Latent Class Analysis of Teacher Characteristics: Can We Identify Effective Teachers?

References

• AERA. (2015). Statement of use of value-added models (VAM) for the evaluation of educators and educator preparation programs. Educational Researcher, 44(8), 448–452. doi:https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15618385
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atteberry, A., Susanna, L., & Wyckoff, J. (June, 2013). Do first impressions matter? Improvement in early career teacher effectiveness. (NBER Working Papers), 1–53.
   Google Scholar
• Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (2012a). Gathering feedback for teaching: Combining high-quality observations with student surveys and achievement gains. Policy and practice brief. MET Project: Michigan State University. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED540960.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (2012b). Measures of effective teaching. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research.
   Google Scholar
• Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (2013). Ensuring fair and reliable measures of effective teaching: Culminating from the MET Project’s three-year study. Policy and practice brief. MET Project.
   Google Scholar
• Brewer, T. J., Myers, P. S., & Zhang, M. (2015). Islands unto themselves: How merit pay schemes may undermine positive teacher collaboration. Critical Questions In Education, 6(2), 45–54.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Danielson, C. (2012). Observing classroom practice. Educational Leadership, 70(3), 32–37.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dziak, J. J., Coffman, D. L., Lanza, S. T., & Li, R. (2012). Sensitivity and specificity of information criteria. (Research Report No 12.29). Retrieved from The Methodology Center at Pennsylvania State University website: https://methodology.psu.edu/media/techreports/12-119.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Everson, K. C. (2017). Value-added modeling and educational accountability. Are we answering the real questions? Review of Educational Research, 87(1), 35–70. doi:https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316637199
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Every Student Succeeds Act (2015). Retrieved from https://www.ed.gov/essa
   Google Scholar
• Ferguson, R. F., & Danielson, C. (2014). How framework for teaching and tripod 7Cs evidence distinguish key components of effective teaching. In T. J. Kane, K. A. Kerr, & R. C. Pianta (Eds.), Designing teacher evaluation systems (pp. 98–143). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Fredricks, J., McColskey, W., Meli, J., Montrosse, B., Mordica, J. M., & Mooney, K. (2011). Measuring student engagement in upper elementary through high school: A description of 21 instruments. Greensboro, NC: Southeast Regional Educational Laboratory (REL 2011-098).
   Google Scholar
• Gargani, J., & Strong, M. (2014). Can we identify a successful teacher better, faster, and cheaper? Evidence for innovating teacher observation systems. Journal of Teacher Education, (5), 389–402. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487114542519
   Google Scholar
• Gersten, R., Baker, S. K., Haager, D., & Graves, A. W. (2005). Exploring the role of teacher quality in predicting reading outcomes for first-grade English learners: An observational study. Remedial & Special Education, 2(4), 197–206. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325050260040201
   Google Scholar
• Gitomer, D., Bell, C., Yi, Q. I., McCaffrey, D., Hamre, B. K., 2., & Pianta, R. C. (2014). The instructional challenge in improving teaching quality: Lessons from a classroom observation protocol. Teachers College Record, 116(6), 1–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Godfrey-Smith, P. (2003). Theory and reality: An introduction to the philosophy of science. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gottlieb, D. (2013). Eisner’s evaluation in the age of race to the top. Curriculum & Teaching Dialogue, 15(1), 11–25.
   Google Scholar
• Graue, M. E., Delaney, K. K., & Karch, A. S. (2013). Ecologies of education quality. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 21(8), 1–36.
   Google Scholar
• Grossman, P., Cohen, J., Ronfeldt, M., & Brown, L. (2014). The test matters: The relationship between classroom observation scores and teacher value added on multiple types of assessment. Educational Researcher, 43(6), 293–303. doi:https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14544542
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grossman, P., Loeb, S., Cohen, J., & Wyckoff, J. (2009). Measure for measure: The relationship between measures of instructional practice in middle school English language arts and teachers’ value-added scores. American Journal of Education, 119(3), 445–470. doi:https://doi.org/10.1086/669901
   Google Scholar
• Hagenaars, J. A., & McCutcheon, A. (2002). Applied latent class analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Halpin, P. F., & Kieffer, M. J. (2015). Describing profiles of instructional practice: A new approach to analyzing classroom observation data. Educational Researcher, 44(5), 263–277. doi:https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15590804
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamachek, D. (1969). Characteristics of good teachers and implications for teacher education. Phi Delta Kappa Inc., 55(6), 341–345.
   Google Scholar
• Hanushek, E. A., Piopiunik, M., & Wiederhold, S. (2014). The value of smarter teachers: International evidence on teacher cognitive skills and student performance. (Research Report No. 20127). Retrieved from the NBER Working Papers: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edb&AN=100008334&site=eds-live&scope=site
   Google Scholar
• Harris, D. N., Ingle, W. K., & Rutledge, S. A. (2014). How teacher evaluation methods matter for accountability: A comparative analysis of teacher effectiveness ratings by principals and teacher value-added measures. American Educational Research Journal, 51(1), 73–112. doi:https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831213517130
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Institute, S. A. S., & Cary, N. C. (2012). Power analysis [SAS software]. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Jackson, C. K. (2014). Teacher quality at the high school level: The importance of accounting for tracks. Journal of Labor Economics, 32(4), 645–684. doi:https://doi.org/10.1086/676017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, Jr., B. L. J. (1997). An organizational analysis of multiple perspectives of effective teaching: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11(1), 69–87. doi:https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007951321381
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, C. C., Kahle, J. B., & Fargo, J. D. (2007). Effective teaching results in increased science achievement for all students. Science Education, 91(3), 371–383. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1098-237X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kane, T. J., McCaffrey, D. F., Miller, T., & Staiger, D. O., & Bill and Melinda Gates, F. (2013). Have we identified effective teachers? Validating measures of effective teaching using random assignment. (Research Paper. MET Project). Seattle, WA: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Kane, T.J, & Staiger, D.O. (2012). Gathering feedback for teaching: Combining high quality observations with student surveys and achievement gains. Seattle, WA: The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Lazarev, V., & Newman, D. (2014, March). Can multifactor models of teaching improve teacher effectiveness measures? In S. Corcoran (Chair), Policy considerations in the implementation of MMTES. Paper session conducted at The Association for Education Finance and Policy, San Antonio, TX. Retrieved from SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2493544
   Google Scholar
• Little, R. J. A., & Schemker, N. (1995). Missing data. In G. Arminger, C. C. Clogg, & M. E. Sobel (Eds.), Handbook of statistical modeling for the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 39–76). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lubke, G., & Neale, M. (2008). Distinguishing between latent classes and continuous factors with categorical outcomes: Class invariance of parameters of factor mixture models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 43, 592–620. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170802490673
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, D. P., & Rimm-Kaufman, S. (2015). Do student self-efficacy and teacher-student interaction quality contribute to emotional and social engagement in fifth grade math? Journal of School Psychology, 53, 359–373. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2015.07.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mihaly, K., McCaffrey, D. F., Staiger, D. O., & Lockwood, J. R. (2013). A composite estimator of effective teaching. Measures of Effective Teaching Longitudinal Database. Retrieved from http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/files/METLDB/MET_Composite_Estimator_of_Effective_Teaching_Research_Paper.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Milanowski, A. T., Heneman, H. I., & Kimball, S. M., & Wisconsin Center for Education Research. (2011). Teaching assessment for teacher human capital management: Learning from the current state of the art. (Working Paper No. 2011-2). Retrieved from Wisconsin Center for Education Research: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED517293.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Mplus 7.4©. (2015). How to calculate the power to detect that a parameter is different from zero. Retrieved from http://www.statmodel.com/power.shtml
   Google Scholar
• Muñoz, M., Scoskie, J., & French, D. (2013). Investigating the ‘black box’ of effective teaching: The relationship between teachers’ perception and student achievement in a large urban district. Educational Assessment, Evaluation & Accountability, 25(3), 205–230. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-013-9167-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murray, S. (2011). Secondary students’ descriptions of “good” mathematics teachers. Australian Mathematics Teacher, 67(4), 14–21.
   Google Scholar
• Muthén, B. O., & Muthén, L. (2014). Mplus 7.4 [computer software]. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
   Google Scholar
• Ndum, E., Allen, J., & Fisher, T., & ACT, I.. (2012). Examining the relationship of QualityCore[R] implementation and student achievement in Algebra I. ACT Research Report Series, 4, 1–60.
   Google Scholar
• Patrick, J., & Smart, R. M. (1998). An empirical evaluation of teacher effectiveness: The emergence of three critical factors. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 23(2), 165–179. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293980230205
   Google Scholar
• Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., Hayes, N., Mintz, S., & LaParo, K. M. (2008). Classroom assessment scoring system-Secondary (CLASS-S). Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia.
   Google Scholar
• Polikoff, M. S. (2015). The stability of observational and student survey measures of teaching effectiveness. American Journal of Education, 121(2), 183–212. doi:https://doi.org/10.1086/679390
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramaswamy, V., DeSarbo, W. S., Reibstein, D. J., & Robinson, W. T. (1993). An empirical pooling approach for estimating marketing mix elasticities with PIMS data. Marketing Science, 12(1), 103−124. doi:https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.12.1.103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenberg, A. (2008). Philosophy of social science (3rd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rubin, D. B. (1976). Inference in missing data. Biometrika, 70, 41–55.
   Google Scholar
• Scherrer, J. (2011). Measuring teaching using value-added modeling: The imperfect panacea. NASSP Bulletin, 95, 122–140. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636511410052
   Google Scholar
• Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2016). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (4rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
   Google Scholar
• Schumacker, R. E., & Pugh, J. (2013). Identifying reading and math performance in school systems with latent class longitudinal growth modeling. Journal of Educational Research and Policy, 13(3), 51–62.
   Google Scholar
• Searles, W. E., & Kudeki, N. (1987). A comparison of teacher and principal perception of an outstanding science teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(1), 1–13. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1098-2736
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stronge, J. H., Ward, T. J., & Grant, L. W. (2011). What makes good teachers good? A cross-case analysis of the connection between teacher effectiveness and student achievements. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(4), 339–355. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487111404241
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tairab, H. H., & Wilkinson, W. J. (1991). Evaluation of biology trainee teachers’ effectiveness using their students’ perceptions of teaching behavior. Research in Science & Technological Education, 9(1), 51–62. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/0263514910090105
   Google Scholar
• Torff, B., & Sessions, D. (2009). Principals’ perceptions of the causes of teacher ineffectiveness in different secondary subjects. Teacher Education Quarterly, 36(3), 127–148.
   Google Scholar
• Van Tassel-Baska, J., Quek, C., & Feng, A. X. (2006). The development and use of a structured teacher observation scale to assess differentiated best practice. Roeper Review, 29(2), 84–92. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190709554391
   Google Scholar