Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Teacher evaluation as data use: what recent research suggests

  • Published:
Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Most recent research on teacher evaluation examines evaluation’s measurement properties and accountability uses. Less research studies how evaluation data can improve teaching and student learning. In other contexts, researchers have examined how teachers use data to improve their practice. From general research on teachers’ data use, we apply the data-driven decision-making (DDDM) framework to synthesize research on teacher evaluation since 2009. We illustrate how evaluation data are collected, analyzed, and synthesized to inform instruction and improve student learning. Most research focused on teachers’ use of observation data, not their use of student data. We find that the teachers’ use of evaluation data involves more social learning than the DDDM model implies. The effects of observation on instruction and student learning are often weak, apparently because observers lack the time and knowledge to support teachers’ thorough analysis and synthesis of evaluation data. Implications for policy and further research are offered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 46(5), 258–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, E. L., Barton, P. E., Darling-Hammond, L., Haertel, E., Ladd, H. F., Linn, R. L., ..., Shepard, L. A. (2010). Problems with the use of student test scores to evaluate teachers. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.

  • Blanc, S., Christman, J. B., Liu, R., Mitchell, C., Travers, E., & Bulkley, K. E. (2010). Learning to learn from data: Benchmarks and instructional communities. Peabody Journal of Education, 85(2), 205–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. T. (1975). Degrees of freedom and the case study. Comparative Political Studies, 8, 178–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., Schuldt, L. C., Brown, L., & Grossman, P. (2016). Leveraging observation tools for instructional improvement: Exploring variability in uptake of ambitious instructional practices. Teachers College Record, 118(11), 1–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, C. (2014). Houston, we have a problem: Teachers find no value in the SAS education value-added assessment system (EVAAS®). Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22, 1–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cosner, S. (2011). Teacher learning, instructional considerations and principal communication: Lessons from a longitudinal study of collaborative data use by teachers. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 39(5), 568–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions (3rd Edition ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danielson, C. (2013). The framework for teaching evaluation instrument: 2013 edition. Princeton, NJ: The Danielson Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danielson, C. (2016). Its time to rethink teacher evaluation. Education Week, pp. 20–24.

  • Danielson, C., & McGreal, T. G. (2000). Teacher evaluation to enhance professional practice. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darling-Hammond, L., Wise, A. E., & Pease, S. R. (1983). Teacher evaluation in the organizational context: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 53(3), 285–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Datnow, A., & Hubbard, L. (2016). Teacher capacity for and beliefs about data-driven decision making: A literature review of international research. Journal of Educational Change, 17(1), 7–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delvaux, E., Vanhoof, J., Tuytens, M., Vekeman, E., Devos, G., & Van Petegem, P. (2013). How may teacher evaluation have an impact on professional development? A multilevel analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36, 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Derrington, M. L., & Kirk, J. (2017). Linking job-embedded professional development and mandated teacher evaluation: Teacher as learner. Professional Development in Education, 43(4), 630–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donahue, E. (2014). Teacher perceptions of the impact of an evaluation system on classroom instructional practices Available from Proquest ISBN 9781321659108.

  • Donahue, E., & Vogel, L. R. (2016). Teacher perceptions of the impact of teacher evaluation on classroom instructional practices. Paper presented at the. In Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (pp. 1–34). Washington, DC.

  • Donaldson, M. L. (2012). Teachers’ perspectives on evaluation reform. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, M. L., Cobb, C. D., LeChasseur, K., Gabriel, R., Gonzalez, R., Woulfin, S., & Makuch, A. (2014). An evaluation of the pilot implementation of Connecticut's system for educator evaluation and development. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut Center for Education Policy Analysis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, M. L., & Papay, J. (2015). Teacher evaluation for accountability and development. In H. F. Ladd & M. E. Goertz (Eds.), Handbook of research in education finance and policy (2nd ed., pp. 174–193). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finfgeld-Connett, D., & Johnson, E. D. (2013). Literature search strategies for conducting knowledge-building and theory-generating qualitative systematic reviews. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 69(1), 194–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Firestone, W. A. (2014). Teacher evaluation policy and conflicting theories of motivation. Educational Researcher, 43(2), 100–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Firestone, W. A., Blitz, C. L., Gitomer, D. H., Gradinarova-Kirova, D., Shcherbakov, A., & Nordin, T. L. (2013). Year 1 report: New Jersey teacher evaluation pilot program. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Graduate School of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Firestone, W. A., Nordin, T. L., Shcherbakov, A., Kirova, D., & Blitz, C. L. (2014). Pilot teacher evaluation program: Year 2 final report. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Graduate School of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, T., Van Sickle, M. E., Clark, L. V., Fazio-Brunson, M., & Schween, D. (2015). Teacher self- efficacy, professional commitment, and high-stakes teacher evaluation policy in Louisiana. Educational Policy, 31(2), 1–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garet, M. S., Wayne, A. J., Brown, S., Rickles, J., Song, M., & Manzeske, D. (2017). Impact of providing performance feedback to teachers and principals. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gitomer, D., Bell, C., Qi, Y., McCaffrey, D., Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2014). The instructional challenge in improving teaching quality: Lessons from a classroom observation protocol. Teachers College Record, 116(6), 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldhaber, D. (2015). Exploring the potential of value-added performance measures to affect the quality of the teacher workforce. Educational Researcher, 44(2), 87–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldhaber, D., & Hansen, M. (2010). Implicit measurement of teacher quality: Using performance on the job to inform teacher tenure decisions. American Economic Review, 100, 250–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldring, E., Grissom, J. A., Rubin, M., Neumerski, C. M., Cannata, M., Drake, T., & Schuermann, P. (2015a). Make room for value added: Principals' human capital decisions and the emergence of teacher observation data. Educational Researcher, 42(2), 96–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldring, E., Grissom, J. A., Neumerski, C., Murphy, J., Blisset, R., & Porter, A. (2015b). Making time for instructional leadership. In The evolution of the SAM process (Vol. 1). New York, NY: Wallace Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, J. (2007). Easy to dance to: Solving the problems of teacher evaluation with peer assistance and review. American Journal of Education, 113(3), 479–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez, R. A., & Firestone, W. A. (2013). Educational tug-of-war: Internal and external accountability of principals in varied contexts. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(3), 383–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gummer, E. B., & Mandinach, E. S. (2015). Building a conceptual framework for data literacy. Teachers College Record, 117(4), 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hallinger, P., Heck, R. H., & Murphy, J. (2014). Teacher evaluation and school improvement: An analysis of the evidence. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 26(1), 5–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanushek, E. A. (2009). Teacher deselection. In D. Goldhaber & J. Hannaway (Eds.), Creating a new teaching profession (pp. 165–180). Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2010). Generalizations about using value-added measures of teacher quality. American Economic Review, 100(2), 267–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, D. N., & Sass, T. R. (2014). Skills, productivity and the evaluation of teacher performance. Economics of Education Review, 40, 183–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hellrung, K., & Hartig, J. (2013). Review: Understanding and using feedback – A review of empirical studies concerning feedback from external evaluations to teachers. Educational Research Review, 9, 174–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, H. C., & Grossman, P. (2013). Learning from teacher observations: Challenges and opportunities posed by new teacher evaluation systems. Harvard Educational Review, 83(2), 371–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoogland, I., Schildkamp, K., van, D. K., Heitink, M., Kippers, W., Veldkamp, B., & Dijkstra, A. M. (2016). Prerequisites for data-based decision making in the classroom: Research evidence and practical illustrations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 377–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ikemoto, G. S., & Marsh, J. A. (2007). Cutting through the "data-driven" mantra: Different conceptions of data-driven decision making). In P. A. Moss (Ed.), Evidence and decision making: 106th yearbook of the national society for the study of education (pp. 105–131). Chicago: NSSE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Israel, M., Kamman, M. L., McCray, E. D., & Sindelar, P. T. (2014). Mentoring in action: The interplay among professional assistance, emotional support, and evaluation. Exceptional Children, 81(1), 45–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, J. (2012). The effects of accountability system design on teachers’ use of test score data. Teachers College Record, 114(11), 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, J. Y., Sporte, S. E., & Luppescu, S. (2015). Teachers' perspectives on evaluation reform: Chicago's REACH students. Educational Resarcher, 44(2), 105–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, S. M., & Fiarman, S. E. (2012). The potential of peer review. Educational Leadership, 70(3), 20–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimball, S. M. (2002). Analysis of feedback, enabling conditions and fairness perceptions of teachers in three school districts with new standards-based evaluation systems. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 16(4), 241–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimball, S. M., & Milanowski, A. (2009). Examining teacher evaluation validity and leadership decision making within a standards-based evaluation system. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(1), 34–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koedel, C., Li, J., Tan, L., & Springer, M. G. (2017). The impact of performance ratings on job satisfaction for public school teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 54(2), 241–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraft, M. A., & Gilmour, A. F. (2016). Can principals promote teacher development as evaluators? A case study of principals views and experiences. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(5), 711–753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lachlan-Hache, L. (2015). The art and science of student learning objectives: A research synthesis. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavigne, A. L. (2014). Exploring the intended and unintended consequences of high-stakes teacher evaluation on schools, teachers, and students. Teachers College Record, 116(1).

  • Little, J. W. (2012). Understanding data use practice among teachers: The contribution of micro-process studies. American Journal of Education, 118(2), 143–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louis, K. S., & Marks, H. M. (1998). Does professional community affect the classroom? teachers' work and student experiences in restructuring schools. American Journal of Education, 106, 534–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandinach, E.B. & Honey, M. (eds) (2008). Data-driven decision-making: An introduction. New York: Teachers College Press.

  • Mandinach, E. B. (2012). A perfect time for data use: Using data-driven decision making to inform practice. Educational Psychologist, 42(7), 71–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandinach, E. B., & Gummer, E. S. (2016). What does it mean for teachers to be data literate: Laying out the skills, knowledge, and dispositions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 366–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, J. A. (2012). Interventions promoting educators’ use of data: Research insights and gaps. Teachers College Record, 114(11).

  • Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCullough, M., English, B., Angus, M. H., & Gill, B. (2015). Alternative student growth measures for teacher evaluation: Implementation experiences of early-adopting districts. (REL 2015–093).Regional Educational Laboratory Mid-Atlantic.

  • McGrath, J. E. (1982). Dilemmatics: The study of research choices and methods. In J. E. McGrath, J. Martin, & R. A. Kulka (Eds.), Judgement calls in research (pp. 69–102). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuin, P (2012). Stimulating reform: Race to the Top, competitive grants, and the Obama education agenda. Educational Policy, (26)1, 136–159.

  • McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high school teaching. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munger, M. S. (2012). Shared responsibility for teacher quality: How do principals respond to peer assistance and review?(Ed.D.).

  • Noblit, G., & Hare, D. (1988). Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2013). Teachers for the 21st century: Using evaluation to improve teaching OECD Publishing.

  • Penuel, W. R., & Shepard, L. A. (2016). Assessment and teaching. In D. H. Gitomer & C. A. Bell (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching (5th Ed. ed., pp. 787–850). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Reinhorn, S. K., Johnson, S. M., & Simon, N. S. (2017). Investing in development: Six high-performing, high-poverty schools implement the Massachusetts teacher evaluation policy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(3), 383–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruffini, S. J., Makkonen, R., Tejwani, J., & Diaz, M. (2014). Principal and teacher perceptions of implementation of multiple-measure teacher evaluation systems in Arizona. REL 2015–062. San Francisco: Regional Educational Laboratory West.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sartain, L., Stoelinga, S. R., & Brown, E. (2011). Rethinking teacher evaluation in Chicago: Lessons learned from classroom observations, principal-teacher conferences, and district implementation. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sebastian, J., Camburn, E. M., & Spillane, J. P. (2018). Portraits of principal practice: Time allocation and school principal work. Educational Administration Quarterly, 54(1), 47–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinnema, C. E. L., & Robinson, V. M. J. (2007). The leadership of teaching and learning: Implications for teacher evaluation. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(4), 319–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sporte, S. E., Stevens, W. D., Healey, K., Jiang, J., Hart, H., & University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago, School Research. (2013). Teacher evaluation in practice: Implementing Chicago's REACH students. University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago school research.

  • Stecher, B. M., Garet, M., Holtzman, D., & Hamilton, L. (2012). Implementing measures of teacher effectiveness. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(3), 39–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stecher, B. M., Holtzman, D. J., Garet, M. S., Hamilton, L. S., Engberg, J., Steiner, E. D., et al. (2018). Improving teaching effectiveness: Final report: The intensive partnerships for effective teaching through 2015–2016. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stein, M. K., & Nelson, B. S. (2003). Leadership content knowledge. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 423–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinberg, M. P., & Sartain, L. (2015). Does teacher evaluation improve school performance? Experimental evidence from Chicago’s excellence in teaching project. Education Finance and Policy, 10(4), 535–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinberg, M. P., & Donaldson, M. L. (2016). The new educational accountability: Understanding the landscape of teacher evaluation in the post-NCLB era. Education Finance and Policy, 11(3), 340–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stosich, L. F. (2016). E. L. Common standards and teacher evaluation: Principals and teachers’ craft coherence among multiple accountability policies. Washington, DC: Paper presented at the Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stronge, J. H., & Tucker, P. D. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of teacher evaluation: Assessing and improving performance. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Supovitz, J. A. (2012). Getting at student understanding - the key to teachers’ use of test data. Teachers College Record, 114(11).

  • Taut, S., Santelices, M. V., Araya, C., & Manzi, J. (2011). Perceived effects and uses of the national teacher evaluation system in Chilean elementary schools. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(4), 218–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, E. S., & Tyler, J. H. (2012). The effect of evaluation on teacher performance. The American Economic Review, 102(7), 3628–3651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, E., Wingert, P., Conant, E., & Register, S. (2010). Why we can’t get rid of failing teachers. Newsweek, 155(11), 24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Timperley, H. S. (2005). Instructional leadership challenges: The case of using student achievement information for instructional improvement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(1), 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuytens, M., & Devos, G. (2011). Stimulating professional learning through teacher evaluation: An impossible task for the school leader? Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 891–899.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuytens, M., & Devos, G. (2014). How to activate teachers through teacher evaluation? School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25(4), 509–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaillant, D., & Gonzalez-Vaillant, G. (2017). Within the teacher evaluation policies black box: Two case studies. Teacher Development, 21(3), 404–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisberg, D., Sexton, S., Mulhern, J., & Keeling, D. (2009). The widget effect: Our national failure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher effectiveness. Brooklyn, NY: The New Teacher Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, B. R., Cowhy, J., Stevens, W. D., & Sporte, S. E. (2012). Designing and implementing the next generation of teacher evaluation systems: Lessons learned from case studies in five Illinois districts. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, S. P., Horn, S. P., & Sanders, W. L. (1997). Teacher and classroom context effects on student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11, 57–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Rutgers University, New Brunswick, USA

    William A. Firestone

  2. Neag School of Education, University of Connecticut, Mansfield, USA

    Morgaen L. Donaldson

Authors
  1. William A. Firestone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Morgaen L. Donaldson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William A. Firestone.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix. Analytic Dataset

Appendix. Analytic Dataset

  1. 1.

    Cherasaro, T. L., Brodersen, R. M., Reale, M. L., Yanoski, D. C., Regional Educational Laboratory Central, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, & Marzano Research, L. (2016). Teachers’ Responses to Feedback from Evaluators: What Feedback Characteristics Matter? REL 2017–190.

  2. 2.

    Collins, C. (2014). Houston, we have a problem: Teachers find no value in the SAS education value-added assessment system (EVAAS®). Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22, 1–42.

  3. 3.

    Dee, T. S., & Wyckoff, J. (2015). Incentives, selection, and teacher performance: Evidence from IMPACT. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 34(2), 267–297.

  4. 4.

    Delvaux, E., Vanhoof, J., Tuytens, M., Vekeman, E., Devos, G., & Van Petegem, P. (2013). How may teacher evaluation have an impact on professional development? A multilevel analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal Of Research And Studies, 361–11.

  5. 5.

    Derrington, M. L., & Kirk, J. (2017). Linking job-embedded professional development and mandated teacher evaluation: Teacher as learner. Professional Development In Education, 43(4), 630–644.

  6. 6.

    Donahue, E. (2014). Teacher perceptions of the impact of an evaluation system on classroom instructional practices Available from Proquest. ISBN 9781321659108.

  7. 7.

    Donahue, E., & Vogel, L. R. (2016). Teacher perceptions of the impact of teacher evaluation on classroom instructional practices. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC. 1–34.

  8. 8.

    Donaldson, M. L., Cobb, C. D., LeChasseur, K., Gabriel, R., Gonzalez, R., Woulfin, S., & Makuch, A. (2014). An evaluation of the pilot implementation of Connecticut’s system for educator evaluation and development. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut Center for Education Policy Analysis.

  9. 9.

    Donaldson, M. L., Woulfin, S., LeChasseur, K., & Cobb, C. D. (2016). The structure and substance of teachers’ opportunities to learn about teacher evaluation reform: Promise or pitfall for equity? Equity & Excellence in Education, 49(2), 183–201.

  10. 10.

    Firestone, W. A., Blitz, C. L., Gitomer, D. H., Gradinarova-Kirova, D., Shcherbakov, A., & Nordin, T. L. (2013). Year 1 report: New Jersey teacher evaluation pilot program. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Graduate School of Education.

  11. 11.

    Firestone, W. A., Nordin, T. L., Shcherbakov, A., Kirova, D., & Blitz, C. L. (2014). Pilot teacher evaluation program: Year 2 final report. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Graduate School of Education.

  12. 12.

    Flores, M. A. (2012). The implementation of a new policy on teacher appraisal in Portugal: How do teachers experience it at school? Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 24(4), 351–368.

  13. 13.

    Ford, T., Van Sickle, M. E., Clark, L. V., Fazio-Brunson, M., & Schween, D. (2015). Teacher self-efficacy, professional commitment, and high-stakes teacher evaluation policy in Louisiana. Educational Policy, 31(2) 1-47.

  14. 14.

    Garet, M. S., Wayne, A. J., Brown, S., Rickles, J., Song, M., & Manzeske, D. (2017). Impact of providing performance feedback to teachers and principals. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences.

  15. 15.

    Israel, M., Kamman, M. L., McCray, E. D., & Sindelar, P. T. (2014). Mentoring in action: The interplay among professional assistance, emotional support, and evaluation. Exceptional Children, 81(1), 45–63.

  16. 16.

    Jiang J, Sporte S, Luppescu S. Teacher Perspectives on Evaluation Reform: Chicago’s REACH Students. Educational Researcher March 1, 2015;44(2):105–116.

  17. 17.

    Johnson, S. M., & Fiarman, S. E. (2012). The potential of peer review. Educational Leadership, 70(3), 20–25.

  18. 18.

    Kraft, M. A., & Gilmour, A. F. (2016). Can principals promote teacher development as evaluators? A case study of principals’ views and experiences. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(5), 711–753.

  19. 19.

    Larsen, M. (2009). Stressful, hectic, daunting: A critical policy study of the ontario teacher performance appraisal system. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, (95), 1.

  20. 20.

    Liang, G., & Akiba, M. (2015). Teacher evaluation, performance-related pay, and constructivist instruction. Educational Policy, 29(2), 375–401.

  21. 21.

    Marsh, J. A., Bush-Mecenas, S., Strunk, K. O., Lincove, J. A., & Huguet, A. (2017). Evaluating teachers in the Big Easy: How organizational context shapes policy responses in New Orleans. Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 39(4), 539–570.

  22. 22.

    McCullough, M., English, B., Angus, M. H., Gill, B (2015). Alternative student growth measures for teacher evaluation: Implementation experiences of early-adopting districts. (REL 2015–093). Regional Educational Laboratory Mid-Atlantic.

  23. 23.

    McDuffie, A. R., Drake, C., Choppin, J., Davis, J. D., Magaña, M. V., & Carson, C. (2017). Middle School Mathematics Teachers’ Perceptions of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics and Related Assessment and Teacher Evaluation Systems. Educational Policy, 31(2), 139–179.

  24. 24.

    Munger, M. S. (2012). Shared responsibility for teacher quality: How do principals respond to peer assistance and Review?.

  25. 25.

    Phillips, S. R., Mercier, K., & Doolittle, S. (2017). Experiences of teacher evaluation systems on high school physical education programs. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 22(4), 364–377.

  26. 26.

    Reinhorn, S. K., Johnson, S. M., & Simon, N. S. (2017). Investing in Development: Six High-Performing, High-Poverty Schools Implement the Massachusetts Teacher Evaluation Policy. Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 39(3), 383–406.

  27. 27.

    Rigby, J. G. (2015). Principals’ Sensemaking and Enactment of Teacher Evaluation. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(3), 374–392.

  28. 28.

    Rosen, R., Parise, L. M., & MDRC. (2017). Using Evaluation Systems for Teacher Improvement: Are School Districts Ready to Meet New Federal Goals?.

  29. 29.

    Ruffini, S. J., Makkonen, R., Tejwani, J., Diaz, M. (2014). Principal and Teacher Perceptions of Implementation of Multiple-Measure Teacher Evaluation Systems in Arizona. REL 2015–062. San Francisco: Regional Educational Laboratory West.

  30. 30.

    Sartain, L., Stoelinga, S. R., & Brown, E. (2011). Rethinking teacher evaluation in chicago: Lessons learned from classroom observations, principal-teacher conferences, and district implementation. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.

  31. 31.

    Slotnik, W. J., Bugler, D., Liang, G. (2014). Real progress in Maryland: Student learning objectives and teacher and principal evaluation. Washington, DC: Mid-Atlantic Comprehensive Center at WestEd.

  32. 32.

    Sporte, S. E., Stevens, W. D., Healey, K., Jiang, J., Hart, H., (2013). Teacher evaluation in practice: Implementing Chicago’s REACH students. University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research.

  33. 33.

    Stecher, B. M., Holtzman, D. J., Garet, M. S., Hamilton, L. S., Engberg, J., Steiner, E. D., . . . Chambers, J. (2018). Improving teaching effectiveness: Final report: The intensive partnerships for effective teaching through 2015–2016. (). Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Retrieved from Social Science Premium Collection

  34. 34.

    Steinberg, M. P. (. 1.)., & Sartain, L. (. 2.). (2015). Does teacher evaluation improve school performance? Experimental evidence from Chicago’s excellence in teaching project. Education Finance and Policy, 10(4), 535–572.

  35. 35.

    Stosich, E. L. (2016). Common standards and teacher evaluation: Principals and teachers’ craft coherence among multiple accountability policies. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.

  36. 36.

    Taut, S., Santelices, M. V., Araya, C., & Manzi, J. (2011). Perceived effects and uses of the national teacher evaluation system in chilean elementary schools. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(4), 218–229.

  37. 37.

    Taylor, E. S., & Tyler, J. H. (2012). The effect of evaluation on teacher performance. The American Economic Review, (7), 3628–3651

  38. 38.

    Tuytens, M., & Devos, G. (2011). Stimulating professional learning through teacher evaluation: An impossible task for the school leader? Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 891–899.

  39. 39.

    Tuytens, M., & Devos, G. (2014). How to activate teachers through teacher evaluation? School Effectiveness & School Improvement, 25(4), 509–530.

  40. 40.

    Tuytens, M., & Devos, G. (2017). The role of feedback from the school leader during teacher evaluation for teacher and school improvement. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 23(1), 6–24.

  41. 41.

    von der Embse, N. P., Schoemann, A. M., Kilgus, S. P., Wicoff, M., & Bowler, M. (2017). The influence of test-based accountability policies on teacher stress and instructional practices: A moderated mediation model. Educational Psychology, 37(3), 312–331.

  42. 42.

    Vaillant, D., & Gonzalez-Vaillant, G. (2017). Within the teacher evaluation policies black box: Two case studies. Teacher Development, 21(3), 404–421. doi:10.1080/13664530.2016.1259649

  43. 43.

    White, B. R., Cowhy, J., Stevens, W. D., Sporte, S. E. (2012). Designing and implementing the next generation of teacher evaluation systems: Lessons learned from case studies in

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Firestone, W.A., Donaldson, M.L. Teacher evaluation as data use: what recent research suggests. Educ Asse Eval Acc 31, 289–314 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-019-09300-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-019-09300-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation