InTASC Model Core Teaching Standards
(April 2011)
Research Summaries by Standard
This review of the research was conducted by Peter Youngs of Michigan
State University. Please send any comments/feedback to Dr. Youngs by
July 31st, 2011. He can be reached at pyoungs@msu.edu or
(517) 353-4348.
A synthesis of the research and a spreadsheet of research studies by
standard are available at www.ccsso.org/intasc.
Table of Contents
STANDARD #1 – LEARNER DEVELOPMENT
3
STANDARD #2 – LEARNING DIFFERENCES – BILINGUAL EDUCATION
4
STANDARD #2 – LEARNING DIFFERENCES – SPECIAL EDUCATION
7
STANDARD #3 – LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS – ELEMENTARY
8
STANDARD #3 – LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS – SECONDARY
10
STANDARD #4 – CONTENT KNOWLEDGE
11
STANDARD #5 – APPLICATION OF CONTENT
14
STANDARD #6 – ASSESSMENT
15
STANDARD #7 – PLANNING FOR INSTRUCTION
18
STANDARD #8 – INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES – ELEMENTARY LITERACY
19
STANDARD #8 – INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES – ELEMENTARY MATHEMATICS
22
STANDARD #8 – INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES – SECONDARY ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS 24
STANDARD #8 – INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES – SECONDARY MATHEMATICS
26
STANDARD #9 – PROFESSIONAL LEARNING AND ETHICAL PRACTICE
28
STANDARD #10 – LEADERSHIP AND COLLABORATION
29
2
Standard #1 – Learner Development
April 25, 2011
Standard #1: Learner Development
The teacher understands how learners grow and develop, recognizing that patterns of learning and
development vary individually within and across the cognitive, linguistic, social, emotional, and physical
areas, and designs and implements developmentally appropriate and challenging learning experiences.
Summary of Research Base
Standard #1 addresses teachers’ knowledge of child and adolescent development and their ability to draw
on such knowledge in instruction, assessment, and collaboration with others. There is strong research
evidence in support of Standard #1 in the areas of teachers’ instructional practices, teachers’ assessment
practices, and teacher collaboration. We created summaries of research on instruction (standard #8),
assessment (Standard #6), and teacher collaboration (Standard #10). This document features the main
findings/bullet points from these three research summary documents:
Bullet Points (instruction – elementary literacy)
1. Strong evidence of an association between direct instruction in phonics, phonemic
awareness, and other basic literacy skills, and student achievement in reading
2. Strong evidence of an association between coaching, high-level questioning, focus on
meaning-making, and integrated language arts; and student achievement in reading
3. Strong evidence of an association between the quality of writing assignments and the
quality of student writing
4. Strong evidence of the use of peer-assisted learning strategies and student achievement in
reading
Bullet Points (instruction – elementary mathematics)
1. Strong evidence of an association between instruction that focuses on transfer skills and
schemas, and student achievement in math
2. Strong evidence of an association between advanced curriculum and high-level
intellectual work, and student achievement in math
3. Strong evidence of an association between the quantity of mathematics taught and student
achievement in math
4. Strong evidence of an association between teachers’ levels of mathematical knowledge
for teaching and the quality of instruction
Bullet Points (instruction – secondary English/language arts)
1. Strong evidence of an association between discussion-based approaches and student
achievement in English/language arts (E/LA)
2. Strong evidence of an association between instruction that promotes student
understanding and student achievement in E/LA
3. Some evidence of an association between content coverage in E/LA and student
achievement in E/LA
4. Some evidence of an association between the quality of writing assignments and student
achievement in E/LA
3
Bullet Points (instruction – secondary mathematics)
1. Strong evidence of an association between the quality of mathematics instruction and
student learning in math
2. Some evidence of an association between formative assessment practices and student
learning in math
3. Some evidence on factors that influence teachers’ selection and maintenance of highcognitive demand tasks in math
Bullet Points (assessment)
1. Strong evidence of an association between the quality of teachers’ assignments and
student achievement
2. Strong evidence of an association between the use of formative assessment strategies and
student achievement
3. Strong evidence of an association between the use of questioning strategies and student
achievement
4. Strong evidence of an association between involving students in self-assessment and
student achievement
Bullet Points (teacher collaboration)
1. Strong evidence of an association between teacher collaboration and student achievement
2. Strong evidence of an association between student achievement and teachers’ collective
responsibility, teachers’ collective efficacy, and teacher-teacher trust
3. Strong evidence of an association between teacher collaboration and changes in
instructional practice
4. Strong evidence of an association between teacher-parent and teacher-student
relationship quality and student achievement
Standard #2 – Learning Differences – Bilingual Education
April 24, 2011
Standard #2: Learning Differences – Bilingual Education
The teacher uses understanding of individual differences and diverse cultures and communities to ensure
inclusive learning environments that enable each learner to meet high standards.
Summary of Research Base
There is strong research evidence in support of Standard #2 in the area of bilingual education. For
example, research has demonstrated an association between the quality of instruction and bilingual
students’ achievement. In one study, Cirino and colleagues (2007) examined the relationship between
teachers' oral language proficiency and instructional practices and bilingual students’ academic
4
engagement and literacy and oral language outcomes at the end of the kindergarten year (Cirino, Vaughn,
Linan-Thompson, Cardenas-Hagan, Fletcher, & Francis, 2009). The authors reported that overall teacher
quality (as indicated by the oral language proficiency and instructional practice measures) was positively
related to overall student engagement, such that more effective teachers had more engaged students. In
addition, teachers rated high in quality did not lose as much instructional time in lengthy transitions that
were unrelated to reading. They also found that teacher characteristics, language of instruction, and
language of the outcome measure affected student outcomes. The authors noted that their results highlight
the importance of bilingual students’ teachers’ oral language proficiency, both in the language of a given
outcome as well as in the other language (Cirino, Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, Cardenas-Hagan, Fletcher,
& Francis, 2009).
Abedi and Herman (2010) investigated the relationship between students’ English language learner (ELL)
status and level of opportunity to learn (OTL) in 8th-grade Algebra classes, and their achievement. The
authors reported that the classroom-level OTL measure was significantly and positively related to
students’ math achievement. In addition, non-ELLs reported a higher level of OTL than the ELL students.
Further, students who indicated that they understand directions in English “very well” had a substantially
higher class-level OTL mean when compared with those who believed that they did not understand
directions in English (Abedi & Herman, 2010).
Muniz-Swicegood (1994) considered the relationship between meta-cognitive reading strategy instruction
and the reading performance of bilingual students. The researcher found that children who received such
instruction engaged in meta-cognitive strategies in the form of self-generated questioning to a greater
extent than children who did not receive such instruction. In addition, test gains by the treatment group
showed that following the meta-cognitive strategy training, they improved their reading in both Spanish
and English (Muniz-Swicegood, 1994).
Research has shown an association between supplemental instruction and improved reading performance.
Gunn and colleagues have documented an association between supplemental instruction in phonological
awareness and decoding skills and the reading ability of elementary students. In their study, the majority
of the students were Hispanic and all of the participating students had performed below grade level on
screening measures of early literacy skills or were rated by their teachers as high in aggressive behavior.
The researchers found that students who received supplemental instruction demonstrated greater gains
than control students on letter-word identification, word attack skills, oral reading fluency, reading
comprehension, and vocabulary (Gunn, Biglan, Smolkowski, & Ary, 2000; Gunn, Smolkowski, Biglan, &
Black, 2002; Gunn, Smolkowski, Biglan, Black, & Blair, 2005).
Linan-Thompson and colleagues (2003) investigated the effectiveness of an intervention that involved
both English-as-a-second-language strategies and effective reading practices for English language
learners (ELLs). The researchers reported that supplemental reading instruction was associated with
improvements in students’ work attack skills, reading fluency, and reading comprehension (LinanThompson, Vaughn, Hickman-Davis, & Kouzekanani, 2003). Cirino and colleagues showed an
association between supplemental reading instruction and 2nd-graders’ abilities in decoding, spelling,
fluency, and comprehension in both Spanish and English (Cirino, Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, CardenasHagan, Fletcher, & Francis, 2009). De la Colina and colleagues demonstrated an association between a
fluency intervention (featuring repeated readings, demonstration, and self-monitoring using Spanish
reading materials) and bilingual 1st- and 2nd-graders’ knowledge of vocabulary, morphological structure,
and cognates (De la Colina, Parker, Hasbrouck, & Lara-Alecio (2001).
Saunders, Foorman, and Carlson (2006) examined the effects of a separate block of instructional time for
oral language English development on the language and literacy proficiency of English language learners.
The researchers found that children in English language development (ELD) block classrooms had a)
5
higher end-of-year oral language composites, on average, and b) higher end-of-year word identification
scores, on average, than students in no-ELD block classrooms. Tong and colleagues (2008) considered
the effects of a two-year English-oracy (i.e., oral communication and comprehension) intervention on
ELLs. They reported that students receiving the intervention developed their academic oral English skills
at a faster rate than those receiving typical instruction (Tong, Lara-Alecio, Irby, Mathes, & Kwok, 2008).
Kitano and Lewis (2007) explored correlations between tutoring in specific reading comprehension
strategies and gains in reading achievement; the students in the study were enrolled in self-contained
classrooms for gifted students from low-income, culturally diverse, and linguistically diverse
backgrounds, and the classrooms were heterogeneous with regard to reading achievement. The
researchers reported that students who received tutoring showed gains in reading on state standardized
tests and on a classroom reading fluency measure. In particular, tutoring that focused on decoding,
visualizing/imagining, determining importance, and synthesis was correlated with increased reading
fluency (Kitano & Lewis, 2007).
Research has also documented an association between direct instruction and the reading achievement of
bilingual students. Vaughn and colleagues (2006) investigated the effects of Proactive Reading (a
comprehensive, integrated intervention curriculum based on the direct instruction approach) on ELLs.
They found that students who received the intervention outperformed other students in phonological
awareness and reading fluency (Vaughn, Cirino, Linan-Thompson, Mathes, Carlson, Hagan, PollardDurodola, Fletcher, & Francis, 2006). In a similar study, Vaughn and colleagues (2006) examined the
effects of a direct instruction curriculum on ELLs. They reported that students who received the
intervention outperformed other students in phonological awareness, letter naming fluency, and reading
comprehension (Vaughn, Mathes, Linan-Thompson, Cirino, Carlson, Pollard-Durodola, Cardenas-Hagan,
& Francis, 2006).
Gomez and colleagues (2001) considered the relationship between structured writing instruction
(compared to free writing instruction) and limited English proficient (LEP) Hispanic students’ writing
performance. The researchers reported that students who received structured writing instruction
performed better on several measures of writing quality than the other students (Gomez, Parker, LaraAlecio, & Gomez, 2001).
Carlo and colleagues (2004) explored the effects of a curricular intervention on ELLs that featured direct
instruction of vocabulary words. The researchers reported that students who were exposed to the
intervention showed greater gains than the control group on measures of mastery, word association, cloze,
and morphology (Carlo, August, McLaughlin, Snow, Dressler, Lippman, Lively, & White, 2004).
Bullet Points


Strong evidence of an association between the quality of instruction for bilingual students
and student achievement
Strong evidence that a variety of different instructional strategies for bilingual students
are associated with student achievement
6
Standard #2 – Learning Differences – Special Education
April 24, 2011
Standard #2: Learning Differences – Special Education
The teacher uses understanding of individual differences and diverse cultures and communities to ensure
inclusive learning environments that enable each learner to meet high standards.
Summary of Research Base
There is strong research evidence in support of Standard #3 in the area of special education. For example,
research has documented associations between self-regulated strategy development (SRSD) and
elementary students’ story writing ability (Asaro-Saddler & Saddler, 2010); middle school students’
writing quality and use of text structure elements (MacArthur & Phillippakos, 2010); and high school
students’ persuasive writing ability (Jacobson & Reid, 2010). In their study, Asaro-Saddler and Saddler
(2010) reported that SRSD had a significant effect on the story writing ability of students with autism
spectral disorders (ASD). For their part, MacArthur and Phillippakos (2010) found that SRSD had a
significant effect on the writing of middle school students with learning disabilities. And in their study,
Jacobson and Reid (2010) reported that SRSD had a significant effect on the persuasive writing ability of
high school students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
Research has shown that peer tutoring and other forms of tutoring can have a positive affect on the
learning of students with disabilities. In one study, Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, and Simmons (1997) reported
that a class-wide peer tutoring program during reading instruction had significant effects on the
performance of elementary and middle school students with disabilities on measures of number of words
correct, number of questions correct, and number of maze choices correct. The program featured partner
reading with retell, paragraph summary, and prediction relay activities (Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, &
Simmons, 1997). In a second study, Rafdal and colleagues (2011) found that Kindergarten Peer Assisted
Learning Strategies (KPALS) had a significant effect on the reading skills of kindergartners with
individual education plans (IEPs) (Rafdal, McMaster, McConnell, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2011).
In a third study, Gersten and colleagues (2006) reported differences between students with learning
disabilities (LD) who worked in pairs during a Civil Rights Unit on a) Think-Pair-Share activities; b)
compare-contrast activities; and c) oral reading; and LD students who worked by themselves on the same
activities. In particular, the authors found that LD students who worked in pairs demonstrated much
higher levels of performance on both written and oral examinations that asked them to discuss key issues
and figures in the Civil Rights Movement (Gersten, Baker, Smith-Johnson, Dimino, & Peterson, 2006). In
another study, Fuchs and colleagues (2008) found that schema-broadening preventative tutoring had a
significant effect on the math problem-solving skills of 3rd graders with math and reading difficulties
(Fuchs, Sethaler, Powell, Fuchs, Hamlett, & Fletcher, 2008).
In terms of other interventions, research has demonstrated that instruction focused on self-referenced
goals can influence the achievement of students with disabilities. Fuchs, Fuchs, and colleagues (1997)
examined the effects of a task-focused goals treatment (TFG) in mathematics on low-achieving students
in grades 2 through 4 with and without disabilities. The researchers found that students reported enjoying
and benefiting from TFG, and they chose more challenging and a greater variety of learning topics
(Fuchs, Fuchs, Karns, Hamlett, Katzaroff, & Dutka, 1997).
Vaughn and colleagues examined the effects of an intensive reading intervention on early elementary
students who were at risk for reading difficulty. The researchers found that the intervention had some
7
effect on students’ passage comprehension and word identification (Vaughn, Wanzek, Murray,
Scammacca, Linan-Thompson, & Woodruff, 2009).
Englert and colleagues (1991) investigated the effects of the Cognitive Strategy Instruction in Writing
(CSIW) program on the quality of 183 4th-and 5th-graders’ writing; 55 of the students were learning
disabled and received special education services. The CSIW program emphasized teacher and student
dialogues about expository writing strategies, text structure processes, and self-regulated learning. The
researchers reported that the CSIW program had positive effects with regard to overall writing quality for
expository texts (Englert, Raphael, Anderson, Anthony, & Stevens, 1991).
Bottge and colleagues (2010) studied the effects of Enhanced Anchored Instruction (EAI) on the math
skills of middle school students with learning disabilities. They reported that EAI had a significant effect
on LD students’ fraction computation skills and math problem-solving ability (Bottge, Rueda, Grant,
Stephens, & Laroque, 2010).
Research by Skindrud and Gersten (2006) examined the placement of students in special education
programs in schools that had adopted a) Open Court or b) Success For All. The researchers found that
both SFA and Open Court were associated with significant reductions in the percentage of students
enrolled in special education programs in the 3 sample schools with the least poverty. At the same time,
both reforms were associated with significant increases in the proportion of students enrolled in resource
rooms among the 3 schools with the most poverty (Skindrud & Gersten, 2006).
Bullet Points


Strong evidence of an association between self-regulated strategy development and the
writing ability of students with disabilities
Strong evidence of an association between peer tutoring and the reading ability of
students with disabilities
Standard #3 – Learning Environments – Elementary
April 24, 2011
Standard #3: Learning Environments – Elementary
The teacher works with others to create environments that support individual and collaborative learning,
and that encourage positive social interaction, active engagement in learning, and self motivation.
Summary of Research Base
There is strong research evidence in support of Standard #3 at the elementary level with research
documenting an association between the instructional and emotional climate in the classroom, and student
achievement, student engagement and other student outcomes.
8
With regard to effects on student achievement, Cirino and colleagues (2007) demonstrated an association
between classroom management and organization, learning environment, and other instructional
practices; and the literacy and oral language achievement and academic engagement of bilingual
kindergartners (Cirino, Pollard-Durodola, Foorman, Carlson, & Francis, 2007). Pianta and colleagues
showed that for prekindergarten through 5th-grade students, growth in math achievement showed small
positive relations with observed emotional interactions and exposure to math activities, and a significant
interaction between quality and quantity of instruction for reading (Pianta, Belsky, Vandergrift, Houts, &
Morrison, 2008).
O’Connor and McCartney (2007) investigated associations between the quality of teacher-child
relationships from preschool through 3rd grade and 3rd-grade achievement. They reported that both a)
change in quality of the teacher-child relationship and b) quality of the teacher-child relationship at 3rd
grade were significant predictors of achievement, controlling for child and family factors. The study also
showed that teacher-child relationships in 3rd grade are stronger predictors of achievement than insecure
maternal attachments and peer relationships (O’Connor & McCartney, 2007).
Freiberg, Huzinec, and Templeton (2009) examined the effects of a pro-social classroom and instructional
management system – Consistency Management & Cooperative Discipline (CMCD) – on student
achievement in math and reading. CMCD creates person-centered, caring, disciplined, and respectful
climate in classrooms, while reinforcing an environment focused on active learning. The researchers
found that the use of the CMCD program had a statistically significant effect on student reading and math
scores (Freiberg, Huzinec, & Templeton, 2009).
Griffith (2002) examined the effects of instrumental support (i.e., support with an academic emphasis)
and expressive support (i.e., support with a communal emphasis) on the achievement of 3rd- through 6thgraders. The researcher reported that classroom expressive support was associated with schools having
higher student self-reported GPAs.
Other research has shown an association between classroom climate and students’ perceptions of
academic competence. Hickey, Moore, and Pellegrino (2001) studied 5th-graders’ experiences with
curricular units that emphasized real-world inquiry and problem-solving. They found that students in the
classrooms where math instruction was more consistent with broader reform goals (i.e., the moreconsistent classrooms) reported higher subjective competence, higher math self-concept, and more
personal interest in math than students in the less-consistent classrooms (Hickey, Moore, & Pellegrino,
2001).
In terms of effects on student engagement, Skinner and Belmont (1993) investigated the relationship
between teacher behavior and 3rd- through 5th-graders’ engagement in the classroom. The study found a
strong reciprocal association between teachers’ behavior and students’ engagement in the classroom.
First, teachers’ involvement with individual students had the most powerful impact on children’s
perceptions of the teacher. Second, children’s engagement in learning activities was influenced both by
their perceptions of teachers and directly by teachers’ actual behaviors. The study found that children’s
behavioral engagement was predicted by student perceptions of teachers’ structure, which refers to
teachers’ clarity of expectations, contingency, instrumental help and support, and adjustment of teaching
strategies; while their emotional engagement was predicted by teacher involvement (Skinner & Belmont,
1993).
Pressley and colleagues documented the instructional practices of early elementary teachers who were
identified as exemplary by principals or district administrators. In two studies, they reported that such
teachers maintained high expectations for students and promoted student self-regulation of behavior and
learning (Bohn, Roehrig, & Pressley, 2004; Wharton-McDonald, Presley, & Hampston, 1998). In a third
9
study of how 3rd-grade teachers promote academic engagement, they found that the classrooms of the
most engaging teachers were characterized by consistently high on-task behavior and a high proportion of
tasks that were appropriately challenging for students. In addition, the most engaging teachers used more
motivational mechanisms that would be expected to increase engagement (Dolezal, Mohan, Pressley, &
Vincent, 2003).
With regard to measures of students’ social competence, Pianta and colleagues demonstrated an
association between the degree of emotional support in the classroom and early elementary students’
growth in social competence. Pianta, Paro, Payne, Cox, and Bradley (2002) reported that higher observed
quality on ratings of instructional climate, child-centered climate, and teacher positivity was associated
with kindergartners having higher social competence as rated by the teacher. Wilson, Pianta, and
Stuhlman (2007) showed that degree of emotional support in the classroom was related to increases in 1stgraders’ social competence. In particular, students in classrooms with high levels of emotional support
showed more competence with their peers, more positive/neutral behaviors with peers, greater selfcontrol, and more indicators of engagement (Wilson, Pianta, & Stuhlman, 2007).
Bullet Points




Strong evidence of an association between teachers’ classroom management skills and
student achievement
Strong evidence of an association between the emotional quality of teacher-student
interactions and student achievement
Strong evidence of an association between teachers’ expectations for students and student
engagement
Strong evidence of an association between the emotional quality of teacher-student
interactions and students’ social competence
Standard #3 – Learning Environments – Secondary
April 24, 2011
Standard #3: Learning Environments – Secondary
The teacher works with others to create environments that support individual and collaborative learning,
and that encourage positive social interaction, active engagement in learning, and self-motivation.
Summary of Research Base
There is strong research evidence in support of Standard #3 at the secondary level with research
documenting an association between the instructional and emotional climate in the classroom, and student
achievement, student engagement and other student outcomes.
With regards to effects on student achievement, Phillips (1997) examined the effects of academic press
(i.e., high teacher expectations, demanding curricula) and communal organization (i.e., shared values and
activities, positive adult social relations, positive teacher-student relations, and democratic governance)
10
on middle school students’ math achievement. She reported that academic press was positively related to
both mathematics achievement and attendance while communal organization was not related to
mathematics achievement or attendance (Phillips, 1997).
In terms of effects on student engagement, research by Patrick and colleagues has documented an
association between classroom climate and student engagement. In research on 7th- and 8th-grade
classrooms, Ryan and Patrick (2001) found that students’ perceptions of teacher support and the teacher
as promoting interaction and mutual respect were related to positive changes in students’ academic and
social efficacy, self-regulated learning, and disruptive behavior. In research on 6th-grade classrooms,
students reported least avoidance in classrooms in which teachers appeared to foster approachability and
in which they perceived the teacher to be supporting them through promoting respect, emphasizing a
mastery goal orientation, and giving little emphasis to a performance goal orientation (Patrick, Turner,
Meyer, & Midgley, 2003).
In a study of how 6th-grade teachers promote student engagement, Raphael, Pressley, and Mohan (2008)
reported that highly-engaging teachers created caring and positive classroom environments that
emphasized both the academic and affective development of all students; their techniques included
positive classroom management, monitoring and scaffolding, modeling of problem solving and strategy
use, encouraging self-regulation, increasing value for tasks and learning, and increasing expectancies for
success.
Croninger and Lee (2001) investigated whether students’ access to social capital from high school
teachers reduced the risk that students will drop out of school. They found that teachers were an important
source of social capital for students; teacher-based forms of social capital reduced the probability of
dropping out of school by nearly half. However, students who came from socially disadvantaged
backgrounds and who had had academic difficulties in the past found guidance and assistance from
teachers especially helpful (Croninger & Lee, 2001).
With regard to measures of students’ social behavior, Matsumura, Slater, and Crosson (2008) examined
the effects of classroom climate and rigor of instruction on 6th- and 7th-graders’ interactions. They found
that the degree of respect that teachers demonstrated for students significantly predicted students’
behavior toward one another. In addition, the presence of explicit rules in the classroom for respectful,
pro-social behavior significantly predicted the number of students who participated in discussions.
Further, the quality of student participation was predicted by the extent to which teachers urged students
to explain and support their contributions and by the rigor of the questions they asked students
(Matsumura, Slater, & Crosson, 2008).
Bullet Points


Some evidence of an association between academic press and student achievement
Strong evidence of an association between classroom climate and student engagement
11
Standard #4 – Content Knowledge
April 24, 2011
Standard #4: Content Knowledge
The teacher understands the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of the discipline(s) he or she
teaches and creates learning experiences that make these aspects of the discipline accessible and
meaningful for learners to assure mastery of the content.
Summary of Research Base
There is strong research evidence in support of Standard #4 in the areas of mathematics education and
science education. There is some research evidence in support of Standard #4 in the areas of elementary
literacy and secondary English/language arts. At present, we have not reviewed research on content
knowledge in other core subject areas (e.g., history/social studies, world language).
In mathematics education, research by Hill and colleagues (Hill, Rowan, & Ball, 2005; Hill, Ball, Blunk,
Goffney, & Rowan, 2007; Hill, Blunk, Charalambous, Lewis, Phelps, Sleep, & Ball, 2008) and Jacob and
colleagues (Jacob, Kane, Rockoff, & Staiger, 2009) has found that elementary teachers’ level of
mathematical knowledge for teaching (MKT) is associated with student achievement gains. MKT
includes common math content knowledge (held by most educated adults) and specialized math content
knowledge that is unique to teachers. MKT includes the knowledge teachers need to solve the math tasks
one uses with students; to consider the range of examples, representations, and explanations that are
appropriate for a given math concept; and to make productive use of student thinking (Hill et al., 2007).
MKT is domain-specific; thus, a beginning teacher may have strong mathematical knowledge for teaching
in number and operations, but weaker knowledge related to teaching patterns, functions, and algebra.
Research has documented an association between teachers’ mathematical knowledge and student learning
at the elementary level (Mullens, Murnane, & Willett, 1996; Rowan, Correnti, & Miller, 2002; Sowder,
Phillip, Armstrong, & Shappelle, 1998). In addition, research has found an association between teachers’
mathematical knowledge and the quality of math instruction at the elementary school (Stein & Baxter,
1990; Swafford, Jones, & Thornton, 1997; Wilkins, 2002); the middle school (Swafford, Jones, &
Thornton, 1997); and the high school levels (Lloyd & Wilson, 1998).
At the middle school and high school levels, research has also demonstrated some effects of a)
mathematics courses and b) mathematics education courses on student learning in math (Monk, 1994;
Monk & King, 1994; Rowan, Chiang, & Miller, 1997).
In science education, researchers have focused more on the relationship between teacher knowledge and
instruction as opposed to that between teacher knowledge and student learning. This is due in part to the
fact it is typically difficult to obtain measures of student learning gains (i.e., from one year to the next) in
science because a) most states do not tests students on an annual basis in science and b) when students are
tested in science in consecutive years, the tests are usually not vertically aligned (i.e., students’ scores on
tests from different grades are generally not connected on a common scale in ways that permit students’
performances across grades to be directly compared).
Most research on the relationship between instruction and teachers’ content knowledge and pedagogical
content knowledge (PCK) in science has focused on high school teachers. PCK is a similar construct to
MKT; PCK refers to knowledge of learning progressions associated with particular concepts; areas where
12
students are likely to have misconceptions; and examples, representations, and explanations that are
appropriate for specific concepts. For example, Lederman (1999) and Friedrichsen, Abell, Pareja, Brown,
Lankford, and Volkman (2009) demonstrated an association between high school teachers’ content
knowledge and PCK (or lack of PCK) in biology, and the nature of instruction. In the area of chemistry,
Clermont, Krajcik, and Borko (1993; Clermont, Borko, & Krajcik, 1994) have described the nature of
PCK in chemistry while van Driel and colleagues (van Driel, de Jong, & Verloop, 2002; van Driel,
Verloop, & de Vos, 1998) have shown how changes in teacher knowledge can affect chemistry
instruction. In research on chemistry and physics teachers, Justi and van driel (2005; 2006) have also
documented an association between changes in teacher knowledge and science instruction. Across
science content areas, Lee, Brown, Luft, and Roehrig (2007) described factors that affect teachers’ PCK
in science.
At the middle school and high school levels, research has demonstrated some effects of a) science courses
and b) science education courses on student learning in science (Monk, 1994; Monk & King, 1994).
At the elementary and middle school levels, Feldman and Arambula-Greenfield (1997) found an
association between changes in teacher knowledge of physics and chemistry, and changes in students’
attitudes towards science and their time on task during instruction.
In literacy, some research at the elementary level documents an association between teacher knowledge
and student achievement. For example, McCutchen, Green, Abbott, and Sanders (2009) reported that
increases in teachers’ understanding of phonology, phonemic awareness, and balanced literacy instruction
were associated with student learning gains. In addition, a study by Cirino, Pollard-Durodola, Foorman,
Carlson, and Francis (2007) showed an association between teachers’ oral language proficiency and the
engagement and learning of bilingual students. A study by Carlisle, Correnti, Phelps, and Zheng (2009),
though, found no relationship between teachers’ knowledge of early reading and student reading gains in
high-poverty schools.
Research by Rowan, Correnti, and Miller (2002) using data from the Prospect Study of Elementary
Schools showed an association between 1st- through 6th-graders’ reading achievement and teachers’
content knowledge, use of teaching routines, and patterns of content coverage.
With regard to English/language arts at the high school level, Grossman (1989a; 1989b) compared the
PCK of teachers who completed a teacher preparation program at a highly selective university with those
who entered teaching through an alternate route program. She found that the two groups of teachers
differed in their conceptions of the purposes for teaching English, their ideas about what to teach in
secondary English, and their knowledge of student understanding.
Bullet Points


Strong evidence of an association between teachers’ mathematical knowledge and student
learning
Strong evidence of an association between teachers’ knowledge in science and instruction
13
Standard #5 – Application of Content
April 24, 2011
Standard #5: Application of Content
The teacher understands how to connect concepts and use differing perspectives to engage learners in
critical thinking, creativity, and collaborative problem solving related to authentic local and global issues.
Summary of Research Base
There is strong research evidence in support of Standard #5, particularly the emphasis in this standard on
teachers’ understanding and use of digital and interactive technologies. For example, several studies have
demonstrated an association between the use of computer-assisted instruction and student learning. In
one study, Mathes, Torgesen, and Allor (2001) compared the effects of Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies
(PALS) for 1st graders with and without computer-assisted instruction (CAI) to typical reading instruction
(without PALS or CAI). The study found that students in both PALS conditions performed significantly
better than their peers who received typical instruction (Mathes, Torgesen, & Allor, 2001). In a second
study, Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, and Stecker (1991) compared the effects of curriculum-based measurement
(CBM) with and without computer-provided instructional advice (ExS) to typical math instruction
(without CBM or ExS). The study found that elementary and middle school students who received CBMExS performed significantly better in the area of mathematical operations than the students in the CBM
and control groups (Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, & Stecker, 1991). In a third study, Erdner, Guy, and Brush
(1998) reported a significant effect of CAI on 1st-graders’ reading achievement.
A number of studies have shown that students in online high school Algebra courses demonstrate learning
gains and perform as well as or better than students in traditional Algebra courses. In one study,
Cavanaugh and colleagues reported that students in an online Algebra course demonstrated significant
gains in their ability to graph linear equations (Cavanaugh, Gillian, Bosnick, Hess, & Scott, 2008). In a
second study, O’Dwyer, Carey, and Kleiman (2007) compared 8th- and 9th-graders in an online Algebra
course with similar students enrolled in traditional Algebra classes. They found that students in the two
groups performed similarly with regard to overall performance (O’Dwyer, Carey, & Kleiman, 2007). In a
third study, Hughes and colleagues (2007) compared high school students in online and traditional
courses and reported that students in online classes consistently outperformed the students in the
traditional classes (Hughes, McLeod, Brown, Maeda, & Choi, 2007).
Several studies have documented associations between teachers’ technology use and their
enactment of reform-oriented instructional practices. In one study, Becker and Ravitz (1999)
reported correlations between elementary, middle, and high school teachers’ technology use and
their implementation of constructivist-oriented instruction. In a second study, Ross and
colleagues (2002) found that technology use was associated with teachers’ enactment of math
reforms based on the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) standard. In
particular, technology had the greatest impact by helping teachers expand the scope of their
curricula and by fostering positive attitudes towards math (Ross, Hogaboam-Gray, McDougall, &
Bruce, 2002).
In a third study, Hickey and colleagues reported that use of a video-disc, mathematical problem-solving
series had a significant effect on 5th-graders’ learning in math, particularly their problem-solving and data
interpretation skills. In addition, teachers that used the video series and whose math instruction was more
consistent with broader reform goals had students who reported higher subjective competence, higher
math self-concept, and more personal interest in math (Hickey, Moore, & Pellegrino, 2001). In a fourth
14
study, Penuel and colleagues (2007) examined the effects of a professional development program in earth
science that featured the use of technology in recording data. The study found that teachers felt more
prepared to engage students in inquiry when the initial professional development was focused on
alignment with curriculum standards, curriculum, and classroom activities (Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi,
& Gallagher, 2007).
A number of studies have examined factors associated with teachers’ use of technology. In one study,
Ross, Hogaboam-Gray, and Hannay (1999) reported that when elementary teachers had greater access to
computers, software, and training, they were more likely to be confident in their ability to enact
computer-based instruction. In a second study, Windschitl and Sahl (2002) found that middle school
teachers learned to use technology in several settings and their beliefs about students and learning and
their teaching experience mediated their technology use. In a third study, O’Dwyer, Russell, and Bebell
(2005) reported that increased availability of technology was associated with increased use of technology
by middle and high school teachers for delivering instruction, increased teacher-directed use of
technology by students during class time, and increased use by teachers for class preparation.
In a fourth study, Frank, Zhao, and Borman (2004) found that elementary, middle, and high school
teachers’ own expertise with computers was the strongest predictor of technology use during instruction.
In addition, access to others’ expertise also had a significant effect on computer use. In a fifth study,
Zhao and colleagues (2002) identified 11 factors that influenced the extent to which elementary, middle,
and high school teachers successfully enacted technological innovations in their classrooms. Of the 11
factors, the three teacher-level factors included the teacher’s degree of technology proficiency, the degree
of compatibility between their pedagogical beliefs and the technology they were using, and their ability to
negotiate aspects of the school culture (Zhao, Pugh, Sheldon, & Byers, 2002).
Bullet Points




Strong evidence of an association between computer-assisted instruction and student
achievement
Strong evidence of an association between enrollment in online Algebra classes and
student achievement
Some evidence of an association between technology use and enactment of reformoriented instruction
Strong evidence that teachers’ technological expertise and access to technology are
associated with technology use
Standard #6 – Assessment
April 24, 2011
Standard #6: Assessment
The teacher understands and uses multiple methods of assessment to engage learners in their own growth,
to monitor learner progress, and to guide the teacher’s and learner’s decision making.
15
Summary of Research Base
There is strong research evidence in support of Standard #6 in the areas of quality of teachers’
assignments, use of formative assessment strategies, use of questioning strategies, and involvement of
students in self assessment. With regard to the quality of teachers’ assignments, Clare and Aschbacher
(2001) examined the relationship between ratings of the classroom assignments of 3rd-grade teachers and
7th-grade language arts teachers and measures of their instruction and student work. They reported that
observed instruction that focused on constructivist practice was associated with the quality of classroom
assignments. In addition, the quality of assignments was associated with the quality of student writing in
terms of writing content and organization (Clare & Aschbacher, 2001). In a second study, Matsumura and
colleagues (2002) investigated the relationship between the quality of 3rd-grade teachers’ writing
assignments and written responses to student writing, and the quality of subsequent student work. They
found that the quality of writing assignments and feedback appeared to have similar effects on
improvement in the content of student writing. In particular, writing tasks that were more cognitively
challenging appeared to present students with greater opportunities to improve the content of their work
(Matsumura, Patthey-Chavez, Valdes, & Garnier, 2002).
In a third study, Newmann, Marks, and Gamoran (1996) examined the effects of authentic pedagogy on
the academic performance of elementary, middle, and high school students. Authentic pedagogy was
defined as instructional and assessment practices that promote high-level intellectual work among
students characterized by "construction of knowledge through disciplined inquiry to produce discourse,
products or performance that have value beyond success in school" (1996, p.287). The researchers found
that authentic pedagogy had a significant effect on student learning in both math and social studies, and
that the effect was similar for both subjects at all three schooling levels with the exception of middle
school math where it had a smaller effect. In a fourth study, Newmann, Bryk, and Nagaoka (2001)
investigated the relationship between the quality of teachers’ classroom assignments and student learning
in grades 3, 6,and 8. The researchers reported a consistent, positive association between student exposure
to high-quality intellectual assignments and students’ learning gains on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills
(ITBS) and the Illinois Goal Assessment Program (IGAP) in reading and math (Newmann, Bryk, &
Nagaoka, 2001).
Several studies have documented an association between teachers’ use of formative assessment strategies
and student achievement. For example, in two studies of 5th- and 6th-grade students, Butler reported that
the provision of comments (feedback) to students was associated with higher student achievement and
task involvement (1987; 1988). In another study, Schunk and Rice (1991) examined the effect of
providing process learning goals and progress feedback during reading comprehension instruction for 5th
graders. They found that students in the process (learning) goal plus feedback condition scored
significantly higher on the self-efficacy and skill tests than students in the process goal (only) condition or
students in the product goal condition (Schunk & Rice, 1991). Fuchs, Fuchs, and colleagues have also
demonstrated an association between student math learning and a) ongoing, formative assessment (Fuchs,
Fuchs, Hamlett, & Stecker, 2001); and b) instruction focused on classroom-based performance
assessment (Fuchs, Fuchs, Karns, Hamlett, & Katzaroff, 1999).
At the high school level, Brown (2008) documented one high school science teacher’s use of formative
assessments as a tool to promote students’ conceptual understanding, their analysis skills, and their use of
science discourse. Monte-Sano (2008) compared the assessment practices of two U.S. history teachers
and reported that one teacher guided her students through complicated texts, emphasizing comprehension
and analysis, while the other did not. The students of the teacher who guided her class through
complicated texts performed better on evidence-based history essays than the students of the other
teacher.
16
A number of studies have demonstrated an association between teachers’ use of questioning strategies
and student learning. In one study, King (1991) examined the effects of guided peer questioning on 5thgraders’ problem-solving skills. He reported that the guided-questioning group significantly outperformed
students in the unguided-questioning and control groups on written and computer tests of problem-solving
ability (King, 1991). In a second study, King and Rosenshine (1993) investigated the effects of guided
cooperative questioning (CQ) with a) highly elaborated question stems and b) less elaborated question
stems on 5th-graders’ knowledge construction in science. They found that the students trained in the
strategy of CQ guided by highly elaborated stems performed better on lesson comprehension, retained
more of the learned material, and constructed more complete and accurate knowledge maps of the
material studied than the students in the other two groups.
In a third study, Taylor and colleagues (2003) examined the effects on 1st- through 5th-graders’ reading
achievement of reading instruction that maximized students’ cognitive engagement in literacy learning.
The study reported that the more a teacher asked high-level questions, the more growth the nine target
students in her class experienced on most measures (Taylor, Pearson, Peterson, & Rodriguez, 2003).
Several studies have demonstrated an association between involving students in self-assessment and
student achievement and other student outcomes. In one study, Fontana and Fernandes (1994) examined
the relationship between elementary students’ regular use of self-assessment and changes in their math
performance. They found that the students in classes where the regular use of pupil self-assessment
techniques was taught manifested significant improvements in math when compared to a control group of
students in classes where pupil self-assessment was not employed (Fontana & Fernandes, 1994). In a
second study, Declos and Harrington (1991) investigated the impact of self-monitoring training on 5thand 6th-grade students' problem solving ability. They reported that the self-monitoring problem-solving
group solved more complex problems than students in two other groups, and they took less time to solve
those complex problems (Declos & Harrington, 1991). In a third study, Schunk (1996) considered how
instructional goals and self-evaluation affect 4th-graders’ motivation and achievement outcomes. He found
that provision of a performance goal with self-evaluation led to higher self-efficacy, skill, motivation, and
task orientation than did provision of a performance goal without self-evaluation (Schunk, 1996).
At the high school level, Langer (2001) examined features of English/language arts instruction that
seemed to make a difference in student learning. She reported that all of the more successful teachers in
the study overtly taught their students strategies for organizing their thoughts and completing tasks,
whereas only 17 percent of the more typical teachers did so (Langer, 2001). In another study, White and
Frederiksen (1998) investigated the effects of an inquiry-oriented science curriculum in 7th- through 9thgraders. They found that the curriculum was associated with improved student performance on both
physics and inquiry assessments, and that students' learning was greatly facilitated by the use of reflective
assessment (White & Frederiksen, 1998).
Bullet Points




Strong evidence of an association between the quality of teachers’ assignments and
student achievement
Strong evidence of an association between the use of formative assessment strategies and
student achievement
Strong evidence of an association between the use of questioning strategies and student
achievement
Strong evidence of an association between involving students in self-assessment and
student achievement
17
Standard #7 – Planning for Instruction
April 24, 2011
Standard #7: Planning for Instruction
The teacher plans instruction that supports every student in meeting rigorous learning goals by drawing
upon knowledge of content areas, curriculum, cross-disciplinary skills, and pedagogy, as well as
knowledge of learners and the community context.
Summary of Research Base
There is fairly strong research evidence in support of Standard #7. In particular, some research on
teachers who have gone through the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS)
assessment process has demonstrated an association between teachers’ ability to plan for instruction and
student achievement. NBPTS has developed a series of assessments for teachers at different schooling
levels and in various content areas (e.g., elementary (generalist), middle school English/language arts
(E/LA), high school mathematics) (Milanowski, Heneman, & Kimball, 2009). Each of the NBPTS
assessments consists of several exercises including unit- and lesson-planning exercises.
Research by Goldhaber and Anthony compared National Board (NB)-certified teachers with teachers who
applied for, but did not earn NB certification. The sample for the study included all 3rd-, 4th- and 5th-grade
teachers in North Carolina from 1996-97 through 1998-99 who went through the NBPTS assessment
process in the area of elementary generalist. The researchers found that the students of NB-certified
teachers consistently outperformed the students of the other teachers (who applied for, but did not earn
NB certification) in both reading and math. According to the authors, their findings indicate that NBcertified teachers tend to be more effective than other applicants to the program who did not earn NB
certification (Goldhaber & Anthony, 2007).
Research by Cantrell, Fullerton, Kane, & Staiger (2008), used an experimental design to compare the
performance of students randomly assigned to NB applicants and comparison teachers. The sample
included 99 pairs of elementary teachers in grades 2-5 in LAUSD, in which each pair taught together in
the same school and at the same grade level. In each pair, one teacher was an NB applicant, and the other
was a non-applicant with at least three years of teaching experience. The study followed teachers during
the 2003-04 and 2004-05 school years. Cantrell et al. (2008) found that future NB-certified teachers were
not significantly more effective than non-applicants, while unsuccessful NB applicants were significantly
less effective than non-applicants.
Research by Clotfelter, Ladd, & Vigdor (2007) measured the relationship between student achievement
and a wide range of teacher characteristics, including NB certification. The sample for the study was all
3rd-, 4th-, and 5th-grade students and teachers in North Carolina from 1995-96 through 2003-04. The
researchers used a longitudinal data set to explore the relationship between NB certification and student
achievement. Results indicated that prior to beginning the certification process, future NB-certified
teachers tended to outperform their peers by a statistically significant margin. However, during and after
the NB certification process, NB-certified teachers did not demonstrate a statistically significant
improvement (Clotfelter, Ladd, & Vigdor, 2007). Thus, while the NB process in this case seemed to be
attracting stronger applicants, the process itself seemed to contribute little to gains in student
achievement.
Research by Harris and Sass (2009) compared NB-certified teachers, NB applicants who were not
selected, and teachers who never applied for NB certification. The sample for the study included 60,000
18
teachers who taught reading and math in grades 3 through 10 in Florida from 2000-01 through 2003-04.
The researchers found that before, during, and after the NB certification process, NB-certified teachers’
impact on student achievement did not differ significantly from their peers (Harris & Sass, 2009). Harris
and Sass (2009) also found no evidence that the NB-certified teachers boosted the productivity of noncertified teachers around them through a “spillover effect.”
Research by Vandervoort, Amrein-Beardsley, and Berliner (2004) compared the performance of students
assigned to NB-certified teachers with that of students assigned to non-NB-certified teachers in the same
school. The sample included 48 NB-certified teachers (with either the Early Childhood or Middle
Childhood Generalist certification) and their colleagues teaching reading or math in grades 3-6 in 14
separate school districts in Arizona from 1999-2000 through 2002-03. The researchers found that NBcertified teachers outperformed their non-certified peers in 35 out of 48 total comparisons. However,
these differences were statistically significant only 11 out of 35 times.
Bullet Points


Some evidence of an association between elementary teachers’ ability to plan for
instruction (as measured by the NBPTS assessments) and student achievement
Less evidence of an association between secondary teachers’ ability to plan for
instruction (as measured by the NBPTS assessments) and student achievement
Standard #8 – Instructional Strategies – Elementary Literacy
April 24, 2011
Standard #8: Instructional Strategies – Elementary Literacy
The teacher understands and uses a variety of instructional strategies to encourage learners to develop
deep understanding of content areas and their connections, and to build skills to apply knowledge in
meaningful ways.
Summary of Research Base
There is strong research evidence in support of Standard #8 in the area of elementary literacy. For
example, several studies have documented an association between direct instruction and student learning
gains. For example, Beck and McKeown (2007) showed an effect of direct instruction in sophisticated
words on kindergarten and 1st-grade students’ gains in vocabulary knowledge. Coyne, McCoach, Loftus,
Ziploi, and Kapp (2009) demonstrated that extended instruction (for directly teaching meanings) had a
greater effect than embedded instruction on kindergartners’ vocabulary knowledge. Embedded instruction
introduces target word meanings during storybook readings in a time-efficient manner while extensive
instruction is more time intensive but provides multiple opportunities to interact with target words outside
the context of the story. Reis and colleagues documented the effects of an enriched reading program on
3rd- through 6th-graders’ reading fluency and attitude toward reading (Reis, McCoach, Coyne, Schreiber,
Eckert, & Gubbins, 2007).
19
Research by Borman and colleagues (Borman, Slavin, Cheung, Chamberlain, Madden, & Chambers,
2005; 2007) in 41 elementary schools reported that Success For All (SFA) had a significant effect on
students’ vocabulary skills and reading comprehension. SFA is a full-day, thematically based program
with a focus on language and literacy development. In Grades 1-5, students are regrouped for reading
lessons targeted to specific performance levels. Lessons feature cooperative learning, meta-cognitive
comprehension strategies, classroom management methods such as rapid pace and active involvement of
all students, and embedded multimedia. Teachers formally assess each student’s reading performance
quarterly and make regrouping changes and changes to classroom instruction based on the results.
At the same time, research by Skindrud and Gersten (2006) found that students in schools that
implemented Open Court had reading levels that were significantly higher than students in schools that
implemented SFA. Open Court is a comprehensive elementary reading program for grades Kindergarten
through 6. In the primary grades, the program systematically teaches phonemic and print awareness and
an understanding of the alphabetic principle.
In another study, McCutchen, Green, Abbott, and Sanders (2009) reported that increases in teachers’
understanding of phonology, phonemic awareness, and balanced literacy instruction were associated with
student learning gains. Further, Sadoski and Wilson (2006) showed that the Lindamood-Bell Learning
Processes (LBLP) instructional program had an effect on 3rd- through 5th-graders’ reading comprehension.
This program featured instruction in phonological awareness, phonemic awareness, sight words,
contextual reading, meaningful vocabulary, comprehension, inference, prediction, and evaluation.
In contrast to these studies, some studies have reported that other literacy practices are related to student
learning. In two studies, for example, Taylor and colleagues compared more effective and less effective
elementary teachers (Taylor, Pearson, Clark, & Walpole, 2000; Taylor, Pearson, Peterson, & Rodriguez,
2003). In the first study, they found that the more effective literacy teachers spent time in small-group
instruction; preferred coaching students over telling or recitation; used coaching to help students learn
how to apply word recognition strategies to real reading; frequently encouraged higher-level responses to
text; and exhibited more balanced instruction than their peers (Taylor, Pearson, Clark, & Walpole, 2000).
In the second study, Taylor and colleagues (2003) reported that the more a teacher asked high-level
questions, the more growth students in her class experienced on most measures. At the same time, the
more that explicit phonics skill instruction was observed in grades 2 through 5, the lower the reading
growth. In addition, the more that routine, practice-oriented approaches to teaching reading
comprehension processes were observed, the lower the reading growth. Further, high levels of coaching
and involving students in active reading enhanced students’ growth in fluency; and high levels of
modeling (positively related) and telling (negatively related) predicted students’ writing growth (Taylor,
Pearson, Peterson, & Rodriguez, 2003).
In another study, Pressley, Rankin, and Yokoi (1996) described the literacy practices of 113 effective
early elementary teachers. The researchers reported that 54 percent of the teachers indicated that they
were whole language teachers while 43 percent claimed that they were somewhat whole language
teachers; 59 percent of the sample reported using drills, with drilling for letter recognition, and for
phonics/letter-sound association, and spelling. The teachers indicated that they used a combination of
whole-group, small-group, and individual instruction, as well as individual seatwork. When asked to
divide a total of 100 percent of their literacy instruction into the percentage devoted to meaning-making
versus decoding, meaning-making predominated, by 71 percent to 27 percent. For every basic skill, the
majority of teachers teaching it claimed to do so in the context of actual reading and writing. Finally, most
teachers (86 percent) reported that their students wrote stories and developed written responses to
readings (Pressley, Rankin, & Yokoi, 1996).
20
In a similar study, Wharton-McDonald, Pressley, and Hampston (1998) described the literacy practices of
9 effective 1st-grade teachers. In their study, the following practices distinguished the instruction of the
teachers whose students demonstrated the highest levels on measures of reading and writing achievement
and engagement: a) coherent and thorough integration of skills with high-quality reading and writing
experiences, b) a high density of instruction (i.e., integration of multiple goals in a single lesson), c)
extensive use of scaffolding, d) encouragement of student self-regulation, e) a thorough integration of
reading and writing activities, f) high expectations for all students, g) masterful classroom management,
and h) an awareness of their practices and the goals or purposes underlying them (Wharton-McDonald,
Pressley, & Hampston, 1998).
Xue and Meisels (2004) demonstrated an association between a balanced approach to literacy instruction
and kindergartners’ basic literacy, vocabulary, and reading comprehension skills. The authors found that
classroom mean outcomes were significantly higher when teachers reported using both integrated
language arts and phonics more often. At the same time, children with low initial performance benefited
less from integrated language arts instruction, as measured by direct measures of achievement. Also,
regardless of the level of phonics instruction, children exposed to more frequent integrated language arts
instruction learned significantly more (Xue & Meisels, 2004) Van-Tassel-Baska and colleagues showed
an association between a curriculum that featured advanced work and high-level thinking processes, and
3rd- through 5th-graders’ ability to engage in literary analysis and persuasive writing. But the curriculum
did not have an effect on reading comprehension (Van-Tassel, Baska, Bracken, Feng, & Brown, 2009).
Clare and Aschbacher (2001) examined the relationship between the quality of elementary (and middle)
school teachers’ writing assignments and a) instructional quality and b) the quality of 3rd-graders’ (and
7th-graders’) writing. They reported that observed instruction that focused on constructivist practice was
associated with the quality of classroom assignments. In addition, the quality of assignments was
associated with the quality of student writing as assessed by scales measuring writing content and
organization (Clare & Aschbacher, 2001). Englert and colleagues (1991) examined the effects of the
Cognitive Strategy Instruction in Writing (CSIW) program on the quality of 4th-and 5th-graders’ writing.
The CSIW program emphasized teacher and student dialogues about expository writing strategies, text
structure processes, and self-regulated learning. The researchers reported that the CSIW program had
positive effects with regard to overall writing quality for expository texts (Englert, Raphael, Anderson,
Anthony, & Stevens, 1991).
In another study of writing instruction, Matsumura and colleagues (2002) examined the relationship
between the quality of writing assignments and written instructor responses to student writing, and the
quality of subsequent student work. The authors found that the quality of writing assignments and
feedback appeared to have similar effects on improvement in the content of student writing. In particular,
writing tasks that were more cognitively challenging appeared to present students with greater
opportunities to improve the content of their work (Matsumura, Patthey-Chavez, Valdes, & Garnier,
2002).
Research by Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, and Simmons (1997) and Mathes, Torgesen, and Allor (2001)
documented associations between the use of peer-assisted learning strategies (e.g., peer tutoring) and
improvements in reading ability. Harris, Graham, and Mason showed an association between 2nd-graders’
use of self-regulation strategies (with and without peer support) and the quality of their writing. In
another study, Graham, Harris, and Chorzempa (2002) found that supplemental spelling instruction had
effects on 2nd-graders’ spelling ability, writing fluency skills, and word attack skills.
Pianta, Belsky, Vandergrift, Houts, and Morrison (2008) reported a combined effect on reading
achievement of the quantity of reading instruction and the observed emotional quality of teacher-student
interactions.
21
Bullet Points




Strong evidence of an association between direct instruction in phonics, phonemic
awareness, and other basic literacy skills, and student achievement in reading
Strong evidence of an association between coaching, high-level questioning, focus on
meaning-making, and integrated language arts; and student achievement in reading
Strong evidence of an association between the quality of writing assignments and the
quality of student writing
Strong evidence of the use of peer-assisted learning strategies and student achievement in
reading
Standard #8 – Instructional Strategies – Elementary Mathematics
April 24, 2011
Standard #8: Instructional Strategies – Elementary Mathematics
The teacher understands and uses a variety of instructional strategies to encourage learners to develop
deep understanding of content areas and their connections, and to build skills to apply knowledge in
meaningful ways.
Summary of Research Base
There is fairly strong research evidence in support of Standard #8 in the area of elementary mathematics.
Some research has addressed math instruction related to mathematical problem-solving. For example,
studies by Fuchs, Fuchs, and colleagues have demonstrated an association between instruction that
focuses on a) teaching transfer skills directly and b) helping children broaden their schemas (to recognize
math problems as solvable) and students’ problem-solving ability in math (Fuchs, Fuchs, Finelli, Courey,
& Hamlett, 2004; Fuchs, Fuchs, Courey, Hamlett, Sones, & Hope, 2006).
Other research has investigated the effects of advanced curriculum and high-level intellectual work on
student learning in math. In one study, Hickey, Moore, and Pellegrino (2001) reported an association
between curricular units that emphasized real-world inquiry and problem-solving, and student learning in
math. Gavin and colleagues found that implementing high-level reform-oriented curricular units in math
was associated with student learning gains for 3rd- through 5th-graders on tests of math concepts and
estimation and open-ended items (Gavin, Casa, Adelson, Carroll, & Sheffield, 2009).
Research by Newmann, Marks, and Gamoran (1996) examined the math instructional practices of 4th- and
58h-grade teachers and found that authentic pedagogy was related to higher student performance in
mathematics on the part of 4th- and 5th-graders. The authors defined authentic pedagogy as instructional
and assessment practices that promote high-level intellectual work among students characterized by
"construction of knowledge through disciplined inquiry to produce discourse, products or performance
that have value beyond success in school" (Newmann, Marks, & Gamoran, 1996, p.287). Fuchs, Fuchs,
and colleagues have also demonstrated an association between student math learning and a) ongoing,
formative assessment (Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, & Stecker, 1001); and b) instruction focused on classroombased performance assessment (Fuchs, Fuchs, Karns, Hamlett, & Katzaroff, 1999). Also, Fontana and
22
Fernandes showed that children’s regular use of the meta-cognitive skill of self-assessment was
associated with improved student learning in math.
Other research has considered the effects of differentiated curricula on math learning. For example, Tieso
(2005) reported that students who were exposed to a differentiated curriculum on data representation and
analysis, combined with within- and between-class ability grouping, experienced significantly higher
math achievement than students exposed to the regular textbook unit on the same topic. Research by
Georges (2002) used data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Kindergarten (ECLS-K) to
examine whether relationships between math instruction and student learning were mediated by poverty.
She found that activities that built on students’ analytic and reasoning skills were significantly related to
the test scores of students in high-poverty classrooms. In addition, there were high rates of learning gains
associated with using worksheets for students in both high-poverty and low-poverty classrooms. Finally,
students in low-poverty classrooms benefitted from activities in collaborative groups (in terms of test
score gains) while students in high-poverty classrooms did not (Georges, 2005).
Other studies have considered effects on student learning of interactions between quantity of mathematics
taught and other factors. Pianta, Belsky, Vandergrift, Houts, and Morrison (2008) reported a combined
effect on math achievement of the quantity of reading instruction and the observed emotional quality of
teacher-student interactions. Research by Rowan, Correnti, and Miller (2002) using data from the
Prospect Study of Elementary Schools showed an association between 1st- through 6th-graders’
mathematics achievement and teachers’ content knowledge, use of teaching routines, and patterns of
content coverage.
Franke, Carpenter, Levi, and Fennema (2001) used a classification scheme to describe and distinguish
teachers’ levels of engagement with children’s mathematical thinking. Some teachers in their study
reported that children’s thinking was only one of an assortment of factors they considered in teaching
math. In contrast, other teachers viewed children’s thinking as driving every aspect of their mathematics
classroom practice. Of these, some focused more on structure and detail in talking about their knowledge
of children’s mathematical thinking (Franke, Carpenter, Levi, & Fennema, 2001).
There has also been research on the relationship between teacher knowledge and math instruction. For
example, two studies by Hill and colleagues documented an association between teachers’ levels of
mathematical knowledge for teaching and the quality of their math instruction (Hill, Rowan, & Ball,
2005; Hill, Ball, Blunk, Goffney, & Rowan, 2007; Hill, Blunk, Charalambous, Lewis, Phelps, Sleep, &
Ball, 2008). The measure “mathematical quality of teaching” referred to a composite of several
dimensions that characterized the rigor and richness of the mathematics of the lesson, including the
following: mathematical errors, responding to students inappropriately, connecting classroom practice to
mathematics, richness of the mathematics, responding to students appropriately, and mathematical
language.
In addition, other research has found an association between teachers’ mathematical knowledge and the
quality of math instruction at the elementary level (Sowder, Phillip, Armstrong, & Shappelle, 1998; Stein
& Baxter, 1990; Swafford, Jones, & Thornton, 1997; Wilkins, 2002).
Bullet Points


Strong evidence of an association between instruction that focuses on transfer skills and
schemas, and student achievement in math
Strong evidence of an association between advanced curriculum and high-level
intellectual work, and student achievement in math
23


Strong evidence of an association between the quantity of mathematics taught and student
achievement in math
Strong evidence of an association between teachers’ levels of mathematical knowledge
for teaching and the quality of instruction
Standard #8 – Instructional Strategies – Secondary English Language Arts
April 24, 2011
Standard #8: Instructional Strategies – Secondary English Language Arts
The teacher understands and uses a variety of instructional strategies to encourage learners to develop
deep understanding of content areas and their connections, and to build skills to apply knowledge in
meaningful ways.
Summary of Research Base
There is strong research evidence in support of Standard #8 in the area of secondary English/language
arts (E/LA). For example, several studies have documented an association between discussion-based
approaches and secondary students’ achievement. Applebee and colleagues examined associations
between discussion-based approaches to the development of understanding and student literacy
performance in 19 middle and high schools (Applebee, Langer, Nystrand, & Gamoran, 2003). The
researchers found that dialogic instruction, environment building, and emphasis on extended curricular
conversations were in fact related aspects of a common emphasis on discussion-based instructional
activities that support the development of understanding. The results also indicate that an emphasis on
high academic demands (as reflected primarily in the amount of academic work that students were
expected to do) was independent of other aspects of instruction. Track level, an emphasis on discussionbased approaches, and high academic demands were all related to higher levels of student performance
(Applebee, Langer, Nystrand, & Gamoran, 2003).
Nystrand and Gamoran (1991) studied the kinds of E/LA instruction in 16 middle schools that promote
student engagement with literature and the effects of such instruction on achievement. They found that
teachers who spent more time in discussion were more likely to assign authentic writing tasks and to
respond to writing at a high level, more likely to treat readings authentically, and more likely to use
uptake and other forms of contiguity in their lessons. Student disengagement had a strong negative effect
on achievement. At the same time, students scored higher on the achievement test in classes exhibiting
more uptake, more authenticity of questions, more contiguity of reading, and more discussion time;
uptake and discussion time appeared to exert particularly strong effects (Nystrand & Gamoran, 1991).
Juzwik and colleagues (2008) explored a) co-occurrences of classroom discussion and oral narrative in a
middle school English-/language arts (E/LA) classroom, b) the kind of oral narratives told in literary
discussions, and c) the interactional features of narrative-rich discussions (Juzwik, Nystrand, Kelly, &
Sherry, 2008). The authors reported that the focal teacher’s students’ achievement growth was nearly
three times larger than that of students in comparison classrooms. In addition, oral narrative events
occurred frequently in her classroom and these events were embedded in conversation. Rather than
monologues by a single speaker, small stories were collaboratively primed and sustained through the
24
concerted actions of narrators and interlocutors. The authors labeled the overlap between oral narrative
genres and discussion “conversational narrative discussion” (CND); for the unit of instruction they
studied, nearly 40% of all classroom discourse coded for discussion featured CND (Juzwik, Nystrand,
Kelly, & Sherry, 2008).
Research has also demonstrated an association between instruction that promotes student understanding
and student achievement in E/LA. Langer (2001) investigated features of E/LA instruction that made a
difference in student learning and contrasted those schools where test scores were higher with
demographically comparable schools where they were not. She found that all of the more successful
teachers took a generative approach to student learning, going beyond students’ acquisition of knowledge
or skills to engage them in deeper understanding. In contrast, the more typical teachers tended to move
on to other goals and activities once they had evidence that the target skills or knowledge had been
learned.
In Langer’s study, more than 80 percent of the more successful teachers integrated the skills and
knowledge that were to be tested into the curriculum as their dominant approach to test preparation. In
comparison, 75 percent of the more typical teachers used a separated approach to test preparation,
primarily teaching test preparation skills and knowledge apart from the ongoing curriculum. At least 88
percent of the more successful teachers tended to make connections among concepts and experiences
within lessons; connections across lessons, classes, and even grades; and connections between in-school
and out-of-school knowledge and experiences. In contrast, the more typical teachers tended to make no
connections at all. All of the more successful teachers overtly taught their students strategies for
organizing their thoughts and completing tasks, whereas only 17 percent of the more typical teachers did
so. (Langer, 2001).
Carbonaro and Gamoran (2002) used data from the National Educational Longitudinal Survey of 1988
(NELS: 88) to examine whether unequal access to high quality English instruction leads to unequal
achievement outcomes for students; the authors investigated four key aspects of high quality instruction
(quality of assignments, coherence of instruction, student voice in curricular and pedagogical issues, and
the content of instruction) to see whether each aspect affected growth in reading achievement from grades
8 to 12. They found that homework hours and students being asked to show their understanding had
statistically significant effects on growth in reading achievement. In addition, emphasis on literature
study had a positive statistically significant effect on growth in reading scores while emphasis on
grammar had a negative, statistically significant effect. Since the authors controlled for prior
achievement, these findings did not simply reflect the tendency for higher-achieving students to have
access to better instruction (Carbonaro & Gamoran, 2002).
Some research has showed an association between E/LA content coverage and student learning. For
example, Raphael, Pressley, and Mohan (2008) compared the instructional practices of 3 highly-engaging
middle school teachers with those of 6 less-engaging teachers. They reported that the 3 highly-engaging
teachers created positive classroom environments that emphasized both the academic and affective
development of all students; their techniques included positive classroom management, monitoring and
scaffolding, modeling of problem solving and strategy use, encouraging self-regulation, increasing value
for tasks and learning, and increasing expectancies for success. In sum, the most engaging teachers
offered the most academic content and they covered much more information and in greater depth than the
less engaging teachers (Raphael, Pressley, & Mohan, 2008).
Some studies have considered how the nature of teachers’ writing assignments affects student learning.
Clare and Aschbacher (2001) examined the relationship between the quality of middle (and elementary)
school teachers’ writing assignments and a) instructional quality and b) the quality of 7th-graders’ (and
3rd-graders’) writing. They reported that observed instruction that focused on constructivist practice was
25
associated with the quality of classroom assignments. In addition, the quality of assignments was
associated with the quality of student writing as assessed by scales measuring writing content and
organization (Clare & Aschbacher, 2001). The study by Carbonaro and Gamoran (2002) also reported an
association between an emphasis on analytical writing and reading achievement.
Sengupta (2000) investigated the effects of explicit instruction in revision on students’ academic
performance and perceptions about writing. She found that students who received explicit instruction in
revision performed much better on writing tasks than students who did not receive such instruction
(Sengupta, 2000).
Alfassi (1998) explored the effects of strategy instruction (reciprocal teaching methods) on high school
students’ reading comprehension. The researcher found that students who experienced strategy
instruction had significant increases in their reading comprehension scores (on a researcher-developed
assessment) from prior to the intervention to post-tests administered after the intervention. In contrast,
the control-group students saw little increase in their reading comprehension scores (Alfassi, 1998).
Bullet Points




Strong evidence of an association between discussion-based approaches and student
achievement in English/language arts (E/LA)
Strong evidence of an association between instruction that promotes student
understanding and student achievement in E/LA
Some evidence of an association between content coverage in E/LA and student
achievement in E/LA
Some evidence of an association between the quality of writing assignments and student
achievement in E/LA
Standard #8 – Instructional Strategies – Secondary Mathematics
April 24, 2011
Standard #8: Instructional Strategies – Secondary Mathematics
The teacher understands and uses a variety of instructional strategies to encourage learners to develop
deep understanding of content areas and their connections, and to build skills to apply knowledge in
meaningful ways.
Summary of Research Base
There is fairly strong research evidence in support of Standard #8 in the area of secondary mathematics.
Some research has documented an association between the quality of mathematics instruction and student
learning. For example, Stein and Lane (1996) studied four middle schools and found that classroom
instruction that utilized the greatest proportion of tasks having multiple solution strategies, multiple
connected representations, and explanations was associated with the most gain in 8th-graders’ learning. At
the same time, instruction that utilized the fewest proportion of tasks having these reform features was
associated with the least amount of student gain. The reform feature on which instructional task
26
differences were most apparent and consistent was multiple solution strategies. Also, in general,
classroom instruction that primarily focused on tasks with high-level cognitive demands was associated
with the most gain in student learning (Stein & Lane, 1996).
Brenner and colleagues (1997) explored the effects of a pre-algebra unit based on math reform principles
on the ways in which 7th- and 8th-grade students use symbols, words, and graphics to represent
mathematical problems involving functional relations. They reported that students who were taught this
unit were more successful in representing and solving a function word problem and were better at
problem representation tasks such as translating word problems into tables and graphs than were
comparison students (Brenner, Mayer, Mosely, Brar, Duran, Reed, & Webb, 1997).
Research by Newmann, Marks, and Gamoran (1996) examined the math instructional practices of 7th- and
88h-grade teachers and found that authentic pedagogy was related to higher student performance in
mathematics on the part of 7th- and 8th-graders. The authors defined authentic pedagogy as instructional
and assessment practices that promote high-level intellectual work among students characterized by
"construction of knowledge through disciplined inquiry to produce discourse, products or performance
that have value beyond success in school" (Newmann, Marks, & Gamoran, 1996, p.287).
Boaler and Staples (2008) described an urban high school that promoted high achievement in
mathematics through an emphasis on mathematical problem-solving, consideration of alternate and
multidimensional solutions, and attention to equity. The researchers “found that mathematical materials
and associated teaching practices at the school that encouraged students to work in many different ways,
supporting the contributions of all students, not only resulted in high and equitable attainment, but
promoted respect and sensitivity among students” (Boaler & Staples, 2008, p.640).
Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, and Stecker (1991) investigated the relationship between ongoing, formative
assessment and middle school students’ learning in the area of mathematics operations. The researchers
found that achievement was much higher when teachers used ongoing assessment and incorporated a dual
focus on what types of problems to teach and what strategies to employ for teaching than when they a)
used ongoing assessment and focused on what types of problems to teach, but without attention to what
strategies to employ for teaching; or b) did not use ongoing assessment (Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, &
Stecker, 1991).
Some research has focused on the nature of the mathematical tasks used in secondary classrooms. For
example, Boston and Smith (2009) described how professional development affected middle school and
high school teachers’ ability to maintain the cognitive demand of mathematical tasks during instruction.
The researchers found that participants in the professional development more frequently selected highlevel tasks as their main tasks and improved the maintenance of high-level cognitive demands (of the
tasks) than teachers in a control group. These differences were not influenced by the use of standardsbased or conventional curricula in project teachers’ classrooms (Boston & Smith, 2009).
Stein, Grover, and Henningsen (1996) described the nature of the mathematical tasks used in 6th-, 7th-, and
8th-grade classrooms. They found that the teachers were selecting and setting up the kinds of tasks that
reformers argue should lead to the development of students’ thinking capacities. During task
implementation, the task features (i.e., number of solution strategies, number and kind of representations,
and communication requirements) tended to remain consistent with how they were set up, but the
cognitive demands of high-level tasks had a tendency to decline (Stein, Grover, & Henningsen, 1996). In
a related study, Henningsen and Stein (1997) identified several factors in these classrooms that influenced
students’ engagement with high-level mathematical tasks.
27
Bullet Points



Strong evidence of an association between the quality of mathematics instruction and
student learning in math
Some evidence of an association between formative assessment practices and student
learning in math
Some evidence on factors that influence teachers’ selection and maintenance of highcognitive demand tasks in math
Standard #9 – Professional Learning and Ethical Practice
April 24, 2011
Standard #9: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice
The teacher engages in ongoing professional learning and uses evidence to continually evaluate his/her
practice, particularly the effects of his/her choices and actions on others (learners, families, other
professionals, and the community), and adapts practice to meet the needs of each learner.
Summary of Research Base
There is fairly strong research evidence in support of Standard #9. In particular, some research on
teachers who have gone through the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS)
assessment process has demonstrated an association between teachers’ ability to engage in professional
learning and reflect on their practice, and student achievement. NBPTS has developed a series of
assessments for teachers at different schooling levels and in various content areas (e.g., elementary
(generalist), middle school English/language arts (E/LA), high school mathematics) (Milanowski,
Heneman, & Kimball, 2009). Each of the NBPTS assessments involves professional learning and
consists of several exercises including written reflections on one’s teaching.
Research by Goldhaber and Anthony compared National Board (NB)-certified teachers with teachers who
applied for, but did not earn NB certification. The sample for the study included all 3rd-, 4th- and 5th-grade
teachers in North Carolina from 1996-97 through 1998-99 who went through the NBPTS assessment
process in the area of elementary generalist. The researchers found that the students of NB-certified
teachers consistently outperformed the students of the other teachers (who applied for, but did not earn
NB certification) in both reading and math. According to the authors, their findings indicate that NBcertified teachers tend to be more effective than other applicants to the program who did not earn NB
certification (Goldhaber & Anthony, 2007).
Research by Cantrell, Fullerton, Kane, & Staiger (2008), used an experimental design to compare the
performance of students randomly assigned to NB applicants and comparison teachers. The sample
included 99 pairs of elementary teachers in grades 2-5 in LAUSD, in which each pair taught together in
the same school and at the same grade level. In each pair, one teacher was an NB applicant, and the other
was a non-applicant with at least three years of teaching experience. The study followed teachers during
the 2003-04 and 2004-05 school years. Cantrell et al. (2008) found that future NB-certified teachers were
28
not significantly more effective than non-applicants, while unsuccessful NB applicants were significantly
less effective than non-applicants.
Research by Clotfelter, Ladd, & Vigdor (2007) measured the relationship between student achievement
and a wide range of teacher characteristics, including NB certification. The sample for the study was all
3rd-, 4th-, and 5th-grade students and teachers in North Carolina from 1995-96 through 2003-04. The
researchers used a longitudinal data set to explore the relationship between NB certification and student
achievement. Results indicated that prior to beginning the certification process, future NB-certified
teachers tended to outperform their peers by a statistically significant margin. However, during and after
the NB certification process, NB-certified teachers did not demonstrate a statistically significant
improvement (Clotfelter, Ladd, & Vigdor, 2007). Thus, while the NB process in this case seemed to be
attracting stronger applicants, the process itself seemed to contribute little to gains in student
achievement.
Research by Harris and Sass (2009) compared NB-certified teachers, NB applicants who were not
selected, and teachers who never applied for NB certification. The sample for the study included 60,000
teachers who taught reading and math in grades 3 through 10 in Florida from 2000-01 through 2003-04.
The researchers found that before, during, and after the NB certification process, NB-certified teachers’
impact on student achievement did not differ significantly from their peers (Harris & Sass, 2009). Harris
and Sass (2009) also found no evidence that the NB-certified teachers boosted the productivity of noncertified teachers around them through a “spillover effect.”
Research by Vandervoort, Amrein-Beardsley, and Berliner (2004) compared the performance of students
assigned to NB-certified teachers with that of students assigned to non-NB-certified teachers in the same
school. The sample included 48 NB-certified teachers (with either the Early Childhood or Middle
Childhood Generalist certification) and their colleagues teaching reading or math in grades 3-6 in 14
separate school districts in Arizona from 1999-2000 through 2002-03. The researchers found that NBcertified teachers outperformed their non-certified peers in 35 out of 48 total comparisons. However,
these differences were statistically significant only 11 out of 35 times.
Bullet Points


Some evidence of an association between elementary teachers’ ability to engage in
professional learning and reflect on their teaching (as measured by the NBPTS
assessments) and student achievement
Less evidence of an association between secondary teachers’ ability to engage in
professional learning and reflect on their teaching (as measured by the NBPTS
assessments) and student achievement
Standard #10 – Leadership and Collaboration
April 24, 2011
Standard #9: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice
The teacher seeks appropriate leadership roles and opportunities to take responsibility for
student learning, to collaborate with learners, families, colleagues, other school professionals,
and community members to ensure learner growth, and to advance the profession.
29
Summary of Research Base
There is strong research evidence in support of Standard #10 with regard to teacher-teacher collaboration
and teacher-parent collaboration. In terms of teacher-teacher collaboration and achievement, Goddard
and colleagues reported that teacher collaboration at the elementary level was a statistically significant
predictor of variability among schools in both math and reading achievement (Goddard, Goddard, &
Tschannen-Moran, 2007). Saunders, Goldenberg, and Gallimore (2009) and Strahan (2003) also
documented associations between elementary teachers’ collaboration in grade-level teams and improved
student achievement.
Other studies have documented associations between increases in student achievement and collective
responsibility, collective efficacy, and relational trust. Collective responsibility refers to the degree of
shared agreement among the faculty in a school to improve instruction, school organization, and other
practices in order to promote high levels of learning and achievement among all students. In research on
secondary students, Lee and Smith (1996) found that the mean achievement gains of students in schools
with high levels of collective responsibility were significantly greater than the gains of students in lowresponsibility schools. Similarly, in a study of 6th- and 8th- grade teachers, Lee and Loeb (2000) reported
that collective responsibility was positively related to student learning in mathematics.
Collective efficacy is conceptually distinct from collective responsibility and refers to the assessment of
teachers in a given school that the entire staff is able to enact practices that are necessary to positively
influence student learning. Goddard, Hoy, and Hoy (2000) found that collective efficacy at the elementary
level was positively associated with differences in achievement between schools. With regard to
relational trust, Bryk and Schneider (2002) found that high levels of teacher-teacher trust in K-8 schools
were associated with improvements in reading and math achievement.
Several studies have demonstrated associations between teacher collaboration and changes in
instruction. In one study, Garet and colleagues provided evidence that teacher professional development
that involved collaboration was associated with changes in secondary math and science teachers’
instructional practices (Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001). In a study of secondary math
and science teachers who were going through the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards
(NBPTS) assessment process, Sato and colleagues reported that the study participants identified collegial
interactions as contributing to changes in their instructional practices (Sato, Wei, & Darling-Hammond,
2008).
At the elementary level, Penuel, Riel, Krause, and Frank (2009) found that elementary teachers’ social
networks strongly affected enactment of literacy reform. Due to differences in the structures of teachers’
subgroups (some were cohesive, but others were fractured), individual teacher’ access to the expertise of
colleagues through social networks differed across the schools in the study (Penuel, Riel, Krause, &
Frank, 2009). Similarly, Coburn (2001) documented ways in which teachers’ interactions with grade-level
and other colleagues shaped their interpretation of and response to district and state literacy reforms.
In a third study, Westberg and Archambault (1997) described teachers’ collaborative and instructional
practices at elementary schools with strong reputations for differentiating instruction to meet the needs of
high-ability students. They found almost all of the teachers in the study collaborated regularly with
colleagues; some collaborated with grade-team colleagues, others collaborated with gifted education
specialists, and others collaborated with curriculum specialists (Westberg & Archambault, 1997). In terms
of beginning teachers, Achinstein, Ogawa, and Speiglman (2004) reported associations between novices’
opportunities to collaborate with colleagues and the nature of their elementary literacy practices.
30
Other researchers have examined factors that affect teacher collaboration. At the elementary level,
Coburn and Russell (2008) documented ways in which instructional coaches influence such collaboration
while Newmann, King, and Youngs (2000) demonstrated evidence that principal leadership can shape
teacher collaboration.
With regard to teacher-parent collaboration and student achievement, Benner and Mistry (2007) reported
that when elementary teachers and parents had high expectations for students (children), the students were
more likely to achieve at high levels. In another study, Hughes and Kwok (2007) found that teacherparent and teacher-student relationship quality had a significant effect on the engagement and
achievement of 1st graders. In a third study, Wentzel (1998) reported that teacher support for students
was associated with the motivation and achievement of 6th graders.
In terms of factors that promote teacher-parent communication, Ames and colleagues found that
elementary teachers’ more frequent communication with parents seemed to have a positive impact on
children’s motivation, attitudes toward parent involvement, and perceptions of their parents’ level of
involvement (Ames, Stefano, Watkins, & Sheldon, 1995). In a second study, Epstein and Dauber (1991)
reported that elementary teachers with positive attitudes towards parent involvement were more likely to
involve “hard-to-reach” parents. In a third study, Hoover-Dempsey, Bassle, and Brissie (1987) found that
elementary schools with higher teacher efficacy and higher instructional coordination were more likely
than other schools to have higher levels of parent involvement.
With regard to teacher-parent trust, Goddard, Tschannen-Moran, and Hoy (2001) reported that teacher
trust in parents and students was a statistically significant predictor of variability among elementary
schools in both math and reading achievement. Similarly, Bryk and Schneider (2002) found that high
levels of teacher-parent trust in K-8 schools were associated with improvements in reading and math
achievement.
Bullet Points




Strong evidence of an association between teacher collaboration and student achievement
Strong evidence of an association between student achievement and teachers’ collective
responsibility, teachers’ collective efficacy, and teacher-teacher trust
Strong evidence of an association between teacher collaboration and changes in
instructional practice
Strong evidence of an association between teacher-parent and teacher-student
relationship quality and student achievement
31