Judy Rink
Emeritus Professor
University of South Carolina
…
a change from highly qualified teachers
(meaning their preparation, courses they
attend and degrees that they have) to the
degree to which they produce the desired
student outcomes
National Council on Teacher Quality [NCTQ],
2011
 Systematic
change in the criteria used to
evaluate teachers to include student
performance scores as part of required
teacher evaluation programs.
 Explore
the idea of teacher effectiveness in
physical education
 The
limitations of our knowledge base
 Share
some potential ways in which it might be
measured and how it should be measured.
 The
short answer to the question of what is teacher
effectiveness is that teachers are effective when
students learn as a result of what teachers do.

Given the difficulties with measuring student
learning, researchers were hoping to identify a
proxy for student learning: that is what do
teachers do that has a high relationship with
student learning?
 From
more indirect teaching characteristics
to those more consistent with direct teaching
(task oriented, structured learning
experiences, student activity time, clarity,
active monitoring and feedback).
 The
product measures of most of the
literature in our field focused on motor skill
learning with the assumption that motor
skills were the unique contribution of our
field.


Opportunity to learn/content;
Teacher expectations/role definitions/time allocations;

Classroom management/student engaged time;

Success level/academic learning time

Active instruction by the teacher
 Group
size;
 Presentation
of information (structuring,
sequencing, clarity, enthusiasm);
 Asking
questions (difficulty level, cognitive
level, wait-time, selecting respondents,
providing feedback); and
 Handling
seatwork and homework
assignments. Brophy and Good (1984)

ALT-PE- motor engaged (ALT-PE) (Silverman, Devillier, &
Ramírez, 1991)

Poor management skills -decreased ALT-PE.

Clarity in task presentations (Werner & Rink, 1989)

Content Development (Gusthart & Springings, 1989; Masser,
1985; Rink, French, Werner, Lynn, & Mays, 1992)
 Most
of the early work done in research focused on
what the teacher did. They are necessary but not
sufficient because the missing links are the student
and the content.
 The
role of the student, context and content
 Search
to both understand the
teaching/learning process and to be able to
identify how best to insure high levels of
student engagement
 Shift
from process-product studies to
qualitative research methodologies (See for
example Hemphill, Templin, Richards, &
Blankenship, 2012).
 The
student as the mediator of instruction and the
processes involved in the dynamics of student (e.g.,
Roberts, 2001; Sun & Chen, 2010; Zhang, Solmon, Kosma,
Carson, & Gu, 2011).
 Teacher
knowledge and delivery of content (Ward,
2013)
 The
effect of different orientations to teaching the
content on student outcomes (Chen, Rovegno, Cone &
Cone, 2012; French, Werner, Rink, Taylor, & Hussey,1996; Penney,
Clarke, Quill, & Kinchin, 2005; Sweeting & Rink,1999).
 The
Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) project
(Gates Foundation, 2013a)
 Study
designed to determine how to best identify
and promote great teaching.
 The
study concluded that student achievement gains
and teacher observation together have the best
predictive value (Gates Foundation, 2013b).
 Value


added modeling
Uses expected scores – what the student is expected
to achieve
Below expected score – not competent; At expected
score – competent; Above expected score – super
competent
 States
and districts across the country have
embraced VAM as a way to include student
performance scores in teacher evaluations
 Recommended
to be used along with student
scores
 Framework for Teaching Evaluation
Instrument (FFT) (Danielson Group, 2013).
Domain
Domain
Domain
Domain
1: Planning And Preparation
2: The Classroom Environment
3: Instruction
4: Professional Responsibility
 Instructional
 Evidence
variables
of student learning
 Management
 Class
climate
 Professionalism
 Single
snapshot of an ongoing dynamic
process
 Focus
on teacher behavior without
considering content or student behavior
 Observers
need to be trained and know the
content area
 Minimum
of 3 observations
 Be
evaluated with standards, expectations,
procedures, and rigor that parallel teachers
of other curricular areas.
 Be
observed, assessed, and evaluated by
trained evaluators.
 Be
observed multiple times during the
academic year.

Be observed for the entire class period, from
beginning to end.

Be observed and evaluated as part of a
comprehensive assessment plan, which should
include formal conferences, professional growth
plans, etc.

Be accountable for student achievement of state
standards in physical education or the National
Standards for Physical Education (NASPE, 2004)
in the absence of state standards. (NASPE 2007)
 Shared
vision (DeStefano & Prestine, 1999;
Fullan, 1991)
 Making
PE count
 Teacher
 Inspire
Development
Greater Effort
 Will
the education community take the time
or will they have the resources to do this
right?