Cliquez sur l'image pour commander l'ouvrage

lundi 30 mai 2011

L'effet enseignant : plusieurs recherches présentées par Kerry Hempenstall

“Clearly, there is a tremendous interaction effect between longitudinal exposure to ineffective teachers and effective teachers when crossed with prior student achievement level. A sequence of ineffective teachers with a student already low achieving is educationally deadly.” 
Babu, S., & Mendro, R. (2004). Teacher Accountability: HLM-based teacher effectiveness indices in the investigation of teacher effects on student achievement in a state assessment program, Dallas TX public schools, AERA.
http://www.dallasisd.org/eval/research/articles/Babu-Teacher-Accountability-HLM-Based-Teacher-Effectiveness-Indices-2003.pdf
________________________________________

“Student choice does not equate to gains in achievement. … Research finds that students do less well academically when they are given freedom to choose, select, and pace their own learning. … When children fail to learn in a student-centered school environment, the explanation usually is that they lack maturity or readiness.  And yet their lack is often just the failure to receive the necessary instruction.” (p.117).
Chall, J. (2002). The Academic Achievement Challenge: What Really Works in the Classroom? New York: Guilford.
________________________________________

Classroom researcher, Dr. Robert Mendro, assistant superintendent for research and evaluation at Dallas public schools, has developed "Classroom Effectiveness Indices" on 6,000 Dallas Independent School District teachers. His research, which is based on their pupils'
standardized test results, indicates that 30 percent to 40 percent of those teachers could be labeled as "ineffective." disorganized, mean to children, unwilling to team up with colleagues, a shrinking violet incapable of maintaining classroom order. Some are just burned out.
Declines in achievement can last up to three years after a student leaves a bad teacher's classroom, he said. "It is a myth that if a kid has an ineffective teacher, you can make up the difference the next year," Dr. Mendro said. 
Jordan, H., Mendro, R., & Weerasinghe, D. (1997). The effects of teachers on longitudinal student achievement. Dallas, TX: Dallas Independent School District.
http://www.endteacherabuse.info/pushout.html
________________________________________

A study conducted in 1998 by the Education Trust found: 
“Students who have several effective teachers in a row make dramatic gains in achievement, while those who have even two ineffective teachers in a row lose significant ground, which they may never recover. Indeed, students who achieve at similar levels in the third grade may be separated by as many as 50 percentile points three years later, depending on the quality of the teachers to whom they were assigned!”
Haycock, K. (1998, Summer). Good teaching matters. Thinking K-16. The Education Trust, Washington DC.

________________________________________

“In a poll by the Consortium on Chicago School Research, more than two-thirds of principals in Chicago said they would dismiss 20% of their staff if they could avoid the hearings” 
Weele, M. V. (1994, November). Why it's too hard to fire bad teachers.
Washington Monthly, 26(11), 12

________________________________________
Professor John Hattie from the University of Auckland (New Zealand) has provided compelling evidence for the importance of quality teaching via a meta-analytic synthesis of the relevant evidence-based research, drawn from an extensive review of literature and a synthesis of over half a million studies (Hattie, Clinton, Thompson & Schmidt-Davies, 1995). 

In drawing from this research, Hattie (2003, pp. 2-3) asserts: “When I review the initiatives of the previous Ministries of Education up to a couple of years ago, and when I review the policies in so many New Zealand schools, I note that the focus of discussions are more about the influences of the home, and the structures of schools. We have poured more money into school buildings, school structures, we hear so much about reduced class sizparents to help manage schools and thus ignore their major responsibility to help co-educate, and we highlight student problems as if students are the problem whereas it is the role of schools to reduce these problems. Interventions at the structural, home, policy, or school level is like searching for your wallet which you lost in the bushes, under the lamppost because that is where there is light. The answer lies elsewhere – it lies in the person who gently closes the classroom door and performs the teaching act – the person who puts into place the end effects of so many policies, who interprets these policies, and who is alone with students during their 15,000 hours of schooling. 

I therefore suggest that we should focus on the greatest source of variance that can make the difference – the teacher. We need to ensure that this greatest influence is optimised to have powerful and sensationally positive effects on the learner. Teachers can and usually do have positive effects, but they must have exceptional effects. We need to direct attention at higher quality teaching, and higher expectations that students can meet appropriate challenges – and these occur once the classroom door is closed and not by reorganising which or how many students are behind those doors, by promoting different topics for these teachers to teach, or by bringing in more sticks to ensure they are following policy”.
Hattie, J.A. (2003). Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence? Background paper to invited address presented at the 2003 ACER Research Conference, Carlton Crest Hotel, Melbourne, Australia, October 19-21, 2003. 
Hattie, J.A., Clinton, J., Thompson, M., & Schmidt-Davies, H. (1995).
Identifying highly accomplished teachers: A validation study.
Greensboro, NC: Center for Educational Research and Evaluation, University of North Carolina. 

________________________________________

Cuttance (1998, pp. 1158-1159) concluded: Recent research on the impact of schools on student learning leads to the conclusion that 8-15% of the variation in student learning outcomes lies between schools with a further amount of up to 55% of the variation in individual learning outcomes between classrooms within schools. In total, approximately 60% of the variation in the performance of students lies either between schools or between classrooms, with the remaining 40% being due to either variation associated with students themselves or to random influences. 
Cuttance, P. (1998). Quality assurance reviews as a catalyst for school improvement in Australia. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan., & D. Hopkins (Eds.), International handbook of educational change, Part II (pp. 1135-1162). Dordrecht: Kluwer Publishers.
________________________________________

Likewise, from the related British research, Muijs and Reynolds (2001, p. vii) report: “All the evidence that has been generated in the school effectiveness research community shows that classrooms are far more important than schools in determining how children perform at school”.
Muijs, D., & Reynolds, D. (2001). Effective teaching: Evidence and practice. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
________________________________________

“Education productivity studies typically measure the size of the relationship between various quantifiable education factors and student achievement. Goldhaber, Brewer, and Anderson (1999), for example, investigate the contributions of school, teacher, and class characteristics on student achievement. They find only about 3 percent of the contribution teachers make toward explaining student achievement is associated with teacher experience, degree level, and other readily observable characteristics. The remaining 97 percent is made up of teacher qualities or behaviors that could not be separately isolated and identified”.
Goldhaber, D., Brewer, D.J., & Anderson, D. (1999). A three-way error components analysis of educational productivity. Education Economics 7(3), 199–208.

“A growing body of research shows that the quality of the teacher in the classroom is the most important schooling factor predicting student outcomes (see, for instance, Ferguson 1998; Goldhaber 2002; Goldhaber et al. 1999; Hanushek et al. 1999; Wright et al. 1997). The impact of having a high-quality teacher can be profound. Hanushek (1992), for instance, finds that, all else equal, a student with a very high quality teacher will achieve a learning gain of 1.5 grade level equivalents, while a student with a low-quality teacher achieves a gain of only 0.5 grade level equivalents. Thus, the quality of a teacher can make the difference of a full year’s learning growth”.

Ferguson, R. (1998). Teachers’ perceptions and expectations and the Black-White test Score gap. In C. Jencks and M. Phillips (Eds.). The Black-White Test Score Gap, pp.273–317. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Goldhaber, D. (2002). The mystery of good teaching: Surveying the evidence on student achievement and teachers’ characteristics.”
Education Next, 2(1), 50–55.
Goldhaber, D., Brewer, D.J., & Anderson, D. (1999). A three-way error components analysis of educational productivity. Education Economics 7(3), 199–208.
Hanushek, E. A. (1992). The trade-off between child quantity and quality. Journal of Political Economy 100(1), 84–117.
Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., & Rivkin, S. G. (1999). Do higher salaries buy better teachers? Working Paper No. 7082. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Wright, P., Horn, S., & Sanders, W. (1997). Teachers and classroom
heterogeneity: Their effects on educational outcomes. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11(1), 57–67.
________________________________________

"Our findings for various student subgroups are consistent with previous findings that teacher quality has a larger impact on poor students than on higher income students (Coleman, 1990)". 
Coleman, J. S. (1990). Equality and achievement in education. Boulder,
Co: Westview Press.
Goldhaber, D. D., & Anthony, E. (2004). Can teacher quality be effectively assessed? Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press. Retrieved
21/3/2004 from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/410958_NBPTSOutcomes.pdf

________________________________________ 

The evidence that teaching itself can become the most important factor bearing on achievement is not new and continues to mount. In 1987, Mortimore and Sammons conducted a study of students from low socioeconomic backgrounds in England, finding that in the areas of reading and math, the school and its teachers had between six and ten times as much influence on learning as did all socioeconomic factors combined. A 1997 U.S Department of Education Study found that effective teaching accounted for as much as a 16-point difference in reading and math scores (Jordan, Mendroe, and Weerasinghe 1997). The groundbreaking value-added studies of William Sanders found that certain teachers achieve far better results than their same-school counterparts, which belies the notion that socioeconomic factors reign supreme (Archer 1999). And now we have the most recent Education Trust study (Mathews
2001) which found not hundreds, but thousands of schools that prove good teaching can in fact overcome demographic factors. Teaching matters — mightily.
Schmoker, M. (2002). The real causes of higher achievement. SEDL Letter 14(2). Within Our Reach: Higher Student Achievement.
http://www.sedl.org/pubs/sedletter/v14n02/

________________________________________

William L. Sanders, director of the Value-Added Research and Assessment Center at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, corroborates Shearon's observations. According to Sanders's analysis, "On average, the least effective teachers produce gains of about 14 percentile points among low-achieving students; the most effective teachers posted gains that averaged 53 percentile points. High-achieving students gain an average of only 2 points when taught by the least effective teachersan average of 25 points when taught by the most effective teachers.
Middle achievers gain a mere 10 points with the least effective [teachers] and in the mid-30s with the most effective."
At-risk students in classes with effective teachers for 3 years in a row achieved 50% more learning than those in classes with poor teachers (not just in reading)”

Teacher effectiveness is “the single biggest factor influencing gains in achievement,” an influence bigger than race, poverty, parent’s education, or any of the other factors that are often thought to doom children to failure”.
Sanders, W. & Rivers, J. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement. Knoxville, TN:
University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center.
________________________________________

Researchers for the Dallas Independent School District  studied the correlation between teacher effectiveness and student performance on formal assessments. They found that 
the average reading scores of students assigned to three highly
effective teachers in a row rose from the 59th percentile in fourth grade to the 76th percentile by the end of sixth grade, and students of similar ability assigned to ineffective teachers for three consecutive years fell from the 60th percentile in fourth grade to the 42nd percentile by the end of sixth grade. 
the average math scores of students assigned to three highly
effective teachers in a row rose from the 55th percentile in third grade to the 76th percentile by the end of fifth grade. The scores of students of similar ability assigned to ineffective teachers fell from the 57th percentile in third grade to the 27th percentile in fifth grade.
Students of similar ability and performance in third grade, therefore, were separated by nearly 50 percentile points just three years later. 
Starr, L. (No date). Measuring the effects of effective teaching.
Education World. http://www.education-world.com/a_issues/issues297.shtml
________________________________________

Hattie’s meta-analytic synthesis of the relevant evidence-based research drew from an extensive review of literature and a synthesis of over half a million studies. The answer lies in the person who gently closes the classroom door and performs the teaching act.
Hattie, J.A., Clinton, J., Thompson, M., & Schmidt-Davies, H. (1995).
Identifying highly accomplished teachers: A validation study.
Greensboro, NC: Center for Educational Research and Evaluation, University of North Carolina.
________________________________________

The proportions of IQ variance attributable to genes and environment vary nonlinearly with SES.
Heritability of IQ at the low end of the wealth spectrum is very low (0.10). it is quite high for families of high socioeconomic status (0.72). Genes can influence the effects of life experiences, and those life experiences can influence the manner in which those genes are expressed. In disadvantaged families, 60% of the variance in IQ is accounted for by the environment. This makes high quality teaching a much more important requirement for such students. 

Opposite scenario is more likely to be found. 
• advantaged students receive higher quality teaching than disadvantaged. 
• advantaged students among studious peers in orderly classes & learn more • teachers produce their best because not distracted and exhausted by discipline Turkheimer, E., Haley, A. Waldron, M., D'Onofrio, B., Gottesman, I.I.
(2003). Socioeconomic status modifies heritability of IQ in young children. Psychological Science, 14, 623-628.
________________________________________

See more in: Hempenstall, K. (2004). The importance of effective instruction. In N.E. Marchand-Martella, T.A. Slocum, and R.C. Martella (Eds.), Introduction to Direct Instruction (pp.1-27). Needham Heights,
MA: Allyn and Bacon.
________________________________________

“The results show large differences among teachers in their impacts on achievement. Our estimates, which are based on just the within school variations in teacher quality, reveal the effects of teacher quality to be substantial even ignoring any variations across schools. They indicate that having a high quality teacher throughout elementary school can substantially offset or even eliminate the disadvantage of low socio-economic background.” (p.3).
Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2002). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Dallas, TX: University of Texas-Dallas Texas Schools Project.
________________________________________

“An important conclusion arises from this study: a reduction in the teacher/pupil ratio is only effective if teachers apply structured teaching practices, drawing on an explicit teaching approach. In other words, reducing the number of pupils per class without previously addressing the teaching methods implemented by teachers is not the right approach. An ineffective teacher with thirty pupils will be just as ineffective, if not more, with fifteen pupils”.
Crahay, M. (2000). L’école peut-elle être juste et efficace ? De l’égalité des chances à l’égalité des acquis. Belgique, De Boeck Université.
________________________________________

“Most successful innovations in classroom practices or school organization have positive effects on low as weIl as average and high-achieving students. A major goal of education is to bring all students to an acceptable level of achievement… Research generally finds that teacher behaviors that are successful with low achievers tend to be very similar to those successful with all students. Thus it is likely that if programs focusing on improving teachers’ general instructional skills are successful with low achievers, they will also be effective with other students” (p.16).
Slavin, R., Karweit, N., & Madden, N. (1989). Effective programs for students at risk. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
________________________________________
Some References
Ballou, Dale. 2003. “Certifying Accomplished Teachers: A Critical Look at the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards.” Peabody Journal of Education 78(4): 201–19.
Ballou, D., and Podgursky, M. 1998. “The case against teacher certification.” The Public Interest no. 132, 17–29.
Bond, L., Smith, T., Baker, W., and Hattie, J. 2000. The Certification System of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards: A Construct and Consequential Validity Study. University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Center for Educational Research and Evaluation.
Card, D., and Krueger, A. B. 1996. “Labor Market Effects of School
Quality: Theory and Evidence.” Papers 357, Princeton, Department of Economics Industrial Relations Sections.
Clotfelter C. T., Ladd, H. F., and Vigdor, J. L. 2003. “Teacher sorting, teacher shopping, and the assessment of teacher effectiveness.” Paper presented at the American Association of Public Policy and Management, November 2003.
Coleman, J., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., McPartland, J., Mood, A., Weinfeld, F., and York, R. 1966. Equality of educational opportunity.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Ferguson, R. (1998). Teachers’ perceptions and expectations and the Black-White test Score gap. In C. Jencks and M. Phillips (Eds.). The Black-White Test Score Gap, pp.273–317. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Ferguson, R., and Ladd, H. 1996. “How and why money matters: An analysis of Alabama schools.” In Holding Schools Accountable, edited by Helen Ladd. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press.
Finn, C. E. Jr. 2003. “High Hurdles.” Education Next 3(2): 62–67.
Finn, J., and Achilles, C. 1999. “Tennessee’s Class Size Study:
Findings, implications, misconceptions.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 21(2): 97–110.
Goldhaber, D. (2002). The mystery of good teaching: Surveying the evidence on student achievement and teachers’ characteristics.”
Education Next, 2(1), 50–55.
Goldhaber, D. D., and Brewer, D. J. 1997. “Evaluating the effect of teacher degree level on educational performance.” In Developments in School Finance 1996, edited by J. William Fowler (197–210). Washington,
DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Goldhaber, D., Brewer, D.J., & Anderson, D. (1999). A three-way error components analysis of educational productivity. Education Economics 7(3), 199–208.
Goldhaber, D. D., and Brewer, D. J. 2000. “Does teacher certification matter? High school teacher certification status and student achievement.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 22: 129–45.
Goldhaber, D. D., and Anthony, E. (2003). Teacher Quality and Student Achievement. New York: Teachers College, Institute for Urban and Minority Education, ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education.
Goldhaber, D. D., and Cramer, L. 2003. “A descriptive analysis of the distribution of NBPTS certified teachers in North Carolina.” Paper presented at the 2003 Annual Conference on Public Policy and Analysis.
Goldhaber, D., Perry, D., and Anthony, E. 2004. National board
certification: Who applies and what factors are associated with success?
The Urban Institute, Education Policy Center, Working Paper.
Greenwald, R., Hedges, L., and Laine, R. 1996. “The effect of school resources on student achievement.” Review of Education Research 66(3):
361–96.
Hanushek, E. A. 1986. “The economics of schooling: Production and efficiency in public schools.” Journal of Economic Literature 24(3):
1141–78.
Hanushek, E. A. (1992). The trade-off between child quantity and quality. Journal of Political Economy 100(1), 84–117.
Hanushek, E. A. 1997. “Assessing the effects of school resources on student performance: An update.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 19(2): 141–64. (EJ 550 073) Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., & Rivkin, S. G. (1999). Do higher salaries buy better teachers? Working Paper No. 7082. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., and Rivkin, S. G. Forthcoming. “Why public schools lose teachers.” Journal of Human Resources.
Hedges, L. V., Laine, R., and Greenwald, R. 1994. “A meta-analysis of studies of the effects of differential school inputs on student outcomes.” Educational Researcher 23(3): 5–14.
Krueger, Alan B., and Whitmore, Diane M. 2001. “The Effect of Attending a Small Class in the Early Grades on College-Test Taking and Middle School Test Results: Evidence from Project STAR.” Economic Journal 111(468): 1–28.
Latham, A. S., Gitomer, D., and Ziomek, R. 1999. “What the tests tell us about new teachers.” Educational Leadership 56(8): 23–26.
Levin, H. M, and McEwan, P. J. 2000. Cost-Effectiveness Data, 2nd ed.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Levinson, A. 1988. “Reexamining teacher preferences and compensating wages.” Economics of Education Review 7(3): 357–64.
Podgursky, M. 2001. “Defrocking the National Board: will the Imprimatur of ‘Board Certification’ Professionalize Teaching?” Education Matters
1(2): 79–82.
Stone, J. E. 2002. The value-added achievement gains of NBPTS-certified teachers in Tennessee: A brief report. College of Education, East Tennessee State University, 2(5).
Wilcox, D. D. 1999. “The National Board of Professional Teacher
Standards: Can it live up to its promise?” In Better Teachers, Better Schools, edited by Marci Kanstoroom and Chester E. Finn, Jr. Washington,
DC: The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
Wright, P., Horn, S., & Sanders, W. (1997). Teachers and classroom
heterogeneity: Their effects on educational outcomes. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11(1), 57–67.
Schmoker, M (2002). The real causes of higher achievement. SEDLETTER, 14(2). http://www.sedl.org/pubs/sedletter/v14n02/welcome.html