ArticlePDF Available

Improving teaching capacity to increase student achievement: The key role of data interpretation by school leaders

  • Australian College of Researchers

Abstract and Figures

Purpose This paper argues that in a well-organised school with strong leadership and vision coupled with a concerted effort to improve the teaching performance of each teacher, student achievement can be enhanced. The purpose of the paper is to demonstrate that while macro-effect sizes such as 'whole of school' metrics are useful for school leaders in their professional development roles, there are important micro-conditions that can be uncovered in a more detailed analysis of student achievement data. Design/methodology/approach Evidence of student achievement in a variety of standardised and non-standardised assessment tasks was subjected to examination in a post-hoc, case study design. The assessment tasks were the South Australian Spelling Test Waddington Reading Test, a school-wide diagnostic writing task, teacher running records and national assessment program for literacy and numeracy (NAPLAN). Performance in selected classrooms was compared on these tests utilising a variety of parametric quantitative statistics. Findings School-based reform initiatives require external criteria on which to base decision-making. Without such criteria based on data and the capacity to interpret it, interactions in the school culture have unanticipated consequences that have the potential to neutralise school improvement strategies. Further, findings suggest that fewer but sharper and quicker data collection tools are more valuable in such teacher decision-making, but these require expertise to produce and interpret them.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Educational Administration
Improving teaching capacity to increase student achievement: the key role of data interpretation by
school leaders
David Lynch Richard Smith Steven Provost Jake Madden
Article information:
To cite this document:
David Lynch Richard Smith Steven Provost Jake Madden , (2016),"Improving teaching capacity to increase student
achievement: the key role of data interpretation by school leaders", Journal of Educational Administration , Vol. 54 Iss 5 pp. -
Permanent link to this document:
Downloaded on: 28 June 2016, At: 01:02 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document:
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1 times since 2016*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:615090 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit for more information.
About Emerald
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Downloaded by eFADA of Ankabut UAE At 01:02 28 June 2016 (PT)
Improving teaching capacity to increase student achievement: the key role of data
interpretation by school leaders
A global competition in educational achievement in “core subject matter areas like reading,
arithmetic/mathematics and science” has emerged (Scheerens, 2013, p.16) as governments focus
on international comparative studies of student achievement such as the Programme for
International Student Assessment (PISA) (see Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development, 2010, 2013). A prime motivation for such interest can be found in numerous
reports that cite the social and economic benefits of maintaining high performing education
systems in a global knowledge-based economy (see for example, Barro, 2001; Business Council
of Australia, 2005; Hanushek and Woessmann, 2009, 2010; Ministerial Council on Education,
Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, 2008 ).
Not all observers agree with that such developments are beneficial. The thesis is that individuals
or groups of students, teachers, education professionals and whole nations can suffer real
damage, if testing comes to dominate the education system. For example, Lingard (2010) argues
that national testing has ‘likely negative effects’ on curricula and pedagogy, opens the possibilities
of ‘naming’ and ‘shaming’ poor communities where there are relationship between socio-
economic status (SES) and student performance. The widespread adoption of testing in the
name of educational improvement for national political ends, according to Lingard (2010: 132), is
connected to nations reconstituting in the face of globalization and transnationalism. In this
political climate, testing is misrecognized as inflicting harm. In contrast, Mandinach, Honey, and
Light (2006, p. 5) propose that it is necessary to identify and develop processes and practices that
support teachers’ deep and sustained examination of data in ways that are aligned to local
instructional goals, regardless of ethnic and socioeconomic background. We cannot disagree with
this goal.
In order to examine some of the issues that have arisen here, we take a step back to another
discourse that is at least readily understandable to us. We distinguish two changes that together
have made the present preoccupation with testing inevitable. Education research by Leithwood,
et al. (2008), Shen and Cooley (2008), Lachat and Smith (2005), Marzano et al. (2005), Marsh et al.
(2006), Hattie (2009, 2011, 2012), Hargreaves and Fullan (2012) and others have identified strong
links between the teaching capacities of teachers and student academic performance: that
teaching matters. In addition, school leadership, what the Head and other leaders do, has a
definite effect on student academic outcomes (Mendels, 2012; Waters et al, 2003). This relatively
new understanding of the effects of teaching and the environment in which it takes place does
Downloaded by eFADA of Ankabut UAE At 01:02 28 June 2016 (PT)
not cancel the determinism of SES but it does offer hope for neutralizing its effects (Barber and
Mourshed 2007, p.13; Waters et al., 2003). For poor communities, those who have been
excluded from the capital that schooling provides, teachers and school systems, these two points
are good news. They heighten the preoccupation with improving school system performance
because it now seems possible and it is not surprising that there is a global pattern of great
interest in test results as inputs to steer education policy and systems, especially teacher quality
(Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2013; Thompson and Cook, 2014,
p.16). The interpretation of such test results and their transformation into action to improve
student academic achievement now falls largely on the expectations of school Heads and by
association, their ‘leadership team’ (Leithwood, et al., 2008; Park and Datnow, 2009).
Drawing the discussion together, in this article, the context is a school Head’s attempt to
improve the teaching capacities of his elementary school teaching staff (Kindergarten to Year 6)
in the curriculum area of English. The Head’s strategy comprised an intensive and systematic
coaching, mentoring and feedback regime linked to a school-wide data management and
reporting system. This coaching, mentoring and feedback was supported by the use of a ‘team
teaching’ organisational structure within the school thus creating a sociocultural environment
complemented by governance and management changes in a distributed way (Spillane,
Halverson, & Diamond, 2001). The model is known as the Collaborative Teacher Learning
Model (CTLM).
The CTLM model effectively combined school-based leadership arrangements, teacher
professional development and structural changes to governance and management designed to
lift the school’s achievement levels by mobilising the talents of the entire teaching and
administrative staff. During the five-year implementation of the model (2009 to 2013), improved
student outcomes became the prime vision in the school.
To determine the efficacy of the Head’s project, we interrogated student performance
data in order to assess the success or otherwise of the Head’s initiatives in achieving enhanced
student learning outcomes. We report findings in a later section.
As the paper details, the Head played a decisive role in developing and establishing the
CTLM within the school during his tenure at the school. With this understanding, the Head
made himself responsible for all the key decisions that were taken as the CTLM evolved in the
school by being the ‘chief coach and mentor’ to his leadership team and in turn, that of his
teachers. These circumstances provided an opportunity for us to also explore the Head’s
perceptions of his progress, including his judgement about teachers’ teaching capacities, in light
of student performance data.
Downloaded by eFADA of Ankabut UAE At 01:02 28 June 2016 (PT)
Before proceeding to the remainder of the paper, we briefly review relevant literature
concerned with leadership and its effects on teaching and student academic achievement. The
review is aimed at showing the clear links between patterns of leadership, effective teaching and
improved student outcomes.
Theoretical framing
Researchers such as Leithwood et al. (2008) and Shen and Cooley (2008) point to the key role
that Heads play in improving student achievement. Marzano (2003) identified key functions of
school leaders: shaping a vision of academic success for all students; creating a climate hospitable
to education; cultivating leadership in others; improving instruction; and managing people, data,
and processes to foster school improvement. In an extensive meta-analysis, Marzano et al. (2005,
pp. 11-27) found a .25 correlation between twenty-one leadership characteristics of successful
Heads and student achievement, which potentially, can increase student achievement up to 22%
higher than the starting percentile (Marzano 2003, p. 3). Their claim is that, for students below
average, the principal’s leadership can increase performance to the average or higher range
(Marzano et al., 2005).
Feser et al.’s (2015) research into organisations is heuristic in these circumstances
because, while noting the unresolved issues in change behaviour, it suggests that a small subset
of leadership skills closely correlates with leadership success. Feser et al. (2015) identified a list of
20 distinct leadership traits and surveyed 189,000 people in 81 diverse organizations around the
world to determine how frequently certain kinds of leadership behaviour are applied in their
organizations. The sample was divided into organizations whose leadership performance was in
the top quartile of leadership effectiveness (as measured by McKinsey’s Organizational Health
Index) and those that were weak, in the bottom quartile.
Four of the 20 possible types of leadership effectiveness behaviour explained 89% of the
variance between strong and weak organizations. They are:
1. Solving problems effectively. Problem solving based on gathering data, the analysis of
information and considered conclusions.
2. Operating with a strong results orientation. Developing and communicating a vision and
setting objectives that are followed through to results. Leaders with a strong results
orientation tend to emphasize the importance of efficiency and productivity and to
prioritize the highest-value work.
3. Seeking different perspectives. Monitoring trends affecting organizations, grasping
changes in the environment, encouraging employees to contribute ideas that could
Downloaded by eFADA of Ankabut UAE At 01:02 28 June 2016 (PT)
improve performance, accurately differentiating between important and unimportant
issues, and giving appropriate importance to stakeholder concerns.
4. Supporting others. Showing a sincere interest in those around them in order to build
trust and inspiration and intervening in work to promote and preventing internal conflict.
Feser et al. (2015) claim that for organizations investing in the development of their future
leaders, “prioritizing these four areas is a good place to start”.
Similarly, the Wallace Foundation (Mendels, 2012), in the most current and
comprehensive study on the relationship between school administrator behaviours and actions
and student academic achievement, identified five school-level factors and six other teacher- and
student-level factors that are well-established correlates of effective schools (Mendels, 2012, p.
55). The five practices of shaping a vision of academic success, creating a hospitable climate for
change, cultivating leadership in others, improving instruction and managing people, data and
processes in particular are concerned with structural and cultural change and are central to
effective school leadership in the sense described above. These prescriptions suggest that schools
resemble organisations more generally despite their specific content.
An important insight for the present paper is that these studies distinguish between
leadership as the conventional management role of ‘minding the shop’ and leadership concerned
with the fundamental changes in an organisation that lead to better strategic outcomes (Park and
Datnow, 2009; Wayman, et al., 2005). To illustrate, in a school situation Heads are often captured
by the many management variables in the day-to-day life of school that scuttle aspirational
visions and plans, no matter how well such plans have been developed and how passionate the
Head and staff are in the search for improvement (Sebastian and Allensworth, 2012). Marzano et
al. (2005) and Sebastian and Allensworth (2012) indicate that successful Heads consciously direct
help where it is most needed or where they have prioritized school efforts and resources in order
to assist teachers to improve their performance. It is this latter form of school Head leadership
in contrast to managing the minutiae that appears to be a pre-requisite for strategic change. Our
focal school Head exemplified this profile.
It follows that the accumulating evidence is that the knowledge and skill bases for school
leaders wishing to improve schools on any scale, include an informed academic emphasis
including knowledge of relevant research, the time and opportunity to plan and implement,
structuring and scaffolding the whole school, leadership and monitoring its effects and detailed
emphasis on classroom level instructional variables (Shen and Cooley, 2008; Wayman, et al.,
2005, 2006; Mandinach, et al., 2011; Park and Datnow, 2009). The establishment of instructional
variables such as emphasizing the importance of prior knowledge, developing self-regulated
Downloaded by eFADA of Ankabut UAE At 01:02 28 June 2016 (PT)
learning and teaching, dealing with meta-cognitive strategies and establishing structured teaching
and direct instruction matter most (Witziers et al., 2003; Kirschner et al. 2006; Scheerens et al.,
2007; Seidel and Shavelson, 2007; Creemers and Kyriakides, 2008; Louis and Marks, 1998;
Marzano, 2003).
Although tentative, Scheerens (2013, pp. 23-24) claims that there is a ‘fair consensus
among reviewers’ on the rank order of such variables according to the average effect size
reported in his meta-analysis of schools. By putting together the main results from Marzano
(2003), Scheerens et al. (2007) and Hattie (2009), even with general labels, the evidence provides a
“relatively clear idea on what aspects of school functioning should be optimized in order to
enhance student performance” (Scheerens, 2013, pp. 23-24). We interpret this evidence to mean
that strategic leadership by the Head is an essential ingredient for improved student achievement
and school change. Further, if the goal is to overcome the blockages that impede the progress of
many students, significant changes in how the school operates matter (Park and Datnow, 2009;
Shen and Cooley, 2008; Hamilton, et al., 2009).
We have laboured the point about school leadership because it seems to us to illustrate the
fundamental issues of what is at stake in raising student academic outcomes. For us, there are
three core issues. First, conventionally, teacher culture is inhospitable to interrogating ‘teaching’
if it means challenging what individual teachers do. For decades ‘teaching’ has been treated as
unproblematic (Simon, 1981; Alexander, 2003) and when it comes to student outcomes, its
success or otherwise is thought to be adequately explained and justified by sociological factors.
Moreover, it is not then surprising that Confrey & Makar (2005), Hammerman & Rubin (2002)
and Kearns & Harvey, (2000) have shown that teachers do not routinely engage in thinking
critically about the relationship between instructional practices and student outcomes
(Mandinach, Honey, and Light, 2006).
Second, this does not mean that teachers are against change but the individualization and
‘medicalization’ (Goffman, 1961) of teaching is inhospitable to the scrutiny of its effects because
it cannot accommodate what failing students and their communities really aspire to, which is
success and the opportunities it presents. Third, the Head is the core strategic role for initiating
the changes required to ‘teaching’ if the goal is to improve student outcomes. Of core
importance to this position is Toth and Marzano’s (2008) call for a ‘language of instruction’ to
reduce the fragmentation of teaching.
Nevertheless, such change is not a mechanical process. As Weick (1976) has pointed out, schools
are usually loosely coupled systems with different parts of the operation operating in relatively
Downloaded by eFADA of Ankabut UAE At 01:02 28 June 2016 (PT)
autonomous ways that have effects, including the fragmentation of teaching purpose. However,
as Preedy, Glatter and Wise (2003) have so cogently argued, developing organisational
effectiveness and improvement so that all organization members understand, are involved in,
and committed to, a strategic plan needs to permeate the whole staff of a school organisation.
The Case Study
The school featured in this paper is an example of a ‘seed’ school. These are schools that already
have “a strong capacity for change, where the staff is cohesive, excited about teaching, led by a
visionary leader willing to involve the entire staff in decisions, and broadly aware of research
trends and ideas being implemented elsewhere” (Slavin, 1997, p. 7). After taking up the position,
the Head discerned that the academic performance of students, while above state and sector
norms, was ‘flat-lining’. He resolved to work on creating better academic outcomes by focusing
on an improvement of teaching through intensive staff professional development. In a project
over five years he initiated a focus on data driven instructional decision-making (Hamilton, et al.,
2005; March, et al., 2006) and conducive school structural changes to accommodate the
implications of these (Park and Datnow, 2009; Shen and Cooley, 2008). Before proceeding we
briefly explain the model developed by the Head and his staff, entitled the Collaborative Teacher
Learning Model (CTLM).
The Collaborative Teacher Learning Model
School X is a large faith-based elementary school in regional Australia but in its environment, is
similar to the nearby state schools in so far as they all have enrolments across social strata, they
deal with individual family circumstances and some social issues active in the local community.
The school has a steady enrolment of 650 students in Kindergarten through Year 6 with a
balance of experienced and inexperienced teachers. Teachers work in ‘grade’ or ‘year based’
teaching teams lead by a ‘team leader’. These team leaders in turn form the schools executive
team. The Head had been employed for five years prior to the commencement of this study in
The fundamental elements of the CTLM model are six fold, namely:
1. The average yearly enrolment of 652 elementary students in Years Kindergarten through
6, were organized into 7 teaching cohorts. The cohorts comprised teams of 4 teachers
and approximately 90 students who worked collaboratively to deliver the Australian
National Curriculum.
Downloaded by eFADA of Ankabut UAE At 01:02 28 June 2016 (PT)
2. The teaching arrangement was supported by a ‘team leader’, a personal Teaching
Performance Plan (TPP) for each teacher and a series of formalized coaching, mentoring
and feedback sessions managed and facilitated by the team leader.
3. An initial series of whole of school-wide Professional Development sessions about
‘evidence based practice’
4. Teaching techniques and their potential effect size on student performance and
translating them into strategic teaching plans. Dimensions of Learning (Marzano et al.,
1997) and Hattie’s (2009) work were the key references
5. Teaching team leaders conducted individual teaching observation-based coaching,
mentoring and feedback sessions and made regular reports to teachers both individually
and to whole of cohort about student performance on standardized tests.
6. Teaching team Leaders made teacher performance plans (TPP) for each teacher that
became an official school record of the teacher’s teaching performance. Teaching
observations based on teaching plans, actual teaching sessions, student performance data
and areas of improvement and benchmarks required to be met at a stipulated juncture in
the school year constituted the records.
7. Teaching team Leaders implemented a formal coaching and mentoring regime, guided by
each teacher’s TPP.
As our review of headship literature demonstrated, the Head plays an important role in the life
of an effective school. Our supposition, derived from the literature, was that this Head would
have to juggle many agendas at once (Marzano et al., 2005) to accomplish the goal of enhancing
teaching so that student academic outcomes improved. We focused on the operational aspects of
the CTLM and the Heads strategies to keep track of progress. Of particular interest was the use
the Head made of conventional whole of school metrics and especially more specific student
achievement and teacher effectiveness data.
For the purposes of this paper we use evidence of student achievement in a variety of
standardised and non-standardised assessment tasks each subjected to examination in a post-hoc
case study design to test the efficacy of the CTLM in improving student outcomes. The data
were scores on teachers’ running records, a teacher-designed writing task, standardized tests
administered within the school (Waddington’s Reading Test and the South Australian Spelling
Downloaded by eFADA of Ankabut UAE At 01:02 28 June 2016 (PT)
Test), and the National Assessment Program for Literacy and Numeracy
(NAPLAN). These
data were collected across the period 2012-2014. An analysis of the changes in performance
across this period has been presented elsewhere (Lynch et al., 2015).
More specifically, these data were interrogated post-hoc in quantitative analyses. One
analysis examined differences in standardized test performance within a single year for differing
classrooms at the same year-level. The purpose of this analysis was to determine the extent of
between-classroom differences, their achievement relative to Hattie’s criterion, and the level of
concordance between changes in performance and the Head’s expectations regarding classroom
teacher capability. Data were not available for all tests for all years, due to variations in
implementation of the tests across different classes in the school. For those tests where data was
available, difference scores were calculated for students within classes, means were calculated and
confidence intervals were constructed to enable interpretation. The same analysis was conducted
on the school-based writing task. Multiple regression analyses were conducted on the NAPLAN
results with respect to the standardized tests, the writing task, and teacher running records.
Performance in selected classrooms was then compared on these tests utilising a variety
of parametric quantitative statistics and the results used to conduct an examination of the Head’s
perceptions of this data as it relates to each teacher. In seeking to examine the Heads
perceptions we found in Strong et al. (2011, p.367) evidence of a low accuracy of the
to judge the teaching performance of the teachers he /she supervises. The contention
for us was that we had a ‘seed school’, with significant data source capacities and according to
the student performance data, we reveal later, what can be described as an effective Head. We
thus aim to investigate if he proves to have a greater level of accuracy in judging the teaching
performance of his teachers.
The Data Sources
As indicated earlier, the school utilized the South Australian Spelling Test (SAST), the
Waddington Reading Tests (Waddington, 2012) as a well as a ‘school-wide diagnostic writing
task’ and ‘running records’ to focus teaching endeavours and determine student achievement
growth. In this paper we used these tests and tasks as well as data obtained from the National
Assessment Program for Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) for this school as the basis for
analysis. Before continuing we first provide an account of each.
National Assessment Program in Literacy and Numeracy. See
Downloaded by eFADA of Ankabut UAE At 01:02 28 June 2016 (PT)
The South Australian Spelling Test (SA-ST) (revised) consists of two forms containing
70 words, differing in level of difficulty (e.g., from the word “on” to the word “seismograph”;
Westwood, 2005). The student is read the words and must write them down. Each word is
repeated, and embedded in a sentence (e.g., “ON. Please put your shoes ON. Write ON”). The
test should be terminated if the student makes 10 consecutive errors. Their score is the number
of correct answers. This score can then be compared with age norms (from 2004) provided for
the two forms, however any particular score is usually associated with a number of ages (e.g. a
score of 52 is compatible with an age between 14 years and nine months and 15 years and five
months). Test-retest reliability of the SAST is between .89 and .94 and the standard error of
measurement is 2 raw score points (Westwood, 2005). For those Year grades in which this test
was employed, it was administered in February and in November of that year.
The Waddington reading tests have a combination of letter, word, rhyme, phonic, picture
to word and picture to text recognition to assist with the identification, diagnosis and
intervention for students with learning difficulties or advanced skills. Students can do Test 1 in
the second term and Test 2 in the fourth term. The Kuder-Richardson 20 reliability index is
reported to be 0.98 for reading test 1 and 0.97 for reading test 2. The Standard Error of
Measurement (SEM) is reported as plus or minus 2 months in reading age for the two parallel
forms of the reading test. These statistics indicate that the tests are highly reliable for
determining the reading age of young children (Godfrey et al., 2001).
The Waddington tests have the following purpose:
"by bridging the gap between those teachers who rely mainly upon observation
and personal judgement in assessing a student’s performance and those who
naively accept the limited information of derived scores provided by tests as
being the major indicator of a student or school’s performance." (Waddington,
The ‘Writing Task’ provides School X staff with rigorous, focused professional
conversations about student work samples which in turn are dissected and interrogated as
evidence about each teacher’s practice and individual student progress. Each task is based on a
sequential aspect of the Australian National English Curriculum and is directly referenced to
writing task rubrics that form part of the Australian Government’s national NAPLAN testing
program. The writing task itself is based on and aimed at students writing more each day while
re-engaging teachers with the core business of writing using clauses, complex and compound
sentences and types of text such as imaginative, informative and persuasive. It exemplifies the
Downloaded by eFADA of Ankabut UAE At 01:02 28 June 2016 (PT)
collaborative curriculum and pedagogical work that teachers do in the CTLM and the school is
now assesses the Writing Task outcomes in all four school terms.
Several features of the Writing Task mark the important function it has in the CTLM.
First, it builds a common strategy and language across the whole school. Second, the Leader of
Pedagogy worked with the task at each year level, discussing key intervention teaching strategies
to allow each student to move forward and providing input into relevant PD for each teacher.
Third, The Writing Task was the vehicle to implement the Hattie co-efficient by promoting
discussion about the effectiveness of their decision-making when choosing teaching strategies.
Last, the Writing Task offered a measure that was universal across the school.
A running record is a set of observational notes of each student made several times a
year or as required by the teacher in order to identify the instructional reading level of a student.
For a teacher, the most important feature of the running record analysis is in the questioning and
interpretation of the types of errors students make when reading.
The remainder of this paper is dedicated to the analysis of the data-based approach of
the CTLM and an examination of the Head’s perceptions of this data as it relates to each teacher.
The use of data to assist in decision-making is the cornerstone of the Head’s initiative and the
school’s strategic development plan (Mandinach, et al., 2001, 2006; Shen and Cooley, 2008). It
relied on ‘teaching team meetings’ and formalized ‘coaching, mentoring and feedback’ sessions
led by a designated teaching team leader. These were linked to a school-based testing program
built around reaching the Hattie 0.4 minimalist achievement improvement criterion. In short, the
CTLM was the planned means for improving the academic performance of each student,
increasing teacher capability and exemplified a systematic approach to converting effective
leadership into a web of practical components.
Nevertheless, the CTLM meetings, coaching, mentoring and feedback relied on
interpretation of teacher and student profiles and strategic issues so that professional
development could be targeted. These interpretations in turn were based on school-based test
scores, running records of student progress and behaviour maintained by teachers, and a
composite teacher constructed ‘writing task’. These components generated information that
comprised a ‘data-driven’ approach to school leadership and change at school X. Our interest at
this point is what was generated in each of these elements and its relative efficacy for providing
data on which effective professional teacher development could be based.
Downloaded by eFADA of Ankabut UAE At 01:02 28 June 2016 (PT)
In order to unravel these conundrums, we elected to investigate year-long and shorter
term data generated by the aforementioned tests and assessment tasks.
Long-term data collection, analysis and use
As our literature review revealed leadership is an important element in the effective school. The
key role played by the Head in our case study further exemplified this finding. As we outlined in
an earlier section, the Head in School X viewed his role as central to the success of the CTLM; a
position which aligns with findings by Akert and Martin (2012) into the key role played by
actively involved school leaders in effective schools. One would expect that such Heads have
an intimate understanding of where teaching strengths and weaknesses lie and would attempt to
target these as part of their strategic planning and action. With these points in mind, we
compared the results of the CTLM with the Head’s perceptions of each teacher’s teaching
capacities to gain further insights into how the CTLM is informed by his leadership.
The CTLM featured the use of various tests and assessment tasks from which teaching
decisions were taken and teaching and learning performance judged. Hattie’s effect-size criterion
(d = 0.4) was used to provide a common expression of the magnitude of English achievement
across the school. The criterion focused him and his team leader’s attention on diagnostic test
information and pedagogical issues for each teaching team to resolve.
In order to show what a ‘data-driven’ approach involves when using, we drilled down on
the general finding that the school had achieved significant progress in reaching Hattie’s 0.4
criterion (Hattie, 2009, 2012). The changes in performance within a single calendar year were
analysed at the classroom level. We wished to determine how consistent the changes in
achievement we reported (Lynch, et al., 2014, 2015) were across the school. We also sought to
provide a cross-check of the Head’s perceptions of teacher effectiveness. The Head was asked,
post-hoc, to rank all of the teachers in terms of their competence and capability. These rankings
were then split into quartiles, identifying those in the top 25%, second 25%, third 25% and
bottom 25%. The relation between these rankings and class performance were then analysed.
Comparative data were not available for all years or for all teachers, but in a number of
instances comparisons in test performance within a year were possible. For example, Figure 1
shows the means and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for the improvements in performance
for six Year 1 classes. These changes are shown with respect to the improvement that could be
expected due simply to maturation over the nine months between testing occasions, and Hattie’s
.4sd improvement. This figure indicates that the improvements in attainment at the whole-of-
school level are not consistent, and that there are quite large differences between classes. None
Downloaded by eFADA of Ankabut UAE At 01:02 28 June 2016 (PT)
of the 95% CIs fall below the level of improvement which should be expected on the basis of
maturation alone. Three of them (Classes D, E, and F) lie above this level, indicating that student
attainment had improved at more than this rate, which appears to be consistent with the .4sd
requirement. However the different outcomes do not appear to be consistent with the Head’s
expectations regarding competence, as the improvements in performance are unrelated to the
quartile in which the classroom teacher was placed on this dimension.
[Figure 1.]
A similar pattern emerges if other tests are considered. Figure 2 shows the same
improvement scores for classes with respect to the Year 3 SAST. Again, there are differences
between classes in evidence, although none fall below maturational expectations, and some
exceed these by a substantial margin. However there is no relation whatsoever between the
Head’s judgements of teacher effectiveness and the classroom student attainment.
[Figure 2.]
Strong et al. (2011), in their studies of “whether judges [in teaching situations] can
correctly rate teachers of known ability to raise student achievement, found that … in every case,
judges achieved relatively high levels of agreement but were absolutely inaccurate, leading to
question whether educators can identify effective teachers when they see them” (Strong et al.,
2011, pp. 367 and 379). In an earlier study Medley and Coker (1987, p. 246) found “a low
accuracy of the average principal’s judgement of the teachers he /she supervises”. Orphanos
(2014) found that Heads are capable of making accurate judgements of teacher performance but
personal interactions have the potential to cloud such judgements.
When asked how the Head made his teacher rankings, it became evident that the day-to-
day interactions about issues involving teachers and the Head dominated his immediate
judgement about teacher capacity. For example, when asked his opinions of the top performers
identified in the data reported here, he described some teachers as ‘the biggest complainer’ and
another as ‘not aligned’ with his vision for the school. In both cases he thought they were pre-
occupied with ‘peripheral things’.
Classes of course imply teachers, and in the CTLM where teaching was the prime focus
in school improvement, these data could have provided a more fine-grained data-set for the
Head or the respective teaching Team Leader to have professional conversations with, for
Downloaded by eFADA of Ankabut UAE At 01:02 28 June 2016 (PT)
example, Teachers A, B and C in Year 3. Bearing in mind that the composition of classes was
homogeneous, these data provide a Head and teaching team leaders with the decision-making
grounds for designing targeted professional development for teachers. The major problem with
data from instruments such as the NAPLAN, which involves an 8-month lag time in its
availability, is its lack of immediacy; making it a poor tool for data-based decision-making at an
individual level (although its value for the whole school is not diminished). The information
from standardised tests administered within the school has the capacity to inform critical
decisions within a time frame suitable to lead to effective gains in student and teacher
performance, if appropriately utilised.
The primary source of information normally used in schools for the provision of timely
feedback on attainment are running records (RR). RR provide a data source for decision-making
by individual teachers, the Leader of Pedagogy and ‘teaching team’ meetings. They are
considered to be a rich reservoir of teacher observations about every student that, once
interrogated, provide grounds for deciding which teaching strategies are needed to move a
student from one level (in reading) to the next. In some cases, there are multiple teacher
comments about individual students thus providing a form of triangulation of information.
In order to test the efficacy of the RR for teacher professional development where
improved teaching performance was sought in higher student achievement, multiple regressions
were conducted on each of the four NAPLAN tests for year 3 students as shown in Table 1.
Scores on both the SA tests conducted in February of that year, and the June RR. In all four
regressions, a highly significant and substantial proportion of the variance on the NAPLAN was
predicted by the combination of SA and RR. Scores on the SA test were significantly associated
with NAPLAN performance in all four cases.
[Table 1]
In the case of the NAPLAN Language and Spelling tests these associations were strong,
with β
values equal to or exceeding 0.7. However, the RR scores were only significantly
predictive with respect to NAPLAN performance in the case of the Reading subtest, and in the
other three cases b weights were close to zero.
Short-term data collection and analysis
Another potential source of information regarding student attainment is provided by
assessment tools such as the teacher-designed writing task described above. This task was
Downloaded by eFADA of Ankabut UAE At 01:02 28 June 2016 (PT)
conducted twice in each session for targeted aspects of writing, potentially allowing much greater
immediacy in the design and implementation of remedial strategies if required. In order to assess
the value of these data, a grand average was calculated across the four different tasks for each
student for each of the test administrations. The average improvement in performance was then
calculated for students in different classes of each year, and Figure 3 shows the change in writing
task performance for Year 4 students in 2012. Once again such results were typical for all year
levels and we use these results as an exemplar of such findings. As the two testing occasions fell
within a single term, and as this test is not norm-referenced for differing ages, this figure does
not include any suppositions regarding improvement with respect to maturation. However, the
dashed line shows the improvement required to achieve Hattie’s 0.4 sd change as a reference
[Figure 3.]
There is clear evidence in Figure 3 of substantial improvements in student performance
in all classes, at or beyond Hattie’s .4 sd. Differences between classes are less than for the
standardised tests, although there is considerable variability as indicated by the differing
confidence intervals.
Taken together, these findings add to the literature in three ways:
First, the study reported here supports the idea that schools have ‘effects’ on student
outcomes mediated by changes in teacher behaviour. Exemplary classroom teaching focused on
improved student performance, demonstrated by Hattie’s 0.4 criterion, supports the contention
that schools do make a difference (Marzano et al, 2005; Hattie, 2009; Scheerens, et al 2007;
Witziers, et al, 2003). The ‘whole of school reform model’ (CTLM) reported here reinforces the
efficacy of a combination of distributed leadership, data-driven decision-making, coaching,
mentoring and feedback regime for teachers (Leithwood et al, 2008; Park and Datnow, 2009;
Mendels 2012; Orphanos, 2014). The paper supports further research into these elements if the
aim is to promote school Head capability, teacher expertise and student learning (Strong, et al,
2011; Sebastian and Allensworth, 2012).
Second, the paper shows that data collection tools that are current, immediately useable
by Heads and teachers and supportive of pedagogical strategies prioritising student learning are
feasible and achievable in today’s schools. However, in order to reach such a level of expertise,
Downloaded by eFADA of Ankabut UAE At 01:02 28 June 2016 (PT)
teacher education and professional development needs to ensure that there are staff who can
produce and interpret such tools, implying a change in the leadership and administrative
practices (Mendels, 2012; Mandinach, et al., 2011; Feser, et al, 2015; Marzano et al, 2005;
Wayman, et al, 2005; Slavin, 1997; OECD, 2010) . This has wider implications for those who
prepare teachers for work, conceptions of ‘education, and the way schools distribute resources
(Lynch, et al, 2015; Schiemann, 2014).
Finally, as Leithwood et al (2008) and others (see for example; Sebastian and Allensworth,
2012; Feser, et al, 2015; Creemers and Kyriakides, 2008) have argued, the Head has to adopt a
consistent and long-term strategic view of leadership and management. Our data show that
judgements about teaching and school performance based on micro-level interactions in the
school are less reliable and strategically productive than the planned, systematic interpretation
and implementation of data collected in less impressionable and personalised methods.
The business of collecting, analysing and making instructional decisions based on data is
increasingly identified as a central tenant in the school improvement process (Lachet and Smith,
2005), but for effect it requires changes in school cultures and teachers’ attitudes to data and the
role it can play in instructional decision-making (Mandinach, et al., 2011; Hamilton, et al., 2009).
This has direct implications for the Head as instructional leader and for the improvement
strategies and the support structures they choose to put into place (Hargreaves and Fullan, 2012;
Park and Datnow, 2009). The CTLM provided an insight into how one Head attempted to come
to terms with such a complex agenda. In the CTLM the Head used a variety of data sources to
inform and direct this model.
Using the quantum of data sources as outlined in an earlier section, we contend that
there is clear evidence of improvements in student performance in all classes, at or beyond
Hattie’s 0.4 sd. This provides an account of the efficacy of the CTLM and by association, the
planning and implementation leadership capacities of the school Head.
Taking specific account of the greater complexity of the writing task, a combination of
standardised testing (e.g. SA-ST) and this kind of writing test analysis provides the fine-grained
detail that is essential for any program attempting to raise both the pedagogical expertise of
teachers and the academic performance of students. The former provides validity, which we have
suggested, surpasses teacher developed tests, and immediacy in the case of the writing task
statistics. The immediacy factor is of great importance for the day-to-day development of
Downloaded by eFADA of Ankabut UAE At 01:02 28 June 2016 (PT)
teaching and for the improvement of student outcomes (Mandinach, et al., 2011). Without it, the
availability of data is neutralised in the day-to-day demands of teacher’s lives.
The writing task was also irrevocably tied to the Head’s mentoring and leadership
processes and in turn, to the far greater involvement of the teachers in the design and
implementation of these tools. They generated a greater familiarisation with the structure of what
was required and the development of more effective strategies drawn from experience and the
professional development within the CTML, leading to better teaching approaches and greater
student attainment. The task is important therefore because it was necessary (but not sufficient)
to generate the changes in practice that the Head’s strategy required if better student outcomes
were to be achieved.
We also conclude that the standardised test appears to have provided much more
valuable information for the design of teaching strategies than that available to teachers through
their running records. We base this conclusion on the data analysis that shows the information
contained in the running records is of little value in estimating the likely NAPLAN performance
of pupils, unlike the SA-ST which is, in some cases, highly predictive of NAPLAN performance.
These findings underscore the challenges that Heads face in managing complex school
environments and illustrate how reform initiatives such as on-going teacher development require
external data criteria on which to base decision-making. This point is emphasised by Mandinach,
et al. (2011) who call attention to the challenges Heads face in working with a teaching workforce
untrained in such data based decision-making regimes. Without such data and the capacity to
interpret them, interactions in the school culture have unanticipated consequences that have the
potential to neutralise school improvement strategies by an incapacity to interpret and implement
the implications of rich databases. In turn, these remarks point to the need for teacher education
programs to keep pace with changes both in education research and daily practices in schools by
making data driven decision making a core component for teachers and Heads (Mandinach et al.,
This is an important finding because the paper shows that fewer but sharper and quicker
data collection tools such as the writing task statistics are possible if the expertise is in schools to
produce, interpret and implement them. Moreover, the paper provides evidence that the
resource profile, including staffing of a data-driven school, is likely to be different to the
standard school. On the basis of the data provided in the paper, we argue that these staffing and
associated resource implications need to be built into school strategic plans as essential
components for the data driven school.
Downloaded by eFADA of Ankabut UAE At 01:02 28 June 2016 (PT)
Akert, N. and Martin, B.N. (2012), “The role of teacher leaders in school improvement through
the perceptions of principals and teachers”, International Journal of Education. Vol. 4 No. 4,
available at:
(accessed 10 September 2015)
Alexander, R. (2004) Still no pedagogy? Principle, pragmatism and compliance in primary
education. Cambridge Journal of Education, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 7-33.
Barro, R.J. (2001), “Human capital and growth”, American Economic Review, Vol. 91 No.2, pp.12-
Business Council of Australia (2005), The economic benefit of increased participation in
education and training, available at:
benefit-of-increased-participation-in-education-and-training (accessed 2, September
Confrey, J., & Makar, K. (2005). Critiquing and improving data use from high stakes tests:
Understanding variation and distribution in relation to equity using dynamic statistics
software. In C. Dede, J. P. Honan, & l. C. Peters (Eds.), Scaling up success: Lessons
learned from technology-based educational improvement (pp. 198-226). San Francisco:
Creemers, B.P.M. and Kyriakides, L. (2008), The dynamics of educational effectiveness, Routledge,
London and New York.
Feser, C., Mayol, F. and Srinivasan, R. (2015), “Decoding leadership: what really matters”,
McKinsey Quarterly, January, available at:
_What_really_matters?cid=other-eml-alt-mkq-mck-oth-1501 (accessed 2, September
Godfrey, J.R., Partington, G. and Sinclair, A. (2001), “To test or not to test? The selection and
analysis of an instrument to assess literacy skills of Indigenous children: a pilot study”,
paper presented at: the Annual AARE Conference, Fremantle, available at: (accessed 2, September
Goffman, E. (1961), Asylums: essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. New
York: Anchor Books.
Hammerman, J. K., & Rubin, A. (2002) Visualizing a statistical world, Hands On!, 25(2).
Hamilton, L., Halverson, R., Jackson, S., Mandinach, E., Supovitz, J., and Wayman, J. (2009),
Using student achievement data to support instructional decision making (NCEE 2009-4067),
National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of
Downloaded by eFADA of Ankabut UAE At 01:02 28 June 2016 (PT)
Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC. Available at:
Hanushek, E.A. and Woessmann, L. (2009), “Do better schools lead to more growth? Cognitive
skills, economic outcomes, and causation”, working paper, National Bureau of Economic
Research, Cambridge, MA, 14 July.
Hanushek, E.A. and Woessmann, L. (2010), “The high cost of low educational performance: the
longrun economic impact of improving PISA outcomes”, OECD Publishing, Paris.
Hargreaves, A. and Fullan, M. (2012), Professional capital: transforming teaching in every school, Teachers
College Press, New York, NY.
Hattie, J. (2009), Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement, Routledge,
Hattie, J. (2011), “Challenge of focusing education reform”, The Australian, 7 June, available at:
focusing-reform/story-fn8ex0p1-1226069556190 (accessed 3, September 2015).
Hattie, J. (2012), Visible learning for teachers: maximising impact on learning, Routledge, New York.
Kearns, D. T., & Harvey, J. (2000). A legacy of learning. Washington, DC: Brookings
Institution Press.
Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J. and Clark, R.E. (2006), “Why minimal guidance during instruction
does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based,
experiential, and inquiry-based teaching”, Educational Psychologist, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 75–
Lachat, M.A. and Smith, S. (2005), “Practices That Support Data Use in Urban High Schools”,
Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JEPSAR), Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 333-349, Available at: 7
Leithwood, K., Harris, A., and Hopkins, D. (2008), “Seven strong claims about successful school
Leadership”, School Leadership and Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 27–42.
Louis, K.S. and Marks, H.M. (1998), “Does professional community affect the classroom?
Teachers’ work and student experiences in restructuring schools”, American Journal of
Education, Vol. 106, pp. 532-575.
Lynch, D., Madden, J. and Doe, T., (2015), Creating the Outstanding School, Oxford Global Press,
Lynch, D., Madden, J. and Knight, B., (2014), Harnessing Professional Dialogue, Collaboration
and Content in Context: An exploration of a new model for teacher professional
Learning, International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 1-15.
Downloaded by eFADA of Ankabut UAE At 01:02 28 June 2016 (PT)
Mandinach, E. B., Gummer, E. S., and Muller, R.D. (2011), The complexities of integrating data-driven
decision making into professional preparation in schools of education: It’s harder than you think, CAN
Education, Education Northwest, and WestEd, Alexandria, VA, Portland, OR, and
Washington, DC.
Marzano, R. J. (2008) Teacher Growth. It all starts with a Common Language of Instruction.
Marzano, R.J. (2003), What works in schools: translating research into action, ASCD, Alexandria, VA.
Marzano, R.J., Pickering, D.J., Arredondo, D.E., Blackburn, G.J., Brandt, R.S., Moffett. C.A. and
Whisler, J.S. (1997), Dimensions of learning: teacher’s manual, 2nd ed., Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development/McRel Mid-Continent Regional Educational
Laboratory, Alexandria, VA.
Marzano, R.J., Waters, T. and McNulty, B.A., (2005), School leadership that works: from research to
results, ASCD, Alexandria, USA.
Medley, D.M. and Coker, H. (1987), “The accuracy of principals' judgments of teacher
performance”, Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 80, pp. 242-247.
Mendels, P. (2012), “The Effective Principal”, JSD, Vol. 33 No. 1, available at:
principal-leadership/documents/the-effective-principal.pdf (accessed 1, September 2015)
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. (2008), “Melbourne
declaration on educational goals for young Australians”, available at:
ional_Goals_for_Young_Australians.pdf (accessed 3, September 2015)
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, (2013), “Industrial policies in a
changing world”, available at:
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, (2010), Strong performers and successful
reformers in education lessons from PISA for the United States, OECD Publishing, Paris.
Orphanos, S. (2014), “What matters to principals when they evaluate teachers? Evidence from
cyprus”, Educational Management and Leadership, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 243-258.
Park, V. and Datnow, A. (2009), “Co-constructing distributed leadership: district and school
connections in data-driven decision-making”, School Leadership & Management, Vol. 29 No.
5, pp. 477-494, Available at:
Preedy, M., Glatter, R. & Wise, C. (2003), Strategic leadership and educational improvement. (eds).
London : Open University in association with P. Chapman Pub.
Scheerens, J. (2013), “What is effective schooling: a review of current thought and practice”,
International Baccalaureate Organisation, available at:
Downloaded by eFADA of Ankabut UAE At 01:02 28 June 2016 (PT)
research/whatiseffectiveschoolingfinal-1.pdf (accessed 1, September 2015)
Scheerens, J., Luyten, H., Steen, R., and Luyten-de Thouars, Y. (2007), Review and meta-analyses of
school and teaching effectiveness, Department of Educational Organisation and Management,
University of Twente, Enschede.
Schiemann, W.A. (2014), “From talent management to talent optimization”, Journal of World
Business, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 281-283.
Schiemann, W.A. (2012), The ACE advantage: how smart companies unleash talent for optimal performance,
Society for Human Resource Management, Alexandria, VA.
Schooling, P., Toth, M. & Marzano, R. J. (2013), The Critical Importance of a Common
Language/Model of Instruction.
Sebastian, J. and Allensworth, E. (2012), “The influence of principal leadership on classroom
instruction and student learning: a study of mediated pathways to learning”, Educational
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 626-663.
Seidel, T. and Shavelson, R.J. (2007), “Teaching effectiveness research in the past decade: the
role of theory and research design in disentangling meta-analysis results”, Review of
Educational Research, Vol. 77 No. 4, pp. 454-499.
Shen, J. and Cooley, V.E. (2008), “Critical issues in using data for decision-making”, International
Journal of Leadership in Education, Vol. 11 No 3, pp. 319-329, available at:
Simon, B. (1981) ‘Why no pedagogy in England?’ in B. Simon and W. Taylor (eds) Education in the
Eighties: the central issues. London: Batsford.
Slavin, R.E. (1997), “Sand, bricks, and seeds: school change strategies and readiness for reform”,
available at:
Seedswabstrac.pdf (accessed 10, September 2015)
Strong, M., Gargani, J. and Hacifazlioglu, O. (2011), “Do WE know a successful teacher when
we see one? Experiments in the identification of effective teachers”, Journal of Teacher
Education, Vol. 62 No. 4, available at: (accessed
10, September 2015)
Thompson, G. and Cook, I. (2014), “Education policy-making and time”, Journal of Education
Policy, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 700-71.
Waddington, N. (2012), Waddington Diagnostic Standard and Advanced Reading and Spelling Tests 1 and
2, 3rd ed., Waddington Educational, Strathalbyn, S.A, available at:
Downloaded by eFADA of Ankabut UAE At 01:02 28 June 2016 (PT)
21 (accessed
11, September 2015)
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003) Balanced Leadership: What 30 Years of Research
Tells Us about the Effect of Leadership on Student Achievement. A Working Paper. Mid-Continent
Regional Educational Laboratory, Aurora, CO.
Wayman,J .C., Midgley, S., and Stringfield, S. (2005), Collaborative Teams to Support Data-Based
Decision Making and Instructional Improvement. Paper presented at the 2005 Annual Meeting
of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
Wayman, J.C., Midgley, and Stringfield, S. (2006), Leadership for Data-Based Decision-Making:
Collaborative Educator Teams. Paper presented at the 2006 Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, San Francisco CA. Adapted from a chapter to appear
in Danzig, A., Borman, K., Jones, B. and Wright, B., editors, Learner-Centered Leadership:
Policy, Research, and Practice.
Westwood, P. (2005), Spelling: approaches to teaching and assessment, ACER Press, Camberwell,
Victoria, Australia.
Witziers, B., Bosker, R.J. and Kruger, M.L. (2003), “Educational leadership and student
achievement: the elusive search for an association”, Educational Administration Quarterly,
Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 398-425.
Downloaded by eFADA of Ankabut UAE At 01:02 28 June 2016 (PT)
Table 1: Regression Analyses, NAPLAN, SAST and Teacher Constructed Running Records
Total variance
accounted for
F(2,53) p β for SA β for RR
31% 11.84 <.001 .38* .21
47% 23.06 <.001 .70* -.03
42% 18.85 <.001 .37* .33*
79% 97.52 <.001 .83* .07
Downloaded by eFADA of Ankabut UAE At 01:02 28 June 2016 (PT)
Figure 1. Average improvement and 95% confidence interval in months on the Waddington
test between February and November for classes in Year 1.
Lower dashed-line shows improvement that would be expected due to age. Upper dashed line
shows additional improvement at the .4 sd level. Classes are ordered by size of the mean.
Symbols indicate the quartile in which the class teacher was placed in the Head’s rank-
ordering of capability: top quartile:- filled circles; second quartile:-open circles; third
quartile:- open squares; bottom quartile:- filled squares.
Mean Improvement Feb-Nov
Downloaded by eFADA of Ankabut UAE At 01:02 28 June 2016 (PT)
Figure 2. Average improvement and 95% confidence interval in months on the SAST test
between February and November for classes in Year 3.
Lower dashed-line shows improvement that would be expected due to age. Upper dashed line
shows additional improvement at the .4 sd level. Classes are ordered by size of the mean.
Symbols indicate the quartile in which the class teacher was placed in the Head’s rank-ordering
of capability: top quartile:- filled circles; second quartile:-open circles; third quartile:- open
squares; bottom quartile:- filled squares.
Mean Improvement Feb-Nov
Downloaded by eFADA of Ankabut UAE At 01:02 28 June 2016 (PT)
Figure 3. Mean Improvement the average of four writing tasks for year 4 students in 2012.
Dashed-line shows improvement of .4 sd from the first administration of each test. Classes are
ordered by size of the mean.
There is clear evidence in Figure 3 of substantial improvements in student performance in all
classes, at or beyond Hattie’s .4 sd. Differences between classes are less than for the standardised
tests, although there is considerable variability as indicated by the differing confidence intervals.
Mean Improvement
Downloaded by eFADA of Ankabut UAE At 01:02 28 June 2016 (PT)
... Along the same line, Lynch et al. (2016) claim that the context of schooling will have an impact on attributes that add to viability in schools. These attributes include leadership, high expectations, ongoing evaluation, achieving goals and giving direction and security and organisation. ...
... To be an effective principal, he or she must be visible, convey the goals and vision of the school, collaborate with teachers to upgrade their aptitudes and be associated with the identification of, and solutions to, issues. With regard to high expectations, Lynch et al. (2016) argue that high expectations equal good academic performance of learners. High-quality teaching and learning enhance excellent academic performance. ...
... The study of Noman et al. (2017) reveals leadership practices that contribute to successful schools. In the same line as Lynch et al. (2016), they refer to the importance of providing vision and specific goals for the school. In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a vision is not only set for the school but also for each individual. ...
Full-text available
Heads of departments, DPs and principals are part of the SMT that forms the core of school leadership. They lead and oversee curriculum support and delivery in schools. SMTs influence a number of areas, including the quality of teaching and learning in their schools. Their influence can only be realised if they understand what their roles are and how to go about executing these. The literature review reveals that there is a great need for SMTs to be trained in what they are doing and in leading their schools for successful curriculum implementation. It is with this in mind that this research undertook to explore the need for curriculum leadership training programmes for SMTs. During the research, a qualitative, phenomenological approach, underpinned by an interpretative paradigm, was followed. Sampling was done purposefully, where participants were selected because of their proximity and their knowledge and understanding of the researched phenomenon. The research used semi-structured, open-ended questions for data collection. The participants were members of the SMTs (principals, DPs and HoDs) of sampled schools. Data were also collected through field notes and audio-recording devices. The data were later transcribed into text and coded. Themes were formed out of texts with similar topics for the researcher to conclude on the findings and make recommendations for the research.
... Traditional research norms of objectivity, reliability, validity, replicability and rigour tend to rule out insider perspectives (Anderson & Herr, 1999, pp. 14-15), but for the school leader looking to build a culture of continual improvement, skills in research are an important and fundamental extension of their traditional professional activities (Lynch, Smith, Provost & Madden, 2016). ...
... More often than not, school leader researchers do two things: they work towards the systematic application of knowledge or understanding gained from research (for example, from large-scale empirical studies of instructional practice) while undertaking further investigations at a school and classroom level of the application of such studies (for example, deciding upon and implementing a pedagogical framework, interpreting and developing a school response to national standardised testing results for a particular cohort). In these respects, other professionals including those in medicine are similar to the school leader researcher in how they approach their professional work (Lynch et al., 2016). ...
Full-text available
This chapter presents a practical model for the establishment and activation of a school leader research. In effect, it scaffolds a culture of inquiry in a school through a focus on the school leader. As Chapter 1 outlined, the school leader has a key role to establish and promote the required conditions for quality teaching and learning and in this book’s context, the important associated culture of inquiry.
... Para responder estas preguntas se elaboró un marco de referencia que se apoya en cuatro campos de investigación, que posteriormente son relacionados con las áreas y dimensiones de los PME en Chile. En primer lugar, se discute el rol de los directivos docentes en la mejora de aprendizaje de los alumnos (Anderson y Bennet, 2003;Fullan, 2009;Harris, 2009;Heifetz, 1994;Robinson, Lloyd y Rowe, 2008); en segundo lugar el rol de los datos en la toma de decisiones en directivos docentes (Cooley et al., 2006;Knapp, Swinnerton, Copland y Monpas-Huber, 2006;Shen et al., 2007;Shen y Cooley, 2008;Schildkamp y Kuiper, 2010;Honig y Coburn, 2008;Marsh y Farrell, 2015;Seyal, 2015;Lynch, Smith, Provost y Madden, 2016;Datnow y Hubbard, 2016); en tercer lugar se analiza la tipología de datos y diversas posibilidades de realizar análisis múltiples (Bernhardt, 2003) y, en cuarto lugar, se caracterizan las áreas de planificación de los PME en Chile. ...
Full-text available
The purpose of this research is to analyze the collection of data by principals and how this information influences the design of educational improvement plans. Through a quantitative exploratory-descriptive study, a self-assessment survey of data collection was translated and validated and applied to a group of 24 principals. The results show that principals preferentially collect data on student behaviour, school-family relations and teachers' teaching practices. It is concluded that the principals have limited data on the pedagogical nucleus, which prevents the improvement plans from achieving changes or improvements in the classroom.
This chapter discover the awareness of bamboo nanocomposites in the sustainable environment. Practically, bamboo nanocomposites can be applied as an alternative construction material. In order to employ in teaching and learning, it is necessary to uniform in the knowledge of prevention, mitigation, and adaptation strategies of nanocomposites materials. The agricultural and manufacturing-based models learning for bamboo, the models competency and standards models, future and current employability and educators build capacity also reported in this chapter.
Purpose-The national mathematics curriculum of Pakistan has emphasized on improving content knowledge, reasoning abilities and problem-solving skills of students about thinking, communicating and solving mathematics (national mathematics curriculum of Pakistan, 2006). Whereas, there is a need to understand the point of view of teachers about the challenges they face in achieving the goals of national mathematics curriculum. This will help leading teacher training institutions to revisit their math teacher continuous professional development (CPD) programs and facilitate school leadership in improving the quality of math education in rural schools of the province. However, the purpose of this research study is to figure out the challenges that teachers are facing while achieving the goals of the national curriculum by teaching mathematics at the primary level in educational institutes of Pakistan. Design/methodology/approach-In this research study qualitative research approaches have been utilized, in which focus group discussions (FGDs) were used as data collection techniques. Furthermore, thematic analysis of the data led toward the development of four overarching themes such as teachers' knowledge about mathematics curriculum, challenges relating to mathematics content and pedagogy, difficulties in developing conceptual understanding and designing lesson plans to address students' diversity. Findings-The overall findings of this research study suggested that the majority of teachers are facing difficulties in mathematics content teaching such as decimal fraction, unitary method, measurement principles, practical geometry and data handling. Moreover, teachers are also facing challenges and difficulties in developing hands-on and minds-on activities in the teaching of mathematical concepts to the students of primary level in educational institutes of Pakistan. Practical implications-This research study will facilitate the teachers and stakeholders to address the problematic issues in the domain of content delivery of mathematics. Whereas, this study recommends educating teachers about national mathematics curriculum and to develop a CPD framework for mathematics teachers for the enhancement of their pedagogical content knowledge. The study also recommends orientating school heads about the different aspects of math curriculum so that they can mentor math teachers in achieving math curriculum goals. Originality/value-This is the first research study of its nature, which targets and highlights the teacher's perceptions toward the achieving the goals of national mathematics curriculum of Pakistan and addressing the pedagogical challenges faced in mathematics teachers. There is a dearth of studies in mathematics education in Sindh province. The issue is of immense importance, the findings will help teachers to improve mathematics instructions at primary level.
Purpose This paper reports on research into Australian school principals' leadership. It explores an emerging construct – that of ‘readiness to lead’ – and showcases the development of a tentative tool for determining school principals' readiness to lead. Design/methodology/approach Seven principals from Australian and International Schools were interviewed about their leadership strategies, intentions and expectations for impending school reform. Qualitative analyses using grounded theory and an interpretivist constructivist paradigm were applied. Findings The construct of ‘readiness to lead’ emerged during initial analysis and a tool was developed from a compilation of literature on leadership. Findings revealed that five principals were well-aligned with the strategies, intentions and expectations the research literature indicates are characteristic of good leadership. These principals could be regarded as ‘ready to lead’ their schools in significant school reform. An unexpected finding was that the concepts of ‘hope’ and ‘trust’ also played a significant role in leadership. ‘Hope’ appeared important as a major strategy for the less-well aligned principals, whereas mutual ‘trust’ appeared to be evident in the principals with stronger leadership readiness. Research limitations/implications The tool warrants peer review and validation; data revealed an emerging construct and review is welcomed. The authors are continuing to research and investigate in this field, and invite further academic dialogue. Originality/value The study has explored the fecundity of the tool for analysis, and evaluated the principals' preparedness to lead reform. Having a tool to determine whether and to what degree school principals are ready to lead would be advantageous for the profession.
Implementing Blended Learning can be challenging, especially without a clear or aligned definition of what is being implemented. Factors to consider when operationalizing Blended Learning to the school context will be initially be discussed herein. A process to operationalize Blended Learning to the context of a school or classroom is then presented and utilized in an actual whole of school implementation of Blended Learning. The effect of this process is then quantified and tested in a follow-up assessment of staff members’ perceived understanding of Blended Learning in their context. Result identify the developed process as significantly improving the perceived understanding of Blended Learning in the context of the school by those involved. The operationalized definition is intended to aid communicating within the school, to stakeholders and student parents, and in any associated research reporting, as well as aiding in aligning staff in the implementation of Blended Learning and in curriculum development.
Full-text available
These researchers examined the perceptions of fifteen principals and 96 classroom teachers regarding the role of teacher leadership in school improvement. The data revealed significant differences in how principals and teachers perceive teachers’ involvement in teacher leadership roles, in ratings of involvement of teachers in leadership roles when compared to the ratings of how involved they would like to be in those same roles, and how principals and teachers perceived the impact of teacher leadership roles on school improvement. Implications for practice are important to principals, teachers, and district level personnel.
Full-text available
As educators face increasing pressure from federal, state, and local accountability policies to improve student achievement, the use of data has become more central to how many educators evaluate their practices and monitor students’ academic progress (Knapp et al., 2006). Despite this trend, questions about how educators should use data to make instructional decisions remain mostly unanswered. In response, this guide provides a framework for using student achievement data to support instructional decision making. These decisions include, but are not limited to, how to adapt lessons or assignments in response to students’ needs, alter classroom goals or objectives, or modify student-grouping arrangements. The guide also provides recommendations for creating the organizational and technological conditions that foster effective data use. Each recommendation describes action steps for implementation, as well as suggestions for addressing obstacles that may impedeprogress. In adopting this framework, educators will be best served by implementing the recommendations in this guide together rather than individually.
This article provides a historical review of Educational Effectiveness Research (EER). Four sequential phases in the field which address different types of research questions and promote the theoretical development of educational effectiveness are identified. It is shown that research on effectiveness moved from investigating the extent to which teachers and schools influence learning outcomes to establishing theoretical models which refer to the complexity and the dynamic nature of education. Methodological developments that promoted the development and testing of the theoretical framework of EER are also presented. Thus, the knowledge base of EER is currently used for establishing an evidence-base and theory-driven approach to promote quality in education.
This is a study of the accuracy of principals’ judgments of teacher performance as predictors of teacher effectiveness. For each of 46 elementary school principals, correlations were obtained between judgments of effectiveness of teachers in three roles and gains of students in their classes in arithmetic and reading. The mean accuracy of judgments of teacher effectiveness in helping students acquire fundamental knowledge was .20, and there were no significant differences in the accuracy of judgments made by different principals. There was evidence the judgments of teachers of grades 3 and 5 were more accurate than judgments of teachers of grades 2, 4, and 6. Possible explanations of the low accuracy of the judgments are discussed.