www.nationalforum.com - Dr. Jeff Goldhorn, Dr. W. Sean Kearney, Dr. Michael Webb - NATIONAL FORUM JOURNALS, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Editor-in-Chief

1. NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
VOLUME 30, NUMBER 3, 2013
20
CLASSROOM WALKTHROUGH
PRACTICES: LESSONS LEARNED FROM
10,000 OBSERVATIONS
Jeff Goldhorn, Ph.D.
Education Service Center,Region 20
San Antonio, Texas
W. Sean Kearney, Ed.D.
Texas A&M University-San Antonio
Michael Webb, M.Ed.
Education Service Center, Region 20
ABSTRACT
This study examines the results of 10,117 administrator “walkthroughs”
conducted in Texas classrooms during the 2010-2011 school year. All
administrators who collected data for this study received walkthrough training
in the 360 Walkthrough instrument in order to ensure inter-rater reliability.
Walkthrough results were compared with achievement data in order to answer
the research question – are administrators seeing what they think they are
seeing? Results reveal four areas in which walkthrough data is least consistent
with student achievement data. These areas are: goals and objectives, pacing
and sequencing, use of technology, and level of rigor. Implications for
practitioners are discussed.
Introduction
The classroom walkthrough evaluation of teachers has taken on
many different forms over the past decade. A shift in the principal’s
role from manager to instructional leader, paired with higher levels of
accountability at the national, state, district, school, and classroom

2. GOLDHORN, KEARNEY, & WEB21
levels have led to an increase in the number and types of classroom
observations that occur day in and day out in our school buildings. As
one principal we spoke with in South Texas noted, “We used to do two
walkthroughs per teacher per year. Now our goal is to be in every
classroom at least once a week.”
Because classroom walkthroughs are so prevalent in schools
today and high stakes decisions may be contingent upon the data
collected, it is critical that the school administrators are aligned in their
interpretation of observed behaviors and actions. Regional Education
Service Centers are uniquely well positioned to provide this type of
training to school districts in their service area.
Purpose of the Investigation
In Texas, the Education Service Center, Region 20 (ESC-20)
has created a walkthrough tool and corresponding training module
designed to improve the inter-rater reliability of classroom
walkthroughs. The service center has been training administrators in
the use of this walkthrough tool for the past 5 years. In that time, the
training has been provided to 74 school districts across the State of
Texas. In the 2010-2011 school year alone, 10,117 walkthrough
observation summaries were uploaded into the confidential statewide
database. The purpose of this article is to give the reader feedback
about the lessons we have learned about walkthroughs based on
training evaluators.
Methodology
“Do you see what I see?” This simple question is asked by
almost every administrator as they walk into classrooms. In order to
answer the question of inter-rater reliability, we took two approaches:
First, during the walkthrough training itself, feedback was solicited
from administrators to compare their observations with one another.

3. 22NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
Next, we analyzed 10,117 walkthroughs to determine their relationship
with classroom level performance on standardized tests. Our question
was a simple one – are administrators seeing what they think they’re
seeing?
Instrumentation
The answer is very interesting both in terms of where we found
a match and where we identified inconsistencies. The 360˚
Walkthrough instrument usedfor this study was designed using a
hybrid model of walkthrough evaluation philosophies. It features the
following characteristics:
1. The 360˚ Walkthrough assesses: learner engagement
(Schlechty, 2011), learner cognition (Bloom, 1984), high yield
classroom strategies (Marzano, 2003), classroom management,
learner-centered instruction and learner progress (Office of
Statewide Initiatives, 2004);
2. This tool can be used for either formal (which count towards
teachers’ annual evaluations) or informal walkthroughs (which
do not);
3. Walkthroughs are conducted throughout the day and are
usually unannounced;
4. Administration of the walkthrough generally take 5-7 minutes;
5. The feedback form provides insight into professional growth
opportunities (Downey & Frase, 2004);
6. Ultimately the walkthrough is designed to lead to reflective
conversations between administrators and teachers (Downey,
Steffy, English, Frase, & Poston, 2004).
Procedures
The walkthrough training took place over a half day and a half.
All participants were provided with a glossary to ensure that terms
were being defined consistently. A group discussion was facilitated

4. GOLDHORN, KEARNEY, & WEB23
section-by-section in which participants engaged in conversations
about each domain. Once everyone was familiar with what they would
be looking for, the group conducted their first classroom visit. During
the first walkthrough, only the first domain was scored.
Administrators remained in the classroom for approximately 8
minutes. After the walkthrough had been completed, the participants
returned to the meeting room to compare notes. Scores were
calculated and conversations are facilitated to discuss the inevitable
difference of opinion regarding what they had observed. The
facilitator guides the conversation through the use of open-ended
questions. When disagreements arose, the facilitator referred back to
training materials and the glossary of terms for clarification. This
pattern was repeated for each of the subsequent sections until all
sections had been covered and all evaluators had completed a total of
five classroom visits.
Before analyzing the data, the researchers solicited permission
from school districts. Only those districts that chose to share this data
were included in subsequent analysis. The decision was made to
collect student achievement at the classroom level. These data were
collected for State Assessments of English Language Arts (ELA or
Reading) and Mathematics.
For future research correlational, OLS Regression, and
Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) analyses will be conducted to
examine the relationship between the 360˚ Walkthrough tool and
student success as measured by performance on standardized state
Reading/ELA and Mathematics assessments aggregated at the
classroom level. These specific statistical findings, however, were not
reported in this article.
Findings
The 360 Walkthrough process incorporated electronic
collection and reporting of walkthrough teacher evaluation data.

5. 24NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
during the 2009-2010 school year. Administrators from 84 campuses
throughout Texas uploaded a combined10,117 teacherevaluation data
(using the 360 Walkthrough)into a central database. Researchers
manually entered state achievement results for the Texas Assessment
of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) test at the classroom level of
analysis in the areas of Reading/ELA and Math Statistical analyses
and correlational analysis were conducted to measure whether a
statistically significant relationship exists between student
achievement (as measured by TAKS performance) and classroom
walkthrough assessment of teacher (as measured by the 360
Walkthrough). This article will summarize only the broader findings
of the investigation related to instrument and its use and suggesting
caveats and other considerations for those who use this 360
Walkthrough process.
Where Matches Between the 360˚ Walkthrough and Student
Achievement Were Found: 20/20 Vision
The two areas that seemed most highly associated with student
achievement within this study are learner engagement and classroom
management. This is certainly good news. This confirms that whether
thanks to the local University based Principal preparation programs,
in-district administrator training, or other staff development, the
principals in this study consistently and accurately evaluated these two
areas
Where InconsistenciesWere Found
Based on the data collected and feedback from evaluators,
there were several key areas that indicate a need for
calibration/clarification of the instrument or process. Those areas of
inconsistency are outlined in Table 1below along with some potential
causes.

6. GOLDHORN, KEARNEY, & WEB25
Table 1
Comparison Table of 360 Degree Walkthrough Evaluation Instrument Domain and
Potential Cause for Inconsistencies that May Exist
360 ˚ Walkthrough Area Potential Cause
Goals and Objectives Many of the administrators indicated that when
a goal was written on the board, they gave
teachers credit for having clearly communicated
to the students what they would be learning and
why it was important to them. This appears to be
an over-simplification of what is meant by
“clearly communicated.”
Level of Rigor One major inconsistency observed during the
walkthrough training process was that many
administrators equated behavioral compliance
with intellectual rigor. This simply is not the
case. Students who are quietly and obediently
completing a simple worksheet may be well-
behaved, but this should not be viewed as an
indication that they are intellectually stimulated.
Use of Technology There was very little agreement among
administrators as to what constituted appropriate
use of technology. This may reflect variations in
administrators’ own comfort level with emerging
educational technologies.
Level of rigor. One of the most common inconsistencies
observed during the walkthrough training was
that many administrators equated behavioral
compliance with intellectual rigor. This simply is
not the case. Students who are quietly and
obediently completing a simple worksheet may
be well-behaved, but this should not be viewed
as an indication that they are intellectually
stimulated.

7. 26NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
Implications for Administrators: Suggestions
for Improving the Walkthrough Process
One of the first lessons we learned in providing walkthrough
training is the importance of earning teachers’ trust. Administrators
have to answer this question…Does my staff see value in my
walkthroughs or do they see me checking walkthroughs off of my to-
do list? Teachers must understand how they are being appraised in
order to maximize the process and time investment. They have to see
the objectivity within the evaluation, see the accuracy of areas to
address, and understand that each walkthrough is just a snapshot.
There is great weight in the patterns established from multiple
walkthroughs. This is accomplished by the transparency provided with
a teacher training component that mirrors the administrator training
described above. In fact, in several districts, teachers themselves have
conducted informal walkthroughs on one another in order to provide
constructive, non-evaluative feedback to their peers. Walkthroughs
should be about professional development, not secrets or surprises.
No matter how clearly expectations are communicated,
sometimes administrators collect data that is not in alignment with the
teachers prior appraisals. For example, a teacher may have had
favorable formal appraisals in the past, but the walkthrough indicates
less than favorable performance. Many administrators we have trained
have communicated that they are not sure how to have these
conversations or that they feel uncomfortable having these
conversations. In some cases, administrators begin to use inference to
“pad” the walkthrough of a historically competent teacher, rather than
just reporting the facts of the observation.
The most common problem reported by the principals we
worked with was the constraint of time. Administrators know the
value of walkthroughs and providing teachers with feedback, but too
often cannot prioritize their time to make it happen. This highlights
the need for administrators to spend time on priority items rather than
the tyranny of the urgent. One effective solution we have implemented

8. GOLDHORN, KEARNEY, & WEB27
is to identify a workable total for the time-strapped administrator. If
they are unable to be in every teacher’s class once a week, how about
once a month?
If used with fidelity, classroom walkthroughs can help
eliminate the “dog and pony” show of the once a year classroom
observation. Teachers’ authentic teaching style and levels of student
success becomes more and more apparent as additional data is
collected. Thus the frequency of observations is critical to accurate
teacher evaluations. We propose that a minimum of 5 walkthroughs
per year are necessary in addition to the annual formal classroom
observation in order to accurately gauge efficacy of teaching.
Administrators need to focus on quality of data and feedback provided
to the teacher, rather than quantity of walkthroughs. Walkthroughs that
are conducted without meaningful feedback can be counterproductive.
Teachers have the right to receive quality critical feedback from their
administrators. When administrators and teachers can talk honestly
about improvement of practice, the next level of success becomes
clearer, the instructional objectives for the campus become more
aligned, and teacher efficacy improves.

9. 28NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL
References
Bloom, B. (1984). Taxonomy of educational objectives book 1:
Cognitive domain (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Addison Wesley.
Downey, C.J.,& Frase, L.E. (2001). Participant’s manual for
conducting walk-through with reflective feedback to maximize
student achievement (2nd ed.). Huxley, IA: Curriculum
Management Services.
Downey, D. J., Steffy, B.E., English, F.W., Frase, L. E.,& Poston,
K.P.,Jr. (2004). The three minute classroom walk-through:
Changing school supervisory practice one teacher at a time.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Marzano, R. J. (2003).What works in schools: Translating research
into action. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Office of Statewide Initiatives. (2004). Professional development
appraisal system: Teacher manual. Austin, TX: ESC-13.
Schlechty, P. (2011). Engaging students: The next level of working on
the work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.