Teacher Effectiveness

clartharlear

Nearly all observers of the education process, including scholars, school administrators, policy-makers, and parents, point to teacher quality as the most significant institutional determinant of academic success.There remains considerable uncertainty, however, concerning exactly which aspects of teachers are important, whether those aspects can be measured, and whether that effectiveness differs by type of student.

http://www.tribune.ie/news/article/2...s-unqualified/

From that link wrote:

“While the quality of maths teaching is still high, it would obviously be an advantage if every teacher that taught it had actually studied it,” he (Fine Gael education spokesman Brian Hayes) said

My bold. It is not obvious at all, in fact, it is quite contentious. In Malcolm Gladwell's article on choosing the right people to become teachers, he discusses the huge difference between the effects of good, average and bad teachers. I'd highly recommend reading the full article.

Eric Hanushek, an economist at Stanford, estimates that the students of a very bad teacher will learn, on average, half a year's worth of material in one school year. The students in the class of a very good teacher will learn a year and a half's worth of material. That difference amounts to a year's worth of learning in a single year.

Quote:

Educational-reform efforts typically start with a push for higher standards for teachers—that is, for the academic and cognitive requirements for entering the profession to be as stiff as possible. But after you've watched Pianta's tapes, and seen how complex the elements of effective teaching are, this emphasis on book smarts suddenly seems peculiar. ... Test scores, graduate degrees, and certifications—as much as they appear related to teaching prowess—turn out to be about as useful in predicting success as having a quarterback throw footballs into a bunch of garbage cans.

Any "qualified" (bitterness quotes) teacher should be familiar with the teacher effectivity work of Kounin etc, but the article makes nice parallels with the hiring of sports players and financial dealers, whose importance is far great than that of teachers. :rolleyes: (more bitterness)[/QUOTE]

clartharlear

In fact, the briefest of googles will bring you to a whole host of teacher effectiveness studies. Everyone agrees that there is nothing more important than a good teacher. Anyone who has put a bit of thought into it realises that a good learner (i.e. who has academic qualifications to beat the band) does not necessarily make a good teacher, and other factors must be considered.

Quote:
“One piece of No Child Left Behind calls for highly qualified teachers, but those qualifications are … front-end qualifications—does the person have this certificate or this degree? And I believe we have to move away from the front-end inputs to looking at highly effective teachers. If you can produce results in the classroom, that makes you effective, and you can stay in the classroom. And it really shouldn’t matter whether or not you have your Ph.D. or your master’s.”
—Michelle Rhee, Superintendent of D.C. Public Schools, “Charlie Rose,” July 14, 2008.

Research now shows that most qualifications only weakly predict whether teachers will succeed in the classroom,

Quote:
Using a dataset covering over 10,000 Australian primary school teachers and over 90,000 pupils, I estimate how effective teachers are in raising students’ test scores from one exam to the next. ..Experience has the strongest effect, with a large effect in the early years of a teacher’s career. ... Teachers with a masters degree or some other form of further qualification do not appear to achieve significantly larger test score gains.

Quote:
This analysis reviews a wide range of empirical studies that examine the impact of teacher characteristics on teacher effectiveness in order to draw conclusions about the extent to which these characteristics are, in fact, linked with teacher performance.

That is - don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. "Education policy makers and administrators would be well served by recognizing the complexity of the issue and adopting multiple measures along many dimensions to support existing teachers and to attract and hire new, highly qualified teachers."

clartharlear

The important aspect of the issue is that there is no one criterion, but many criteria, and many of the most important ones (withitness etc, to use Kounin's terminology) are not possibly measured by cognitive tests like college degrees. Basically, there is no sure-fire way to tell who will be a good teacher before that person starts teaching. Therefore, excluding people on one weakly correlated criterion and never measuring any of the strongly related criteria sucks ass.

For the rest...
You've gone off on a tangent to my tangent! All very interesting though.
I will stress that I do believe teachers should be highly educated in their subject, and research in maths education supports that, I just don't think it's the only important thing.

Powerhouse

clartharlear wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by From that link
“While the quality of maths teaching is still high, it would obviously be an advantage if every teacher that taught it had actually studied it,” he (Fine Gael education spokesman Brian Hayes) said

My bold. It is not obvious at all, in fact, it is quite contentious. In Malcolm Gladwell's article on choosing the right people to become teachers, he discusses the huge difference between the effects of good, average and bad teachers. I'd highly recommend reading the full article.

If there is an implication in this thread that academic achievement in a subject is not necessarily a guide to one's ability to teach a subject then few could argue with such a view. Teaching is a particular skill and someone who is too academically inclined in a subject might have problems relating to students who are the opposite - though this is hardly insurmaountable either I'd imagine with experience.

However, I find it weird that you are contradicting Brian Hayes' view that it "obviously" would be an advantage to have studied a subject before teaching it. Indeed you seem to contradict your own contradiction later on by saying you believe teachers should be highly educated in their subject area. Whyever should they be if it does not "obviously" made a difference to their ability to teach? (and I see no evidence that Brian Hayes said it should be the sole criterion)

I really don't see how I could effectively teach a subject I hadn't studied. I would have thought that teaching skill complements subject knowledge but hardly has the ability to completely replace it as you appear to be suggesting.

Surely some demonstrable level of knowledge of what you are talking about in a classroom is the foundation for everything else. Otherwise they could just bring in the local plumber or accountant to teach French or Woodwork or whatever?

clartharlear

Powerhouse wrote: »

However, I find it weird that you are contradicting Brian Hayes' view that it "obviously" would be an advantage to have studied a subject before teaching it. Indeed you seem to contradict your own contradiction later on by saying you believe teachers should be highly educated in their subject area.

Yeah, you're right, I got a bit muddled in my ranting, I think.
(I'm still all upset over my situation with the Teaching Council!)

I'll try to be clearer. What I believe is that a teacher should be expert in the area they're teaching, which in this case is 2nd level maths. My ability to do multi-variable vector calculus is all well and good, but it's not a predictor of whether I can teach basic second level calculus.

I (mis?)interpreted Hayes' comment to mean that a subject must be studied to an advanced level before it can be taught at basic level. I think a thorough understanding of second level, and proven success at teaching at that level, is more important than (and not fundamentally linked to) advanced understanding of third level and proven success at learning at that level.

Powerhouse

clartharlear wrote: »

I (mis?)interpreted Hayes' comment to mean that a subject must be studied to an advanced level before it can be taught at basic level. I think a thorough understanding of second level, and proven success at teaching at that level, is more important than (and not fundamentally linked to) advanced understanding of third level and proven success at learning at that level.

I would say that few people in the greater scheme of things have an "advanced understanding of third level" except those who have advanced third level training/education - and lest we forget a Primary Degree is just about as basic as it gets at that level. Given the level the secondary curriculum is pitched at an advanced understanding of third level is indeed hardly required, but I don't thing Hayes is suggesting that.

However, I think it is important that a teacher has a very very sound grasp of what they are required to teach - otherwise the students could just use the textbook at home, The teacher is supposed to bring a level of (relative) expertise into the classroom and it seems that third level degree is the way this knowledge is measured. None of this contradicts the view that teaching is a particular skill.

I suspect few would disagree with your view: "I think a thorough understanding of second level, and proven success at teaching at that level, is more important than (and not fundamentally linked to) advanced understanding of third level and proven success at learning at that level",

but I would say that this is quite a distortion of what Hayes actually said and meant. "Advanced third level" are your words not his.

clartharlear

Powerhouse wrote: »

If there is an implication in this thread that academic achievement in a subject is not necessarily a guide to one's ability to teach a subject then few could argue with such a view.

This in bold is the main point I want to make, but in fact, that view is argued with. Think of the criteria the Teaching Council looks at (1) degree (2) pgde (3) garda vetting. For non-criminals, the only thing that matters is academic achievement. The TC don't give a damn about teacher effectiveness, which I find bewildering and frustrating.

I would have thought that teaching skill complements subject knowledge but hardly has the ability to completely replace it as you appear to be suggesting. Surely some demonstrable level of knowledge of what you are talking about in a classroom is the foundation for everything else.

I'm sorry if I appeared to suggest that - I certainly don't think so. "Some demonstrable level of knowledge" is certainly needed, but it should not be the be all and end all, nor does it necessarily have to a be a 3rd level degree in pure maths.

You may of course read all this through the light of my recent letter from the TC saying that my electrical engineering degree did not qualify me to teach maths. (even though it's on their autoqual list of approved degrees and I already did my dip based on that degree)

clartharlear

Powerhouse wrote: »

I suspect few would disagree with your view: "I think a thorough understanding of second level, and proven success at teaching at that level, is more important than (and not fundamentally linked to) advanced understanding of third level and proven success at learning at that level",

but I would say that this is quite a distortion of what Hayes actually said and meant. "Advanced third level" are your words not his.

OK, I probably did distort and misrepresent poor Brian. You're right. I did add 2 and 2 and get an elephant, which isn't great for a wannabe maths teacher!

But I will stress again that many DO disagree. You are far more intelligent and sensible than the Irish education bureaucracy!

bdoo

clartharlear wrote: »

For non-criminals, the only thing that matters is academic achievement. The TC don't give a damn about teacher effectiveness, which I find bewildering and frustrating.

The PGDE course is where teacher effectiveness should be sorted out. Having completed this course and been awarded the diploma it should be safe to assume that the holder can teach to a reasonable degree of effectiveness.

The problem is that the colleges of Education put the 'Dip' students in a very artificial school situation which bears very little resemblance to the real school world and seem to be very slow to fail people on their teaching practice.

When you have inneffective students passing their teaching practice and obtaining a teaching qualification where do you look? How many teachers become ineffective and how many are just as good or bad on their first or last day?

clartharlear

bdoo wrote: »

The PGDE course is where teacher effectiveness should be sorted out.

I dunno do I quite agree with this. It'd be a good place to start for sure, but I don't think it should or could be "sorted out" once and for all. We should allow for, and indeed expect, people to get better and better at their job. We could call it something crazy like Continual Professional Development, and have a professional body (with a mad name like, oh, the Teaching Council) to coordinate this.

Having completed this course and been awarded the diploma it should be safe to assume that the holder can teach to a reasonable degree of effectiveness.

The problem is that the colleges of Education put the 'Dip' students in a very artificial school situation which bears very little resemblance to the real school world and seem to be very slow to fail people on their teaching practice.

When you have inneffective students passing their teaching practice and obtaining a teaching qualification where do you look? How many teachers become ineffective and how many are just as good or bad on their first or last day?

Good points and questions, and also remember how little a part of the dip actually is the TP - it's usually something like 1/4 - 1/3, isn't it?
It's a qualification in education theory, not in teaching at all.

ytareh

Not sure where/why this thread started out or where its going but I smell that increasingly popular soapbox 'firing underperforming teachers'...I remember the first day of my Dip in my teaching practice school observing one of my cooperating teachers and writing that I felt that the teacher was boring the kids and couldnt control the class or words to that effect...Oh what a naive fool I was !
Clearly many leave college without a clue as to the meaning of the word 'collegiality' .I guess I probably did too but was 'schooled' by my older ,wiser fellow teachers .There's a complete sea change nowadays in attitudes towards age/seniority .Everybody can see how the whole Public Vs Private debate has been whisked up out of nothing to cloak far deeper evils ...how different is it when younger unemployed teachers are bemoaning the 'effectiveness' of their employed older counterparts?Of course its the absolute pits that you dont have jobs because of cutbacks while billions are spent on 'bailouts' .But do you think it will be all ok because Mary who has lost her mother and marriage in the last 12 months who's not coping with 3E and in particular young Alison who is clearly a deeply troubled girl is going to be forced to take early retirement ?
The HDip ,PGDE or whatever they call it nowadays will do little or nothing for your ability to teach 'effectively' . It is as relevant as the driving test is to everyday motoring .
Just like you couldnt POSSIBLY teach five days a week ,7 classes a day like you teach twice a week ,four classes a day (Full time Vs Student teacher) Id be very interested to know what percentage of so called "INSPIRATIONAL"/"EFFECTIVE" teachers complete 40(50 from now on !) years 'at the chalkface'.Id bet that a significant majority of these characters have moved on to management ,inservice facilitation,third level etc etc after well under half their careers have elapsed.
'Kounin' schmoonin !Those who can, do,those who cant, teach , and those who cant teach,teach teachers.

clartharlear

ytareh wrote: »

Not sure where/why this thread started out or where its going but I smell that increasingly popular soapbox 'firing underperforming teachers'...

Nope, I'm on about hiring highly performing teachers. *

Clearly many leave college without a clue as to the meaning of the word 'collegiality' .I guess I probably did too but was 'schooled' by my older ,wiser fellow teachers .There's a complete sea change nowadays in attitudes towards age/seniority.

That's not a dig at me, I'm hoping. Fellow teachers and colleagues have taught me nearly everything worth knowing. I'm hugely grateful to some senior teachers who mentored me during my dip year, for a start. However, I owe no allegiance (nor respect as far as I can tell) to the red-taping bureaucrat sitting in jobs-for-the-boys in the TC.

The HDip ,PGDE or whatever they call it nowadays will do little or nothing for your ability to teach 'effectively' . It is as relevant as the driving test is to everyday motoring .

Sure you're only arguing for my point now. Pre-teaching qualifications aren't necessarily relevant to working at the chalk-face.



*I will remind people again that I am not objective. I want to be hired, dammit!

ytareh

I hope you are ...

kittex

Teaching involves so many skills and areas of knowledge, it is impossible to say it is only one thing that makes a good teacher. Research has shown that subject knowledge, pedagogical knowledge as well as presence and personality all have an important impact on teacher quality.

In regards to knowing more than you need to - I would state yes, the best teacher's do. The best teachers make learning come to life and enrich a student's experience beyond the exam and textbook. This makes it memorable, relevant and meaningful. Hard to do if you're teaching out of your subject and are only a chapter ahead of the kids in the textbook yourself!
My lower school teaching for example is impacted on greatly by the aspects of the subject I know the students will need in Upper school; my upper school teaching is informed by my lecturing experience.

In no other country does a BA graduate assume they will get a teaching job above a trained professional. In no other country do bitter and catty attitudes exist towards those who get their qualifications - just because you want something doesn't mean you're entitled. A PGDE is a way of proving yourself and of gaining valuable practical experience in what should be a supportive and reflective context.

Ireland needs to wake up and show some respect for our young people by giving them the best education they can. Qualified teachers, who know their subject and are enthusiastic and open to professional development are the only option.