Dylan Willam- Leadership for Teacher Learning- Times Festival of Education
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

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

on

  • 352 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
352
Views on SlideShare
352
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

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

  • 1. Leadership for teacherlearningDylan Wiliamwww.dylanwiliam.net1
  • 2. Outline In the UK, teacher quality is highly consequential, and highly variable Teacher quality can be improved by replacing existing teachers with better ones by investing in the teachers we already have Only investing in existing teachers producesenough improvement to produce the changes thatwe need This is not happening systematically in mostschools, but could be2
  • 3. Educational Endowment Fund (EEF) toolkit3Intervention Cost Quality ofevidenceExtra monthsof learningFeedback ££  +8Metacognition and self-regulation ££  +8Peer tutoring ££  +6Early years intervention £££££  +6One to one tuition ££££  +5Homework (secondary) £  +5Collaborative learning £  +5Phonics £  +4Small group tuition £££  +4Behaviour interventions £££  +4Digital technology ££££  +4Social and emotional learning £  +4
  • 4. Educational Endowment Fund (EEF) toolkit4Intervention Cost Quality ofevidenceExtra monthsof learningParental involvement £££  +3Reducing class size £££££  +3Summer schools £££  +3Sports participation £££  +2Arts participation ££  +2Extended school time £££  +2Individualized instruction £  +2After school programmes ££££  +2Learning styles £  +2Mentoring £££  +1Homework (primary) £  +1
  • 5. Educational Endowment Fund (EEF) toolkit5Intervention Cost Quality ofevidenceExtra monthsof learningTeaching assistants ££££  0Performance pay ££  0Aspiration interventions £££  0Block scheduling £  0School uniform £  0Physical environment ££  0Ability grouping £  -1
  • 6. Important caveats about research findings6 Educational research can only tell us what was, notwhat might be. Moreover, in education, “What works?” is rarelythe right question, because everything works somewhere, and nothing works everywhere, which is why in education, the right question is, “Under whatconditions does this work?”
  • 7. An illustrative example: feedback7 Kluger and DeNisi (1996) review of 3000 research reports Excluding those: without adequate controls with poor design with fewer than 10 participants where performance was not measured without details of effect sizes left 131 reports, 607 effect sizes, involving 12652individuals On average, feedback increases achievement Effect sizes highly variable 38% (50 out of 131) of effect sizes were negative
  • 8. Getting feedback right is hardResponse type Feedback indicates performance…falls short of goal exceeds goalChange behavior Increase effort Exert less effortChange goal Reduce aspiration Increase aspirationAbandon goal Decide goal is too hard Decide goal is too easyReject feedback Feedback is ignored Feedback is ignored
  • 9. Teacher quality9
  • 10. Teacher quality and student learningSubject CorrelationWoodhead All 0*Rivkin, Hanushek and Kain (2005) Reading >0.10Rivkin, Hanushek and Kain (2005) Mathematics >0.11Rockoff (2004) Reading 0.20Rockoff (2004) Mathematics 0.25Aaronson, Barrow and Sander (2007) Mathematics 0.13
  • 11. Annual growth in achievement, by age110.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.65 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16annualgrowth(SDs)AgeBloom, Hill, Black, and Lipsey (2008)
  • 12. 12 Assuming that one year’s student growth is 0.3 standard deviations the correlation between teacher quality and studentachievement is 0.15 Then with a good teacher (1sd above the mean)students learn 50% more And with an outstanding teacher (2sd above the mean)they learn 100% more Note also that students make some progress throughmaturation so these are probably underestimates ofthe true effect (Fitzpatrick, Grissmer, & Hastedt, 2011)
  • 13. Teacher quality13 The impact of teacher quality (Hanushek & Rivkin, 2006) In the classroom of the best teacher in a group of 50teachers, students learn twice as fast as average. In the classroom of the least effective teacher in a group of50, students learn half as fast as average And in the classrooms of the best teachers, students fromdisadvantaged backgrounds learn as much as others (Hamre& Pianta, 2005) Teachers make a difference But what makes the difference in teachers? In particular, can we predict student progress from: Teacher qualifications? Value-added? Teacher observation?
  • 14. Teacher qualifications14
  • 15. Teacher qualifications and student progress15Mathematics ReadingPrimary Middle High Primary Middle HighGeneral theory ofeducation coursesTeaching practicecoursesPedagogicalcontent coursesAdvanceduniversity coursesAptitude testscoresHarris and Sass (2007)Mathematics ReadingPrimary Middle High Primary Middle HighGeneral theory ofeducation courses —Teaching practicecourses — +Pedagogicalcontent courses + +Advanceduniversity courses — +Aptitude testscores —
  • 16. Teacher observations16
  • 17. Framework for teaching (Danielson 1996) Four domains of professional practice1. Planning and preparation2. Classroom environment3. Instruction4. Professional responsibilities Links with student achievement (Sartain, et al. 2011) Domains 1 and 4: no impact on student achievement Domains 2 and 3: some impact on student achievement17
  • 18. A framework for teaching (Danielson, 1996) Domain 2: The classroom environment 2a: Creating an environment of respect and rapport 2b: Establishing a culture for learning 2c: Managing classroom procedures 2d: Managing student behavior 2e: Organizing physical space Domain 3: Instruction 3a: Communicating with students 3b: Using questioning and discussion techniques 3c: Engaging students in learning 3d: Using assessment in instruction 3e: Demonstrating flexibility and responsiveness
  • 19. Reading-0.6-0.5-0.4-0.3-0.2-0.100.10.20.30.40.5Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient DistinguishedTeachervalue-added2a2b2c2d2e3a3b3c3d3e
  • 20. Mathematics-0.8-0.6-0.4-0.200.20.40.6Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient DistinguishedTeachervalue-added2a2b2c2d2e3a3b3c3d3e
  • 21. Observations and teacher quality21-15-10-505101520Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient DistinguishedPercentagechangeinrateoflearningReading MathematicsSartain, Stoelinga, Brown, Luppescu, Matsko, Miller, Durwood, Jiang, and Glazer (2011)So, the highest rated teachers are 30%more productive than the lowest ratedBut the best teachers are 400% moreproductive than the least effective
  • 22. Imprecision of lesson observations22Achieving a reliability of0.9 in judging teacherquality through lessonobservation is likely torequire observing ateacher teaching 6different classes, and foreach lesson to be judgedby 5 independentobservers.Hill, Charalambous and Kraft (2012)
  • 23. 23 To recap The highest rated teachers generate learning 30% fasterthan the lowest rated teachers But the most effective teachers generate learning 400%faster than the least effective teachers So the best observation systems we have capture less than10% of teacher quality (in reality, less than this becausemost teachers are in the middle two categories) There is therefore a real danger that teachers will“game the system” by aping features of observationprotocols while becoming less effective.
  • 24. Teacher value-added24
  • 25. Teacher value-addedStudent fixed-effects modelTraditionalmodel1 2 3 4 51 38 22 24 16 02 26 28 15 20 113 20 20 20 24 164 13 24 26 13 245 9 5 12 28 47Goldhaber, Goldschmidt, and Tseng (2013)
  • 26. Mathematics-0.3-0.2-0.100.10.20.30.40.50 1 2 3 4Value-added(studentSDs)Years of teaching experienceQuintile of teacher value-added5th 4th 3rd 2nd 1stAtteberry, Loeb and Wyckoff (2013)
  • 27. Correlation of initial and later performance2700.10.20.30.40.5Base+1 Base+2 Base+3 Base+4 Base+5Correlationofvalue-addedwithbaseyearYear of predictionAll teachers New teachersMathematics
  • 28. Correlation of initial and later performance2800.10.20.30.40.5Base+1 Base+2 Base+3 Base+4 Base+5Correlationofvalue-addedwithbaseyearYear of predictionAll teachers New teachersReading
  • 29. Issues with value-added models for teachers29 Different (reasonable) models of value-added givevery different estimates of teacher quality(Goldhaber, Goldschmidt and Tseng, 2013) Teacher value-added in their first year accounts forless than 5% of the variation in teacher quality intheir fifth year of teaching (Atteberry, Loeb andWyckoff, 2013) Teachers benefit students for at least three yearsafter they stop teaching them (Rothstein, 2010)
  • 30. What makes effective teacherlearning?30
  • 31. Expertise According to Berliner (1994), experts: Excel mainly in their own domain Often develop automaticity for the repetitive operations thatare needed to accomplish their goals Are more sensitive to the task demands and social situationwhen solving problems Are more opportunistic and flexible in their teaching thannovices Represent problems in qualitatively different ways than novices Have faster and more accurate pattern recognition capabilities Perceive meaningful patterns in the domain in which they areexperienced Begin to solve problems slower but bring richer and morepersonal sources of information to bear31
  • 32. The role of deliberate practice Music professors at the Hochschule der Kuenst (Academy ofMusic) Berlin identified 10 violin students who had thepotential for careers as international soloists (“best”students) The professors also identified a sample of 10 good, but notoutstanding students (“good” students) Researchers recruited another 10 students training to bemusic teachers who specialised in the violin (“Music Ed”students) An additional 10 middle-aged professional violinists fromtwo local orchestras were recruited to the study Groups were matched in sex (7f, 3m) and for the first threegroups, age32
  • 33. How much do violinists practice?051015202530354 9 14 19HoursofpractieperweekAgeMusic Ed Good Best ProfessionalsEricsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Römer (1993)33
  • 34. Violinists’ hours of practice (cumulative)02000400060008000100004 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20CumulativehoursofpracticeAgeMusic Ed Good Best Professionals34
  • 35. These differences are substantial…Hours of practice by age 18Music Education students 3420Good violin students 5301Best violin students 7410Professional musicians 7336 By the age of 18, the best violinists have accumulated 40%more practice than good violinists Since the amount of deliberate practice being undertakenby the best students once they are adults is close to themaximum possible, it is, essentially, impossible for thegood students to catch up to the best.35
  • 36. Psychomotor skills and surgical skill… Ten junior surgical residents were tested on their abilityto perform five anastomoses on fresh porcine jenunum Performance evaluated on:a. Time taken in minutesb. A “clumsiness” score (0 to 100), taking into account“unproductive movements, fumbles and gross errors”c. An anastomosis score found by rating on a 1 to 3 scale: suture spacing knots overall tidiness integrity of the anastomosis (tested with 10 cm head of water) accuracy of suture in terms of extramucosal placement Cumulative error score: a + b + 2 x (15 – c)
  • 37. …are only weakly related37 Residents also took three psychomotor tests: Small parts manual dexterity test (Crawford & Crawford, 1981) Spiral maze test (Gibson, 1961) Embedded figures test (Witkin, Oltman, & Karp, 1971) Results: Surgical performance correlated negatively with tests of manualdexterity, but Improvement in surgical skill correlated positively with thehidden figures score The ability to create, and hold in mind, mentalrepresentations appears to be more important thanmanual dexterity in predicting surgical performanceSteele, Walder, and Herbert (1992)
  • 38. Visual-spatial ability and surgical skill38 37 junior surgical residents at the University ofToronto given six tests of visual/spatial ability Snowy pictures test (Ekstrom et al., 1976) Gestalt completion test (Street, 1931) Shape memory test (Ekstrom et al., 1976) Cube comparison test (Ekstrom et al., 1976) Form board test (Sylvester, 1881) Mental rotations test (Vandenberg & Kuse, 1978)
  • 39. Visual-spatial ability and surgery skills Residents were then tested on their ability to learnand perform complex surgical procedures (two-flapand four-flap Z–plasty on pig thighs)
  • 40. Correlation of surgical skill with spatial ability40Procedure Try SPT GCT SMT CCT FBT MRTTotal globalratingTwo-flap 1st — — — — — 0.40Two-flap 2nd — — — — — —Four-flap — — — — 0.34 0.47Quality ofresultTwo-flap 1st — — — — — 0.40Two-flap 2nd — — — — — —Four-flap — — — — 0.40 0.49Wanzel, Hamstra, Anastakis, Matsumoto & Cusimano (2002)
  • 41. General conclusions about expertise Elite performance is the result of at least a decadeof maximal efforts to improve performancethrough an optimal distribution of deliberatepractice What distinguishes experts from others is thecommitment to deliberate practice Deliberate practice is an effortful activity that can be sustained only for alimited time each day neither motivating nor enjoyable—it is instrumental inachieving further improvement in performance41
  • 42. Talent is over-rated…42
  • 43. Effects of experience in teaching-5-4-3-2-1010 1 2 3 to 5ExtramonthsperyearoflearningYears of teaching experience43-5-4-3-2-1010 1 2 3 to 5Years of teaching experienceMathematics ReadingRivkin, Hanushek and Kain (2005)
  • 44. Implications for education systems Pursuing a strategy of getting the “best and brightest”into teaching is unlikely to succeed Currently all teachers slow, and most actuallystop, improving after two or three years in theclassroom Expertise research therefore suggests that they areonly beginning to scratch the surface of what they arecapable of What we need is to persuade those with a real passionfor working with young people to becometeachers, and to continue to improve as long as theystay in the job. There is no limit to what we can achieve if we supportour teachers in the right way
  • 45. Supportive accountability What is needed from teachers: A commitment to: The continual improvement of practice Focus on those things that make a difference to students What is needed from leaders: A commitment to engineer effective learningenvironments for teachers by: Creating expectations for continually improving practice Keeping the focus on the things that make a difference tostudents Providing the time, space, dispensation, and support forinnovation Supporting risk-taking45
  • 46. ReferencesAaronson, D., Barrow, L., & Sander, W. (2007). Teachers and studentachievement in the Chicago Public High Schools. Journal of LaborEconomics, 25(1), 95-135.Atteberry, A., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2013). Do first impressionsmatter? Improvement in early career teacher effectiveness.Washington, DC: Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data inEducational Research.Berliner, D. C. (1994). Expertise: the wonder of exemplaryperformances. In J. N. Mangieri & C. C. Block (Eds.), Creatingpowerful thinking in teachers and students: diverse perspectives(pp. 161-186). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College.Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing professional practice: a frameworkfor teaching. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role ofdeliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance.Psychological Review, 100(3), 363-406.Fitzpatrick, M. D., Grissmer, D., & Hastedt, S. (2011). What adifference a day makes: Estimating daily learning gains duringkindergarten and first grade using a natural experiment. Economicsof Education Review, 30(2), 269-279.Goldhaber, D. D., Goldschmidt, P., & Tseng, F. (2013). Teacher value-added at the high-school level: Different models, differentanswers? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. doi:10.3102/0162373712466938Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2005). Academic and social advantagesfor at-risk students placed in high quality first grade classrooms.Child Development, 76(5), 949-967.Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2006). Teacher quality. In E. A.Hanushek & F. Welsh (Eds.), Handbook of the Economics ofEducation (Vol. 2, pp. 1051-1078). Amsterdam, Netherlands:Elsevier.Harris, D. N., & Sass, T. R. (2007). Teacher training, teacher qualityand student achievement (Vol. 3). Washington, DC: National Centerfor Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research.Hill, H. C., Charalambous, C. Y., & Kraft, M. A. (2012). When raterreliability Is not enough: Teacher observation systems and a casefor the generalizability study. Educational Researcher, 41(2), 56-84.Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedbackinterventions on performance: a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory.Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254-284.Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schoolsand academic achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417-458.Rockoff, J. E. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on studentachievement: evidence from panel data. American EconomicReview, 94(2), 247-252.Rothstein, J. (2010). Teacher quality in educational production:Tracking, decay, and student achievement. Quarterly Journal ofEconomics, 125(1), 175–214.Sartain, L., Stoelinga, S. R., Brown, E. R., Luppescu, S., Matsko, K.K., Miller, F. K., Durwood, C.E., Jiang, J.Y., & Glazer, D. (2011).Rethinking teacher evaluation in Chicago: Lessons learned fromclassroom observations, principal-teacher conferences, and districtimplementation. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago SchoolResearch.Steele, R. J. C., Walder, C., & Herbert, M. (1992). Psychomotor testingand the ability to perform an anastomosis in junior surgical trainees.British Journal of Surgery, 79(10), 1065–1067.Wanzel, K. R., Hamstra, S. J., Anastakis, D., Matsumoto, E. D., &Cusimano, M. D. (2002). Effects of visual-spatial ability on learningof spatially-complex surgical skills. Lancet, 359(9302), 230–231.46