THE RIPPLE EFFECT OF PRINCIPAL
BEHAVIOR:
Improving Teacher Instructional
Practices through Principal-Teacher
Interactions
Kim Banta & Brennon Sapp
A Dissertation Defense presented to
the University of Louisville
in partial fulfillment
of the requirements of the Degree
of Doctor of Education
Goal of the Study
Key Constructs
To discover how a specific set of
principal-teacher interactions affect:
Teacher Instructional Practices
Student Performance
Frequency & Focus of Teacher
Conversations
Page 11
Research Questions
RQ-1 How will the treatment of principal-teacher
interactions affect teachers’ instructional
practices?
RQ-2 How will changes in teachers’ instructional
practices, initiated by the set of principal-teacher
interactions, affect student performance?
RQ-3 How will changes in principal-teacher
interactions affect the frequency and focus of
teacher conversations with principals, students,
and other teachers?
Page 11
Conceptual Framework
Page 8-11, Figure 1
Organization of Methodology
Research Question
Teacher Instructional
1
Practices
Research Design
Measures
Analysis
Pretest/Post test
Quality Instruction
Rubric (4 Domains &
Overall)
ANOVA
Student Grades &
Discipline Referrals
Linear
Regression
Teacher & Student
Surveys
Chi Square
Single Cross-Sectional
2 Student Performance Interrupted Time
Series
3
Freq & Focus of
Teacher
Conversations
Pre-Mid-Post test
Teacher Instructional Practices
RQ-1
Research Question
Teacher Instructional
1
Practices
Research Design
Measures
Analysis
Pretest/Post test
Quality Instruction
Rubric
(4 Domains & Overall)
ANOVA
RQ 1 - How will the treatment of principal-teacher interactions affect teachers’
instructional practices?
Methodology
Table 15
*Indicates a small effect size (0.2<d< 0.5); **Indicates a medium effect size (0.5<d< 0.8); ***Indicates a large effect size (d >0.8). (Cohen, 1988)
Planning & Preparation
Pre
Post
t
(SD)
(SD)
TEACHER-COMPLETED
3.56
3.74
2.75
(0.48)
(0.38)
p-value
Effect size
(Cohen’s d)
0.008
0.42*
Learning Environment
3.69
(0.46)
3.85
(0.36)
2.75
0.008
0.39*
Instruction
3.51
(0.50)
3.58
(0.48)
0.90
0.374
–
Assessment
3.30
(0.62)
3.39
(0.48)
1.17
0.249
–
3.52
3.64
2.23
(0.51)
(0.42)
PRINCIPAL-COMPLETED
3.16
3.2
1.32
(0.78)
(0.770)
0.031
0.26*
0.194
–
Learning Environment
3.26
(0.72)
3.29
(0.70)
0.858
0.395
–
Instruction
2.84
(0.64)
3.09
(0.60)
4.99
< 0.001
0.40*
Assessment
2.69
(0.76)
2.98
(0.60)
4.29
< 0.001
0.42*
Overall
2.98
(0.73)
3.14
(0.67)
3.75
< 0.001
0.23*
Overall
Planning & Preparation
Table 15
Page 85
Teacher Instructional Practices
(Change in instructional practices)
• Teachers and principals differed in where they
perceived improvement.
• According to teachers, instructional practices improved
in two domains – Planning & Preparation and Learning
Environment.
• According to principals, instructional practices
improved in two domains – Instruction and Assessment
• It is more difficult for principals to observe Planning &
Preparation. Teachers have closer personal knowledge
of Planning & Preparation and Learning Environment.
Pages 110
Teacher
(SD)
Principal
(SD)
t
p-value
Effect size
(Cohen’s d)
PRETEST
Planning & Preparation
3.56
(0.48)
3.16
(0.78)
3.39
0.001
0.62***
Learning Environment
3.69
(0.46)
3.26
(0.72)
3.95
< 0.001
0.71***
Instruction
3.51
(0.50)
2.84
(0.64)
6.54
< 0.001
1.17***
Assessment
3.3
(0.62)
2.69
(0.76)
4.78
< 0.001
0.88***
Overall
3.52
(0.51)
2.98
(0.73)
5.03
< 0.001
0.86***
POSTEST
Planning & Preparation
3.74
(0.38)
3.2
(0.770)
4.54
< 0.001
0.89***
Learning Environment
3.85
(0.36)
3.29
(0.70)
5.42
< 0.001
1.01***
Instruction
3.58
(0.48)
3.09
(0.60)
4.65
< 0.001
0.90***
Assessment
3.39
(0.48)
2.98
(0.60)
3.95
< 0.001
0.75***
Overall
3.64
(0.42)
3.14
(0.67)
5.18
< 0.001
0.89***
Table 16
Page 86
Teacher Instructional Practices
(Differences in the Ratings of Instructional Practices)
• Principals’ ratings of instructional practices were
significantly different than teacher’s ratings of
instructional practices in each domain.
• Principals’ ratings of instructional practices were
lower than the teachers instructional practices
ratings in each domain.
Page 87-89 & 112
Teacher Instructional Practices
(Differences in the Ratings of Instructional Practices)
• Principals’ ratings of instructional practices are hypothesized to be
more valid and reliable than teachers ratings.
– Extensive procedures were used throughout the study to increase the
reliability and validity of principal ratings – (see chapter three).
– Principals are trained to be observers of instruction and therefore see
changes in instruction that the teacher may not signify as
improvement. (Fullan, 2005b)
– According to Ross, 1985, Schacter & Thum 2004, found that teachers
over-rated their quality of instructional practices on effort.
• A review of the literature revealed that within other professions the
validity of self evaluations vary depending on the actual quality of
the individual performing the self-evaluation. (Dunning et al.,2003;
Kruger & Dunning, 1999; and Yariv, 2009)
Page 87-89 & 112
Grouping Teachers into
Performance Levels
PRETEST-HIGH PERFORMING
TEACHERS
PRETEST-MEDIUM PERFORMING
TEACHERS
Principal
(SD)
Effect size
(Cohen’s d)
Teacher
(SD)
p-value
Principal
(SD)
Effect size
(Cohen’s d)
Teacher
(SD)
p-value
Principal
(SD)
Effect size
(Cohen’s d)
Teacher
(SD)
p-value
Table 17
Page 90
PRETEST-LOW PERFORMING
TEACHERS
Planning &
Preparation
3.60
(0.56)
3.83
(0.61)
0.333
–
3.66
(0.51)
3.28
(0.47)
0.005
0.77**
3.43
(0.35)
2.41
(0.45)
< 0.001
2.52***
Learning
Environment
3.68
(0.46)
3.79
(0.64)
0.583
–
3.77
(0.44)
3.47
(0.35)
0.023
0.75**
3.64
(0.50)
2.59
(0.49)
< 0.001
2.13***
Instruction
3.60
(0.53)
3.34
(0.55)
0.168
–
3.53
(0.55)
2.99
(0.23)
0.001
1.28***
3.42
(0.42)
2.23
(0.45)
< 0.001
2.75***
Assessment
3.34
(0.71)
3.28
(0.66)
0.775
–
3.40
(0.61)
2.85
(0.48)
0.013
1.00***
3.15
(0.54)
2.02
(0.44)
< 0.001
2.31***
Overall
3.56
(0.50)
3.56
(0.57)
0.987
–
3.59
(0.47)
3.15
(0.31)
0.002
1.11***
3.41
(0.38)
2.31
(0.41)
< 0.001
2.80***
POSTTEST-HIGH PERFORMING
TEACHERS
Planning &
Preparation
3.85
(0.40)
4.09
(0.380)
0.072
–
Learning
Environment
3.93
(0.37)
4.03
(0.33)
0.384
Instruction
3.77
(0.51)
3.71
(0.35)
3.48
(0.53)
3.76
(0.39)
Assessment
Overall
POSTTEST-MEDIUM PERFORMING
TEACHERS
POSTTEST-LOW PERFORMING
TEACHERS
3.68
(0.33)
3.26
(0.33)
0.001
1.27***
3.70
(0.39)
2.45
(0.40)
< 0.001
3.15***
–
3.86
(0.31)
3.38
(0.21)
< 0.001
1.81***
3.78
(0.42)
2.62
(0.56)
< 0.001
2.36***
0.677
–
3.38
(0.35)
3.17
(0.23)
0.039
0.71**
3.60
(0.51)
2.52
(0.47)
< 0.001
2.22***
3.56
(0.50)
0.642
–
3.32
(0.38)
3.01
(0.19)
0.013
1.03***
3.37
(0.52)
2.41
(0.40)
< 0.001
2.07***
3.85
(0.31)
0.423
–
3.56
(0.25)
3.21
(0.14)
< 0.001
1.73***
3.61
(0.40)
2.50
(0.37)
< 0.001
2.87***
PRETEST-HIGH PERFORMING
TEACHERS
PRETEST-MEDIUM PERFORMING
TEACHERS
Principal
(SD)
Effect size
(Cohen’s d)
Teacher
(SD)
p-value
Principal
(SD)
Effect size
(Cohen’s d)
Teacher
(SD)
p-value
Principal
(SD)
Effect size
(Cohen’s d)
Teacher
(SD)
p-value
Table 17
Page 90
PRETEST-LOW PERFORMING
TEACHERS
Planning &
Preparation
3.60
(0.56)
3.83
(0.61)
0.333
–
3.66
(0.51)
3.28
(0.47)
0.005
0.77**
3.43
(0.35)
2.41
(0.45)
< 0.001
2.52***
Learning
Environment
3.68
(0.46)
3.79
(0.64)
0.583
–
3.77
(0.44)
3.47
(0.35)
0.023
0.75**
3.64
(0.50)
2.59
(0.49)
< 0.001
2.13***
Instruction
3.60
(0.53)
3.34
(0.55)
0.168
–
3.53
(0.55)
2.99
(0.23)
0.001
1.28***
3.42
(0.42)
2.23
(0.45)
< 0.001
2.75***
Assessment
3.34
(0.71)
3.28
(0.66)
0.775
–
3.40
(0.61)
2.85
(0.48)
0.013
1.00***
3.15
(0.54)
2.02
(0.44)
< 0.001
2.31***
Overall
3.56
(0.50)
3.56
(0.57)
0.987
–
3.59
(0.47)
3.15
(0.31)
0.002
1.11***
3.41
(0.38)
2.31
(0.41)
< 0.001
2.80***
POSTTEST-HIGH PERFORMING
TEACHERS
Planning &
Preparation
3.85
(0.40)
4.09
(0.380)
0.072
–
Learning
Environment
3.93
(0.37)
4.03
(0.33)
0.384
Instruction
3.77
(0.51)
3.71
(0.35)
3.48
(0.53)
3.76
(0.39)
Assessment
Overall
POSTTEST-MEDIUM PERFORMING
TEACHERS
POSTTEST-LOW PERFORMING
TEACHERS
3.68
(0.33)
3.26
(0.33)
0.001
1.27***
3.70
(0.39)
2.45
(0.40)
< 0.001
3.15***
–
3.86
(0.31)
3.38
(0.21)
< 0.001
1.81***
3.78
(0.42)
2.62
(0.56)
< 0.001
2.36***
0.677
–
3.38
(0.35)
3.17
(0.23)
0.039
0.71**
3.60
(0.51)
2.52
(0.47)
< 0.001
2.22***
3.56
(0.50)
0.642
–
3.32
(0.38)
3.01
(0.19)
0.013
1.03***
3.37
(0.52)
2.41
(0.40)
< 0.001
2.07***
3.85
(0.31)
0.423
–
3.56
(0.25)
3.21
(0.14)
< 0.001
1.73***
3.61
(0.40)
2.50
(0.37)
< 0.001
2.87***
PRETEST-HIGH PERFORMING
TEACHERS
PRETEST-MEDIUM PERFORMING
TEACHERS
Principal
(SD)
Effect size
(Cohen’s d)
Teacher
(SD)
p-value
Principal
(SD)
Effect size
(Cohen’s d)
Teacher
(SD)
p-value
Principal
(SD)
Effect size
(Cohen’s d)
Teacher
(SD)
p-value
Table 17
Page 90
PRETEST-LOW PERFORMING
TEACHERS
Planning &
Preparation
3.60
(0.56)
3.83
(0.61)
0.333
–
3.66
(0.51)
3.28
(0.47)
0.005
0.77**
3.43
(0.35)
2.41
(0.45)
< 0.001
2.52***
Learning
Environment
3.68
(0.46)
3.79
(0.64)
0.583
–
3.77
(0.44)
3.47
(0.35)
0.023
0.75**
3.64
(0.50)
2.59
(0.49)
< 0.001
2.13***
Instruction
3.60
(0.53)
3.34
(0.55)
0.168
–
3.53
(0.55)
2.99
(0.23)
0.001
1.28***
3.42
(0.42)
2.23
(0.45)
< 0.001
2.75***
Assessment
3.34
(0.71)
3.28
(0.66)
0.775
–
3.40
(0.61)
2.85
(0.48)
0.013
1.00***
3.15
(0.54)
2.02
(0.44)
< 0.001
2.31***
Overall
3.56
(0.50)
3.56
(0.57)
0.987
–
3.59
(0.47)
3.15
(0.31)
0.002
1.11***
3.41
(0.38)
2.31
(0.41)
< 0.001
2.80***
POSTTEST-HIGH PERFORMING
TEACHERS
Planning &
Preparation
3.85
(0.40)
4.09
(0.380)
0.072
–
Learning
Environment
3.93
(0.37)
4.03
(0.33)
0.384
Instruction
3.77
(0.51)
3.71
(0.35)
3.48
(0.53)
3.76
(0.39)
Assessment
Overall
POSTTEST-MEDIUM PERFORMING
TEACHERS
POSTTEST-LOW PERFORMING
TEACHERS
3.68
(0.33)
3.26
(0.33)
0.001
1.27***
3.70
(0.39)
2.45
(0.40)
< 0.001
3.15***
–
3.86
(0.31)
3.38
(0.21)
< 0.001
1.81***
3.78
(0.42)
2.62
(0.56)
< 0.001
2.36***
0.677
–
3.38
(0.35)
3.17
(0.23)
0.039
0.71**
3.60
(0.51)
2.52
(0.47)
< 0.001
2.22***
3.56
(0.50)
0.642
–
3.32
(0.38)
3.01
(0.19)
0.013
1.03***
3.37
(0.52)
2.41
(0.40)
< 0.001
2.07***
3.85
(0.31)
0.423
–
3.56
(0.25)
3.21
(0.14)
< 0.001
1.73***
3.61
(0.40)
2.50
(0.37)
< 0.001
2.87***
PRETEST-HIGH PERFORMING
TEACHERS
PRETEST-MEDIUM PERFORMING
TEACHERS
Principal
(SD)
Effect size
(Cohen’s d)
Teacher
(SD)
p-value
Principal
(SD)
Effect size
(Cohen’s d)
Teacher
(SD)
p-value
Principal
(SD)
Effect size
(Cohen’s d)
Teacher
(SD)
p-value
Table 17
Page 90
PRETEST-LOW PERFORMING
TEACHERS
Planning &
Preparation
3.60
(0.56)
3.83
(0.61)
0.333
–
3.66
(0.51)
3.28
(0.47)
0.005
0.77**
3.43
(0.35)
2.41
(0.45)
< 0.001
2.52***
Learning
Environment
3.68
(0.46)
3.79
(0.64)
0.583
–
3.77
(0.44)
3.47
(0.35)
0.023
0.75**
3.64
(0.50)
2.59
(0.49)
< 0.001
2.13***
Instruction
3.60
(0.53)
3.34
(0.55)
0.168
–
3.53
(0.55)
2.99
(0.23)
0.001
1.28***
3.42
(0.42)
2.23
(0.45)
< 0.001
2.75***
Assessment
3.34
(0.71)
3.28
(0.66)
0.775
–
3.40
(0.61)
2.85
(0.48)
0.013
1.00***
3.15
(0.54)
2.02
(0.44)
< 0.001
2.31***
Overall
3.56
(0.50)
3.56
(0.57)
0.987
–
3.59
(0.47)
3.15
(0.31)
0.002
1.11***
3.41
(0.38)
2.31
(0.41)
< 0.001
2.80***
POSTTEST-HIGH PERFORMING
TEACHERS
Planning &
Preparation
3.85
(0.40)
4.09
(0.380)
0.072
–
Learning
Environment
3.93
(0.37)
4.03
(0.33)
0.384
Instruction
3.77
(0.51)
3.71
(0.35)
3.48
(0.53)
3.76
(0.39)
Assessment
Overall
POSTTEST-MEDIUM PERFORMING
TEACHERS
POSTTEST-LOW PERFORMING
TEACHERS
3.68
(0.33)
3.26
(0.33)
0.001
1.27***
3.70
(0.39)
2.45
(0.40)
< 0.001
3.15***
–
3.86
(0.31)
3.38
(0.21)
< 0.001
1.81***
3.78
(0.42)
2.62
(0.56)
< 0.001
2.36***
0.677
–
3.38
(0.35)
3.17
(0.23)
0.039
0.71**
3.60
(0.51)
2.52
(0.47)
< 0.001
2.22***
3.56
(0.50)
0.642
–
3.32
(0.38)
3.01
(0.19)
0.013
1.03***
3.37
(0.52)
2.41
(0.40)
< 0.001
2.07***
3.85
(0.31)
0.423
–
3.56
(0.25)
3.21
(0.14)
< 0.001
1.73***
3.61
(0.40)
2.50
(0.37)
< 0.001
2.87***
PRETEST-HIGH PERFORMING
TEACHERS
PRETEST-MEDIUM PERFORMING
TEACHERS
Principal
(SD)
Effect size
(Cohen’s d)
Teacher
(SD)
p-value
Principal
(SD)
Effect size
(Cohen’s d)
Teacher
(SD)
p-value
Principal
(SD)
Effect size
(Cohen’s d)
Teacher
(SD)
p-value
Table 17
Page 90
PRETEST-LOW PERFORMING
TEACHERS
Planning &
Preparation
3.60
(0.56)
3.83
(0.61)
0.333
–
3.66
(0.51)
3.28
(0.47)
0.005
0.77**
3.43
(0.35)
2.41
(0.45)
< 0.001
2.52***
Learning
Environment
3.68
(0.46)
3.79
(0.64)
0.583
–
3.77
(0.44)
3.47
(0.35)
0.023
0.75**
3.64
(0.50)
2.59
(0.49)
< 0.001
2.13***
Instruction
3.60
(0.53)
3.34
(0.55)
0.168
–
3.53
(0.55)
2.99
(0.23)
0.001
1.28***
3.42
(0.42)
2.23
(0.45)
< 0.001
2.75***
Assessment
3.34
(0.71)
3.28
(0.66)
0.775
–
3.40
(0.61)
2.85
(0.48)
0.013
1.00***
3.15
(0.54)
2.02
(0.44)
< 0.001
2.31***
Overall
3.56
(0.50)
3.56
(0.57)
0.987
–
3.59
(0.47)
3.15
(0.31)
0.002
1.11***
3.41
(0.38)
2.31
(0.41)
< 0.001
2.80***
POSTTEST-HIGH PERFORMING
TEACHERS
Planning &
Preparation
3.85
(0.40)
4.09
(0.380)
0.072
–
Learning
Environment
3.93
(0.37)
4.03
(0.33)
0.384
Instruction
3.77
(0.51)
3.71
(0.35)
3.48
(0.53)
3.76
(0.39)
Assessment
Overall
POSTTEST-MEDIUM PERFORMING
TEACHERS
POSTTEST-LOW PERFORMING
TEACHERS
3.68
(0.33)
3.26
(0.33)
0.001
1.27***
3.70
(0.39)
2.45
(0.40)
< 0.001
3.15***
–
3.86
(0.31)
3.38
(0.21)
< 0.001
1.81***
3.78
(0.42)
2.62
(0.56)
< 0.001
2.36***
0.677
–
3.38
(0.35)
3.17
(0.23)
0.039
0.71**
3.60
(0.51)
2.52
(0.47)
< 0.001
2.22***
3.56
(0.50)
0.642
–
3.32
(0.38)
3.01
(0.19)
0.013
1.03***
3.37
(0.52)
2.41
(0.40)
< 0.001
2.07***
3.85
(0.31)
0.423
–
3.56
(0.25)
3.21
(0.14)
< 0.001
1.73***
3.61
(0.40)
2.50
(0.37)
< 0.001
2.87***
High, Medium, and Low Performing
Teachers (Validity of Ratings)
• High performing teachers rated their instructional
practices equivalent to principal ratings.
• Medium performing teachers rated their instructional
practices higher than the principals by .3 to .4 of a
performance level.
• Low performing teachers rated their instructional
practices higher than the principals by a full
performance level.
• Low performing and medium performing teachers
rated the quality of their instructional practices
equivalent to high performing teachers ratings. The
principals did not.
Page 87-89 & 112
Effect size
(Cohen’s d)
0.088
–
Learning Environment
3.68
(0.46)
3.93
(0.37)
4.05
0.001
0.60**
Instruction
3.60
(0.53)
3.77
(0.51)
1.63
0.124
–
Assessment
3.34
(0.71)
3.48
(0.53)
0.96
0.351
–
Overall
3.56
(0.50)
3.76
(0.39)
2.18
0.046
0.45*
PRINCIPAL-COMPLETED
3.83
4.09
2.04
(0.61)
(0.380)
0.060
–
Planning & Preparation
Learning Environment
3.79
(0.64)
4.03
(0.33)
2.35
0.033
0.47*
Instruction
3.34
(0.55)
3.71
(0.35)
3.38
0.004
0.80***
Assessment
3.28
(0.66)
3.56
(0.50)
2.42
0.029
0.48*
Overall
3.56
3.85
3.18
0.006
0.63**
(Change in the Quality of Instructional Practices)
p-value
High Performing Teachers
Planning & Preparation
Pretest
Posttest
t
(SD)
(SD)
TEACHER-COMPLETED
3.60
3.85
1.82
(0.56)
(0.40)
Table 18
Page 91
Instruction
Assessment
Overall
Planning & Preparation
Learning Environment
Instruction
Assessment
Overall
PRINCIPAL-COMPLETED
3.28
3.26
0.18
(0.47)
(0.33)
3.47
3.38
0.87
(0.35)
(0.21)
2.99
3.17
2.29
(0.23)
(0.23)
2.85
3.01
1.36
(0.48)
(0.19)
3.15
3.21
0.69
Effect size
(Cohen’s d)
0.852
–
0.462
–
0.296
–
0.626
–
0.795
–
0.862
–
0.396
–
0.036
0.78**
0.194
–
0.500
–
(Change in the Quality of Instructional Practices)
Learning Environment
p-value
Medium Performing Teachers
Planning & Preparation
Pretest
Posttest
t
(SD)
(SD)
TEACHER-COMPLETED
3.66
3.68
0.19
(0.51)
(0.33)
3.77
3.86
0.75
(0.44)
(0.31)
3.53
3.38
1.08
(0.55)
(0.35)
3.40
3.32
0.50
(0.61)
(0.38)
3.59
3.56
0.26
(0.47)
(0.25)
Table 19
Page 93
Instruction
Assessment
Overall
Planning & Preparation
Learning Environment
Instruction
Assessment
Overall
PRINCIPAL-COMPLETED
2.41
2.45
0.35
(0.45)
(0.40)
2.59
2.62
0.26
(0.49)
(0.56)
2.23
2.52
2.88
(0.45)
(0.47)
2.02
2.41
3.86
(0.44)
(0.40)
2.31
2.50
2.84
Effect size
(Cohen’s d)
0.012
0.72**
0.200
–
0.152
–
0.101
–
0.032
0.51**
0.728
–
0.797
–
0.011
0.63**
0.001
0.94***
0.012
0.49*
(Change in the Quality of Instructional Practices)
Learning Environment
p-value
Low Performing Teachers
Planning & Preparation
Pretest
Posttest
t
(SD)
(SD)
TEACHER-COMPLETED
3.43
3.70
2.83
(0.35)
(0.39)
3.64
3.78
1.34
(0.50)
(0.42)
3.42
3.60
1.50
(0.42)
(0.51)
3.15
3.37
1.74
(0.54)
(0.52)
3.41
3.61
2.35
(0.38)
(0.40)
Table 20
Page 94
High, Medium, and Low Performing
Teachers (Change in instructional practices)
• High Performing teachers improved according to
teacher self-ratings (.2*) and principal ratings
(.29**).
• Medium performing teachers perceived no
change in the quality of their instructional
practices and principals perceived essentially no
change.
• Low performing teachers improved according to
teacher self-ratings (.2**) and principals (.19*)
Page 113-116
Student Performance
RQ-2
Research Question
Research Design
Single Cross-Sectional
2 Student Performance Interrupted Time
Series
Measures
Analysis
Student Grades &
Discipline Referrals
Linear
Regression
RQ 2 -How will changes in teachers’ instructional practices, initiated by the set of
principal-teacher interactions, affect student performance?
Figure 6
Page 97
d
Figure 7
Page 100
Figure 8
Page 101
Figure 9
Page 102
Classroom Grade Distributions and
Discipline Referrals Improved
•
•
•
•
Percentage of As were higher than expected.
Percentage of Ds were higher than expected
Percentage of Fs were lower than expected.
Discipline referrals were lower than expected.
– Mainly due to decreases in aggressive discipline
and male discipline.
– Freshman and senior discipline were impacted
more than other grades.
Page 116
Conceptual Framework
Page 8-11, Figure 1
Student Performance Indicators for High,
Medium and Low Performing Teachers
• According to QIR ratings, high performing
teachers, had the highest quality of instructional
practices and improved them the most over the
course of the year.
• According to QIR ratings, medium performing
teachers fell in the middle of the spectrum of
teacher quality and did not improve.
• According to QIR ratings, low performing teachers
had the lowest quality of instructional practices
according to the QIR and improved similarly to
the high performing teachers.
Page 120-121
Student Performance Indicators for High,
Medium and Low Performing Teachers
• If the overall quality of instructional practices were the
main reason for improved grade distributions and
discipline referrals then,
• High Performing teachers would have the best grade
distributions and lowest discipline referral number.
• Medium Performing teachers would have the next best
grade distributions and next lowest discipline referrals.
• Low Performing teachers would have the worst grade
distributions and the highest discipline referrals.
• But according to data analysis, the classroom grade
distributions and discipline referrals for high, medium
and low performing teachers were equivalent.
Table 25 & Page 120-121
Frequency & Focus of Teacher
Conversations
3
Research Question
Research Design
Measures
Analysis
Freq & Focus of
Teacher
Conversations
Pre-Mid-Post test
Teacher & Student
Surveys
Chi Square
RQ 3-How will changes in principal-teacher interactions affect the frequency and
focus of teacher conversations with principals, students, and other teachers?
Spring 091
Response
Spring 081
Question
Spring 071
Frequency and Focus of Teacher
Conversations
χ2
(df=2)
07/08
χ2
(df=2)
08/09
0.44
3.14
6.04*
5.35
0.23
4.83
Principal-Teacher Conversations
How often do you discuss
curriculum issues with a
principal?
How often do you discuss
discipline issues with a
principal?
How often do you discuss
teaching strategies with a
principal?
Weekly or Daily
14
16
8
Monthly
21
24
24
Never or Annually
36
33
39
Weekly or Daily
25
28
22
Monthly
19
30
22
Never or Annually
27
15
27
Weekly or Daily
8
10
3
Monthly
19
20
27
Never or Annually
44
43
41
Table 26 & Page 122
How often do you discuss
curriculum issues with other
teachers?
How often do you discuss
discipline issues with other
teachers?
Spring 091
Response
Teacher-Teacher Conversations
How many times per day do you
8 or more times
speak to another teacher?
2-4 or 5-7
Spring 081
Question
Spring 071
Frequency and Focus of Teacher
Conversations
χ2
(df=2)
07/08
5
35
33
53
38
38 37.95***
None or One
Daily or Weekly
13
32
0
65
0
54
Monthly
25
4
Never or Annually
Daily or Weekly
14
30
4
55
Monthly
8
14
Never or Annually
33
4
14 31.97***
χ2
(df=2)
08/09
0.03
6.69*
3
61
7 31.70***
2.76
3
Table 26 & Page 124
Frequency and Focus of Teacher
Conversations
• According to teacher surveys, the frequency of
principal-teacher conversations improved, but
the focus remained unchanged.
• According to teacher surveys, the frequency and
focus of teacher-teacher conversations improved
during the pilot year and maintained in the year
of full implementation.
• According to student surveys, the frequency and
focus of teacher-student conversations remain
unchanged.
Pages 103-108 & 122
Findings
• Teacher instructional practices improved
according analysis of QIR data.
• Student performance increased according to
the analysis of student grade distributions and
discipline.
• Freq & Focus of some teacher conversations
changed according to analysis of teacher and
student surveys.
Pages 109
Implications
• Principal Visits and Collaboration with
Teachers
• Rubric Based Assessment of Instructional
Practices
• Working with Teachers of Differing Qualities of
Instructional Practices
Page 126-128
Unintended Outcomes
•
•
•
•
Exiting Teachers
Principal-Student Relationships
Principal-Parent Discussions
Increased Job Satisfaction for the Principals
Page 130-132
Recommendations for Future Research
• Further research on particular treatment needed
for teachers at various levels of performance
• How principal interactions in the classroom could
strengthen and support the walk-through model
currently used by many schools and districts
• Research on this treatment in other settings
(generalizability)
• Individual effects of each of the four
interventions used in this study
Page 133
This Study’s Resolutions to Central
Dilemmas of Nearly all Principals
• How can I find time to get into classrooms?
• How do I engage teachers in job related conversations
about instructional practices?
• How do I get teachers to look at performance data of their
students?
• How can I increase principal job satisfaction?
• How can I reduce discipline referrals?
• How can I decrease failure rates (improve student grades)
while increasing the quality of instructional practices?
• How can I know the actual quality of instructional
practices?
Table 28
Page 135
Thank You
Brennon Sapp
Kim Banta
www.bsapp.com/administrative_behavior/index.htm