 5 and 6 provided nominal response options. As with questions 3 and 4, analysis was done using cross-tabs to determine if there were relationships between the independent variable regarding method of teacher evaluation and the dependent variable, instructional risk taking, followed by chi-square analysis to determine if any patterns in the cross tab occurred by chance or were due to systematic assignment to particular cells. Additionally, questions 7 and 8 provided continuous response options and an ANOVA was completed to determine if there were differences between the independent

63

variable, type of evaluation model, peer coaching and traditional, on the dependent variable, instructional risk taking. SPSS was used to analyze questions 1 through 9 of the survey data. Analysis of variance was used on questions 1, 2, 7, and 8 because there are two variables in an ANOVA, a continuous dependent variable, teacher leadership, collegiality, or instructional risk taking, and a categorical independent variable, method of evaluation, either peer coaching or traditional. Cross tabulations were used to analyze questions 3 through 6. Cross tabs were used to analyze frequencies of observations that belong to specific categories on more than one nominal variable since relationships can be determined by analyzing the frequencies between the variables. This was followed by a Chi-Square Test to determine if there was a statistically significant relationship between the independent and dependent variable. Questions 9 and 10 were only to be answered by teachers that choose the peercoaching model of teacher evaluation. Due to the paucity of information regarding peer coaching as an evaluation tool, this survey provided an opportunity to gather more information for contextual richness. Question 9 was only answered by the participants of the peer coaching model but divided into three categories based on the current years method of evaluation. An ANOVA was completed to determine if there were significant differences between the peer coaching groups as they relate to experiences with peer coaching. Question 10 was an open-ended question which was used to provide added depth related to Question 9. An open-ended question allowed the participant an opportunity to elaborate and offer insights that the close-ended question may not have addressed.

64

A coding process was used for systematic analysis of the open-ended responses. Neutral responses were coded as zero, positive responses were coded as a one, and negative responses were coded as a two. An unanswered question was treated as missing data and was not included in the frequency distribution. Analysis of the results is included in Section 4 and Section 5 provides a summary of the results and recommendations for further research. The raw data are available by request. Ethical Standards The National Research Act of 1974 and the reconciliation and integration of federal agencies rules into the Common Rule provide the foundation from which all human subject research must be conducted (Groves, 2004). The principles, stated in the Belmont Report, include: beneficence, justice, and the respect for persons (Groves, 2004). As a professional extension, The American Educational Research Association (AERA, 2011) has established ethical standards for researchers in the field of education. Working in conjunction with the National Institutes of Health, the AERA has established procedures for working with human subjects. This study followed the guidelines set forth by the AERA. These standards include the participants right to confidentiality, the right to remain anonymous, and the right to withdraw from the study at any time. Additionally, the relationship between the researcher and the participant must be informed and honest which includes sharing the purpose for collecting the data and methods for analysis and dissemination in a practical manner (AERA, 2004). The survey had an informed consent letter attached. The informed letter of consent provides background information of the study, a synopsis of the procedures, and

65

addresses the voluntary nature of participation, risk and benefits, compensation, as well as confidentiality. The letter also provided researcher and university contact information to address any participant questions. This information was repeated on the survey which was returned to the researcher. A returned survey implies consent. A final layer of protection was provided by the studys submission to Walden Universitys Institutional Review Board, approval number 05-20-11-0062801, and the high school districts Office of Accountability and Research prior to implementation. Permission was requested and granted for the use of portions of the Bay Area School Reform Collaborative (BASRC) Teacher Survey (Spring 2002) and the Teacher Survey 1991 Questionnaire, developed by the Center for Research on the Context of Teaching (CRC) located at Stanford University (see Appendix L). Acknowledgement for these questions was provided on the survey instrument. Additional Ethical Considerations I was a faculty member of the school where the study took place. Because the researcher was a colleague of the participants, taking Creswells (2003) recommendations into account, the researcher worked closely with her university committee to ensure that the study resonated beyond the researcher, and that these faculty acted as external auditors to assess the project throughout the process (p. 196). To minimize threats to validity, the results are not generalized beyond the studys population. Finally, hard copies of the surveys are stored at my home and the data from the study is stored on an external hard drive for a period of not less than 5 years (Creswell, 2003). The analysis and extrapolation of this data are presented in Sections 4 and 5.

66

Section 4: Results Introduction The purpose of this section is to present the results of the survey. Data were collected through the administration of a survey to 149 certified teachers, of which 110 surveys were returned, providing a response rate of 74%. Once collected, the surveys were separated, based on evaluation method, into either a peer coaching group or a traditional evaluation group and numbered sequentially P - 001 through P - 046, and T047 through T 110, respectively. Each survey was examined to determine if the respondents met the criteria to be included in the study. Criteria for being in the study included having taught at the school for at least 1 year, having 3 or more years of overall teaching experience, and having met or exceeded standards on previous evaluations. Two of the surveys did not answer the question regarding total years of teaching; however, they did answer the question on years taught at this school which allowed for the inclusion of the two surveys. Four of the surveys were excluded from the study because they did not meet the criteria for years of experience. One survey was eliminated because the respondent only filled out the demographic portion of the survey but did not answer any of the questions. After screening, 105 surveys were used in the data analysis. The raw survey data were entered into an Excel spreadsheet. All entries were reexamined visually to ensure the entered data were error free. The hard copies of the surveys were placed in a locked file cabinet at my home and the excel file is stored on my computer and back up drive. Analyses were done using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) with the level of significance set at <

67

0.05. Given the relatively modest sample size, in some cases where an 0.10 the findings were treated and discussed as providing directional information even though they were not considered statistically significant. Findings Method of Teacher Evaluation Twenty-four tenured teachers trained in peer coaching volunteered to pilot the alternative evaluation using the peer-coaching model during the 2008-2009 school year. During the 2009-2011 school years, additional teachers volunteered to use the peercoaching model for their annual evaluation. All other teachers were evaluated using the school districts traditional administrative model during these 3 school years. Table 1 represents the breakdown of the type of evaluation chosen by the respondents trained in peer coaching. Table 1 Trained in peer coaching and years using peer coaching consistently
Peer coaching (PC) relationships Trained in PC but never used PC for evaluation Used PC in evaluation at least once between 2008-2011 Used PC during 2010-2011 Used PC during 2009-2011 Used PC during 2008-2011 Used PC between 2008-2010 but not 2011 Total Note: n = number of participants. 9 9 19 9 63 14.3 14.3 30.2 14.3 100.0 n 17 % 27.0

Table 1 shows that 63 of the respondents were trained in peer coaching and 46 respondents used it at least once between 2008 2011 for their annual evaluation;

68

however, only 37 of the respondents were using the peer coaching model for teacher evaluation during the 2010-2011 school year. According to administrative records, 66 teachers were evaluated using peer coaching during the 2010-2011 school year. Based on these data, this survey represents 56% of the population of teachers using the peer coaching model. Of note are the numbers of teachers trained in peer coaching but not using it as an evaluation and those that used it in prior years but not the current school year. For the remainder of the analysis presented below, the study respondents were subdivided by the type of evaluation used during the 2010-2011 school year. In other words, if a teacher used peer coaching in either or both the 2008 2009 or 2009 2010 school years but not 2010 2011 school year they were in one group and all other teachers that used peer coaching in 2010 2011 regardless of previous years, were in another group. Dividing these groups is important from both a conceptual and an analytic perspective. Because all of the questions asked, require teacher recall to respond, by separating these two groups we can examine the behaviors and attitudes of those who used peer coaching evaluation during the most recent school year, versus those who may have trained in peer coaching but opted to use the traditional method of evaluation this school year. The choice of evaluation method done for 2010 2011 indicates these two groups are behaviorally different in an important aspect. Comparing these two groups to those who have never been trained in peer coaching helps highlight similarities and differences across all these groups. In sum, the survey results provide a comparison across three groups of teachers: those using the peer coaching evaluation during the 2010 2011 school year (peer coaching), those trained in peer coaching but opted for the

69

traditional evaluation during the 2010 2011 school year (peer coaching/traditional), and those that have not been trained in peer coaching and had the traditional evaluation (traditional). Table 2 provides demographic information regarding the respondents highlighting some of the differences in the backgrounds of the three key analysis groups, peer coaching, peer coaching/traditional, and traditional. The demographic data represented in Table 2 focused on teaching experience both in terms of total years teaching and number of years teaching in the studys school. All departments in the school are represented in the data. Variations of note among the departments include the number of English teachers participating in peer coaching in 2010 2011 as compared to the other two groups. The respondents in this department are over two times more likely to have participated in the peer coaching model of teacher evaluation. Conversely, respondents in the math department were over two times more likely to use the traditional method of evaluation. Social studies teachers were more likely to have been trained in peer coaching but never used it for evaluation or have gone back to the traditional model after trying the peer coaching model.

70

Table 2 Respondent Demographics by Evaluation Type

Evaluation Type (%) PC / Traditional Traditional 8.0 12.0 .0 16.0 8.0 4.0 8.0 28.0 16.0 0.0 (105) 8.0 8.0 56.0 28.0 (103) 4.0 44.0 38.1 (105) 4.8 7.1 11.9 9.5 23.8 0.0 16.7 16.7 4.8 4.8 (105) 12.5 22.5 35.0 30.0 (103) 21.4 38.1 45.7 (105)

Respondent Demographics Department Business English Fine Arts Foreign Language Math PE/Sports Medicine Science Social Studies Special Education Other (n) Total years teaching 1-5 6-10 11-19 20+ (n) Years at school 1-4 5-9 10+ (n)

Total (%) 4.8 15.2 4.8 11.4 14.3 3.8 15.2 18.1 9.5 2.9 (105) 7.8 17.5 39.8 35.0 (103) 16.2 38.1 45.7 (105)

PC 2.6 26.3 0.0 10.5 7.9 7.9 18.4 13.2 10.5 2.6 (105) 2.6 18.4 34.2 44.7 (103) 18.4 31.6 50.0 (105)

Note: n = number of participants. Bolded numbers highlight noteworthy variations between departments.

71

The peer coaching training provided five hours of professional learning units (PLUs) for teachers. Teachers need to earn 10 PLUs of credit every five years in the state of Georgia. One reason that teachers may have been trained in but did not use peer coaching was the benefit of the five PLUs towards teacher license renewal. Seventy-five percent of the teachers have taught for over 10 years with 46% having taught at the studys school for over 10 years. Also of note, respondents having taught between 11 and 19 years were less likely to have been evaluated using the peer coaching model as compared to the teachers with over 20 years of teaching experience. Although the demographic findings may have been different if all teachers participated in the survey, this is interesting from the standpoint of Fesslers (1992) career cycle model. Although a defined line for each stage does not exist, teachers having taught between 11 and 19 years are often in the career frustration stage and are less inclined to extend themselves beyond what is essential (Fessler, 1992). Researchers have shown that teachers with significant years of experience, the career stability stage, tend to be very confident in their teaching and less open to instructional change but under the right conditions can find this a period of renewed growth (Fessler, 1992; Guskey, 1982). This study has implications as schools plan for professional development (Guskey, 1982). Research Question One: Leadership The first research question of this study is How do teachers perceptions of teacher leadership differ between teachers using the peer coaching model of evaluation and the teachers using the traditional model of teacher evaluation? The null hypothesis stated that there is no relationship between the model of teacher evaluation and teacher leadership. In contrast, the experimental hypothesis asserted that there is a relationship

72

between the model of teacher evaluation and teacher leadership. There were two sets of questions on the questionnaire relevant to the first research question, questions 3 (a i) and 4 (a g). Question 3 specifically looked at leadership roles within a school and question 4 looked at leadership roles beyond the school. Question 3 provided nominal response options and the analysis was done using cross tabulation (cross tabs) to determine if there were relationships between the independent variable regarding method of teacher evaluation and the dependent variable teacher leadership. This was followed by chisquare analysis to determine if any patterns in the cross tabs occurred by chance or are due to systematic assignment to particular cells (Table 3). Table 3 shows, using = 0.05, teachers that participated in the study and choose the peer coaching model for teacher evaluation were more likely to have been committee chairs and mentors. The greater percentages of coaches were significantly more likely to have participated in the traditional model of teacher evaluation. It is noteworthy for several reasons. First, coaching by nature would be a natural fit for peer coaching. Second, coaching is supplemental and is not limited to one specific department. Coaches are found in each of the high school departments and typically have broader peer relationships. Coaches may have chosen the traditional model due to time conflicts that might exist between coaching and the peer coaching evaluation process, each requiring additional time beyond a normal school day.

73

Table 3 Question Set 3: Teacher Leadership by Roles Performed in this School

% Yes (n) PC / Traditional 15.0 (20) 23.8 (21) 37.5 (24) 30.4 (23) 29.2 (24) 25.0 (24) 69.6 (23) 0 (22) 22.7 (22) Significance Chisquare Sig. 1.86 .40 7.4 9.43 5.30 4.97 5.08 3.10 4.96 9.15 .03* .01* .07 .08 .08 .21 .08 .01*

Roles Performed Q3A: Department Head Q3B: Chair of committee Q3C: Mentor Q3D: Supervisor for student teacher Q3E: Presenter at department inservice Q3F: Presenter at schoolwide inservice Q3G: Advisor to academic club or team Q3H: Advisor to performing arts group Q3I: Coach for athletic team

PC Only 7.9 (38) 56.8 (37) 52.6 (38) 44.1 (34) 47.4 (38) 39.5 (38) 63.2 (38) 18.4 (38) 13.2 (38)

Traditional Only 4.9 (41) 33.3 (42) 19.5 (41) 19.5 (41) 24.4 (41) 17.1 (41) 48.8 (41) 9.8 (41) 42.9 (42)

Note: n = number of participants. df = 2 p < .10. *p < .05

With regard to these leadership behaviors, the null hypothesis would be rejected. While not statistically significant at the more traditional 0.05 alpha level, it is worthy of note that at the 0.10 alpha level, teachers that participated in the peer coaching model were also more likely to supervise student teachers, present at department or school wide inservices, or advise performing arts groups. Despite increasing the chance of a Type I error, with such a small sample size, a larger alpha can offer further insights into potential relationships.

74

After observing the results in Table 3 and the number of leadership roles, an ANOVA was done to determine if there was significance between the method of teacher evaluation selected and the number of leadership roles assumed by a teacher. The development of a simple additive scale was used to denote leadership engagement within the school. Table 4 shows the results of the ANOVA with a 95% confidence interval (CI). According to Table 4, the survey data suggest that among the respondents there is a significant relationship between the method of teacher evaluation and the number of leadership roles assumed in a school as compared with the teachers using the traditional method of teacher evaluation and the number of leadership roles performed by these teachers. While it is more likely that teacher leaders select peer coaching as the evaluation of preference, as opposed to peer coaching producing teacher leaders, encouraging more reticent teachers to participate in leadership activities may also lead to a greater confidence to try peer coaching.

75

Table 4 Question Set 3: Teacher Leadership by Total Number of Roles Performed in this School
Mean [95% CI] (n) PC / Traditional 2.21 [1.22, 3.20] (19)

Significance Traditional Only 2.17 [1.66, 2.67] (41) F 4.88 Sig. .01*

Variable Number of Roles

PC Only 3.38 [2.73, 4.03] (34)

Note. CI = confidence interval; n = number of participants. df = 2 *p < 0.05

On average, teachers using the peer coaching model were involved in more leadership activities compared to those using the traditional model of teacher evaluation. With the additional responsibilities assumed with more leadership roles, teachers are more likely to be engaged in the school environment. Very little difference exists between the peer coaching / traditional group and the traditional group. This may have some significance as to method of teacher evaluation and the level of engagement between the groups. Question four also addressed the relationship of teacher leadership and method of teacher evaluation. Question 4 asked questions regarding leadership roles beyond the school walls. The ANOVA results are reported in Table 5. Analysis of the survey data regarding leadership positions outside of the school showed no significant variation among the respondent groups. The only specific leadership response regarding district committee membership suggests a marginal relationship at < 0.10.

76

Table 5 Question Set 4: Teacher Leadership by Roles Performed Outside this School
% Yes (n) PC / Traditional 45.8 (24) 30.4 (23) 16.7 (24) 20.8 (24) 17.4 (23) 13.0 (23) 13.6 (22) Significance Chisquare Sig. 5.26 .07 3.05 2.86 1.52 .88 .73 2.87 .22 .24 .47 .64 .70 .24

Roles Performed Q4A: Member district committee Q4B: District inservice presenter Q4C: Out-of-district conference presenter Q4D: Out-of-district consultant Q4E: Officer in professional organization Q4F: Coordinator of special program Q4G: Other special district assignment Note. n = number of participants. df =2 p < .10

PC Only 37.8 (37) 18.9 (37) 29.7 (37) 10.8 (37) 10.8 (37) 16.2 (37) 8.1 (37)

Traditional Only 20.0 (40) 12.5 (40) 15.0 (40) 20.0 (40) 9.8 (41) 9.8 (41) 2.4 (41)

As in the previous set of questions, an additive scale was adapted to determine if there was a difference in each group and the number of leadership roles taken on beyond the school. According to Table 6, ANOVA suggests that among the survey respondents there is not a significant relationship between the number of leadership roles assumed outside the school and the method of teacher evaluation as compared with the number of leadership roles performed by the teachers using the traditional method of teacher evaluation between the three groups. There was no significant difference between the groups.

77

Table 6 Question Set 4: Teacher Leadership by Total Number of Roles Performed Outside this School
Mean [95% CI] (n) PC / Traditional 1.32 [.56, 2.07] (98)

Significance Traditional Only .90 [.48, 1.31] (98) F .90 Sig. .41

Variable Number of Roles

PC Only 1.30 [.78, 1.82] (98)

Note. CI = confidence interval; n = number of participants. df = 2

Overall, there was a correlation with teachers implementing peer coaching in which they were significantly more likely to take on leadership positions within the school when compared to the other groups but there was not a significant difference between the three groups when comparing leadership positions outside of the school. While the data does not strongly support the null hypothesis or fail to reject the null hypothesis, one consideration may be to exclude duties outside of the school. Ultimately, peer coaching is about improving instruction within a school. It is possible that the focus is so internal that the larger community is not a part of the teachers paradigm. Another consideration is that the school administration or climate may not support external activities and thus limit the opportunities to participate. In sum, although there is a correlation between leadership roles and evaluation methods, it is more likely that teachers who have the confidence to take on leadership roles also have the confidence to participate in peer coaching. It may be worthwhile to give consideration to the roles asked of teachers which would foster the confidence needed for both leadership positions and peer coaching.

78

Research Question Two: Collegiality The next set of questions were used to determine if there is a significant difference between teachers undergoing the peer coaching model of teacher evaluation and the traditional model of teacher evaluation in terms of perceptions of collegiality (Hypothesis 2). The null hypothesis states that there is not a significant difference between the two groups of teachers with respect to collegiality. The questions representing collegiality (Questions 1, a to e; 2, a to t) are related to the research questions, How do teachers views of collegiality differ between teachers using the peer coaching model of evaluation and the teachers using the traditional model of teacher evaluation? The results for the ANOVA regarding question set one are reported in Table 7 and question set two in Table 8. Using a Likert scale from 1 to 5, all positive questions responses were above 3. The table entries represent an average score on the Likert scale in which the higher the number, the more positive the response. Overall, the results as shown in Table 7 exhibit no significant differences between the survey respondents with respect to collegiality at the school level. The respondents in all groups find the school setting to be a collegial environment based on the survey questions, most notably with regard to questions which are markedly inclusive of the entire faculty. The questions which the respondent can interpret at the individual teacher level were slightly less similar with the greatest difference found between the peer coaching group and the mixed group referencing the question asking about teachers in the school continually learning and seeking and learning new ideas. This could relate to the decision not to participate in peer coaching during the 2010 2011 school year.

79

Table 7 Question Set 1: School Collegiality by Evaluation Type

Mean [95% CI] (n) PC / Traditional 3.96 [3.57, 4.35] (25) 3.76 [3.49, 4.03] (25) 3.84 [3.58, 4.10] (25) 4.00 [3.73, 4.27] (25) 3.32 [2.99, 3.65] (25) Significance Traditional Only 3.95 [3.70, 4.20] (42) 3.93 [3.67, 4.19] (42) 4.00 [3.72, 4.28] (42) 4.26 [4.04, 4.48] (42) 3.55 [3.28, 3.82] (42) F .021 2.85 .51 1.21 .46 Sig. .98 .06 .60 .30 .63

School Peer Relationships Q1A: Count on staff to help out Q1B: Teachers learn seek / learn new ideas Q1C: Great deal of staff cooperation Q1D: Staff maintains high expectations Q1E: School seems like one big family

PC Only 3.92 [3.65, 4.19] (38) 4.21 [3.97, 4.45] (38) 4.03 [3.80, 4.25] (38) 4.18 [3.97, 4.40] (38) 3.45 [3.08, 3.81] (38)

Note. CI = confidence interval; n = number of participants; Likert scale range: 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.

df = 2 p < .10 The second set of questions pertaining to collegiality narrow the focus from the whole school to the department level. Question set two was composed of 20 questions which were directed at teacher interactions within a department. Seven of the questions, numbers are bolded in the table, were worded with negative language and 13 questions were worded with positive language. Using some questions in a survey which are worded so that high values of a concept produce high scores on the Likert scale and other questions are worded so that high scores of the same concept produce low scores on the Likert scale is a common technique in survey research to mitigate acquiescence bias, the analysis of which often involves reverse coding, switching the highest and lowest

80

numerical values (DeCoster, 2004). This is done to encourage respondents to pay attention to the questions as well as provide a method for cross checking certain concepts (DeCoster). The results for question set two are presented in Table 8.

81

Table 8 Question Set 2: Department or Subject Area Collegiality by Evaluation Type

Mean [95% CI] (n ) PC / Traditional 4.36 [4.07, 4.65] (25) 3.40 [2.95, 3.85] (25) 3.28 [2.77, 3.79] (24) 3.12 [2.64, 3.60] (25) 3.68 [3.27, 4.09] (25) 2.96 [2.56, 3.36] (25) 3.72 [3.32, 4.12] (25) 2.08 [1.74, 2.42] (25) 3.64 [3.28, 4.00] (25) 2.40 [1.97, 2.83] (25) 4.08 [3.82, 4.34] (25) 4.00 [3.64, 4.36] (25)

Significance Traditional Only 4.17 [3.91, 4.42] (42) 3.00 [2.62, 3.38] (42) 3.26 [2.92, 3.60] (42) 2.86 [2.48, 3.24] (42) 3.71 [3.44, 3.99] (42) 2.71 [2.37, 3.05] (41) 3.90 [3.58, 4.22] (41) 2.00 [1,68, 2.32] (41) 3.41 [3.06, 3.77] (41) 2.30 [1.94, 2.66] (40) 4.00 [3.68, 4.32] (40) 4.05 [3.74, 4.36] (41) F .49 Sig. .61

Department Peer Relationships Q2A: Share ideas openly

PC Only 4.29 [4.00, 4.57] (38) 3.03 [2.64, 3.42] (37) 3.38 [3.03, 3.72] (37) 3.19 [2.73, 3.65] (37) 3.81 [3.44, 4.19] (37) 2.63 [2.25, 3.02] (38) 4.00 [3.68, 4.32] (38) 2.05 [1.75, 2.36] (38) 3.63 [3.29, 3.97] (38) 2.26 [1.89, 2.64] (38) 4.05 [3.75, 4.36] (38) 4.16 [3.91, 4.41] (38)

Q2B: Different ideas regarding curriculum Q2C: Share samples of student work Q2D: Subject area faculty cliques Q2E: Meet to discuss common problems Q2F: Inappropriate to help without request Q2G: Work together on materials Q2H: Little idea of each others goals Q2I: Little disagreement about what should be taught Q2J: Protective of instructional materials Q2K: Cordial and caring

1.06

.35

.12

.89

.74

.48

.15

.86

.71

.49

.61

.55

.06

.94

.57

.57

.12

.89

.07

.94

Q2L: Often seek each others advice

.28

.76

82

Q2M: Lot of disagreement about how to teach Q2N: Share views of students

1.97 [1.73, 2.22] (38) 3.66 [3.35, 3.97] (38) 2.53 [2.18, 2.87] (38) 3.97 [3.73, 4.22] (38) 4.21 [3.94, 4.48] (38) 4.39 [4.17, 4.62] (38) 4.16 [3.93, 4.38] (38) 4.00 [3.72, 4.28] (38)

2.08 [1.70, 2.46] (25) 3.84 [3.53, 4.15] (25) 3.12 [2.70, 3.54] (25) 3.68 [3.37, 3.99] (25) 3.80 [3.51, 4.09] (25) 4.04 [3.76, 4.32] (25) 3.80 [3.44, 4.16] (25) 3.88 [3.56, 4.20] (25)

2.07 [1.77, 2.38] (41) 3.78 [3.50, 4.06] (41) 2.83 [2.51, 3.15] (41) 3.98 [3.72, 4.23] (41) 4.05 [3.74, 4.36] (41) 4.34 [4.12, 4.56] (41) 3.85 [3.56, 4.15] (41) 3.93 [3.62, 4.24] (41)

.16

.85

.37

.69

Q2O: Hands-off attitude to others careers Q2P: Admire each others teaching Q2Q: Feel supported by colleagues Q2R: Improving as a teacher each year Q2S: Encouraged to experiment with teaching Q2T: School seems like one big family

2.54

.08

1.36

.26

1.73

.18

2.23

.11

1.86

.16

.15

.86

Note. CI = confidence interval; n = number of participants; Likert scale range: 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.

df = 2 p < .10 The results from the ANOVA show that there is no statistical significance between the method of teacher evaluation and perceptions of collegiality between the survey respondents in each of the three groups. Regardless of question wording, all three groups similarly skewed towards the positive in terms of collegiality with their subject area peers. The findings fail to support the hypothesis that there is a significant difference between teachers undergoing the peer coaching model of teacher evaluation and the traditional model of teacher evaluation in terms of perceptions of collegiality. The null hypothesis is not rejected based on these findings.

83

Compared to other schools in the school district, the studys school has very little turn-over from year to year. Prior to the reduction in force due to the economic downturn, the school districts attrition rate within various schools has ranged from between 4% to 39% with and average around 11.5% (XYZ School District, 2011). With an attrition rate around 4%, the stability of the teaching staff may provide for a climate more inclined towards collegiality. Additionally, the school has a history of horizontal and vertical teaming in which teachers work together during teacher work days to streamline the curriculum between teachers teaching the same course and the classes with which they are aligned. The unique nature of the school may impact the findings based on the question wording in this section. Discussed in more detail in the section on experience with peer coaching, in the open-ended question at the end of the survey, collegiality was a strong consideration with the peer coaching group. Research Question 3: Instructional Risk Taking The final set of questions answered by all respondents involved instructional risktaking, the willingness to try new instructional practices (Questions 5, a to j; 6, a to f; 7, a to f; 8, a to g). These questions were used to respond to the research question, How does teachers willingness to take instructional risks differ between teachers using the peer coaching model of evaluation and the teachers using the traditional model of teacher evaluation? This research question was associated with the final hypothesis to determine if there is a significant difference between teachers undergoing the peer coaching model of teacher evaluation and the traditional model of teacher evaluation in terms of perceptions of instructional risk-taking. In contrast, the null hypothesis states that there will not be a significant relationship between teachers willingness to take instructional

84

risks and the type of evaluation model selected by the teachers. Questions 5 and 6 provide nominal response options and the analysis was done using cross-tabs to determine if there are relationships between the independent variable regarding method of teacher evaluation and the dependent variable, instructional risk taking, followed by chi-square analysis to determine if any patterns in the cross tabs occurred by chance or are due to systematic assignment to particular cells. Results of the analysis for question 5 are found in Table 9. All the components to question 5 relate to instructional risk taking as it corresponds to professional development. These are interactions among and between the adult members in the community. Only questions relating to classroom observations were found to be significant at < .05. The significance of these particular questions was not unexpected. Classroom observations are an integral component of the peer coaching model. What was unexpected was the number of days the peer coaching group did observation. Three or more days exceeded the requirements for peer coaching. While not statistically significant, it is interesting to note that within the school and department, the majority of the respondents in the peer coaching group spent 3+ days working on professional development activities whereas the majority in the other groups spent two or less days. In sum, the two questions that showed statistical significance are not strong enough to support the hypothesis because they represent an intrinsic component of peer coaching in that reciprocal observations are required in the peer coaching process.

85

Table 9 Question Set 5: Instructional Risk Taking by Professional Development

% Type of Professional Development Q5A: District sponsored during school year None 1-2 Days 3+ Days (n ) Q5B: District sponsored during summer None 1-2 Days 3+ Days (n ) Q5C: Schoolwide activity None 1-2 Days 3+ Days (n ) Q5D: Department activity None 1-2 Days 3+ Days (n ) Q5E: Teacher network in subject area None 1-2 Days 3+ Days (n ) Q5F: Professional organization in subject area None 1-2 Days 3+ Days (n ) Q5G: Summer institute in subject area None 1-2 Days 3+ Days (n ) Q5H: Observation of another teacher None 1-2 Days 3+ Days PC Only PC / Traditional Traditional Only Significance Chisquare 3.11 29.7 45.9 24.3 (37) 54.1 21.6 24.3 (37) 27.0 29.7 43.2 (37) 22.2 25.0 52.8 (36) 62.2 18.9 18.9 (37) 56.8 29.7 13.5 (37) 51.4 2.7 45.9 (37) 0.0 33.3 66.7 25.0 37.5 37.5 (24) 45.8 29.2 25.0 (24) 45.8 29.2 25.0 (24) 33.3 41.7 25.0 (24) 58.3 25.0 16.7 (24) 58.3 29.2 12.5 (24) 50.0 8.3 41.7 (24) 20.8 41.7 37.5 40.5 33.3 26.2 (42) 3.25 61.9 11.9 26.2 (42) 6.75 23.8 47.6 28.6 (42) 5.50 28.6 38.1 33.3 (42) .65 65.9 19.5 14.6 (41) 5.59 56.1 14.6 29.3 (41) 3.43 65.9 4.9 29.3 (41) 17.01 28.6 42.9 28.6 .00* .49 .23 .96 .24 .15 .52 Sig. .54

86

(n ) Q5I: Observation of your teaching by another teacher None 1-2 Days 3+ Days (n ) Note. n = number of participants. df = 4 *p < .05

(36) 2.7 45.9 51.4 (37)

(24) 25.0 54.2 20.8 (24)

(42) 16.19 35.7 35.7 28.6 (42) .00*

Question 6 addresses instructional risk taking as it relates to classroom practices and interactions with students. The results from the Question 6 cross-tabs show that there are no statistically significant differences between the method of teacher evaluation and perceptions of instructional risk taking with regard to student activities, between the survey respondents in each of the three groups (see Table 10). Although not significant at the < .05 level, it is worthy of note that the peer coaching group was more likely to have students reflect on their work and set future learning goals, a main component of the peer coaching model used at the teacher level. Teachers are required to work together and streamline curriculum both vertically and horizontally. This close working relationship and planning may also streamline daily lesson plans reducing variation among the lesson activities.

87

Table 10 Question Set 6: Instructional Risk Taking by Student Lesson Activities

% (n ) Student Lesson Activities Q6A: Review and discuss work of other students None Less than weekly 1+ times per week Q6B: Work on group projects extending for several days None Less than weekly 1+ times per week Q6C: Explain their reasoning to class None Less than weekly 1+ times per week Q6D: Work on individual project that takes several days None Less than weekly 1+ times per week Q6E: Discuss ideas for a sustained period None Less than weekly 1+ times per week Q6F: Reflect on their work and set future learning goals None Less than weekly 1+ times per week PC Only PC / Traditional 25.0 37.5 37.5 (24) 0 90.0 10.0 (20) 20.8 29.2 50.0 (24) 20.8 62.5 16.7 (24) 12.5 45.8 41.7 (24) 33.3 45.8 20.8 (24) Traditional Only 16.7 54.8 28.6 (42) 0 74.4 25.6 (39) 2.36 8.3 30.6 61.1 (36) 13.9 72.2 13.9 (36) 8.6 25.7 65.7 (35) 5.6 66.7 27.8 (36) 11.9 26.2 61.9 (42) 1.14 21.4 66.7 11.9 (42) 3.63 7.3 36.6 56.1 (41) 9.38 19.0 66.7 14.3 (42) .46 .89 .67 Significance Chisquare 4.56 Sig. .34

8.3 61.1 30.6 (36) 0 78.8 21.2 (33)

1.98a

.37

.05

Note. n = number of participants.

df = 4, adf = 2 p < .10

88

Questions 7 and 8 are also designed to gather data regarding instructional risk taking. They provide continuous response options and an ANOVA was completed to determine if there were any differences between the independent variable, type of evaluation model, peer coaching and traditional, on the dependent variable. Both questions 7 and 8 address instructional risk taking on the basis of student assessment. Table 11 shows the ANOVA results of instructional risk taking as it relates to various forms of assessments used to determine student learning. The ANOVA results from Question 7 show that there is no statistically significant difference between the method of teacher evaluation and instructional risk taking in terms of types of student assessments between the survey respondents in each of the groups. Table 11
Question Set 7: Instructional Risk Taking by Type of Student Assessments Mean [95% CI] (n ) PC / Traditional 4.08 [3.67, 4.49] (24) 3.50 [2.85, 4.15] (24) 2.58 [1.91, 3.25] (24) 2.63 [2.10, 3.15] (24) 2.79 [2.25, 3.33] (24) 3.79 [3.38, 4.20] (24)

Significance Traditional Only 3.69 [3.30, 4.08] (42) 3.27 [2.77, 3.77] (41) 3.14 [2.73, 3.55] (42) 3.37 [2.99, 3.74] (41) 2.76 [2.34, 3.18] (42) 4.24 [3.95, 4.53] (42) F 1.52 .18 1.48 3.02 1.08 1.62 Sig. .23 .84 .23 .05 .34 .20

Types of Student Assessment Q7A: Multiple choice tests Q7B: Essay tests Q7C: Portfolio of student work Q7D: Products of group projects Q7E: Standardized test results Q7F: Work samples

PC Only 3.56 [3.16, 3.96] (36) 3.37 [2.88, 3.86] (35) 3.08 [2.69, 3.47] (36) 3.19 [2.81, 3.58] (36) 3.14 [2.81, 3.46] (36) 4.03 [3.68, 4.38] (36)

Note. CI = confidence interval; n = number of participants df = 2 p < .10

89

Although not significant at the level set by the study, there is a marginal difference, just above < 0.05, in which the combined peer coaching and traditional group was less likely to use group projects for student assessment compared to the peer coaching only and the traditional only groups. This variation is interesting from the perspective that all other assessments are individual student assessments. Once again, the lack of variation may be an artifact of the curriculum teaming. Table 12 shows the ANOVA results of instructional risk taking in terms of kinds of emphasis of criteria in student assessments. Just as with the other questions regarding instructional risk taking, the ANOVA results from the Question 8 show that there is no statistical significance between the method of teacher evaluation and instructional risk taking in terms of criteria in assessing student progress as specified in the questionnaire between the survey respondents in each of the three groups. Many departments have developed common summative assessments. While not mandatory, it helps align the curriculum. As previously stated, curriculum teaming may minimize variation, in this case, between the groups as it relates to student assessment.

90

Table 12 Question Set 8: Instructional Risk Taking by Emphasis of Criteria in Student Assessment
Criteria for Student Assessment PC Only Q8A: Recall factual information Q8B: Ask probing questions about subject matter Q8C: Apply what he/she learned to new questions, etc. Q8D: Reflect on his/her progress Q8E: Master basic skills 3.64 [3.31, 3.96] (36) 4.47 [4.25, 4.69] (36) 4.50 [4.25, 4.75] (36) 3.67 [3.39, 3.95] (36) 4.39 [4.11, 4.67] (36) 3.94 [3.62, 4.27] (36) 3.56 [3.27, 3.84] (36) Mean [95% CI] (n ) PC / Traditional 3.92 [3.47, 4.36] (24) 4.17 [3.78, 4.55] (24) 4.04 [3.54, 4.55] (24) 3.46 [2.93, 3.99] (24) 4.17 [3.74, 4.59] (24) 3.71 [3.22, 4.20] (24) 3.00 [2.42, 3.58] (24)

Traditional Only 3.76 [3.46, 4.07] (42) 4.19 [3.99, 4.39] (42) 4.36 [4.12, 4.59] (42) 3.50 [3.18, 3.82] (42) 4.21 [3.95, 4.48] (42) 3.83 [3.52, 4.15] (42) 3.29 [2.94, 3.63] (42)

Significance F Sig. .56 .57

1.92

.15

2.01

.14

.39

.68

.57

.57

Q8F: Express his/her own ideas about subject Q8G: Provide constructive feedback to other students

.38

.68

1.87

.16

Note. CI = confidence interval; n = number of participants df = 2

The data generated by all the questions regarding instruction risk taking that directly involved teacher and student instructional interactions do not show any significant differences between the three groups. The only questions which show statistical significance are those that relate to teacher-teacher interactions involving professional development. This lack of variation maybe the result of required curriculum teaming in which the curriculum is aligned both vertically, courses feeding into each

91

other, and horizontally, the same course taught by different teachers. Curriculum teaming has been done at the studys school for the past decade and as a result many departments have developed standardized instructional activities and assessments. Peer Coaching Experiences The survey provided an opportunity beyond the research questions to gather additional information when using peer coaching as an evaluation tool. Questions 9 and 10 were only to be answered by teachers that choose the peer-coaching model of teacher evaluation. The peer coaching group was subdivided into type of evaluation used during the 2010-2011 school year. In other words, if a teacher used peer coaching in either or both the 2008 2009 or 2009 2010 school years but not 2010 2011 school year they were in one group and all other teachers that used peer coaching in 2010 2011 regardless of previous years, was in another group. This distinction made for more interesting results and analysis. The greatest differences were found in comparing these two groups. It begs the question, what are the differences between these two groups? Are there teacher tendencies or characteristics which correlate to a lack of success with peer coaching? Are there areas that the school needs to address or improve to foster success with peer coaching?

92

Table 13 Question Set 9: Experience with Peer Coaching

Mean [95% CI] (n ) PC / PC PC / Traditional Q9A: Comfortable teaching in front of others Q9B: Comfortable observing a peer teach Q9C: Comfortable receiving feedback from a peer Q9D: Comfortable giving feedback to a peer Q9E: There are areas in my teaching I would like to improve Q9F: PC has helped me improve my teaching Q9G: There are new strategies I would like to try in my classroom Q9H: PC has led me to try new strategies Q9I: PC offers professional growth opportunities unique to my needs Q9J: PC allows me to share my expertise with my colleagues Q9K: PC allows my colleagues to share their expertise with me Q9L: PC allows me to be recognized beyond my classroom Q9M: PC provides me with leadership opportunities 4.68 [4.50, 4.85] (37) 4.68 [4.47, 4.88] (37) 4.70 [4.53, 4.88] (37) 4.59 [4.37, 4.82] (37) 4.49 [4.24, 4.73] (37) 4.35 [4.07, 4.64] (37) 4.51 [4.26, 4.77] (37) 4.08 [3.74, 4.43] (37) 4.19 [3.89, 4.49] (37) 4.38 [4.15, 4.61] (37) 4.46 [4.23, 4.69] (37) 3.78 [3.40, 4.17] (37) 3.49 [3.07, 3.91] (37) 4.57 [3.84, 5.30] (7) 4.57 [3.84, 5.30] (7) 4.43 [3.70, 5.16] (7) 4.14 [2.69, 5.60] (7) 4.29 [2.90, 5.67] (7) 3.71 [2.69, 4.74] (7) 3.71 [2.44, 4.99] (7) 2.71 [1.14, 4.29] (7) 3.14 [1.69, 4.60] (7) 3.14 [1.90, 4.39] (7) 3.29 [1.90, 4.67] (7) 3.29 [1.90, 4.67] (7) 3.29 [1.90, 4.67] (7) Significance F .19 .15 1.38 1.59 .31 2.96 4.83 8.22 6.08 13.69 11.12 .994 .14 Sig. .66 .70 .25 .21 .58 .09 .03* .01* .02* .00* .00* .32 .71

Note. CI = confidence interval; n = number of participants; Likert scale range: 1 = strongly disagree to

5 = strongly agree.
df = 1 p < .10, *p < .05

93

Compared to teachers who reverted back to the traditional evaluation from the peer coaching evaluation (Table 13), teachers that used the peer coaching model during the 2010 2011 were significantly more likely to want to try and actually try new instructional strategies, felt like peer coaching led them to try new instructional strategies, thought that peer coaching met their professional growth needs, and allowed for an exchange of expertise between themselves and their colleagues. These characteristics are the major tenets of peer coaching. The intent of the peer coaching evaluation model was to provide a simultaneous path for professional development related to classroom practices. There were two open-ended questions on the survey, questions 8 and 10. Questions 8 on the demographic section was an open-ended question which asked why the respondent went back to the traditional model of teacher evaluation after having undergone the peer coaching model in a previous year. Only three respondents answered this question and all three referenced that the peer coaching model required more work. In the main body of the survey, Question 10 was used to provide added depth related to Question 9 regarding peer coaching experiences. A coding process was used for the analysis of the Question 10. If the response was related to improving instruction by trying a new teaching method or classroom behavior it was coded as a one, if it was related to collegiality it was coded as a two, and if the response stated that peer coaching did not help it was coded as a three. Of the total number of responses, 30 of the 46 respondents that had used peer coaching at some time answered Question 10. The question allowed for up to three

94

answers which resulted in a total of 52 responses. Table 14 shows the results from the coding. Table 14 Open-ended responses for question 10
Code 1 2 3 Total Note: n = number of responses. Response type Improve instruction Increase collegiality Did not help n 28 17 7 52 % 54 33 13 100

Examples of responses coded as a one were statements such as allows me to focus on a specific area, provides specific feedback, helps me reflect on my own skills and practices, and helps me learn how to use other technologies. Responses regarding improving instruction made up 54% of the responses related to the use of the peer coaching model of teacher evaluation. This dovetails with hypothesis three in terms of peer coaching fostering instructional risk taking. Collegiality made up 33% of the responses and included statements such as, helped improve relationships with colleagues, allowed for better interaction with peers, opportunity to collaborate, and opportunity to share ideas. This also pertains to hypothesis two in the sense that peer coaching fosters collegiality. The participant accounts coded as a three made up 13% of the responses. They referenced the lack of available time needed to do peer coaching and the additional paperwork. These replies were in line with the open ended responses found with question eight in the demographic

95

section and a common warning found in the literature regarding the implementation of peer coaching in general.

Summary The results of the statistical analysis for the survey data were presented in this chapter. Demographic data were used to determine the comparison groups and the subsequent questions were used to address three research questions and hypotheses as they relate to the respondent groups. Demographic data from the survey were used to create three groups for comparison. The first group had only used the traditional model for teacher evaluation over the past three school years. The second group had used the peer coaching model in at least one of the previous years but not during the current school year, and the third group used the peer coaching model during the current school year regardless of evaluation method chosen the previous years. In an open ended question, teachers in the second group were asked to comment on their reasons for not continuing with the peer coaching evaluation if they had participated in the past. The responses were broken into two main categories: it was not effective and it was too much work. Based on the survey results, the model of teacher evaluation suggests that some differences exist between the respondent groups with regard to professional growth as it relates to teacher leadership opportunities (Hypothesis 1). Within the context of this survey, teachers choosing the peer coaching method for teacher evaluation are significantly more likely to chair a committee or serve as a mentor. Less significant but worthy of note, these teachers are also more likely to supervise student teachers, make

96

presentations at both department and school level inservices, and act as an advisor to a performing arts group. Additionally, teachers choosing the peer coaching method of evaluation tend to be involved in more leadership positions compared to the teachers using the traditional method of evaluation. In contrast to these findings, there were no significant differences in leadership behaviors between the groups once outside of the school. While there was a marginal relationship with serving on a district committee, committee chairs at the school level are often asked to serve at the school district level so this relationship may just be a residual effect of a school level position. The dichotomous findings lead to a partial rejection of the null hypothesis bounded by the school but not beyond the school. The survey had two sets of questions that addressed the relationships between the method of teacher evaluation and teachers views regarding collegiality (Hypothesis 2). Questions 1 and 2 showed no statistically significant difference between the respondent groups as they relate to perceptions of collegiality and as such failed to reject the null hypothesis. The final hypothesis regarding the relationship between method of evaluation and instructional risk taking between all respondent groups was not statistically significant. Only two questions relative to classroom observations met the criteria to be considered significant but these were not enough of an indicator alone since classroom observations are a requirement of the peer coaching model. This lack of variation may be an artifact from cross curriculum team planning. Perhaps more interesting are the findings comparing two groups within the peer coaching model, those that used the model prior to the current school year but not during the current school year (2010-2011) and those that

97

used the peer coaching model during the current school year regardless of methods in the previous years. There were multiple statistically significant differences between the respondents in these two groups as they relate to instructional risk taking. The current peer coaching group perceived that peer coaching offered the professional growth opportunities unique to their needs. They had new instructional strategies they wanted to try in their classroom, had tried new instructional strategies in their classroom, and peer coaching allowed for an exchange of expertise between teachers. Section 5 will provide a summary of the results and recommendations for further research. The raw data are available by request.

98

Section 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations Overview The genesis of this study was one principals fight against complacency among the faculty of a high achieving high school. Combined with substantial discontent among the faculty regarding the standard staff development process provided by the school district, the principal obtained a waiver from the state department of education to modify the teacher evaluation process. During the summer of 2008, a consultant was hired to train volunteer faculty in the methods of peer coaching as an alternative to more traditional modes of teacher development and evaluation. Peer coaching would allow the teachers to tailor their professional development with their individual needs. In the fall of 2008, a new method for teacher evaluation, based on peer coaching, was introduced. The principals goal was to provide a method of evaluation that also served as professional development. The purpose of this study was to test the theory that the model of teacher evaluation, traditional teacher evaluation model versus a peer coaching model, impacts the professional growth of teachers in the areas of teacher leadership opportunities, collegiality among the faculty, and a teachers risk taking or willingness to try new instructional practices. This study addressed the following research questions: 1. How do teachers perceptions of teacher leadership differ between teachers using the peer coaching model of evaluation and the teachers using the traditional model of teacher evaluation?

99

2. How do teachers views of collegiality differ between teachers using the peer coaching model of evaluation and the teachers using the traditional model of teacher evaluation? 3. How does teachers willingness to take instructional risks differ between teachers using the peer coaching model of evaluation and the teachers using the traditional model of teacher evaluation? To answer these questions, a survey was administered to a faculty of 149 teachers in a suburban school which had received a waiver to offer an alternative teacher evaluation in the form of peer coaching. Teachers were given a choice as to which model they would like to use for their annual evaluations between the years 2008 and 2011. In order to use the peer coaching model teachers had to meet certain requirements. Teacher criteria included having taught at the school for at least 1 year, having 3 or more years of experience, having met or exceeded standards on previous evaluations, and having been trained or currently being involved in peer-coaching training. In addition, the participants could not be on a PDP. As long as the teachers met the criteria, they were allowed to select their evaluation model. The survey was generated by incorporating established modules from two existing surveys and a third component which I composed. . The two preexisting surveys, the Bay Area School Reform Collaborative (BASRC) Teacher Survey (Spring 2002) and the Teacher Survey 1991 Questionnaire, were developed by the Center for Research on the Context of Teaching (CRC) located at Stanford University. The survey questions were grouped into one of the three categories, each representing one of the dependent

100

variables: teacher leadership (Questions 3, a to i; 4, a to g), collegiality (Questions 1, a to e; 2, a to t), or instructional risk-taking (Questions 5, a to i; 6, a to f; 7, a to f; 8, a to g). Interpretation of Findings Research Question One: Leadership With regard to teacher leadership, the study showed significant differences between the evaluation methods and teachers within a school but not outside of the school. Within a school, mentoring and coaching showed statistically significant variations between the groups (p = .01), both of which involve behaviors intrinsic to the coaching process but polarized on the method of evaluation. Teachers that selected the peer coaching evaluation model were also more likely to have functioned as a mentor for new teachers, whereas teachers that selected the traditional teacher evaluation model were more likely to coach a high school sport. Teachers undergoing peer coaching were significantly (p = .01) more likely to participate in leadership roles within the school but there was not a significant difference (p = .41) between the groups participating in leadership activities outside of the school. The null hypothesis was rejected, contingent upon setting. Additionally, the data showed that teachers using peer coaching are also more likely to participate in multiple leadership positions compared to teachers selecting the traditional model. There does seem to be some association, dependent upon location, between the dependent variable of leadership and independent variable, method of teacher evaluation. These finding are consistent with the literature finding that the peer coaching model is more focused on individual classroom activities than activities external to the school (Bogner, 2001). Part of the challenge is the definition of leadership as it pertains

101

to teachers and the instructional setting. Bogner maintained that peer coaching is a leadership activity. The reciprocity of improving practice between peers is a leadership behavior just as designing a paper curriculum and moving it to a successful implementation is a leadership behavior. These activities come together in various ways based on the needs of the different stakeholders (Heller & Firestone, 1995; Martinez et al., 2005). It is important to acknowledge these activities as leadership behaviors and help teachers see themselves as leaders. Helping teachers lead both within the school and outside the school empowers teachers giving them more resources with which to improve instruction and ultimately student performance. Finally, the school climate may have some impact on leadership roles outside of the building in terms of availability and how well they are supported. Pressure created by high stakes testing and the focus on meeting federal mandates encourages schools to focus inwards. Examination of the administrative agenda and available assistance may be worthwhile if encouraging leadership outside of the school is to be fostered. Research Question Two: Collegiality The second set of analyses focused on the differences across evaluation methods for questions centered on collegiality. There was no significant difference between the traditional and peer coaching evaluation groups in terms of collegiality (Question 2). The null hypothesis was not rejected. These findings fit with the history of the school. Most teachers have collaborated consistently over the years to align curriculum with individual courses. Teachers teaching the same course must have the same sequence although there is latitude with individual lessons. According to Barth (2004), collegiality stems from respectful, professional interactions. While these behaviors seem to be apparent

102

according to the survey data, there are several areas in which the tenets of collegiality as they relate to the school environment could be strengthened. Collegiality refines teacher interactions, strengthening trust which allows teachers to look at failures and mistakes and offer constructive criticism (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1996). Responses tended more towards neutral with regard to the idea that it was inappropriate to help without being asked. This is a byproduct of the isolation intrinsic in most schools (Nolan & Hillkirk, 1991). It is more apparent in a high school in which teachers are organized into departments. In the school for this study, each department has its own workroom in which teachers also often eat lunch, or many eat in their classroom furthering this isolation. In an effort to offset such seclusion, the school has made a concerted attempt to foster interactions by sponsoring cross curriculum luncheons, school wide celebrations, and intradepartmental committees on which everyone must serve. Between these endeavors and naturally occurring interactions, that is, passing in the hallway, combined with the intransience of the staff, there has been some but not complete success in mitigating the natural isolation inherent in most high schools. Once again the survey responses tended towards neutral with regard to subject area cliques. Creating opportunities to get together, common lunch areas and work rooms can help break down barriers. Actively providing time and techniques to help teachers interact can minimize department cliques. As teachers become even more comfortable with each other, helping becomes second nature, an expectation. Research Question Three: Instructional Risk Taking On the question of instructional risk taking, the data were less clear. Cross tabs and chi-square analysis of survey questions 5 and 6 did not show a significant

103

relationship between teacher evaluation and instructional risk taking both in terms of professional development activities and student lesson activities. Additionally, an ANOVA of survey questions 7 and 8, type of student assessment and criteria of student assessment, supported the previous findings and did not show significant differences between the two evaluation models and instructional risk taking. These findings are consistent with schools that team horizontally. Horizontal teams teach the same subject and plan teaching units together. The majority of the studies evolved from the relationship between regular education and special education teachers. The planning involves both lessons and assessments. The collaborative nature of the process minimizes potential differences among teachers. This type of climate is typical of a professional learning community. According to DuFour (2004): The powerful collaboration that characterizes professional learning communities is a systematic process in which teachers work together to analyze and improve their classroom practice. Teachers work in teams, engaging in an ongoing cycle of questions that promote deep team learning. This process, in turn, leads to higher levels of student achievement. (p. 9) The teachers already worked together to plan units, activities, and assessments, and in doing so, discussed areas which needed improvement. The need for modification could have been due to timing, lesson weakness, or student performance. These characteristics are indicative of horizontal teaming but this process does not have to incorporate peer coaching. The null hypothesis was not rejected.

104

Additional Findings Differences within the peer coaching model yielded interesting differences. An ANOVA of data from question 9 showed statistically significant differences between teachers who reverted back to the traditional evaluation from the peer coaching evaluation and teachers that used the peer coaching model during the 20102011. The teachers that chose the peer coaching model for teacher evaluation were also significantly more likely to try new instructional strategies and believed that peer coaching led them to try new instructional strategies. The group who reverted back to the traditional evaluation was more likely to disagree with the statement that there were new strategies they would like to try in the classroom. This would support the more negative response to the statement that peer coaching led them to try new strategies. Teachers undergoing the peer coaching evaluation thought that peer coaching met their professional growth needs and allowed for an exchange of expertise between themselves and their colleagues. The increase in trying new instructional strategies and the sharing of expertise for professional growth are consistent with literature regarding peer coaching in which there is a skill transfer (Joyce & Showers, 2002). While there was a statistical difference between the two groups, the reverted groups responses did skew slightly positive with regard to peer coaching allowing for sharing expertise and meeting professional growth needs. It may be that while the reverted traditional group does see some benefit to peer coaching, the benefits do not warrant the cost of time, the most common complaint stated against peer coaching. Lack of time or administrative support are the two most common barriers to implementing an effective coaching program (Allen, D. & LeBlanc, A., 2005; Barkley, 2005; Gottesman, B., 2000).

105

Implications for Social Change During the past 3 years of the schools implementation of the peer coaching model, the United States has gone through a substantial recession which has had far reaching educational ramifications. With the recession, schools have faced significant financial challenges which have led to extensive layoffs, increases in class size, and reduced instructional materials (Ellerson, 2010). Despite these hardships, the demands on improving education remain just as stringent. Educators are struggling with the challenge of how to do more with fewer resources. Fundamentally, instructional practices are the major focus of most initiatives to improve student achievement (Knight, 2007). Recognizing teachers as the primary instrument in the institutional part of the educational process, many of the attempts to bring about change involve the classroom teacher and direct instruction (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 2010; Darling-Hammond & Berry, 2006; Printy & Marks, 2006). The correlation between student achievement and teacher quality is well documented (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Ding & Sherman, 2006; Marzano, 2003; Rice, 2003; Rockoff, 2004). The new pressures require a new breed of teachers, ones willing to lead both within the classroom and outside the classroom. It is no longer enough to have only a few teachers carry the mantle of change, all teachers must assume some components of leadership. Andragogy and pedagogy are concurrent processes. The goal is that increased student opportunity will arise from teacher empowerment. As teachers become accustomed to these new responsibilities, social change is engendered as teachers are empowered to direct their learning based on their professional needs and the needs of their students.

106

In 1937, Dewey elaborated on the ongoing debates regarding educations relationship with the constant forces of social change. Since the school provides a setting in which teachers are directly associated with student achievement, teachers are both the beneficiary of social change and a cultivator of social change. The positive correlation between teacher quality and student success underscores the importance of meaningful professional growth opportunities for teachers. Appropriate professional development leads to quality instruction which promote students success, yielding students capable of contributing to their communities. Dewey stated, Our public school system was founded in the name of equality for all, independent of birth, economic status, race, creed, or color. The school cannot by itself alone create or embody this idea. But the least it can do is create individuals who understand the concrete meaning of the idea with their minds, who cherish it warmly in their hearts, and who are equipped to battle in its behalf in their actions. (p. 416) There is a ripple effect to the processes bringing about social change. In education, one avenue involves recognizing the teachers as professionals who are capable of determining their professional development needs in order to help their students succeed and to translate that success into students who become contributing members of society. Recommendations for Action The challenge assumed by this studys school and most schools nationwide was and continues to be determined by the need to provide low cost but quality professional development. The school may be able to empower teachers to direct their learning in accordance with their individual needs and the needs of their students, improving the

107

quality of instruction and ultimately the achievement of the student. The expectation of continuous improvement may become a norm. I only focused on a comparison of evaluation models with a schools attempt to merge an evaluation model with staff development as an approach for improving instruction. In doing this, this study contributes to a growing body of information regarding adult learning, essential understanding in the process of providing for teachers professional growth. Additionally, peer coaching reduces the characteristic isolation found in schools allowing teachers to be more visible as leaders supporting the growth of teaching as a profession. Overall, the respondent teachers that selected the peer coaching model were satisfied with the process and stated that the process provided opportunities for instructional improvement as well as collegial interactions. Yet, not all respondents were as satisfied with the process. Responses from several of the survey participants that tried peer coaching but went back to the traditional model stated that the amount of work, the time involved, and the perceived lack of effectiveness were major factors in the decision. These responses provide valuable information for the growth of the model and should not be ignored. The implementation of a new program often requires adjustments and these criticisms offer opportunities for improvement. Highlighting the successes with peer coaching and addressing the concerns and problems that have been stated can potentially serve as encouragement to both the reverted and traditional groups. As traditional teachers observe their peers and see the benefits of the process, the expectation is that some will be encouraged to try and the model will continue to grow.

108

In fostering the growth of the process, an additional recommendation can be made. The most common concern was the time it took to implement the cycles of observations, write the reports, and meet with the administrator. Barkley (2005) maintained that a serious look at the structure of the school day should be considered when implementing a peer coaching program. Since the school has a modified schedule with multiple early release days, it may be possible to find a way to use some of that time for components of the peer coaching process. Barkley provided various ideas for how a school day may be managed to allow time for peer coaching. Regardless of how it is done, when a school goes through the rigorous process of modifying a school day for the purposes of professional development, it sends a message that student achievement is a priority (Barkley, 2005). It behooves administrators to explore alternative forms of teacher evaluation and take advantage of the intellectual capacity already existing in the building. Recognizing and encouraging teachers as leaders will expand the foundation from which to draw. It also highlights that other activities taking place in the school, such as curriculum alignment, can foster collegial climates. Those responsible for staff development programs should consider teachers career cycles and the number of experienced teachers on the faculty when developing inservices. Peer coaching requires a certain level of trust and comfort between peers. Much research and conversation needs to take place prior to implementing a formal peer coaching program.

109

Recommendations for Further Research This study took place at a single high performing high school. Suggestions for further research include a more in-depth study involving interviews or a case study could be added to look at the attributes of the teachers in each of the three groups. Replication of the study at multiple schools or schools with different challenges, such as demographic extremes, diverse proficiency levels, greater staff diversity or a different age group of students would provide a more extensive picture from which to compare the two evaluation methods. It would also be interesting to compare data from the prepeer coaching evaluation era prior to data generated after introducing the peer coaching model. Finally, a longitudinal study could be designed to investigate a potential relationship between the evaluation models and student achievement. Final Thought Peer coaching as a form of evaluation is not for everyone or every teaching environment. Peer coaching in this context implies a certain level of collegiality as well as experience. Peer coaching is one method teachers can employ to improve instruction. As schools seek ways to increase student achievement, it makes sense to use the existing expertise. The teaching profession encompasses one of the most highly educated workforces in the United States. Just as teachers are required to modify lessons and strategies based on the individual needs of the students, professional growth programs need to be tailored to the needs of the individual teacher as well. The peer coaching method of teacher evaluation acknowledges the professionalism of educators and empowers teachers, removing the extrinsic barriers the intrinsic walls often represent. This opens the vistas in which teachers can see their

110

influences move beyond the classroom. Teachers should recognize that they lead every day and, quoting Thomas Edison, There is always a better way. Helping each other grow as teachers should be an expectation just as much as teaching the students. The message to the students that radiates out from this is that learning never stops and they (the students) are important enough to warrant the effort. Students will see this and hopefully, do as I do.

111

References Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert labor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Abdallah, J. (2009, February). Lowering teacher attrition rates through collegiality. Academic Leadership 7(1). Retrieved from http://www.academicleadership.org/emprical_research/531.shtml Allen, D., & LeBlanc, A. (2005). Collaborative peer coaching that improves instruction: The 2 + 2 performance appraisal model. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. American Educational Research Association. (2004). Research ethics: AERA ethical standards. Retrieved from http://www.aera.net Anderson, L., & Pellicer, L. (2001). Teacher peer assistance and review: A practical guide for teachers and administrators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Anderson, M., Sisti, H., Curlik, D., & Shors, T. (2011). Associative learning increases adult neurogenesis during a critical period [Abstract]. European Journal of Neuroscience 33(1), 175-81. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2010.07486.x. Argote, L., McEvily, B., & Reagans, R. (2003). Managing knowledge in organizations: An integrative framework and review of emerging trends [Electronic version]. Management Science, 49(4), 571-582. Barber, M., & Mourshed, M. (2009, July). Shaping the future: How good education systems can become great in the decade ahead. Retrieved from McKinsey & Company website http://www.mckinsey.com/locations/southeastasia/knowledge/Education_Roundta ble.pdf

112

Barkley, S. (2005). Quality teaching in a culture of coaching. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education. Barth R. (1988). School, a Community of Leaders. In A. Lieberman (Ed.), Building a Professional Culture in Schools. . New York: Teachers College Press. Barth, R. (1990). Improving schools from within. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Barth, R. (2001, February 1). Teacher leader. Phi Delta Kappan 82(6), 443-449. Barth, R. (2004). Learning by heart. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bartlett, F. (1932). Remembering: a study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Beall, J. (1999). On evaluation and professional development. Independent School, 59(1), 72-79. Beckwith, S., Blair, L., Martinez, D., Times, C., & Torres, M. (2008, January). Rapid response: Summative teacher evaluation. Retrieved from Southwest Educational Development Laboratorys web site: http://www.sedl.org/pubs/catalog/items/school107.html Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (2005). Boston public schools continues work on high school renewal to prepare every city student for college and the workplace. Retrieved from http://www.gatesfoundation.org/UnitedStates/Education/TransformingHighSchoo ls/Districts/Announcements/Announce-051208.htm Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (2010). Learning about teaching: Initial findings from the measures of effective teaching project. Retrieved from http://www.gatesfoundation.org/college-ready-education/Documents/preliminary-

113

findings-research-paper.pdf Birman, B., LeFloch, K., Klekotka, A., Ludwig, M., Taylor, J., Walters, K.,.Yoon, K. (2007). State and local implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, volume II: Teacher quality under NCLB: Interim report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development. Blank, R., de las Alas, N., & Smith C. (2007). Analysis of the quality of professional development programs for mathematics and science teachers: Findings from a cross-state study. Washington DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Blant, R., (2003, October). Meeting NCLB goals for highly qualified teachers: Estimates by state from survey data. Council of Chief State School Officers. Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2000). Effective instructional leadership: Teachers perspectives on how principals promote teaching and learning in schools. Journal of Educational Administration, (38) 2, 130 141. doi: 10.1108/09578230010320082 Bogner, J. (2002). Teacher leadership and peer coaching. Unpublished masters thesis, Principal Leadership Institute. Bontempi, B., & Frankland, P. (2009). Memory consolidation: Cerebral cortex. In Encyclopedia of Neural Science (pp. 733-739). doi: 10.1016/B878-00804509.00771-3. Borland, M., Howsen, R., & Trawick, M. (2005). An investigation of the effect of class size on student academic achievement. Education Economics, 3(1), 73-83. Branigan, C. (2002). Study: Missouris ed-tech program is raising student achievement. eSchool News Online.

114

Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bush, R. (1984). Effective staff development. In Making our schools more effective: Proceedings of Three State Conferences. San Francisco: Far West Laboratories Callahan, R. (1962). Education and the cult of efficiency. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Camburn, E., Rowan, B., & Tylor, J. (2003). Distributed leadership in schools: The case of elementary schools adopting comprehensive school reform models. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 347-373. Cavey, M. (1998). Using focus groups to assess staff development: A school learning community benefits. School Community Journal, 8(2), 73-79. Center for Research on the Context of Teaching. (1991). CRC teacher survey: 1991 questionnaire. Stanford , CA: Stanford University. Center for Research on the Context of Teaching. (2002). Bay Area School Reform Collaborative: Teacher survey, Spring 2002. Stanford , CA: Stanford University. Clark, D., Carlin, P., & Peter, A. (1992). Professional development of the secondary mathematics teacher : A case study. Oakleigh, Victoria: The Centre. Cogan, M. (1973). Clinical supervision. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Colby, S., Bradshaw, L., & Joyner, R. (April, 2002). Perceptions of teacher evaluation systems and their impact on school improvement, professional development and student learning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association., New Orleans, LA. Abstract retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExt Search_SearchValue_0=ED464916&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=

115

ED464916 Collins, J. (2001). Good to great. New York: Harper-Collins Publishers. Connelly, R. (1999). The effect of a peer coaching model of teacher evaluation used in place of the traditional model of teacher evaluation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Seton Hall University. Costa, A., & Garmston, R. (1994). Cognitive coaching: A foundation for Renaissance Schools. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon. Copland, M. (2003). Leadership of Inquiry: Building and sustaining capacity for school improvement. Educational Evaluation and Policy analysis, 25(4), 375-395. Costa, A., & Kallick, B. (2004). Building a self-directed community for learning: A selfassessment checklist. In Assessment strategies for self-directed learning, (pp. 8497). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Costa, A., & Marzano, R. (1987). Teaching the language of thinking. Educational Leadership, 45(2), 29-33. Counts, G. (1932). Dare the school build a new social order? New York: John Day. Cresswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Crow, T. (2009). What works, works everywhere. The Journal of the National Staff Development Council, 30(1), 10-16. Crowther, F., Kaagan, S., Ferguson, M., & Hann, L. (2002). Developing teacher leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Danielson, C. (2002). Enhancing student achievement a framework for school improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

116

Development. Darling-Hammond, L. (1984). The Toledo (Ohio) public school intern and intervention programs. In A. Wise, L. Darling-Hammond, M. McLaughlin, & H. Bernstein (Eds.), Case Studies for Teacher Evaluation: A study of Effective Practices (pp. 119-166). Santa Monica, CA: Rand. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1). Darling-Hammond, L., & Berry, B. (2006). Highly qualified teachers for all. Educational Leadership, 64(3), 14-20. Darling-Hammond, L., Bullmaster, M., & Cobb, V. (1995). Rethinking teacher leadership through professional development schools. Elementary School Journal, 96(1), 87-106. Darling-Hammond, L., & Friedlaender, D. (2008). Creating excellent and equitable school. Educational Leadership, 65(8), 14-21. Darling-Hammond, L., & Richardson, N. (2009). Teacher learning: What matters? Educational Leadership 66(5), 46-53. Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (2003, September 17). Wanted, a national teacher supply policy for educations: The right way to meet the highly qualified teacher challenge. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(33). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa//v11n33/ Darling-Hammond, L., & Youngs, P. (2002). Defining highly qualified teachers: What does scientifically-based research actually tell us? Educational Researcher, 31(9), 13-25.

117

Datnow, A., Hubbard, L., & Mehan, H. (2002). Extending educational reform: From one school to many. New York: Routledge. DeCoster, J. (2004). Data Analysis in SPSS. Retrieved from http://www.stathelp.com/notes.html Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy in education. New York: Macmillan. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Simon & Schuster. Dewey, J. (2008). Individuality and experience. In J. Boydston (Ed.). John Dewey: The later works, 1925-1953. Essays, reviews, miscellany, and the public and its problems. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books (Original work published in 1943) Dillman, D. (2000). Mail and internet survey: The tailored design method. New York: Wiley & Sons. Ding, C., & Sherman, H. (2006). Teaching effectiveness and student achievement: Examining the relationship. Educational Research Quarterly, 29(4), 39-49. Donaldson, G. (2006). Cultivating leadership in schools. New York: Teachers College Press. DuFour, R. (2004). Schools as learning communities. Educational Leadership, 61(8), 6-11. DuFour, R. (2005). What is a professional learning community? In R. DuFour, R. Eaker, & R. DuFour (Eds.), On common ground: The power of professional learning communities (pp. 155-175). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree. Ellerson, N. (2010). Surviving a thousand cuts: Americas public schools and the recession. Retrieved from American Association of School Administrators

118

website: http://www.aasa.org/uploadedFiles/Policy_and_Advocacy/files/AASAThousandC utsFINAL121610.pdf Enz B., & Searfoss, L. (1993). Who evaluates teachers performance? Mismatched paradigms, the status quo, the missed opportunities. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA Elmore, R. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Retrieved October 19, 2008 from http://www.ashankerinst.org/Downloads/building.pdf. Elmore, R. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperative for professional development in education. Retrieved July 18, 2008 from http://www.shankerinstitute.org/Downloads/Bridging_Gap.pdf Feiman-Nemser, S., & Floden, R. (1986). The cultures of teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd ed., pp. 505-526). New York: Macmillan. Fessler, R. (1985). A model for teacher professional growth and development. In Careerlong Teacher Education, (Ed.), P. J. Burke and R. C. Heideman. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Flinders, D. (1988). Teacher isolation and the new reform. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 5(4), 17-29. Flaherty, J. (2005). Coaching: Evoking excellence in others. Jordan Hill, Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. Foltos, Les. (n.d.) Peer coaching: Changing classroom practice and enhancing student achievement. Retrieved from http://www.pugetsoundcenter.org/t2ci/peercoachinglf.pdf

119

Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2007) Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals. Pearson Education, Inc. Boston, MA.

Fullen, M. (1990). Staff development, innovation, and institutional development. In B. Joyce (Ed.), Changing school culture through staff development (pp. 3-25). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Fullen, M. (1993). Change forces. Bristol, PA: Falmer Press. Fullen, M. (2007). Change the terms for teacher learning. Journal of Staff Development, 26(3), 35-36. Fullen, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1996). Whats worth fighting for in your school? (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. Garet, M., Birman, B., Porter, A., Desimone, L., & Herman, J. (1999). Designing effective professional development: Lessons from the Eisenhower program. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. Garmston, R. (1987). How administrators support peer coaching. Educational Leadership, 45(6), 18-24. Garvin, D. (1993). Building a learning organization [Electronic version]. Harvard Business Review, 71(4), 78-91. Georgia Department of Education. (2010). CLASS keysSM process guide: Georgias teacher evaluation system. Retrieved from http://www.gadoe.org/DMGetDocument.aspx/CK%20Process%20Guide%2010610.pdf?p=6CC6799F8C1371F6EB4CBCF928752B238AF6CAF7B70DA773616 C26BABA1D9AFC&Type=D

120

Gibb, S., Gibb, G., Randall, E., & Hite, S. (1999). From "I" to "we": Reflections about leadership. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED432059). Gigante, N., & Firestone, W. (2008). Administrative support and teacher leadership in schools implementing reform. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(3), 302331. DOI 10.1108/0957823081069266 Glickman, C., Gordon, S., & Ross-Gordon, J. (1995). Supervision of instruction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Goldstein, J. (2007). Easy to dance to: Solving the problems of teacher evaluation with peer assistance and review. American Journal of Education, 113, 479-508. Gomez, D. (2001). Teachers drive large-scale reform. NEA Today, 28(2), 28-29. Good, T., & Brophy, J. (1990). Educational psychology: A realistic approach (4th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman Gottesman, B. (2000). Peer coaching for educators. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press. Grant, G., & Murray C. (1999). Teaching in America: The slow revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gravetter F., & Wallnau, L. (2005). Essentials of statistics for the behavioral sciences (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomason Learning, Inc. Gribbons, B. & Herman, J. (1997). True and quasi-experimental designs. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 5(14). Geier, C., Garver, K., Terwilliger, R., & Luna, B. (2009). Development of working memory maintenance [Abstract]. Journal of Neurophysiology, 101(1), 84-99. doi: 10.1152/jn.90562.2008 Groves, R., Fowler, F., Couper, M., Lepkowski, J., Singer, E., & Tourangeauk, R. (2004).

121

Survey methodology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Guiney, E. (2001). Coaching isnt just for athletes: The role of teacher leaders. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(10), 740-743. Guskey, T. (1982, March). The influence of change in instructional effectiveness upon the affective characteristics of teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York. Abstract retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED213704.pdf Guskey, T. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Publications. Guskey, J. (2002). Does it make a difference? Evaluating professional development. Educational Leadership, 59(6), 45-51. Guskey, T., & Sparks, D. (1996). Exploring the relationship between staff development and improvements in student learning. Journal of Staff Development, 17(4), 3438. Hanushek, E. (2003). The importance of school quality. Our Schools and Our Future Are We Still at Risk? California: Hoover Institution Press Publication, 141-173. Retrieved from http://media.hoover.org/sites/default/files/documents/0817939210_141.pdf Hanushek, E., & Raymond, M. (2005). Does school accountability lead to improved student performance? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24(2), 297327. Harris, D., & Sass, T. (2007). Teacher training, teacher quality, and student achievement. National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research.

122

Retrieved from http://www.caldercenter.org/PDF/1001059_Teacher_Training.pdf Hart, A. (1995). Reconceiving school leadership: Emergent views. Elementary School Journal 96(1), 9-28. Heller, M., & Firestone, W. (1995). Whos in charge here? Sources of leadership change in eight schools. Elementary School Journal, 96(1), 65-85. Herman, L. (2002). Case study of a professional development program: Meaningful technology integration in secondary education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Drexel University. Holland, P., & Adams, P. (2002). Through the horns of a dilemma between instructional supervision and the summative evaluation of teaching. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 5(3), 227-247. Hord, S. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous inquiry and improvement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Hord, S. (2009). Professional learning communities. The Journal of the National Staff Development Council, 30(1), p. 40-43. Huitt, W. (2006). The cognitive system. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cogsys/cogsys.html Hunt, D. (1971). Matching models of education. Toronto, Ontario: Institute for Studies in Education. Ingersoll, R. (2006). Who controls teachers' work?: Power and accountability in America's schools. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press Iwanicki, E. (2001). Focusing teacher evaluations on student learning. Educational

123

Leadership, 58(5), 57-59. Jarvis, P. (1987). Adult learning in the social context. London: Croom Helm. Jarzabowski, L. (2002). The social dimensions of teacher collegiality. Journal of Educational Enquiry, 3(2). Retrieved from http://www.education.unisa.edu.au/JEE/Papers/JEEVol3No2/Paper1.pdf Jennings, J., & Rentner, D. (2006). Ten big effects of the No Child Left Behind Act on public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(2), 110-113. Jonassen, D. (1991) Objectivism versus constructivism: do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39 (3), 5-14. Joyce, B., Bennett, B. & Rolheiser-Bennett, C. (1990). The self-educating teacher: Empowering teachers through research. In B. Joyce (Ed.), Changing school culture through staff development (pp. 26-40). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1995). Student achievement through staff development: Fundamentals of school renewal. White Plains, NY: Longman. Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1996). The evolution of peer coaching. Educational Leadership, 53(6), 12-16. Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Joyce, B., Wolf, J., & Calhoun, E. (1993). The self-renewing school. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Judd, H. (1934). Education and social progress. New York: Harcourt. Kane, T., & Staiger, D. (2008). Estimating teacher impacts on student achievement: An

124

experimental evaluation. NBER Working Paper No. 14607. National Bureau of Economic Research. Kaplan, L., & Owings W. (2001, December 1). The politics of teacher quality: Implications for principals. NASSP Bulletin, 85(628), 64-73 DOI: 10.1177/019263650108562808 Keedy, J. (1991, March). A strategy to develop teacher leadership for school restructuring: Teacher collegial groups. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of School Administrators, New Orleans, LA. Kent, K. (1985, November). A successful program of teachers assisting teachers. Educational Leadership 43(3), 30-33. Kelly, P. (1998). Teacher unionism and professionalism: An institutional analysis of peer review programs and the competing criteria for legitimacy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University. Killion, J. (2008). Assessing impact: Evaluating staff development (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Kim, J., & Sunderman, G. (2005). Measuring academic proficiency under the No Child Left Behind Act: Implications for educational equity. Educational Researcher, 34(8), 3-13. doi: 10.3102/0013189X034008003 Kingdon, J. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). New York: HarperCollins College. Knight, J. (2007). Instructional coaching: A partnership approach to improving instruction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Knowles, M. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to

125

andragogy (2nd ed.) New York: Cambridge Books. Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In D. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research. New York: Rand McNally. Lambert, L. (2002). A framework for shared leadership. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 37-40. Lambert, L. (2003). Leadership capacity for lasting school improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Lambert, L., Walker, D., Zimmerman, D., Cooper, J., Lambert, M., Gardner, M., & Szabo, M. (2002). The Constructivist Leader. New York and London: Teacher College; Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council. Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2005). Foundations of doctoral study [DVD]. Los Angeles: Author. Lenrott, R. & Giedd, J. (2008). The changing impact of genes and environment on brain development during childhood and adolescence: Initial findings from a neuroimaging study of pediatric twins. Developmental Psychopathology 20(4), 1161-1175. doi: 10.1017/S0954579408000552 Little, J. (1988). Assessing the prospects for teacher leadership. In A. Lieberman (Ed.), Building a Professional Culture in Schools (pp.78-106). New York: Teachers College Press. Little, J. (1989). District policy choices and teachers professional development opportunities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(2). 165-179. Little, W. (2001). Professional development in pursuit of school reform. In A. Lieberman

126

& L. Miller (Eds.), Teachers caught in the action (pp. 23-44). New York: Teachers College Press. Loehr, J., & Schwartz, T. (2003). The power of full engagement: Managing energy not time, is the key to high performance and personal renewal. New York: Free Press. Loevinger, J. (1976). Ego development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P., Love, N., & Stiles, K. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Martinez, C., Firestsone, W., Mangin, M., & Polovsky, T. (2005, March). Leadership alignment: The challenge of distributed leadership. Paper Presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, Montreal, Canada. Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Marzano, R. (2005). In Foundations of doctoral study. Los Angeles: Laureate Education, Inc. Mass Insight Education & Research Institute. (n.d.). Building blocks: The building blocks initiative for standards-based reform. Retrieved from http://www.buildingblocks.org/cfm_User/pg_SearchResultsOneStrategy.cfm?sna p=98131900&type=direct&StrategyID=12 McHaney, J., & Impey, W. (1992, November). Strategies for analyzing and evaluating teaching effectiveness using a clinical supervision model. Paper presented at the meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Knoxville, TN.

127

McLaughlin, M. (1990). Em Embracing bracing contraries: Implementing and sustaining teacher evaluation. In J. Millman & L. Darling Darling-Hammond (Eds.), The new handbook of teacher evaluation (pp 403-415). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. McLaughlin, M., & Talbert, J. (1993). Contexts that matter for teaching and learning. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Merriam, S., & Caffarella, farella, R. (1999). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide. (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Jossey-Bass. Morgado-Bernal, I. (2011). Learning and memory consolidation: Linking molecular and behavioral data. Neuroscience . Advance online publication. doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2010.12.056 | The National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). The high school longitudinal ngitudinal study s of 2009. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/hsls09/ The National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). The schools and staffing survey. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/ The National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/title.html The National nal Commission on Teaching and Americas Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for Americas future. Retrieved from http://www.nctaf.org/documents/WhatMattersMost.pdf New Teacher Center. (2010, November). North Carolina teacher working conditions (Research search Brief). Santa Cruz, CA: Author. Nolan, J., & Hillkirk, R. (1991). The effects of reflective coaching for veteran teachers.

128

Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 7 (1), 62-76. Nye, B., Konstantopoulos, S., & Hedges, L. (2004). How large are teacher effects? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 26(3), 237-257. Overman, M. (2002). Peer coaching: Perspectives of teachers and supervisors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens. Painter, S. (2000). Principals perceptions of barriers to teacher dismissal. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 14(3), 253-264. Pellicer, L. (1999). Caring enough to lead. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Piaget, J. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the child. New York: Viking. Pink, W. (1990). Staff development for urban school improvement: Lessons learned from two case studies. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 1(1), 41-60. Poglinco, S., Bach, A., Hovde, K., Rosenblum, S., Saunders, M., & Supovitz, J. (2003). The heart of the matter: The coaching model in America's choice schools. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania. Ponticell, J., & Zepeda, S. (2004). Confronting well-learned lessons in supervision and evaluation. National Association of Secondary School Principals, 88(639), 43-59. Porter, A., Garet, M., Desimone, L., Yoon, K., & Birman, B. (2000). Does professional development change teaching practice? Results from a three-year study: Executive summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Undersecretary. Printy, S., & Marks, H. (2006). Shared leadership for teacher and student learning.

129

Theory Into Practice, 45(2), 125-132. Reiman, A., & Thies-Sprinthall, L. (1998). Mentoring and supervision for teacher development. New York: Addison Wesley Longman. Rice, J. (2003, August). Teacher quality: Understanding the effectiveness of teacher attributes. Economic Policy Institute. Retrieved from http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm?id=1500 Richard, A. (2003). Making our own way: The emergence of school-based staff developers in Americas public schools. Retrieved from http://www.emcf.org/pdf/student_ourownroadbw.pdf Richards, P. (2007). Global issues in higher education. New York: Nova Science. Rivkin, S., Hanushek, E., & Kain, J. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417-458. doi: 10.111/j.14680262.2005.00584.x Robertson, H. (2005). Does size matter? Phi Delta Kappan, 87(3), 251-258. Rockoff, J. (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), 10-26. Russo, A. (2004). School-based coaching. Harvard Education Letter Research Online. Retrieved from http://www.edletter.org/past/issues/2004-ja/coaching.shtml Sanders, W., & Horn, S. (1998). Research findings from the Tennessee value-added assessment system (TVAAS) database: Implications for educational evaluation and research. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12, 247-256.

130

Sanders, W., Wright, P., Ross, S., & Wang, W. (2000). Value-added achievement results for three cohorts of roots and wings schools in Memphis: 1995-1999 outcomes. Retrieved from http://successforall.com/_images/pdfs/Ross_Roots_Wings_99.pdf Sanders, W., & Rivers, J. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement. Retrieved from http://www.mccsc.edu/~curriculum/cumulative%20and%20residual%20effects% 20of%20teachers.pdf Schaefer, R. (1967). The school as a center of inquiry. New York: Harper & Row. Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Searfoss, L., & Enz, B. (1996). Can teacher evaluation reflect holistic instruction? Educational Leadership, 53(6), 38-41. Shanker, A. (1990). Staff development and the restructured school. In B. Joyce (Ed.), Changing school culture through staff development (pp. 91-103). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Silva, D., Gimbert, B. and Nolan, J. (2000). Sliding the doors: locking and unlocking possibilities for teacher leadership. Teachers College Record, 102(4), 779-804. Singh, P., & Manser, P. (2002). Collegiality in education: A case study. South African Journal of Education 22(1), 56-64. Sparks, D. (2005). The final 2%: What it takes to create profound change in leaders. Journal of Staff Development, 26(2), 8-15. Speck, M. (1996). Best practice in professional development for sustained educational change. ERS Spectrum, 33-41. Spillane, J., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. (2001). Investigating school leadership

131

practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher 30(3), 23-28. doi: 10.3102/0013189X030003023 Smith, C., & Gillespie, M. (2007). Research on professional development and teacher change: Implications for adult basic education. In Review of Adult Learning and Literacy (Vol. 7). (pp. 205-244). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Stein M., Smith, M., & Silver, E. (1999). The development of professional developers: Learning to assist teachers in new settings in new way. Harvard Educational Review, 69(3), 237-269. Supovitz, J. & Turner, H., (2000). The effects of professional development on science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 37(9), 963-980. Talbert, J., & McLaughlin, M. (1994). Teacher professionalism in local school contexts. American Journal of Education, 102(2), 123-53. doi: 10.1086/444062 Tennessee Department of Education, (n.d.). Tennessee value-added assessment system (TVAAS). Retrieved from http://www.tn.gov/education/assessment/test_results.shtml The Education Management Audit Council. (2005). School district examination report: Boston public schools tier II/III technical report. Retrieved from http://eqa.mass.edu/home/uploads/TR_444__1.pdf The Teaching Commission (2004). Teaching at risk: A call to action. New York: The Teaching Commission. Retrieved from https://uteach.utexas.edu/download.cfm?DownloadFile=3FF40BFA-E6B4-23338F9ADEAA8CDDD781

132

Truesdale, W. (2009). The implementation of peer coaching on the transferability of staff development to classroom practice in two selected Chicago public elementary schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Loyola University Chicago Tyack, D. (1974). The one best system. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Yeatts, Jr., H. (1997). Simply complicated: Understanding the human being. Retrieved from http://www.threeleggeddragon.com/writings/simply/simple.social.html York-Barr, J., & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 74(3). University of Missouri, eMINTS National Center. (2007). eMINTS fact sheet. Retrieved from the eMINTS National Center Web site: http://www.emints.org/ University of Missouri Office of Academic Affairs, eMINTS National Center. (2007, August). Overview presentation. Retrieved from eMINTS National Center Web site: http://www.emints.org/ U.S. Census Bureau (2008). Fact sheet. Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?_event=Search&geo_id=86000US 30062&_geoContext=01000US%7C86000US30062&_street=&_county=&_cityT own=&_state=&_zip=30068&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=geoSelect&_u seEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=860&_submenuId=factsheet_1&ds_name=DEC_2000_ SAFF&_ci_nbr=null&qr_name=null&reg=null%3Anull&_keyword=&_industry= U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://answers.ed.gov/cgibin/education.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=6&p_created=1095256734& p_sid=biCz1Gli&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPSZwX3NvcnRfYnk9JnBfZ3JpZHN vcnQ9JnBfcm93X2NudD0xMTUmcF9wcm9kcz0mcF9jYXRzPSZwX3B2PSZw

133

X2N2PSZwX3BhZ2 U.S. Department of Education. (2006). Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/programs/teacherqual/hqtplans/ga.doc U.S. Department of Education. (2011). Executive summary: Does professional development change teaching practice? Results from a three year study. http://www2.ed.gov/offices/OUS/PES/school_improvement.html Valli, L., & Buese, D. (2007). The changing roles of teachers high-stakes accountability. American Educational Research Journal, 40(30), 519-558. doi: 10.3102/0002831207306859 Vargo. (2004). Choices and consequences in the Bay area school reform collaborative. In T. Glennan, RJ., S. Bodilly, J. Galegher, & K. Kerr (Eds), Expanding the Reach of Education Reforms: Perspectives from Leaders in the Scale-Up of Education Interventions (pp. 565-598). Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Wei, R., Andree, A., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2009). How nations invest in teachers. Educational Leadership, 66(5), 28-33. Weiss, E., & Weiss, S. (1998). New directions in teacher evaluation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED429052). Retrieved from http://www.ericdigests.org/1999-4/new.htm. Yoon, K., Duncan, T., Lee, S., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement. Issues and Answers Report, REL 2007 No. 033. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest. Zimmerman, J. (2006). Why some teachers resist change and what principals can do

134

about it. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 90(3), 238-249.

135

Appendix A: Georgia Code

O.C.G.A. 20-2-210 GEORGIA CODE Copyright 2008 by The State of Georgia All rights reserved. *** Current through the 2008 Regular Session *** TITLE 20. EDUCATION CHAPTER 2. ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ARTICLE 6. QUALITY BASIC EDUCATION PART 6. EMPLOYMENT SUBPART 2. CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT O.C.G.A. 20-2-210 (2008) 20-2-210. Annual performance evaluation (a) All personnel employed by local units of administration, including school superintendents, shall have their performance evaluated annually by appropriately trained evaluators. All such performance evaluation records shall be part of the personnel evaluation file and shall be confidential. In the case of local school superintendents, such evaluations shall be performed by the local board of education. Certificated professional personnel who have deficiencies and other needs shall have professional development plans designed to mitigate such deficiencies and other needs as may have been identified during the evaluation process. Progress relative to completing the annual professional development plan shall be assessed during the annual evaluation process. The state board shall develop a model annual evaluation instrument for each classification of professional personnel certificated by the Professional Standards Commission. The local units of administration are authorized to use the models developed by the State Board of Education. (b) Annual teacher evaluations shall at a minimum take into consideration the following: (1) The role of the teacher in meeting the school's student achievement goals, including the academic gains of students assigned to the teacher; (2) Observations of the teacher by the principal and assistant principals during the delivery of instruction and at other times as appropriate; (3) Participation in professional development opportunities and the application of concepts learned to classroom and school activities; (4) Communication and interpersonal skills as they relate to interaction with students, parents, other teachers, administrators, and other school personnel; (5) Timeliness and attendance for assigned responsibilities; (6) Adherence to school and local school system procedures and rules; and (7) Personal conduct while in performance of school duties. (c) In making a determination of the academic gains of the students assigned to a teacher, evaluators should

136

make every effort to have available and to utilize the results of a wide range of student achievement assessments, including those utilized by the teacher, set by the local board of education, or required under this article. It is recognized that in some instances a determination of the academic gains of the students assigned to a teacher is dependent upon student assessments which have not yet been administered at the time of the annual evaluation or, if they have been administered, the results are not yet available at the time of the annual evaluation. In such instances, the annual teacher evaluation shall be performed on the basis of information available at the time and shall be considered as the annual evaluation for the purposes of this article. As results of student assessments subsequently become available, an addendum to the annual evaluation shall be completed and become part of the teacher's cumulative evaluative record which may be used in a teacher's subsequent annual evaluations. (d) The superintendent of each local school system shall identify an appropriately trained evaluator for each person employed by the local unit of administration for the purposes of completing an annual evaluation as required in subsections (a) and (b) of this Code section. The evaluator shall be required to complete such annual evaluation for each certificated person prior to April 1 of each year. The superintendent of each local school system shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with this Code section. (e) In addition to the evaluation by a trained evaluator provided for in subsection (a) of this Code section, the local school system may require each principal and assistant principal of a school to have his or her performance evaluated annually by the teachers in the school. Such evaluations by teachers shall be confidential, solicited and recorded on an anonymous basis, and made available only to the local school superintendent and the local board of education. Such evaluations shall not be subject to Article 4 of Chapter 18 of Title 50. (f) Any teacher who removes more than two students from his or her total class enrollment in any school year under subsection (b) of Code Section 20-2-738 who are subsequently returned to the class by a placement review committee because such class is the best available alternative may be required to complete professional development to improve classroom management skills, other skills on the identification and remediation of academic and behavioral student needs, or other instructional skills as identified in a plan derived by the principal of the school in consultation with the teacher. HISTORY: Code 1981, 20-2-210, enacted by Ga. L. 1985, p. 1657, 1; Ga. L. 1987, p. 1169, 1; Ga. L. 1988, p. 612, 9; Ga. L. 1991, p. 1546, 4; Ga. L. 1995, p. 1072, 1; Ga. L. 1999, p. 438, 3; Ga. L. 2000, p. 618, 32.

137

Appendix B: County Teacher Evaluation XYZ School District Guidelines for Classroom Teacher Performance Assessment
Performance Assessment Evaluators 1. As instructional leader, the Principal should serve as the model of exemplary evaluation practices. The Principal should evaluate a representative proportion of the faculty, giving special consideration to the evaluation of teachers with limited or no experience. 2. At the beginning of the school year, the Principal must appoint all evaluators in writing and ensure teachers know who their evaluators are. Evaluatees do not have to approve of their evaluator, but they do have to be informed. 3. In limited instances, high school department chairpersons may be appointed evaluators if, in the Principals opinion, they are better able to evaluate individual teacher performance. All evaluators must receive District performance assessment training. Mentors cannot evaluate their mentees. 4. Only evaluators who have participated in District performance assessment training may evaluate employees. Faculty Orientation 1. The Principal must ensure that the entire faculty receives a performance assessment orientation conducted by a trained evaluator at the beginning of each school year. 2. A faculty performance assessment presentation will be provided by the Evaluation Systems office to assist the local school with the orientation process. Classroom Observations 1. Evaluators are encouraged to conduct pre-observation conferences with their evaluatees prior to the classroom observation. If an evaluatee requests a pre-observation conference, it must be held. Pre-observation conferences are not recorded on Section IV of the Annual Report. 2. Evaluators will observe teachers in the classroom at least once during the school year using the CCSD Classroom Observation Form; if only one observation is planned for an evaluatee, it should be announced. Performance assessment observations must occur prior to April 1st (OCGA 20-2-210). 3. Teachers with three years or less teaching experience will be observed at least twice during the school year, the second of which may be an unannounced observation. All formal classroom observation date(s) will be entered on the Teacher Performance Report form, Section IV. 4. There is no minimum time for observations; however, the amount of time spent in the classroom should never be so brief that it could be the focus of an appeal. Observation Feedback Conferences 1. Following each observation, the evaluator will provide formal feedback to the teacher on what was observed. Private feedback conferences between the evaluator and teacher should occur within 10 school days of the observation. 2. The dates of the feedback conference will be entered on the Teacher Performance Report Form, Section IV. Feedback conferences must occur prior to April 1st (OCGA 20-2-210). Teacher Performance Report 1. All teachers will be evaluated at least annually using the CCSD Teacher Performance Report Form. Any teacher who works for thirty or more days in a school year must have an annual evaluation. This includes limited contract teachers and any teacher who may resign or be terminated prior to March 31. Reports may be handwritten or typed. 2. Narrative comments are required for each Performance Factor in Section III. The comments should specifically relate to the Performance Factor and should correlate to the assigned rating. 3. Evaluators will use the Teacher Performance Report Rubric to assess whether the teacher earns Exemplary, Proficient, or Needs Improvement ratings on each the five Performance Factors.

138

4.

An Exemplary is required in Instruction for an overall Exemplary rating. At least three Exemplary ratings are required for an overall Exemplary rating; at least three Needs Improvement ratings are required for an overall Unsatisfactory rating.

XYZ County School District Guidelines for Teacher Performance Assessment

Teacher Performance Report (contd) 5. Primary sources of information used to assess overall teacher performance will be the classroom observation(s), feedback conference(s), and the Classroom Teacher Performance Rubric. Other evidence (required or requested) such as non-classroom observations, other conferences, etc. may also be considered by the evaluator. 6. Reports must be completed, signed, and dated by the evaluator. Principals (if Principal is not the evaluator) will review and sign all Teacher Performance Reports. Principals will take into consideration their personal observations of the teacher during the delivery of instruction and at other times, as appropriate, when reviewing and signing the Teacher Performance Report. Principals, remember, your Reviewer signature on an annual report is an indication that you are assuring that information recorded on the evaluation form is complete and accurate and that you are fully supportive of the information contained therein, including the ratings assigned. Annual Evaluation Conferences 1. Annual performance report results must be shared with the teacher in a private annual evaluation conference. The annual evaluation conference must occur prior to April 1st (OCGA 20-2210). 2. If teacher refuses, or is unavailable, to sign the report in Section V, Principal should so note with a brief comment such as Teacher chose not to sign. Evaluator, Principal, and teachers should personally date his/her signature when the signature is recorded. 3. The original completed report is sent to CCSD Human Resources for the teachers District personnel folder. Copies of the completed report go to the teacher, evaluator, and school file. Appeal Process 1. Performance ratings are not grievable under Cobb County Board of Education Policy GAE or O.C.G.A. 20-2-210. Teachers wishing to appeal a report or claim a procedural violation should complete a Performance Assessment Appeal form, detailing the facts that support the appeal criteria to their Principal within 10 working days of coming aware of the condition causing the appeal or claim of procedural violation. 2. The Principal must evaluate the facts and provide a written response to the teacher making the appeal or claim within 20 working days of receipt of the statement. The Principal will provide a copy of the original appeal correspondence, and his/her reply, to CCSD Human Resources at the same time. 3. In response to an appeal or procedural violation claim, if the Principal finds evidence of a procedural violation or becomes aware of new information that could materially affect the ratings in the original performance report, the Principal may void the original report and direct the original evaluator, or a new evaluator, to complete a replacement performance report. The CCSD Chief Human Resources Officer, in conjunction with the Area Assistant Superintendent and Director of Evaluation Systems, will decide appeals not resolved between the Principal and the appellant.

139

Appendix C: County Evaluation Instrument XYZ County School District Classroom Teacher Observation Form I. IDENTIFICATION
Teachers Name ________
(Last Name First M.I.) (Used by Evaluator during classroom observation to document behaviors and conditions, and provide feedback to the Teacher.)

School ______________

Evaluators Name
Sec IV)

Date Observed
(Enter on Performance Report,

Class Observed:

Grade Announced

Subject Unannounced Start Time _______ End Time

Observation was (circle one): _________

II. OBSERVATIONS

(Write Yes, No or N/A for Not Applicable alongside each observed behavior. Use last two lines for local school requirements, if any.)

Evidence observed that the teacher was teaching the appropriate grade level and content area Standard? YES NO Lesson objectives clear and understood Students on task and actively engaged Time on task maximized Appropriate student behavior questions Appropriate behavior intervention, if needed Effective student / teacher communication Organized, clean, and safe classroom creativity Monitoring and feedback for student progress differences Effective use of technology Assessment matched to learning Effective use of materials and resources Recognizes individual student Teacher knowledge of subject matter Students intellectually challenged Teacher displays flexibility and Positive student / teacher interaction Student-centered activities evident Teacher provides assistance to students Appropriate responses to student

III. COMMENTS

(Provide additional, specific observations, feedback and / or suggestions for improvement.)

140

IV. SIGNATURE
Evaluator Position Teacher
(Receipt acknowledged. Signature does not indicate agreement or disagreement.) Evaluator gives copy to Teacher and retains original for use in completing the Teacher Performance Report.

Date

Date
Created 7/01;

Revised 8/02, 7/05, 10/06

141

Appendix D: School Waiver Waiver VII. Pursuant to GA code Education Title 20 Section 202210 a, b2 relating to teacher evaluations, School XYZ requests permission to expand the evaluation model to include a collaborative growth model. Impact on Policy: School XYZ will continue to use the county evaluation instrument to identify areas for needed improvement and/or areas of excellence for any teacher who would like to be evaluated in this manner. However, a collaborative growth model may be the preferred approach at XYZ for continuous, focused improvement of effective teaching practice. Impact / Outcome: This exemption will allow many teachers the option of participating in a collaborative growth model in lieu of being evaluated by the county instrument. This model is designed to impact student learning through teacher growth from increased job embedded teacher reflection and collaboration. This option is available to: Teachers with 3 or more years of experience Teachers who have taught at XYZ for at least one year Teachers who have met standards on previous evaluations and are not currently on a PDP Teachers who have been trained or are currently in training to acquire peer coaching skills

Teachers who exceed standards in any given year will be strongly encouraged to participate in the collaborative growth model for the following year. Source of Funding: Use of local staff development funds for necessary training in collaborative coaching skills. Measurement: Teacher reflection and collaboration as well as changes in teaching and learning.

142

Appendix E: Research Design Quasiexperimental Design Used (Creswell, 2003) Alternative Treatment Posttest-Only with Nonequivalent Groups Design Group A Group B X1O --------------X2O

Each group (A and B) receives a different treatment (X1 and X2). Both groups A and B are measured on the same posttest (O).

143

Appendix F: School Peer Coaching Evaluation Option PEER COACHING EVALUATION OPTION XYZ HIGH SCHOOL 2009-1010 DESCRIPTION Instead of participating in the County PAI evaluation process, teachers who meet the following criteria may apply to participate in the XYZ High School Peer Coaching evaluation option. ELIGIBILITY Teachers who meet the following requirements are eligible to participate in the peer coaching growth model in lieu of the traditional administrative evaluation: must have taught at the school for at least a year. must have three or more years of experience. must have met or exceeded standards on previous evaluations and not currently be on a PDP. must have been trained or currently be in peer coaching training (if available). Teachers who exceed standards in any given year will be strongly encouraged to participate in the collaborative growth model for the following year, and a collaborative growth model may be the preferred approach at Walton for continuous, focused improvement of effective teaching practice. CHANGES FOR 2009-2010 1. Each teacher must apply with a partner or a team. 2. Teachers who had just one partner last year should consider expanding to a team. 3. Teams may remain the same, but focuses should change. 4. Each team will complete two rounds of coaching. After round one, each team should meet to reflect, revise, and redefine or refine the focus for further improvement

144

Appendix G: Teacher Survey Instrument

Teacher Survey Instrument Information and Informed Consent: The purpose of this survey is to gather information for a doctoral dissertation study by Tina Link, a student at Walden University. The study is a comparison of the peer coaching model of evaluation and the traditional evaluation. As the only school where the faculty is allowed to select between these evaluation models, your response is very important. The survey is anonymous and your answers are completely confidential and will be released only as summaries in which no individuals answers can be identified. There is no compensation for participation. This survey is voluntary and there will not be any repercussions should you decide not to fill out the survey. There is minimal risk to your participation in the survey. The opportunity to compare teacher perceptions regarding key areas of teacher leadership, collegiality, and instruction risk-taking , will provide valuable information regarding teacher evaluations. Your completed survey provides consent to use the data you have provided for the purpose stated above. If you have any questions, please contact me or Dr. Leilani Endicott, a Walden University representative at 1-800925-3389, extension 1210. Walden Universitys approval number for this study is 05-20-110062801 and it expires on 5-19-12. Please take a few minutes to share your experiences and opinions. Thank you! You may return your completed survey to Tina Links box or classroom by [date]. 1. Please check your department. Business/Information Technology English Fine Arts Foreign Language Math PE/Sports Medicine Science Social Studies Special Education 2. What is the total number of years that you have been teaching including this current school year? 1-5 6-10 11-19 20+ 3. How many years have you taught in this school including this current year? 1-4 5-9 10+ 4. Where you trained in peer coaching? Yes No 5. Which evaluation model did you pick for the 2008-2009 school year? Traditional county model Peer coaching model 6. Which evaluation model did you pick for the 2009-2010 school year? Traditional county model Peer coaching model 7. Which evaluation model did you pick for the 2010-2011 school year? Traditional county model Peer coaching model

145

7. If you participated in the peer coaching evaluation during the 2008-2009 school year and opted to return to the traditional model of evaluation, please comment on your reasons for not continuing in the peer coaching model. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

Please continue on the next page.

146
Please complete the following survey questions: 1. Using the scale provided, please circle the number that best indicates the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements: Strongly Disagree a. You can count on most staff members to help out anywhere, anytime even though it may not be part of their official assignment. Teachers in this school are continually learning and seeking new ideas. There is a great deal of cooperative effort among staff members. Staff members maintain high expectations. This school seems like a big family, everyone is so close and cordial. 1 2 3 4 Strongly Agree 5 6

b. c. d. e.

1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5

6 6 6 6

2. To what extent does each of the following statements describe relationships among the teachers in your primary subject area in this school? (This study will examine differences in model of evaluation and will not compare the results between and among departments.) Strongly Disagree a. b. c. d. e. We share ideas about teaching openly. We have very different ideas about what we should emphasize in the curriculum. It is common for us to share samples of work done by our students. This subject area faculty falls into quite different groups or cliques. We regularly meet to discuss particular common problems and challenges we are facing in the classroom. 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 Strongly Agree 5 5 5 5 5

147
Strongly Disagree f. g. h. i. j. It would be inappropriate to offer help to a colleague who hasnt requested it. We often work together to develop teaching materials or activities for particular classes. We have little idea of each others teaching goals and classroom practices. There is little disagreement about what should be taught in our subject area. Colleagues are generally protective of instructional materials or activities theyve developed. Relations among us are cordial and caring. We often seek each others advice about professional issues and problems. There is a lot of disagreement among us about how to teach the subject. We share views of students and how to relate to them. Most take a hands off attitude toward each others careers. We admire one anothers teaching on the whole. I feel supported by my colleagues to try out new ideas. I feel that Im improving as a teacher each year. In this school, I am encouraged to experiment with my teaching. Collaboration in this school significantly supports my work. 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 Strongly Agree 5 5 5 5 5

k. l. m. n. o. p. q. r. s. t.

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

148
3. Please indicate any roles you have performed in this school in addition to classroom teaching during the past five years and whether or not you would be interested in the roles you have not performed within the past five years. CIRCLE ONE CHOICE FOR EACH ROLE LISTED. Yes, this year Not this year; but within past 5 years 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 No, but interested No, not interested

a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j.

Department head Chair of committee Mentor Supervisor for a student teacher Presenter at department inservice Presenter at schoolwide inservice Advisor to academic club or team Advisor to performing arts group (music, drama, dance) Coach for athletic team Other (Write in)

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

4. Consider now any professional roles you have performed outside the school during the past five years and any that you would like to perform in the future. CIRCLE ONE CHOICE FOR EACH LISTED. Yes, this Not this No, but No, not year year; but interested interested within past 5 years a. b. c. Member of curriculum or other district committee Presenter at district inservice Presenter at out-of-district conference 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4

149
Yes, this year Not this year; but within past 5 years 2 2 2 2 No, but interested No, not interested

d. e. f. g. h.

Consultant to county, state, other districts Officer in professional association Coordinator of special program Other special district assignment Other (Write in)

1 1 1 1

3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4

5. Please indicate the number of days you have participated in each of the following kinds of professional development activities during the past year. CIRCLE 0 IF YOU DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE ACTIVITY. None 1-2 days 3-5 days 6-10 days More than 10 days 4

a.

District-sponsored conferences or workshops during the school year District-sponsored conferences or workshops during the summer Schoolwide professional growth activities. Department professional growth activities. Activities sponsored by a teacher network in your subject area. Activities sponsored by a professional association (e.g., a subject matter association). Summer institute in your subject area. Observation of another teacher in the classroom.

b. c. d. e. f.

0 0 0 0 0

1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4

g. h.

0 0

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

150
None 1-2 days 3-5 days 6-10 days More than 10 days 4

i.

Observation of your teaching by another teacher (not for evaluation). Other, including coursework (Please write in)

j.

6. Please review the following list of possible student lesson activities. About how much time, if any, do your students do each of the following during class time?
Never 1 or 2 times per semester 2 1 or 2 times per month 3 Once a week 4 A few times a week 5 Every day 6

a. b. c. d. e. f.

Review and discuss the work of other students. Work on group projects that extend for several days. Explain their reasoning to the class. Work on an individual project that takes several days. Discuss ideas for a sustained period. Reflect on their work and set future learning goals.

Please continue to the next page.

151
7. How important are each of the following kinds of assessments for you in judging how well students are learning? Not Important a. b. c. d. e. f. Multiple-choice tests Essay tests Portfolio of student work Products of group projects Standardized test results Work samples 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 Very Important 5 5 5 5 5 5

8. How much emphasis do you place on each of the following criteria in assessing student progress? No Emphasis a. b. c. d. e. f. g. Recall factual information. Ask probing questions about subject matter. Apply what he/she has learned to new questions, situations, and subjects. Reflect on his/her progress. Master basic skills. Express his/her own ideas about subject matter. Provide constructive feedback to other students. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Heavy Emphasis 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

If you have participated or are participating in the peer coaching evaluation process, please complete the following questions. If you have participated in the traditional evaluation process, you have completed the survey. Thank you very much for your time and consideration!

152
9. Please answer the following questions as they relate to your experiences with peer coaching: Strongly Disagree a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. l. m. I am comfortable teaching in front of a peer. I am comfortable observing a peer teach. I am comfortable receiving feedback from a peer regarding my teaching. I am comfortable giving feedback to a peer regarding his/her teaching. There are areas in my teaching that I would like to improve. Peer coaching has helped me improve my teaching. There are new instructional strategies that I would like to try in my classroom. Peer coaching has led me to try new instructional strategies in my classroom. Peer coaching offers professional growth opportunities unique to my needs. Peer coaching allows me to share my expertise with my colleagues. Peer coaching allows my colleagues to share their expertise with me. Peer coaching allows me to be recognized beyond my classroom. Peer coaching provides me with leadership opportunities. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Strongly Agree 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Please continue to the next page.

153

10. How has peer coaching impacted your teaching? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ 11. About what percentage of your job includes leadership behaviors? 0-25 26-50 51-75 76-100 THANK YOU FOR THE TIME AND THOUGHT YOU CONTRIBUTED TO THIS SURVEY!

Questions 1-8 are reprinted from the Summary of CRC Teacher Survey Data (1991) and the Bay Area School Reform Collaborative Teacher Survey (2002) with permission from the Center for Research on the Context of Teaching (CRC) at Stanford University.

154 Appendix H: Advance Notice Dear faculty, Tomorrow you will be receiving a survey regarding your perspectives on teacher leadership, collegiality, and instructional practices. I am currently working on my Ed.D. in Teacher Leadership at Walden University. My research topic involves our implementation of the peer coaching model as an option for our evaluation. As such, I would like to collect data from each faculty member. Regardless of which evaluation method you have chosen, your opinion is important. Since we are the only school offering this option, it is only with your generous help that my research can be successful. Your participation is completely voluntary. Additionally, the survey is anonymous and your privacy will be protected. Please take the time to fill it out and return it to the labeled box located in the office or my mail box by May 27, 2011. If you have any questions regarding the questionnaire or study, please feel free to contact me via email or in room C178. Many thanks, Tina

155 Appendix I: First Survey Follow-up Dear faculty, Several days ago, a questionnaire seeking your opinion regarding teacher perceptions was placed in your box. If you have already completed and returned the questionnaire to me, please accept my sincere thanks. If not, please do so today. I am especially grateful for your help because it is only by asking you to share your experiences that I can gather data regarding our evaluation processes. If you did not receive a questionnaire, or if it was misplaced, I am attaching a copy for your convenience. You may print it out and place it in my box. If you prefer another hard copy, send me an email and I will place a copy in your box. Once again, thank you for your time. Tina

156 Appendix J: Second Survey Follow-up Dear faculty, About one week ago I placed a questionnaire in your box regarding teacher perceptions. The information from the people that have already responded include a range of perceptions regarding teacher leadership, collegiality, and instructional practices. I think the results are going to be very useful as we continue to improve our evaluation process. I am writing again because of the importance that each questionnaire has for helping to get accurate results. It is only by hearing from nearly everyone that we can be sure that the results are truly representative. If you have not had a chance to fill out the survey, I am attaching a copy for your convenience. You may print it out and place it in my box. If you prefer another hard copy, send me an email and I will place a copy in your box. Please take the time to fill it out and return it by May 27, 2011. Once again, thank you for your time. Tina

157 Appendix K: Final Survey Follow-up Dear faculty, I want to thank everyone who has returned my survey as I work on my EdD in Teacher Leadership at Walden University. The response has been much appreciated and I am grateful for your sacrifice of precious time. I am closing data collection on [date] and this is the last contact that I will make. If you have not had a chance to fill out the survey and would like to, I am attaching a copy for your convenience. You may print it out and place it in my box. If you prefer another hard copy, send me an email and I will place a copy in your box. Hearing from everyone helps assure that the survey results are as accurate as possible. Your response to the survey is voluntary, and if you prefer not to respond thats fine. Once again, thank you for your time. Tina

158 Appendix L: Permission to Use Surveys Hello Tina: thank you for writing... We are happy to give you permission to use CRC as long as source is noted, as you outline good luck with your dissertation research. Milbrey McLaughlin
At 12:39 PM 9/23/2009, you wrote: Tina Link

Center for the Research on the Context of Teaching CERAS Building, 4th Floor 520 Galvez Mall Stanford, CA 94305-3084 September 23, 2009 Dear Dr. McLaughlin, I am a teacher at XYZ High School and a doctoral student at Walden University. My dissertation topic is The Use of Peer Coaching as a Structure to Foster Professional Growth and a Tool for Teacher Evaluation. The purpose of the study is to compare our traditional model of evaluation and a newly implemented peer coaching model of evaluation in three areas: teacher leadership, collegiality, and teachers instructional risk-taking. I am requesting permission to use the portions of two of the surveys the CRC has developed: The CRC Teacher Survey 1991 Questionnaire and the Bay Area School Reform Collaborative (BASRC) Teacher Survey (2002). I would like to use question 1-m, Part II, questions 10, 11, and 13; Part III, questions 14 and 29 from the CRC Teacher Survey of 1991. From the BASRC (2002), I would like to use question 29-t, and questions 10, 11, and 12. These questions relate to my areas of interest regarding teacher leadership, collegiality, and instruction. I will acknowledge through appropriate citations that the Center for Research on the Context of Secondary School Teaching at Stanford University (CRC) was the source of the items and that those items were used with permission of the CRC. I would be happy to answer any questions or concerns. I appreciate your consideration and thank you for

159
your time and assistance. I also would be pleased to share the results of the study with you. Sincerely, Tina Link The information contained in this document is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. ********************* IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager or the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof. *** eSafe scanned this email for viruses, vandals, and malicious content. *** ********************** Milbrey W. McLaughlin David Jacks Professor Education and Public Policy CERAS School of Education Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305

160 Curriculum Vitae Tina R. Link E-mail: tina.link@cobbk12.org Education Walden University, Currently an Ed.D. candidate in Teacher Leadership, expected date of graduation, TBD. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, 12 hours graduate credit in Curriculum and Instruction. University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina. Ed.S. in Educational Administration , May 1998. University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina. M.Ed. in Educational Administration, August 1994. Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia. B.S. in Education, June 1989. Dekalb Community College, Clarkston, Georgia. A.A., December 1982 Certification Biology and Science (6-12), Georgia Department of Education Educational Leadership (P-12), Georgia Department of Education Gifted In-Field, Georgia Department of Education Biology and Science (Grades 9-12), North Carolina Department of Public Instruction Middles Grades Science (6-9), North Carolina Department of Public Instruction Principal (Grades K-12), North Carolina Department of Public Instruction

161 Superintendent, North Carolina Department of Public Instruction Biology and Science, State Department of Education, South Carolina Secondary Principal and Supervisor, State Department of Education, South Carolina Superintendent, State Department of Education, South Carolina Relevant Work Experience Teacher, Walton School, Marietta, Georgia (August 2006 to present). Duties included preparation and presentation of lessons and activities for AP biology and honors biology classes and the evaluation of student performances. Teacher, Kennesaw Mountain High School, Kennesaw, Georgia (August 2004 to June 2006). Duties included preparation and presentation of lessons and activities for Magnet biology, biology, and physical science classes and the evaluation of student performances. Assistant Coordinator for Triangle East Partners in Education, Educator on Loan, North Carolina State University (August 2002 to May 2004). Duties include working with seven partnership schools (4 middles schools and 3 high schools in three counties) on various initiatives in conjunction with university faculty and arranging small and large scale staff development opportunities. Additionally, teaching Tutoring Adolescents, a junior level course and second experience working with public school children, required of education majors for graduation with a teaching degree.

162 Instructor, Talent Identification Program, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina (June 2003). Duties included preparations of lessons and activities for Biological Anthropology taught at the Primate Center. The program is a summer enrichment for gifted and talented students grade 8 through grade 11. Teacher, Cary High School, Cary, North Carolina (August 1999 to June 2002). Duties included preparation and presentation of lessons and activities for biology, chemistry and physical science classes and the evaluation of student performances. Teacher, Wake Forest-Rolesville Middle School, Wake Forest, North Carolina (April 1999 to June 1999). Duties include preparation and presentation of lessons and activities for seventh grade science classes and the evaluation of student performance. Science Department Chairperson, Airport High School, West Columbia, South Carolina (August 1993 to January 1999). Duties include management of Science Department (9 personnel), teacher evaluation (APT and ADEPT), budget preparation, course assignment, curriculum updates, and textbook management. Science Teacher, Airport High School, West Columbia, South Carolina (August 1990 to January 1999). Duties include preparation and presentation of lessons and activities in various science courses (Honors Biology, Tech Prep. Biology and Chemistry,

163 Environmental Studies, Astronomy and Algebra I) and the evaluation of student performance. Faculty Adjunct, Midlands Technical College, Columbia, South Carolina (June to December 1992). Duties included preparation and presentation of biology laboratory exercises. Science Presenter, South Carolina State Museum, Columbia, South Carolina (January 1990 to January 1992). Duties included preparation and presentation of Science Discovery Theatre programs, including laser, combustion and electricity demonstrations. Student Teacher, Stone Mountain High Schools, Stone Mountain, Georgia (March to June 1989). Duties included preparation and presentation of biology and chemistry courses. Selected Professional Activities Co-Facilitator, GSK workshop on scientific visualization, Jan. 2004. Committee on Teacher Education, North Carolina State University, committee responsible for college policy and procedures in accordance with accrediting agency, Aug. 2002 present. Chairperson, Student Teacher Academy, Professional Development School Partnership with North Carolina State University, Aug. 2001 Aug. 2003. Consultant to the South Carolina Development of Education for evaluation of standardized test questions, Nov. 1997 Jan. 1999. Founding Member and Executive Committee, Academy for Educational Renewal, The

164 Goodlad Initiative, Apr. 1995 Jan. 1999. Science Curriculum Committee, Lexington School District Two, Sept. 1993 Jan. 1999. Steering Committee, Professional Development School, Airport High School and the University of South Carolina, May 1993 Jan. 1999. School Improvement Council, Airport High School, Sept. 1993 Aug. 1996 Newsletter Editor, South Carolina Science Council, Jan. 1993 Nov. 1995 Executive Committee, South Carolina Science Council, Jan. 1993 Nov. 1995 School Sponsor and Public Relations Liaison, Partners for Minorities in Engineering and Computer Science, Jan. 1992 Dec. 1996. Superintendents Council of Teachers, Lexington School District Two, Sept. 1991 June 1994. Grants Incorporating Biotechnology into the Regular Life Sciences AFCEA Science Teaching Tool Grant Program to purchase materials to strengthen biotechnology laboratory exercises. Funded January, 2011. Incorporating Biotechnology into the Regular Life Sciences IMPACT grant to purchase materials to strengthen biotechnology laboratory exercises. Funded November, 2010. Video Microscope System PTA sponsored grant to purchase a trinocular microscope and camera system for whole class viewing of microscope phenomena. Funded June, 1999. Revitalizing Science Education for Minority Students inquiry project to examine the

165 motivation and preparation and minority students to enroll in and achieve success in honors level science courses. Funded 1996- 1997. Professional Conference Presentations North Carolina Association for Colleges of Teacher Education, Raleigh, NC, September 2003. No College Left Behind. American Association of Public Opinion Research, Norfolk, VA, May 1997. Predicting School Success. South Carolina Science Council, Columbia, SC, March, 1995. Coleus Creativity. South Carolina Science Council, Spartanburg, SC, Nov. 1993. Teaching Bioethics. South Carolina Science Council, Columbia, SC, Nov. 1992. Sharing Teaching Tips from around the United States. Inservice Presentations Thinking Skills, Airport High School, how to implement metacognitive skills into the classroom, 1995-1996. The Ups and Downs of Block Scheduling, York County High School, two day inservice on preparing for block scheduling, 1995. Computers in the Classroom, Airport High School, using computers to enhance classroom instruction, 1992. Continuing Education Physics for the Technologies, University of South Carolina, 1995. Biology for the Technologies, University of South Carolina, 1995. Biodiversity, Woodrow Wilson Institute, College of Charleston, 1992.

166 Program for Effective Teaching, Lexington Two, 1991. Professional Development Biotechnology for the High School September, 2009 to March, 2010. Gifted Program Cobb County, September, 2006 to March, 2007. Guiding School Improvement with Action Research ASCD short course by Richard Sagor, March 2003. Thinking-Based Learning Summer Institute on Best Practices emphasizes how to develop lessons, units, and courses across the curriculum that infuse critical and creative thinking skills and habits of mind into content instruction. 2002. Portfolio Assessment Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) Academies I, II, III: Portfolio Training three, week-long training sessions in the assessment of the INTASC science portfolios, 2000-2001. Portfolio Assessor North Carolina training to assess Initially Licensed Teacher Portfolios, 2000. Mentor Training Wake County year long program to prepare experienced teachers for working with first and second year teachers during the induction period, 1999. Master Teacher instructor/ mentor, Teachers Leading Teachers program an NSF funded grant allowing for a statewide science leadership and staff development program for teachers in grades 4-9, 1996-1997. Lets Talk State Department of Educationa three day seminar on enhancing verbal communication, 1996. Management Development Center Richland One a five day seminar on understanding

167 leadership styles, strengthening communication skills, and team building, 1996. Leadership Team Member, Lexington Two School District, administrative preparation program, 1995-1996. Professional Memberships National Science Teachers Association National Education Association Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development