The primary purpose of this study was to examine the performance of K–12 students on criterion-referenced reading, language arts, and mathematics tests, and the relationship of those measures of student achievement to teacher performance measures by principals, students, and self-ratings by the teachers, with the intent of improving student performance through improved teaching. A total of 988 students, thirty-five teachers, and four principals participated in this project. The teacher performance questionnaires were preexisting instruments that had been used in previous studies and had proven to have validity, reliability, and discriminating power. The questionnaires consisted of twenty items each that represent positive descriptors of teacher behavior. There were four groupings of questionnaires for all three rater groups: lower elementary (K–2), upper elementary (3–5), middle school (6–8) and high school (9–12). The criterion-referenced tests were district developed in conjunction with an extensive curriculum renewal process conducted through the Iowa State University School Improvement Model (SIM). All three rater groups completed the questionnaires rating the teacher using a five-point, Likert-type scale. The data then were analyzed to determine what relationships, if any, existed between the ratings and student achievement as measured by the criterion-referenced examinations. The paramount finding was that student ratings of teachers were the best predictor of student achievement on district-developed, criterion-referenced tests and showed the strongest positive relationship to student achievement when compared with those of principals and teachers.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Adey, P.S. (1995). The effects of a staff development program: The relationship between the level of use of innovative science curriculum activities and student achievement. London, England: King's College London Center for Educational Studies. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 383 567).
Cashin, W.E. (1988). Student ratings of teaching: A summary of the research. IDEA Paper No. 20. Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University Division of Continuing Education.
Cashin, W.E. (1995). Student ratings of teaching: The research revisited. IDEA Paper No. 32. Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University Division of Continuing Education.
Emans, R.L., & Millburn, M.C. (1989). The knowledge base of teaching: A review and commentary of process-product research. St. Paul, MN: Bush Foundation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 309 137).
Gage, N.L., & Needels, M.C. (1989). Process-product research on teaching: A review of criticisms. The Elementary School Journal, 89(3), 253-300.
Gage, N.L. (1994). The scientific status of research on teaching. Educational Theory, 44(4), 371-383.
Garrison, J.W., & Macmillan, C.J.B. (1994). “Process-product research on teaching: Ten years later”. Educational Theory, 44(4), 385-397.
Gastel, B. (1991). “A menu of approaches for evaluating your teaching”. BioScience, 41(5), 342-345.
Good, T.L., & Mulryan, C. (1990). Teacher ratings: A call for teacher control and self-evaluation. In J. Millman & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), The new handbook of teacher evaluation (pp. 191-215). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Harris, B.M. (1987). Resolving old dilemmas in diagnostic evaluation. Educational Leadership, 44(7), 46-49.
Manatt, R.P. (1988). Teacher performance evaluation: A total systems approach. In Sarah J. Stanley & W. James Popham (Eds.), Teacher evaluation: Six prescriptions for success. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
McConney, A. (1998). Introduction: the issue in perspective. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12(3), 239-241.
McLaughlin, M.W. (1990). Embracing contraries: Implementing and sustaining teacher evaluation. In J. Millman & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), The new handbook of teacher evaluation (pp. 403-415). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Omotani, L.M. (1992). Refining valid, reliable, and discriminating student feedback items for use as one component of a total teacher performance evaluation system. Doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.
Quality counts 2000, executive summary. (2000). Education Week, 19(18) January 13, 8, 9.
Smith, L. (1993). The executive's new coach. Fortune, 128(16), 126-134.
Weber, B.J. (1992). Reliability and discrimination power of performance criteria for students' ratings of teachers: A comparison of K-5 and 6-12. Doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.
Wilcox, J.M.B. (1995). A comparison of teachers', students' and administrators' perceptions of teaching performance quality in selected K-12 schools. Doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.
Wilkerson, D.J. (1997). The association of performance ratings of teachers and achievement of students in the classroom. Doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.
About this article
Cite this article
Wilkerson, D.J., Manatt, R.P., Rogers, M.A. et al. Validation of Student, Principal, and Self-Ratings in 360° Feedback® for Teacher Evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 14, 179–192 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008158904681
- Middle School
- Student Achievement
- Student Performance
- Renewal Process
- Teacher Evaluation