INVESTIGATING A SYSTEMATIC PROCESS

TO DEVELOP TEACHER EXPERTISE:

A COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY

Presented by the Learning Sciences Marzano Center

for Teacher and Leader Evaluation

• Robert Marzano, Ph.D.

• Paul Mielke, Ph.D.

What is the

Learning Sciences Marzano Center?

• Central source for all educators on teacher and leadership

effectiveness and evaluation

• Support teachers and leaders to be successful in an era

of high accountability and reforms regarding teacher and

leadership evaluation

• Research, develop, and provide next generation tools, professional

development, training programs, and advanced data systems

• Improve professional practice in a measurable way with

a causal effect on raising student achievement

• Dr. Robert Marzano is Executive Director

About Paul Mielke

• Received a bachelor’s degree in English and education from

the University of Wisconsin–Oshkosh, and a master's degree

in educational leadership and a Ph.D. in Leadership for the

Advancement of Learning and Service from Cardinal Stritch

University in Milwaukee.

• Began his career in education teaching English at Wittenberg-

Birnamwood High School. He served three years as an assistant

principal at Waukesha South High School, and is currently

a principal at West Allis Central High School.

• Published in Educational Leadership; presented on topics

such as teacher supervision, classroom walk throughs and

lesson study.

The Widget Effect, 2009

• More than 99% of teachers receive satisfactory

ratings in districts using binary ratings

(satisfactory/unsatisfactory)

Districts using binary ratings for teacher evaluation:

• 94% of teachers receive one of the top two ratings

• Less than one percent are rated unsatisfactory

• Inflation of ratings is pervasive in many district

evaluation systems

Districts using binary ratings for teacher evaluation:

Ericsson K.A., “The Influence of Experience and Deliberate Practice on the Development of Expert Performance,” (2006)

Key

Components

of Deliberate

Practice

Goal is improved performance

Skills to be developed should be based on specific needs

Sustained effort of repetitive of specific tasks are designed to

improve weakness

Activities provide opportunity for learning and skill acquisition

Practice should be outside of comfort zone

Performance is carefully monitored

Feedback is necessary

The ability to self-monitor is a necessity

The process may not be enjoyable but the pleasure comes from

the development and enhanced performance

Expert performance is acquired gradually and incrementally

Success is possible.

ACTIONABLE

Limited Focus

Manage Monitor Modify

S E L F

Reflective Peer Observations

Comprehensive Teaching Framework

(Creates common language, identifies specific strategies and behaviors, defines expectations)

Metacognition via Structured Written Reflection

Deliberate Practice

Praxis Peer Sharing

Expertise

Self-Managing Self-Monitoring

Self-Modifying

= decision points that contribute to growth or stagnation. A growth cycle will incorporate all 3 phases effectively. Teachers who remain in only one phase will limit their growth.

Expertise Development and Growth Mindset

Paul Mielke © 2012

Video Analysis of Own Teaching

(Participants can enter at any point of the cycle)

Purposes of Teacher Evaluation

Formative/Growth Summative/Evaluation

Shape, form or

improve teacher

practice

Quality

Assurance

Sources of Evidence

21

INVESTIGATING A SYSTEMATIC

PROCESS TO DEVELOP

TEACHER EXPERTISE:

A COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY

RE

SE

AR

CH

D

ES

IGN

RESEARCH SITE

Finding based on interviews Co

ho

rt R

efe

ren

ces

Co

ho

rt P

arti

cip

ant

Ave

rage

Mar

zan

o C

oh

ort

Re

fere

nce

s

Mar

zan

o C

oh

ort

Par

tici

pan

t A

vera

ge

(A1) Initially overwhelmed: Initially participants were overwhelmed using a comprehensive teaching framework. 5 1.0 6 .75

(A2) Increased awareness of expert teaching: Participants increased their awareness of expert teaching by using a comprehensive teaching

framework as a reference point. 18 3.60 37 4.63

(A3) Identification of strengths and weaknesses: Self-evaluation allowed participants to identify areas of need and also confirmed areas of

strength in their teaching. 5 1.0 8 1.0

(A4) Specificity within the Marzano framework: The Marzano Observational Protocol was regarded as being a more specific comprehensive

teaching framework 4 .80 22 2.75

(A5) Critical but non-judgmental: The use of a comprehensive teaching framework allowed participants to be critical of teaching practices

but non-judgmental of peers 12 2.40 7 1.40

(B1) Focus impacted video analysis: Analyzing video of participants’ own teaching with a focus increased the awareness of expert teaching

while generating non-threatening and timely feedback. 15 3.00 27 3.38

(B2) Specific versus general: The Marzano Cohort identified specific elements of improvement whereas the Danielson Cohort identified

more general areas of improvement. 3 .60 13 2.16

(C1) Focus impacted peer observations: The identification of a specific focus and process made reflective peer observations more

meaningful 11 2.20 8 1.00

(C2) Peer observations created context: Reflective peer observations created context for the descriptions found in the comprehensive

teaching framework 4 .80 13 1.63

(C3) Praxis stimulated: Reflective peer observations stimulated praxis 4 .80 16 2.00

(D1) Tools and process led to growth: Combination of tools with a structured reflective process led to improved teaching and teacher

growth. 20 4.00 36 4.50

(D2) Importance of focus: A very limited and specific focus supported teacher growth 14 2.80 8 1.00

(D3) Commitment to continue the process: Commitment to continue the structured reflective process because it was perceived to improve

teaching 13 2.60 19 2.38

(D4) Increased metacognition: Participants improved their metacognition 15 3.00 14 1.75

(D5) Perception that teaching improved: Participants modified and improved their teaching by utilizing the structured reflective process 9 1.80 26 3.25

(D6) Importance of written reflections: Written reflections allowed participants to synthesize and to create meaning from their experience 12 2.40 23 2.69

(E1) The structured process impacted deliberate practice: The structured reflective process impacted key components of deliberate practice See Table 41

(E2) The structured process supports teacher growth: The structured reflective process supports teacher growth and teacher supervision

and evaluation 5 1.00 14 1.75

Findings

25

FOCUS ON KEY FINFDINGS

EXPERTISE

FRAMEWORKS MATTER

“I think my initial thought is I really, really, really wished that

I had seen this [the Marzano Observational Protocol] ten years ago

or something like this ten years ago… We still talk about good

teaching all the time, but we don't make clear what we think that

looks like. What is the difference between a good teacher and a

mediocre teacher? A mediocre teacher and an excellent teacher?...

I think if I had seen this [the Marzano Observational Protocol] ten

years ago, some of these things I would probably be a lot stronger

at than I am now.”

FRAMEWORKS D e f i n i n g Q u o t e

SPECIFICITY MATTERS

I think basically I have always known that

I have a lot of room to grow in certain

areas…[but] I struggled with what is it

specifically I need to do differently. The

whole experience finally gave me that

missing piece that I have been looking for.

This is a way to really take it apart,

break it down into pieces, and then figure

out, I want to work on this and then I want

to work on this, I want to work on this. So

the whole process for me was very much

something that I was looking for and it just

hadn't been there before.

SPECIFICITY

“Although I could be picking apart

10,000 different things in the video, it

gave me a specific” focus to check both

herself and the students. Without that

specific focus, “I would just be looking

blindly at a video and picking apart

10,000 things that I would want to

change which I wouldn’t be able to do

all at one time.”

D e f i n i n g Q u o t e

STRUCTURED PROCESS M AT T E R S

I think any of those things individually might

have had a minor impact on my teaching but

the peer observation combined with the video

observation combined with the group

discussions I think all together provided a

really powerful experience in terms of being

able to say like wow there are some very

specific things I can look at. There are some

really specific things I can do right now, some

things I can do down the road. I think all of

those pieces are really important.

STRUCTURED PROCESS

I think it is a good way to make people feel

responsible for their own instruction. I have

been somebody who is never ever in 15

years of doing this ever gotten anything but

the highest marks when someone else

evaluated me, but again nobody else will go

into my room and say well you know if you

just would have done this at this point, that

probably would have hit home your point a

little bit better. So as a professional it is

important that I felt respected enough to say

we trust you to go into your classroom and

figure out what to do differently.

D e f i n i n g Q u o t e

31

FOCUS ON KEY FINFDINGS

DELIBERATE PRACTICE M AT T E R S

It is funny in teaching, you see these movies like Freedom Riders and

you get this idea that there are these magical teachers that come in

and do this amazing job and all the kids are like enraptured with

learning . Then you think, ‘Oh I don't have the gift.’ Going back to that

growth mindset is really refreshing because you think, you know what?

I just need to keep working at it. I just need to be willing to go through

that process and figure out what I need to do different and better.

There is not some magic that happens for some people and not others,

but it really about my own commitment to growing as a professional

and continuing that process indefinitely.

DELIBERATE PRACTICE D e f i n i n g Q u o t e

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/approved-royalty-free-image/157165252

Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model

THE GOAL

An expectation that all teachers can increase their

expertise from year to year which produces gains in

student achievement from year to year with a

powerful cumulative effect.

Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model

• 4 Domains describing levels of teaching performance

• 60 Elements

• Validation studies

• Correlational

• Correctly identifies teachers’ performance levels

• Effect size studies for strategies within the framework

This is unique in the sense that these studies are

designed to establish a direct causal link between

elements of the model and student achievement.

Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model: Research Based Strategies

• Developmental continuum for teachers to implement research-based strategies

• Specific guidance for teachers to improve instruction

• Evidences of sufficient implementation to raise student learning

• Guidance on the appropriate instructional context (when) to use each strategy to have the highest probability to raise student learning

Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model

When these strategies are used, here is the typical effect

on raising student achievement (percentile gain corrected):

Building Vocabulary 20%

Effort and Recognition 14%

Graphic Organizers 13%

Homework 15%

Identifying Similarities and Differences

20%

Interactive Games 20%

Nonlinguistic Representations 17%

Note Taking 17%

Practice 14%

Setting Goals/Objectives 25%

Student Discussion/Chunking 17%

Summarizing 19%

Tracking Student Progress and Using Scoring Scales

34%

June 19-21 • 2013

MarzanoConference.com

Join Dr. Robert Marzano and

Dr. Paul Mielke at this year’s

Marzano Conference 2013

for a deep dive into teacher

development and evaluation.

Register now: