Skip to Main Content
Table 6.
Impacts on Teacher Perceptions of the Observation Process
Control MeanTreatment — Control Difference (SE)N (Teachers)
End of year survey    
Thinking about your post-conference …    
How well did observer understand your lesson plan and your goals for the class? 0.66 0.06 392 
(1 = “extremely” or “quite”)  (0.05)  
How often did you feel the conversation was adversarial? (1 = "almost always” 0.12 −0.05* 389 
or “often”)  (0.03)  
How often did you and observer disagree about what actually happened during the 0.05 −0.04** 391 
lesson? (1 = “almost always” or “often”)  (0.02)  
How often did you and observer disagree about the appropriate score for the lesson? 0.08 −0.07*** 390 
(1 = “almost always” or “often”)  (0.03)  
Overall, how helpful was the feedback you received from your school administrator 0.37 0.15*** 388 
this year in helping you to improve your teaching? (1 = “extremely” or “quite”)  (0.05)  
Overall, how fair was the classroom observation process this year? (1 = “very” 0.59 0.10** 394 
or “moderate”)  (0.04)  
Can you identify a specific change in your teaching practice you made as a result of 0.55 0.14*** 390 
the feedback from your school administrator this year? (1 = “yes”)  (0.05)  
Since January of this year, have you shared a video of your teaching in a professional 0.10 0.09*** 394 
learning community or other collaborative group? (1 = “yes”)  (0.03)  
Post-Conference Survey    
How would you describe the relationship, at present, with your observer (e.g., principal 0.83 0.06 308 
or other instructional leader)? (1 = “very positive” or “somewhat positive”)  (0.04)  
How familiar is your observer with your strengths and weaknesses as a teacher? 0.71 0.05 309 
(1 = “very familiar” or “somewhat familiar”)  (0.05)  
To what extent did you agree or disagree with your observer or his/her 0.65 0.13*** 301 
recommendations? (1 = “completely agree” or “moderately agree”)  (0.05)  
How supportive was your observer during the post-observation conference? 0.86 0.10*** 300 
(1 = “extremely” or “quite”)  (0.03)  
During the post-observation conference, how much effort did your observer put into 0.66 0.16*** 298 
taking your perspective? (1 = “tremendous amount” or “quite a bit”)  (0.05)  
How productive did you find the post-observation conference overall? 0.55 0.18*** 300 
(1 = “extremely” or “quite”)  (0.05)  
Control MeanTreatment — Control Difference (SE)N (Teachers)
End of year survey    
Thinking about your post-conference …    
How well did observer understand your lesson plan and your goals for the class? 0.66 0.06 392 
(1 = “extremely” or “quite”)  (0.05)  
How often did you feel the conversation was adversarial? (1 = "almost always” 0.12 −0.05* 389 
or “often”)  (0.03)  
How often did you and observer disagree about what actually happened during the 0.05 −0.04** 391 
lesson? (1 = “almost always” or “often”)  (0.02)  
How often did you and observer disagree about the appropriate score for the lesson? 0.08 −0.07*** 390 
(1 = “almost always” or “often”)  (0.03)  
Overall, how helpful was the feedback you received from your school administrator 0.37 0.15*** 388 
this year in helping you to improve your teaching? (1 = “extremely” or “quite”)  (0.05)  
Overall, how fair was the classroom observation process this year? (1 = “very” 0.59 0.10** 394 
or “moderate”)  (0.04)  
Can you identify a specific change in your teaching practice you made as a result of 0.55 0.14*** 390 
the feedback from your school administrator this year? (1 = “yes”)  (0.05)  
Since January of this year, have you shared a video of your teaching in a professional 0.10 0.09*** 394 
learning community or other collaborative group? (1 = “yes”)  (0.03)  
Post-Conference Survey    
How would you describe the relationship, at present, with your observer (e.g., principal 0.83 0.06 308 
or other instructional leader)? (1 = “very positive” or “somewhat positive”)  (0.04)  
How familiar is your observer with your strengths and weaknesses as a teacher? 0.71 0.05 309 
(1 = “very familiar” or “somewhat familiar”)  (0.05)  
To what extent did you agree or disagree with your observer or his/her 0.65 0.13*** 301 
recommendations? (1 = “completely agree” or “moderately agree”)  (0.05)  
How supportive was your observer during the post-observation conference? 0.86 0.10*** 300 
(1 = “extremely” or “quite”)  (0.03)  
During the post-observation conference, how much effort did your observer put into 0.66 0.16*** 298 
taking your perspective? (1 = “tremendous amount” or “quite a bit”)  (0.05)  
How productive did you find the post-observation conference overall? 0.55 0.18*** 300 
(1 = “extremely” or “quite”)  (0.05)  

Notes: For each comparison, the outcome is a dichotomous indicator for whether the respondent chose one of the top two categories on the Likert scale (e.g., on a 7-point Likert scale for agreement that ranges from “completely disagree” to “completely agree,” the binary variable indicates a response choice of “completely agree” or “moderately agree”; Likert scales ranged across items from 5 points to 7 points). Results are similar when we keep the original scale. The adjusted difference between control and treatment is the result of a regression of the dependent variable against fixed effects for randomization strata, a treatment indicator, and an indicator for whether the school is an elementary or middle school. Standard errors (SE) are reported in parentheses, and allow for clustering within school. For teacher post-observation survey results we used only the first post-observation conference. We did not use all teacher responses, since treatment teachers were disproportionately likely to respond to all the post-observation surveys. A Bonferroni correction for eight hypothesis tests on the End of Year survey changes the significance such that the second, third, and sixth results are no longer significant at the 90 percent level. The fourth and eighth results remain significant at the 90 percent level only, while the fifth and seventh are significant at the 95 percent level. A Sidak correction yields identical results. A Holm-Bonferroni correction implies the fifth and seventh are significant at the 95 percent level while the fourth, sixth, and eighth are significant at the 90 percent level. A Bonferroni correction for six hypothesis tests on the Post-Conference surveys changes the significance such that the third and fifth post-conference results are significant at the 95 percent level, while the fourth and sixth results remain significant at the 99 percent level. Sidak and Holm-Bonferroni corrections yield identical results.

*Significant at the 90% level; **Significant at the 95% level; ***significant at the 99% level.

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal