Transcript www.bsapp.com

THE RIPPLE EFFECT OF PRINCIPAL
BEHAVIOR:
Improving Teacher Instructional
Practices through Principal-Teacher
Interactions
Dr. Brennon Sapp EdD
Origin of the Study
Principals cannot directly control every aspect of their school, but they
can directly affect the way they interact with teachers.
• Summer 2007
– Consulting district personnel
– Investigate interventions
– Research interventions
• Fall 2007 (Pilot Year)
– Regular classroom visits by the principals
– Data review of classroom grade distribution with teachers
• Spring 2008
– Assess the execution, effect, and teacher perception of these
interventions
– An extensive review of the literature
– Two additional teacher interactions added
Page 7
So. . .
• We wanted to:
– Change the way we interacted with teachers
– Increase performance (Teachers & Students)
• What we did:
– Research, design, & define four specific principalteacher interactions
– Implement treatment with fidelity
– Measure some performance indicators
Goal of the Study
Key Constructs
To discover how a specific set of
principal-teacher interactions affect:
Teacher Instructional Practices
Student Performance
Frequency & Focus of Teacher
Conversations
Page 11
Research Questions
RQ-1 How will the treatment of principal-teacher
interactions affect teachers’ instructional
practices?
RQ-2 How will changes in teachers’ instructional
practices, initiated by the set of principal-teacher
interactions, affect student performance?
RQ-3 How will changes in principal-teacher
interactions affect the frequency and focus of
teacher conversations with principals, students,
and other teachers?
Page 11
Conceptual Framework
Page 8-11, Figure 1
Literature Review
• The Role of Principal (Page 12-15)
(Halverson, Kelley & Kimball, Cochran-Smith, Hirsch, Leithwood & Mascall, Marshall,
Reeves, Wagner & Kegan, Whitaker, Zepeda)
• Principal-Teacher Interactions(Page 16-19)
(Frase &Hetzel, Halverson, Kelley, & Kimball, Marshall, Toch & Rothman)
• High Quality Principal-Teacher Interactions (Page 20-24)
(Downey, Ginsberg, Marshall, Ritchie and Wood)
• Effective Ways to Measure the Quality of Teacher
Instructional Practices (Page 33-38)
(Danielson, Kelley & Kimball)
• Student Performance (Page 33-38)
(Adams, Ginsberg , Jimerson, O’Connor)
• Frequency and Focus of Teacher Conversations (Page 33-38)
(Danielson, Kelley &Kimball)
Principal-Teacher Interactions
(Treatment)
Snapshots
 Principals visiting classroom regularly and becoming part of the educational
process
 Collaborating with teachers on instructional practices
Data Reviews
 Grades (teachers, department, school)
 Discipline (teachers, department, school)
One Hour Summer Meetings
 Principal-Teacher discussion
 Past/Future performance
 Growth Plans
Teacher Self Reflection of Instructional Practices
 Quality Instruction Rubric (Rubric based instrument to assess the quality of instructional practices)
 Beginning of the year and at the end of the year
Page 66-70
Teachers
Teacher 1
Teacher 2
Teacher 3
Teacher 4
Teacher 5
Teacher 6
Teacher 7
Teacher 8
Teacher 9
Teacher 10
Teacher 11
Teacher 12
Teacher 13
Daily Totals
Standard Dev for Daily
Mean Visits for year
Standard Dev for year
Kim
Larry
Tom
Brennon
Total visits
19
19
21
12
38
30
30
45
26
23
20
22
25
17.3267
10.0011
25.9313
9.79159
k kl
k
k
b
k L
lk
kL
b b
Lb lkb b
k
L kb bL
k
L
k k
34 32 29
9/5/2008
9/4/2008
9/3/2008
9/2/2008
M T W Th F
9/1/2008
8/29/2008
8/28/2008
8/27/2008
8/26/2008
M T W Th F
8/25/2008
8/22/2008
8/21/2008
8/20/2008
8/19/2008
M T W Th F
8/18/2008
8/15/2008
8/14/2008
8/13/2008
of Visits
#8/13/2007
8/14/2007
MTW Th F
b
L
L
L
L
b
b Lt
L
k
b
k
b tb
kb b
k
k
b
kb b
Lb k
k
b
k
24 28 33 32 9
k
k
b
Lt
b
t
b
b
k
k
k
kL
k
b
L
k
b
k
30 15 3 14 21
k
31 23 5 18
480
510
109
554
1653
Current Data on Snap Shots
Grade Distribution 07/08 3rd Tri
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
% of A
Males
34%
Females 46%
% of B
28%
26%
% of C % of D
20%
11%
16%
7%
Grade Distribution
07/08 3rd Tri
% of F
8%
5%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
% of A
Freshman
39%
Sophmores 35%
Juniors
37%
Seniors
50%
% of B
24%
30%
28%
28%
% of C
18%
19%
20%
14%
% of D
10%
9%
11%
5%
% of F
9%
8%
5%
3%
60%
Grade Distribution 07/08 3rd Tri
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
% of A
Teacher 1
Bernzott
51%
Department 38%
School
40%
% of B
20%
27%
27%
% of C
9%
18%
18%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Teacher 14
Saunders
Department
School
% of D
3%
10%
9%
% of F
16%
7%
6%
Grade Distribution 07/08 3rd Tri
% of A
25%
36%
40%
% of B
29%
29%
27%
% of C
14%
17%
18%
% of D
16%
8%
9%
% of F
17%
8%
6%
Discipline Infractions – Most to Least
% of A
34%
34%
54%
46%
25%
41%
41%
27%
52%
% of B
28%
24%
29%
19%
29%
30%
25%
28%
20%
% of C
20%
15%
5%
16%
14%
15%
14%
20%
13%
% of D
14%
9%
8%
6%
16%
2%
15%
13%
9%
% of F
4%
18%
5%
13%
17%
13%
5%
12%
7%
Discipline
Infractions
(Total)
47
31
28
28
25
24
24
24
22
33%
34%
19%
9%
5%
22
Teacher 10
32%
29%
15%
15%
10%
20
Teacher 11
30%
30%
23%
8%
9%
19
Teacher 12
37%
34%
10%
11%
10%
17
Teacher 13
37%
27%
25%
6%
6%
16
Teacher 14
23%
40%
17%
12%
9%
16
Teacher 15
14%
23%
20%
34%
9%
15
Teacher 16
Teacher
Teacher 1
Teacher 2
Teacher 3
Teacher 4
Teacher 5
Teacher 6
Teacher 7
Teacher 8
Teacher 9
Failures-Most to Least
% of A
25%
34%
25%
51%
19%
46%
41%
27%
23%
23%
37%
32%
23%
30%
21%
14%
41%
% of B
20%
24%
29%
20%
34%
19%
30%
28%
23%
26%
34%
29%
40%
30%
29%
23%
29%
% of C
23%
15%
14%
9%
25%
16%
15%
20%
29%
24%
10%
15%
17%
23%
21%
20%
18%
% of D
13%
9%
16%
3%
8%
6%
2%
13%
14%
16%
11%
15%
12%
8%
19%
34%
4%
% of F
19%
18%
17%
16%
14%
13%
13%
12%
10%
10%
10%
10%
9%
9%
9%
9%
8%
Discipline
Infractions
(Total)
Teacher
3
Teacher 43
31
Teacher 2
25
Teacher 5
0
Teacher 55
6
Teacher 35
28
Teacher 4
24
Teacher 6
24
Teacher 8
12
Teacher 21
7
Teacher 32
17
Teacher 13
20
Teacher 11
16
Teacher 15
19
Teacher 12
11
Teacher 22
15
Teacher 16
8
Teacher 31
Back Treatments & Behaviors
QIR-Likert Scale
1-Unsatisfactory
2-Beginning
3-Developing
4-Proficient
5-Exemplary
Did Instruction Improve?
Teacher Completed QIR
Change
Pretest (Fall 08)
Posttest (Spring 09)
Preparation &
Planning
3.536
3.707
0.171
Learning Environment
3.678
3.823
0.145
Instruction
Assessment
Overall
3.496
No Statistical Change
3.304
No Statistical Change
3.504
3.607
0.103
Principal Completed QIR
Pretest (Fall 08)
Posttest (Spring 09)
Change
Preparation &
Planning
3.130
No Statistical Change
Learning Environment
3.261
No Statistical Change
Instruction
Assessment
2.835
2.685
3.089
2.978
0.253
0.293
How Did Teacher Ratings Compare to
Principal Ratings?
Teacher Ratings
Planning & Preparation
Learning Environment
Instruction
Assessment
Overall
3.56
3.69
3.51
3.30
3.52
Principal Ratings
Pretest
3.16
3.26
2.84
2.69
2.98
Difference
0.40
0.43
0.67
0.61
0.54
Planning & Preparation
3.74
Posttest
3.20
Learning Environment
3.85
3.29
0.56
Instruction
3.58
3.09
0.49
Assessment
3.39
2.98
0.41
Overall
3.64
3.14
0.50
0.54
Grouping Teachers into
Performance Levels
Planning & Preparation
3.60
Learning Environment
3.68
3.93
Instruction
3.60
3.77
Assessment
3.34
3.48
Overall
3.56
3.76
0.25
No Statistical
Change
No Statistical
Change
0.20
Principal Ratings
Planning & Preparation
3.83
4.09
No Statistical
Change
Learning Environment
3.79
4.03
0.24
Instruction
3.34
3.71
0.37
Assessment
3.28
3.56
0.28
Overall
3.56
3.85
0.29
(Change in the Quality of Instructional Practices)
Postest
Improvement
Teacher Ratings
No Statistical
3.85
Change
High Performing Teachers
Pretest
Planning & Preparation
3.66
Learning Environment
3.77
3.86
No Statistical
Change
Instruction
3.53
3.38
No Statistical
Change
Assessment
3.40
3.32
No Statistical
Change
Overall
3.59
3.56
No Statistical
Change
Principal Ratings
Planning & Preparation
3.28
3.26
Learning Environment
3.47
3.38
Instruction
2.99
3.17
Assessment
2.85
3.01
Overall
3.15
3.21
No Statistical
Change
No Statistical
Change
0.18
No Statistical
Change
No Statistical
Change
(Change in the Quality of Instructional Practices)
Postest
Improvement
Teacher Ratings
3.68
No Statistical
Change
Medium Performing Teachers
Pretest
Planning & Preparation
3.43
3.70
Learning Environment
3.64
3.78
Instruction
3.42
3.60
Assessment
3.15
3.37
Overall
3.41
3.61
0.27
No Statistical
Change
No Statistical
Change
No Statistical
Change
0.20
Principal Ratings
No Statistical
Change
No Statistical
Change
Planning & Preparation
2.41
2.45
Learning Environment
2.59
2.62
Instruction
2.23
2.52
0.29
Assessment
2.02
2.41
0.39
Overall
2.31
2.50
0.19
(Change in the Quality of Instructional Practices)
Postest
Improvement
Teacher Ratings
Low Performing Teachers
Pretest
How did Teacher Ratings
Compare with Principal Ratings?
3.60
3.83
3.68
3.79
3.60
3.34
Assessment
3.34
3.28
Overall
3.56
3.56
No Significant Difference
Planning &
Preparation
Learning
Environment
Instruction
Planning &
Preparation
Learning
Environment
Instruction
3.85
4.09
3.93
4.03
3.77
3.71
Assessment
3.48
3.56
Overall
3.76
3.85
No Significant Difference
POSTTEST-HIGH PERFORMING
TEACHERS
PRETEST-MEDIUM PERFORMING
TEACHERS
Difference
Principal
Completed
Teacher
Completed
Difference
Principal
Completed
Teacher
Completed
Difference
Principal
Completed
Teacher
Completed
PRETEST-HIGH PERFORMING
TEACHERS
PRETEST-LOW PERFORMING
TEACHERS
3.66
3.28
0.380
3.43
2.41
1.020
3.77
3.47
0.300
3.64
2.59
1.050
3.53
2.99
0.540
3.42
2.23
1.190
3.40
2.85
0.550
3.15
2.02
1.130
3.59
3.15
0.440
3.41
2.31
1.100
POSTTEST-MEDIUM
PERFORMING TEACHERS
PRETEST-LOW PERFORMING
TEACHERS
3.68
3.26
0.420
3.70
2.45
1.250
3.86
3.38
0.480
3.78
2.62
1.160
3.38
3.17
0.210
3.60
2.52
1.080
3.32
3.01
0.310
3.37
2.41
0.960
3.56
3.21
0.350
3.61
2.50
1.110
3.60
3.83
3.68
3.79
3.60
3.34
Assessment
3.34
3.28
Overall
3.56
3.56
No Significant Difference
Planning &
Preparation
Learning
Environment
Instruction
Planning &
Preparation
Learning
Environment
Instruction
3.85
4.09
3.93
4.03
3.77
3.71
Assessment
3.48
3.56
Overall
3.76
3.85
No Significant Difference
POSTTEST-HIGH PERFORMING
TEACHERS
PRETEST-MEDIUM PERFORMING
TEACHERS
Difference
Principal
Completed
Teacher
Completed
Difference
Principal
Completed
Teacher
Completed
Difference
Principal
Completed
Teacher
Completed
PRETEST-HIGH PERFORMING
TEACHERS
PRETEST-LOW PERFORMING
TEACHERS
3.66
3.28
0.380
3.43
2.41
1.020
3.77
3.47
0.300
3.64
2.59
1.050
3.53
2.99
0.540
3.42
2.23
1.190
3.40
2.85
0.550
3.15
2.02
1.130
3.59
3.15
0.440
3.41
2.31
1.100
POSTTEST-MEDIUM
PERFORMING TEACHERS
PRETEST-LOW PERFORMING
TEACHERS
3.68
3.26
0.420
3.70
2.45
1.250
3.86
3.38
0.480
3.78
2.62
1.160
3.38
3.17
0.210
3.60
2.52
1.080
3.32
3.01
0.310
3.37
2.41
0.960
3.56
3.21
0.350
3.61
2.50
1.110
3.60
3.83
3.68
3.79
3.60
3.34
Assessment
3.34
3.28
Overall
3.56
3.56
No Significant Difference
Planning &
Preparation
Learning
Environment
Instruction
Planning &
Preparation
Learning
Environment
Instruction
3.85
4.09
3.93
4.03
3.77
3.71
Assessment
3.48
3.56
Overall
3.76
3.85
No Significant Difference
POSTTEST-HIGH PERFORMING
TEACHERS
PRETEST-MEDIUM PERFORMING
TEACHERS
Difference
Principal
Completed
Teacher
Completed
Difference
Principal
Completed
Teacher
Completed
Difference
Principal
Completed
Teacher
Completed
PRETEST-HIGH PERFORMING
TEACHERS
PRETEST-LOW PERFORMING
TEACHERS
3.66
3.28
0.380
3.43
2.41
1.020
3.77
3.47
0.300
3.64
2.59
1.050
3.53
2.99
0.540
3.42
2.23
1.190
3.40
2.85
0.550
3.15
2.02
1.130
3.59
3.15
0.440
3.41
2.31
1.100
POSTTEST-MEDIUM
PERFORMING TEACHERS
PRETEST-LOW PERFORMING
TEACHERS
3.68
3.26
0.420
3.70
2.45
1.250
3.86
3.38
0.480
3.78
2.62
1.160
3.38
3.17
0.210
3.60
2.52
1.080
3.32
3.01
0.310
3.37
2.41
0.960
3.56
3.21
0.350
3.61
2.50
1.110
3.60
3.83
3.68
3.79
3.60
3.34
Assessment
3.34
3.28
Overall
3.56
3.56
No Significant Difference
Planning &
Preparation
Learning
Environment
Instruction
Planning &
Preparation
Learning
Environment
Instruction
3.85
4.09
3.93
4.03
3.77
3.71
Assessment
3.48
3.56
Overall
3.76
3.85
No Significant Difference
POSTTEST-HIGH PERFORMING
TEACHERS
PRETEST-MEDIUM PERFORMING
TEACHERS
Difference
Principal
Completed
Teacher
Completed
Difference
Principal
Completed
Teacher
Completed
Difference
Principal
Completed
Teacher
Completed
PRETEST-HIGH PERFORMING
TEACHERS
PRETEST-LOW PERFORMING
TEACHERS
3.66
3.28
0.380
3.43
2.41
1.020
3.77
3.47
0.300
3.64
2.59
1.050
3.53
2.99
0.540
3.42
2.23
1.190
3.40
2.85
0.550
3.15
2.02
1.130
3.59
3.15
0.440
3.41
2.31
1.100
POSTTEST-MEDIUM
PERFORMING TEACHERS
PRETEST-LOW PERFORMING
TEACHERS
3.68
3.26
0.420
3.70
2.45
1.250
3.86
3.38
0.480
3.78
2.62
1.160
3.38
3.17
0.210
3.60
2.52
1.080
3.32
3.01
0.310
3.37
2.41
0.960
3.56
3.21
0.350
3.61
2.50
1.110
3.60
3.83
3.68
3.79
3.60
3.34
Assessment
3.34
3.28
Overall
3.56
3.56
No Significant Difference
Planning &
Preparation
Learning
Environment
Instruction
Planning &
Preparation
Learning
Environment
Instruction
3.85
4.09
3.93
4.03
3.77
3.71
Assessment
3.48
3.56
Overall
3.76
3.85
No Significant Difference
POSTTEST-HIGH PERFORMING
TEACHERS
PRETEST-MEDIUM PERFORMING
TEACHERS
Difference
Principal
Completed
Teacher
Completed
Difference
Principal
Completed
Teacher
Completed
Difference
Principal
Completed
Teacher
Completed
PRETEST-HIGH PERFORMING
TEACHERS
PRETEST-LOW PERFORMING
TEACHERS
3.66
3.28
0.380
3.43
2.41
1.020
3.77
3.47
0.300
3.64
2.59
1.050
3.53
2.99
0.540
3.42
2.23
1.190
3.40
2.85
0.550
3.15
2.02
1.130
3.59
3.15
0.440
3.41
2.31
1.100
POSTTEST-MEDIUM
PERFORMING TEACHERS
PRETEST-LOW PERFORMING
TEACHERS
3.68
3.26
0.420
3.70
2.45
1.250
3.86
3.38
0.480
3.78
2.62
1.160
3.38
3.17
0.210
3.60
2.52
1.080
3.32
3.01
0.310
3.37
2.41
0.960
3.56
3.21
0.350
3.61
2.50
1.110
Did Grades and Discipline
Improve?
Figure 6
Page 97
d
Figure 7
Page 100
Figure 8
Page 101
Figure 9
Page 102
Conceptual Framework
Page 8-11, Figure 1
Did Teacher Conversations
Change?
Frequency and Focus of Teacher
Conversations
• According to teacher surveys, the frequency of
principal-teacher conversations improved, but
the focus remained unchanged.
• According to teacher surveys, the frequency and
focus of teacher-teacher conversations improved
during the pilot year and maintained in the year
of full implementation.
• According to student surveys, the frequency and
focus of teacher-student conversations remain
unchanged.
Pages 103-108 & 122
Findings
• Teacher instructional practices improved
according analysis of QIR data.
• Student performance increased according to
the analysis of student grade distributions and
discipline.
• Freq & Focus of some teacher conversations
changed according to analysis of teacher and
student surveys.
Pages 109
Unintended Outcomes
•
•
•
•
Exiting Teachers
Principal-Student Relationships
Principal-Parent Discussions
Increased Job Satisfaction for the Principals
Page 130-132
Thank You
Brennon Sapp
Kim Banta
www.bsapp.com