Contract No: ED
- IES
- 1 2
- C
-00 07



## Supporting	Justification	for	OMB	Clearance	of	a	Study	of	Feedback	in	Teacher Evaluation	Systems Section A June 14, 2013

**Submitted to: Submitted**  **by:** Institutes of Education Sciences Marzano Research Laboratory U.S. Department of Education 9000 E. Nichols Ave., Ste. 210 555 New Jersey Ave., NW Centennial , CO 80112 Washington, DC 20208 (303) 766

-9199 (202) 219

- 1385 Project Officer: Project Director: Ok

- Choon Park Trudy L. Cherasaro1



## Table	of	Contents Section A. Justification
................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 2 A1. Circumstances Necessitating Collection of Information
................................ ................................ ..... 2 Statement of Need
................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 2 Overview of the Study Design
................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 4 Overview of the Specific Data Collection Plan
................................ ................................ ...................... 5 Timeline for the Data Collection
................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 6 A2. How, by Whom, and for What Purpose Information is to Be Used
................................ ................... 6 Pilot Study
................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 6 Full Study
................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 6 A3. Use of Automated, Electronic, Mechanical or Other Technological Collection Techniques
............. 7 A4. Efforts to Identify Duplication.
................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 7 A5. Sensitivity to Burden on Small Entities
................................ ................................ ............................... 7 A6. Consequence to Federal Program or Policy Activities if the Collection is Not Conducted or is Conducted Less Frequently
................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 8 A7. Special Circumstances
................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 8 A8. Fede ral Register Announcement and Consultation
................................ ................................ ............ 8 Federal Register Announcement
................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 8 Consultations Outside the Agency
................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 8 A9. Payment or Gift to Respondents
................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 9 A10.Confidentiality of the Data
................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 9 A11. Additional Justification for Sensitive Questions
................................ ................................ ............. 10 A12. Estimates of Hour Burden
................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 10 Pilot Study
................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 10 Full Study
................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 11 A14.Estimates of Annualized Costs to the Federal Government.
................................ ........................... 12 A15.Reasons for Program Changes or Adjustments
................................ ................................ ............... 13 A16. Plans for Tabulation and Publication.
................................ ................................ ............................. 13 Tabulation Plans
................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 13 Publication Plans
................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 21 Timeline
................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 22 A17. Approval to Not Display the Expiration Date for OMB Approval
................................ ................... 222

A18. Exception to the Certification Statement
................................ ................................ ....................... 22 References
................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 23 

## Section	A.	Justification The U.S. Department of Education (ED) requests OMB clearance for data collection related to the Regional Educational Laboratory (REL) program. ED, in consultation with Marzano Research Laboratory under contract ED
- IES
- 12
- C
- 0007, h as planned a study of feedback to teachers in teacher evaluation systems in three of the states served by REL Central. OMB approval is being requested for data collection including a pilot survey of teachers, interviews with teachers about the pilot survey, a survey of teachers (revised based on the pilot), and collection of extant teacher evaluation ratings. **A1. C**  **ircumstances Necessitating	Collection	of	I**  **nformation** This data collection is authorized by the Educational Sciences Reform Act (ESRA) of 2002 (see Attachment A) . Part D, Section 174(f)(2 ) of ESRA states that as part of their central mission and primary function, each regional educational laboratory “shall support applied research by ... developing and widely d isseminating, including through Inter net - based means, scientifically valid research, information, reports, and publications that are usable for improving academic achievement, closing achievement gaps, and encouraging and sustaining school improvement, to
— schools, districts, institutions of higher education, educators (including early childhood educators and librarians), parents, policymakers, and other constituencies, as appropriate, within the region in which the regional educational laboratory is located.” **Statement of N eed**  The importance of teacher effectiveness has been well

- supported by studies demonstrating that teachers vary in their ability to produce student achievement gains; all else being equal, students taught by some teachers experience greater achievement gains than those taught by other teachers (Konstantopoulos & Chung, 2010; Aaronson , Barrow, & Sander, 2007; Nye, Konstantopoulos, & Hedges, 2004; Wright, Horn, & Sanders, 1997). These findings have encouraged wide interest in identifying the most effective programs and practices to enhance teacher effectiveness. All seven states in the Central Region have either developed performance

- based teacher evaluation systems (Colorado, Kansas, and Missouri), are in the process of developing or adopting a model system (Nebraska and South Dakota), or are exploring the development or adoption of a model system (North Dakota a nd Wyoming). Because states in the Central R egion are local control states, districts can choose to adopt the state system or develop or adopt a different model that is aligned with the state guidelines for educator evaluation. Colorado, Kansas , and Missou ri a re in the process of piloting their state systems. Table 1 provides a timeline of the development of the Colorado, Kansas and Missouri teacher evaluation systems. States intend to use these models to serve both measurement and development purposes. In order for evaluation systems to improve teaching effectiveness, it is recommended that the3

first priority for such system design be promotion of teacher development (Papay, 2012). As states and districts prepare to develop and implement teacher evaluation systems, they are exploring ways to use evaluation findings to provide individualized feedback that will facilitate improved teaching and learning practices, which will lead to increased student performance (Kane & Staiger, 2012). Because such new evaluati on systems that focus on a system of observation and feedback have not been fully established and tested, research on feedback in teacher evaluation systems is limited. The majority of research on performance feedback is conducted in industries outside of the education profession. The current study will address th is gap in the current research by examining theories of performance feedback that have limited research in the education field. **Table 1. Development Timeline of Teacher Evaluation Systems in Color** **ado, Kansas, and Missouri Colorado**  **Kansas Missouri** 

**Timeline 2012** **‒ 2013:** 

Pilot **2013 ‒**  **2014:** Validation study **2014 ‒**  **2015:** Full i mplementation **2011 ‒**  **2012:** Pilot **2012 ‒**  **2013:** Pilot **2013 ‒**  **2014:** Validity study **2014 ‒**  **2015:** Full i mplementation **2011 ‒**  **2012 :**  Field test **2012 ‒**  **2013/2013 –** **2014:** Pilot **2014 ‒**  **2015:** Full i mplementation

**State Requirements**  State developed model

system for voluntary adoption by districts. State developed model system for voluntary adoption by districts. State developed model system for voluntary adoption by districts.

**Components** Fifty percent of the

evaluation is based on evidence of professional practice. Fifty percent of the evaluation is based on student growth measures. Evidence for the four standards will be the basis of teacher evaluation ratings. Student growth will significantly inform the evaluation. Evaluation scores are determined based on evidence collected for each of the standards. Student growth is a significant factor in the scores.4 **Colorado Kansas**  **Missouri**

**Teacher Standards**  **State -**  **developed Teacher**

**Quality Standards**
1. Know content 2. Establish environment 3. Facilitate learning 4. Reflect on practice 5. Demonstrate leadership 6. Student growth **InTASC standards (10 standards grouped into**  **4 categories)** 
1. The learner and learning 2. Content knowledge 3. Instructional practice 4. Professional responsibility **State -**  **developed standards aligned with**  **InTASC**
1. Content knowledge 2. Student learning, growth, and development 3. Curriculum implementation 4. Critical thinking 5. Positive classroom environment 6. Effective communication 7. Student asses sment and data analysis 8. Professional practice 9. Professional collaboration Educators throughout the Central Region have expressed strong interest in this area. For example, d istrict superintendents in Colorado want to know what types of feedback are best, what the right evidence is to gather about teacher performance , and how to incorporate feedback into educator evaluation systems ( Central States Education Laboratory, 2011; Colorado Association of School Executives, n. d.). REL Central’s Governing Board me mbers also identified the need to develop teacher evaluation systems that both hold teachers accountable and improve professional practice as one of their top educational challenges (REL Central Governing Board Meeting Minutes, March 19
–20, 2012). Conversa tions with each state liaison have indicated that states want to ensure that their newly

developed educator evaluation systems are supportive in nature, and that they specifically provide for constructive, timely feedback offere d to all evaluated individua ls. **Overview of the Study D esign**  The purpose of the proposed study is to describe teacher experiences with feedback as part of a teacher evaluation system and identify factors that may influence their use of feedback and their performance. Specifically, o ur study will examine inputs, mediating variables, and outcomes that have been identified in previous research on performance feedback. Figure 1 presents a theoretical model that depicts relationships between inputs, mediating variables, and outcomes. The proposed model of performance feedback (Figure 1) was developed based on seminal work (Ilgen, Fisher, & Taylor, 1978) and emerging research on performance feedback. The theoretical model suggests that the feedback characteristics (usefulness, accuracy, and credibility) a ffect teachers’ responsiveness to feedback and their access to learning opportunities, which, in turn, mediate the effect of feedback characteristics on teachers’5

performance. The relationship between the inputs, mediating variables, and out comes in the theoretical model will be examined to gain a deeper understanding of feedback characteristics that may be necessary for teachers to move from receiving feedback to improved performance.

**Figure 1. Theoretical m**  **odel for p**  **erformance f** **eedback based on previous research**  The study will address the following research questions: 1. What are teachers’ perceptions of the usefulness, accuracy, and credibility of the feedback they receive as a part of their performance evaluation? 2. What is the relationshi p among the characteristics of performance feedback (usefulness, accuracy, and credibility)? 3. What is the relationship between feedback characteristics and teacher responsiveness? 4. What is the relationship between teacher responsiveness and teacher performan ce? **Overview of the Specific Data Collection P lan**  This proposed study includes a pilot test of the survey instrument and implementation of the full study. During the 2013
– 14 school year, researchers will conduct a pilot test of the survey instrument. The pilot test will be used to gather data to refine the survey and assess reliability and validity. This refined survey w ill then be used to conduct the full study in the 2014
– 15 school year
. **Pilot	Study	Data	Collection** The pilot serves two pur poses : (1) to ensure that the survey items are understood and easy to answer ; and (2) to examine the psychometric properties of the survey instrument through c onfirmatory factor a nalysis (CFA). The pil ot test includes two data collection instruments: (1) a researcher

- developed survey, and (2) a teacher interview protocol. The online survey consists of a set of items about feedback as part of a district’ s teacher evaluation system to be asked of all resp ondents. The survey includes questions about the usefulness of feedback, accuracy of feedback, credibility of the person providing feedback, learning opportunities related to the feedback, and responsiveness to feedback . The online survey will be administered once in the pilot study to approximately 450 teachers , in 4 school di stricts



### Inputs

• **Feedback characteristics:**
• Teachers receive feedback that they perceive as useful. **(Usefulness)**
• Teachers receive feedback that they believe accurately represents their performance. **(Accuracy)**
• Teachers believe that the person providing feedback is qualified to do so. **(Credibility)** 

### Intermediate Outcomes (Mediating Variables)
• Teachers have access to the necessary opportunities to learn about or plan for implementation of feedback. **(Opportunities)**
• Teachers implement changes or seek professional development based on feedback. **(Responsiveness)** 

### Final Outcomes

• Supervisors/evaluators rate teachers’ performance as proficient, distinguished, or accomplished. **(Performance)**6

for the CFA . During the pilot study, interviews will also be conducted with approximately 20 teachers to gather their feedback on the clarity of the survey questions. Teachers participating in the interview will have already completed the online survey. During the interview, teachers will be provided with a hard copy of the survey so that they can review the items and directions in order to respond to questions about c larity, such as “In question 1, what does the term ‘designated evaluator’ mean to you?”
. The interviews will be transcribed. Copies of the teacher survey and the teacher interview protocol are provided in Attachments B and C, respectively. **Full	Study	Data Collection**  The full study involves two data collection instruments: (1) a teacher evaluation instrument already in use in the districts, and (2) a researcher

- developed teacher survey. The revised survey from the pilot study will be administered once , to a pproximately 2,446 teachers in approximately 134 districts, in the full study. In addition to the survey, researchers will collect existing teacher evaluation ratings from the teacher evaluation instrument in use in each state to provide information about the teachers’ performance as related to standards identified in the each state
. Tables 8
– 10 in Section A.16 present the performance standards for each state. **Timeline for the Data C ollection**  Instrument Pilot Test **Timeframe Da**  **ta Collection** Spring 2014 Administer pilot s urvey Spring 2014 Conduct interviews about pilot s urvey Full Study **Timeframe Data Collection**  Spring 2015 Administer revised s urvey Spring 2015 Collect existing teacher evaluation ratings **A2.	How,	by Whom,	and	for	What	P**  **urpose I**  **nforma tion	is	to	Be	U**  **sed Pilot Study**  The findings from the pilot study will be used by the researchers to refine the survey. The results will inform changes to the survey used in the full study, such as determining that certain indicators or survey items are not good indicators of the factors (usefulness, credibility, accuracy, opportunities, and responsiveness) , or determining that there are more or fewer factors than originally conceived. **Full Study** The findings will be used by state and district leaders to prioritize needs both at the state and district level for training and guidance on providing feedback as part of teacher evaluation systems. This study will result in a report intended for district and state leaders who are responsible for selecting, developing, and implementing teacher evaluation systems and overseeing support for teachers’ professional growth and effectiveness. The report will provide the findings in an accessible format7

describing possible interpretations and implications of the results of the model testing. Technical information such as the correlation matrix used to test the model, the fit statistics for proposed and adjusted models, and significant standardized coefficients for each of the param eters estimated in the model will be provided in an appendix. The report will summarize findings based on results of the model testing, provide a detailed description of methods in an appendix, and discuss limitations and implications for practice and furt her research. The report will provide findings from each state as well as the synthesized findings from the multi

- analytic structural equation modeling to inform leaders across the region. The synthesized findings will provide information about the relatio nship of the characteristics of feedback from three different evaluation contexts within the Central Region. These findings may be helpful for states and districts in the region who are implementing teacher evaluation systems, because they will identify wh ich variables account for a significant amount of variance in other variables across three different evaluation systems. Researchers will also facilitate discussions about the results with state and district leaders to examine and interpret the results fro m this study. For example, to identify which variables account for a significant amount of variance in other variables, we will examine the coefficients of the hypothesized relationships ( that the feedback characteristics [ usefulness, accuracy, and credib ility ] a ffect teachers’ responsiveness to feedback and their access to learning opportunities, which, in turn, mediate the effect of feedback characteristics on teachers’ performance )
. **A3.** 

### Use of Automated, Electronic, Mechanical or Other Technological Col**lection Techniques**  The survey will be administered online using survey software such as SurveyMonkey in order to reduce burden on respondents. Respondents will be sent a unique link via email that will lead them to the online survey. SurveyMonkey allows th e creat ion of a unique link for each email address in the invite list that prevents duplicate responses, because the link cannot be used after the survey is completed. Researchers will also pre

- code items using the online survey software which will reduce the time needed to prepare and merge the teacher survey and teacher evaluation rating data files. Reminders will also be sent via email using the survey software. Participants’ contact information ( for sending the online survey ) will be collected electronically from a district contact using a secure file sharing software such as Dropbox. Teacher evaluation rating data will also be collected in electronic format and stored in electronic databases created by MRL. **A4.	Efforts	to	Identify D**  **uplication.** This project will use existing teacher evaluation rating data. The survey data is unique data that addresses the need for providing targeted feedback as part of a teacher evaluation system. REL Central reviewed the literature and determined t hat t here is no alternative source for the information to be collected through the survey. **A5. Sensitivity	to	Burden	on	Small	Entities**  The data collection does not involve small entities.8

**A6. C**  **onsequence to	Federal	Program	or	Policy	Activities	if	the	Col**  **lection	is	Not	Conducted	or is	Conducted	Less	F**  **requently** If the proposed data were not collected, the goals of the IES Regional Educ ation Laboratory program may not be met. REL Central would not be able to “conduct and support high quality studies on key regional priorities,” resulting in decision makers in the region not having access to the research needed to build “an education system in which decisions are firmly grounded in data and research.” 1 Additionally, if the proposed data were not collected, the states would not have timely and relevant research on teacher feedback in evaluation systems to inform training and guidance to evaluators on providing feedback to teachers. T he data will be collected only one time ; thus, the re is no “frequency” component to the data collection. **A7. Special	Circumstances**  There are no special circumstances. **A8. Federal	Register	Announcement	and	Consultation**  **Federal Register Announcement** ED will publish Federal Register Notices to allow both a 6 0
- day and 30
- day public comment period. The REL will assist ED in addressing any public comments received. The 60 day Federal Register notice was published on 7/10/13, Vol. 78, page 41386. No comments were received. The 30

- day Federal Register Notice was published on [DATE] (Appendix X ).” **Consultations Outside the Agency**  REL Central has consulted with research alliance members on the availability of data, the clarity of the instructions, and the survey instrument . Additionally, we have consulted with conte nt and methods experts to develop the study. The following individuals were consulted on the statistical, data collection, and analytic aspects of this study: Name Title Organization Contact Information Dr. Fatih Unlu Senior Scientist Abt Associates Fatih_Unlu@abtassoc.com 617
- 520
- 2528 Katy Anthes Executive Director of

Educator Effectiveness Colorado Department

of Education Anthes_K@cde.state.co.us
Britt Wilkenfeld Strategic Data Fellow Colorado Department of Education Wilkenfeld_B@cde.state.co.us Dr. Jean Williams Evaluation Design

Specialist Colorado Department

of Education Williams_J@cde.state.co.us

1 REL goals were described on the program website: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/about/.9

As appropriate, we will consult with re presentatives of those from whom information is to be obtained , such as research alliance members, and Technical Working Group members to address any public comments received on burden. The Technical Working Group members are experts in content and methodo logy and they provide consultation on the design, implementation , and analysis of the study. The research alliance members are educators and stakeholders in the C entral R egion who share a specific education concern. The research alliance members have a sha red interest in the proposed study, and they provide feedback on the design and implementation of the study. **A9. Payment	or	Gift	to	R** **espondents** Teachers participating in the pilot will be offered a $30 Visa gift card to participate in the study

. Teachers participating in the full study also will be offered an incentive of a $30 V isa gift card to participate in the study. This incentive was determined using NCEE guidance, which suggests a $30 incentive for a 30

- minute survey about interventions ( NCEE, 2005 ). Additionally, the results of the Reading First Impact Study ( RFIS ) incentives study were considered, which found that incentives significantly increase response rates in surveys (Gamse, Bloom, Kemple, & Jacob, 2008). Teachers will receive the incentive upon completion of the survey. **A10. Confidentiality	of	the	Data**  REL Central will be following the new policies and procedures required by the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002, Title I, Part E, Section 183 : "All collection, maintenance, use, and wide di ssemination of data by the Institute" are required to "conform with the requirements of section 552 of title 5, United States Code, the confidentiality standards of subsection (c) of this section, and sections 444 and 445 of the General Education Provision Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g, 1232h)." These citations refer to the Privacy Act, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, and the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment. Subsection (c) of section 183 referenced above requires the Director of IES to "develop a nd enforce standards designed to protect the confidentiality of persons in the collection, reporting, and publication of data
. " Subsection (d) of section 183 prohibits the disclosure of individually identifiable information , and mak es any publishing or com municating of individually identifiable information by employees or staff a felony. REL Central will protect the confidentiality of all information collected for the study and will use it for research purposes only. No information that identifies any study participant will be released. Information from participating institutions and respondents will be presented at aggregate levels in reports. Unique identification numbers will be assigned to each participating teacher and used to identify all survey respon ses. The ID number/name association files will be kept secure in a confidential file separate from the data analysis file. No information identifying respondents will be included in the study data files or reports. Data from the online survey software syst em will be downloaded and deleted from the online system within one week after the survey window closes. These data files will then be stripped of any identifying information. Information will be reported in aggregate so that individual responses are not i dentifiable. All identification lists will be destroyed at the end of the project. The research team is trained to follow strict guidelines for soliciting consent, administering data collection10

instruments, and preservi ng respondent confidentiality. All me mbers of the research team have successfully completed the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) course in the Protection of Human Research Subjects through Liberty IRB. REL Central will collect consent forms from study participants which will also be stored in a locked file. C op ies of the consent form for the pilot and full study are provided in Attachment s D and E , respectively
. A copy of the affidavit of non

- disclosure is provided in Attachment F for each researcher who will have access to the data. All study materials will include the following language: Per the policies and procedures required by the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002, Title I, Part E, Section 183, responses to this data collection will be used only for statistical purposes. The reports prepared for this study will summarize findings across the sample and will not associate responses with a specific district or individual. Any willful disclosure of such information for nonstatistical purposes, except as required by law, is a class E felony. **A11. Additional	J**  **ustif**

**ication	for	S ensitive**  **Questions** No questions of a highly sensitive nature are included in the survey or interview. **A12.	Estimates	of	Hour B**  **urden (total	burden	is	being	divided	by	the	two	years	of	actual**  **burden	collection	to	establish	an	annual	figure) Pilot Study**  The total reporting burden associated with the data collection for the pilot study is 6 72 hours (see Table 1 ). A stratified rando m sample of 900 teachers in four districts from one state will be drawn from approximately 6,887 records. Sampled teachers will be invited to attend a 30

- minute in
- person meeting in which they will learn about the study and sign consent forms if they agree to participate. Of the 900 sampled teachers, we expect that approximately 450 will agree to participate in the study . Of the 450 teachers, we expect that approximately 180 (40%) will complete the survey without any email reminders; the remaining 270 teach ers will require email reminders. Each email reminder is estimated to take 2.5 minutes (0.04 hours), with an estimated average of 2 additional emails sent per teacher. The first email notification is estimated as part of the survey completion time. Of the 450 who agree to participate in the survey, an estimated 360 (80%) will complete the survey, with an estimated burden of 30 minutes (0.50 hours) per teacher. In addition to the survey, 20 participants will agree to participate in a 1
- hour interview.11

**Tab le**  **1 . Estimated**  **a nnualized**  **b urden**  **h ours**  **(Pilot)**



### Instrument **Person**

**Incurring Burden**  **Number of**

**Respondents Responses** 

**per Respondent**  **Total**

**Responses Hours** 

**per Response**  **Total**

**Burden Hours**  Recruitment and Consent Teacher 900 1 900 .5 450 Email reminder Teacher 270 2 540 .04 22 Pilot Survey Teacher 360 1 360 .5 180 Interview Teacher 20 1 20 1 20 Total 6 72

**Table 2**  **. Estimated a**  **nnualized c**  **ost to**  **r espondents**  **(Pilot)**



### Instrument **Person Incurring Burden**  **Total**

**Burden Hours**  **Hourly Wage**

**Rate Total** 

**Respondent Costs**  Recruitment and Consent Teacher 450 $28 $12,600 Email reminder Teacher 22 $28 $616 Pilot survey Teacher 180 $28 $5,040 Interviews Teacher 20 $28 $560 Total 672 $18,816 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics, estimates a nnual t eacher s alary to be $57,810. To calculate an hourly wage, a 40
- hour work week was assumed , resulting in an average hourly wage of $27.79

. **Full Study** The total reporting burden associated with the data collection for the full study is 3,541 hours (s ee Table 3 ). A stratified random sample of 4,892 teachers in 134 districts on three Central states will be drawn from approximately 32,500 records. Sampled teachers will be invited to attend a 30

- minute in
- person meeting, in which they will learn about the study and sign consent forms if they agree to participate. Of the 4,892 sampled teachers, we estimate that approximately 2,446 will agree to participate in the study and therefore will be invited to take the survey. Of the 2,446 teachers, we estimate that approximately 978 (40%) teachers will complete the survey without any email reminders; the remaining 1,468 teachers (60%) will require up to two email reminders. Each email reminder is estimated to take 2.5 minutes12

(0.04 hours), with an estimated average of 2 additional emails sent per teacher. Of the 2,446 teachers who agree to participate in the survey, an estimated 1,956 will complete the survey, with an estimated burden of 30 minutes (0.50 hou rs) per teacher. **Table 3. Estimated**  **a nnualized**  **b urden**  **h ours**  **(Full Study)**



### Instrument **Person**

**Incurring Burden**  **Number of**

**Respondents Responses** 

**per Respondent**  **Total**

**Responses Hours** 

**per Response**  **Total**

**Burde n**  **Hours** Recruitment and Consent Teacher 4,892 1 4,892 .5 2,446 Email reminder Teacher 1,468 2 2,936 .04 117 Survey Teacher 1,956 1 1,956 .5 978 Total 3,541

**Table 4**  **. Estimated a**  **nnualized c**  **ost to r** **espondents (Full Study** **)**



### Instrument **Person Incurring Burden**  **Total**

**Burden Hours**  **Hourly Wage**

**Rate Total** 

**Respondent Costs**  Recruitment and Consent Teacher 2,446 $28 $68,488 Email reminder Teacher 117 $28 $3,276 Pilot survey Teacher 978 $28 $27.384 Total 3,541 $99,148 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics, estimates Annual Teacher Salary to be $57,810. To calculate an hourly wage, a 40
- hour work week was assumed , resulting in an average hourly wage of $27.79. **Annual Responses and Burden** The annual reporting burden is 2,106 hours with 5802 responses. **A13. Estimate	for	the	Total	Annual	Cost	Burden	to	Respondents	or	R** **ecord K** **eepers** There are no start

- up costs for this collection. **A14.Estimates	of	Annualized	C osts	to	the	Federal**  **G overnment.** 13

The total estimated cost for this study is $373,250 over three years. The average yearly cost is $124,417. The costs in the pilot study include developing, administering, analyzing, and refining the survey, and conducting and analyzing the interview results . The costs in the full study include administering the survey, co llecting and cleaning teacher evaluation rating data , and analyzing and reporting results
. In addition to the evaluation costs, there are personnel costs of several Federal employees involved in the oversight and analysis of information collection that amo unt to an annualized cost of $ 5,000 for Federal labor. The total annualized cost for the evaluation is therefore the sum of the annual contracted evaluation cost ($ 124,417 and the annual Federal labor cost ($ 5,000 ), or a total of $ 129,417 per year. **A15. Rea** **sons	for	Program	Changes	or	A djustments**  This is a new study. **A16. P** **lans	for Tabulation	and	P** **ublication. Tabulation Plans**  **Pilot Study**  The pilot test is intended to test the survey prior to full study implementation on a small sample of teachers in four districts that are implementing a teacher evaluation system that has the intention of informing teacher development through feedback. The pilot study will include the administration of an online survey and interviews. Researchers will examine the clarity and psychometric properties of the survey. Data from the interviews will be analyzed to help determine if the respondents interpreted the directions and questions as the researchers intended. Interview transcripts will be coded using MAX QDA, a qualitative analysis program, to identify patterns in responses to the interview questions. Researchers will conduct item analysis to identify problematic items and to examine the internal consistency of the survey. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients will be computed for each scale and correlation analysis will be used to determine the extent to which the items correlate with the scales and the effect on Cronbach’s alpha if the item were removed. Items will be deleted if removal of the items would increase Cronbach’s alph a and increase the average inter

- item correlation . Following the criterion proposed by Nunnally & Bernstein (1994), alpha coefficients of 0 .70 or higher will be considered as reliable. Following the item analysis, researchers will analyze the proposed mea surement model (see Section A, Figure 3 ) using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The factors in this measurement model will be assumed to covary, with no hypothesis that any one factor causes the other. The methods for CFA proposed by Kline (2005) will b e followed. First, researchers will test for a single factor. This step allows researchers to examine the feasibility of testing a more complex model, and to determine if the fit of the single

-factor model is comparable. Selected fit ind ic es will be examin ed to determine if the results indicate a poor fit, which would substantiate the need for a more complex model. Next, the five

-factor model will be examined. Researchers will examine the model fit indices, the indicator loadings, and the14

factor correlation s to determine not only if the model fits the data, but also if the indicators have significant loadings on the associated factors, and if the estimated correlations between the factors are not “excessively high (e.g., > .85)” (Kline, 2005; p. 73). If the model does not fit the data, the model will be respecified based on an examination of modification indices, correlation residuals, and practical and theoretical considerations. To determine if the added constraints five

-factor model significantly reduces model fit, Chi

- square difference tests will be performed. **Full	Study** The full study will address the following research questions: 1. What are teachers’ perceptions of the usefulness, accuracy, and credibility of the feedback they receive as a part of their p erformance evaluation? 2. What is the relationship among the characteristics of performance feedback (usefulness, accuracy, and credibility)? 3. What is the relationship between feedback characteristics and teacher responsiveness? 4. What is the relationship betwee n teacher responsiveness and teacher performance? The study will use descriptive methods , as described below, to address research question 1. For survey items 2 and 3 , the median response and the percentage of teachers selecting each response choice will be reported. The median response will be reported because the scales are ordinal and the median is the most appropriate central tendency for ordinal data. The principal investigator considered different analytic strategies that would provide the best info rmation toward understanding the role of various feedback variables in teacher performance in a teacher evaluation system (research questions 2, 3, and 4). The principal investigator determined that an exploration of the structure of the relationship of th e feedback variables as they relate to performance would be most relevant and therefore necessitated the use of structural equation modeling (SEM)
. SEM techniques will be used to examine a model of performance feedback within each state. The structural mod el (Figure 2 ) and the underlying measurement model for all of the latent variables except the teacher performance variable will be the same for each state (Figure 3 ). However, because each state collects slightly different evidence of teacher performance i n their teacher evaluation system, the indicators will vary as presented in Figure 4 . In the model, straight arrows represent a di rect effect, while curved arrows represent covariance of the latent variable due to common predictors, which lie outside of th e model
. The latent variables in the model are the input, mediating, and outcome variables that were identified previously based on research on effective feedback. Table 5 presents the name of each latent variable, the name of each latent variable as ident ified in the proposed model, and the instrument that will be used to provide a measure of each latent variable. The model suggests that performance (PERF) is directly influenced by both access to learning opportunities (OPP) and responsiveness to feedback (RESP), and also indirectly by usefulness (USE), accuracy (ACC), credibility (CRED) , and opportunities (OPP), which influence performance via responsiveness (RESP). The survey instruments and teacher evaluation ratings described in the data collection sect ion are used as indicators of the latent variables present in the proposed structural model. Table 6 presents example15

teacher survey items aligned to the variables in the model (variable names are included in parentheses) that are linked to survey data. Fo r the performance variable, teacher evaluation rating data will be collected from the districts. Table s 7 through 9 present a brief description of the indicators o n which teachers are rated for each state’s teacher evaluation system
. Ratings on each of the states’ indicators will be collected to serve as the indicators for teacher performance. The loading of indicators on latent variables is presented in the proposed measurement model. As appropriate, based on an examination of compar ing descriptive statistics for the variable groupings, background information will also serve as covariates in the model analysis. The measurement model may be modified once the final survey instrument is developed to include all items related to the laten t variables. SEM allows for the examination of the latent structure underlying a set of observed variables (Byrne, 1998).

**Figure 2.**  **Hypothesized structural model of performance feedback**

Opportunities (OPP)

Usefulness (USE)

Accuracy (ACC)

Credibility (CRED) Responsiveness (RESP) Performance (PERF)16

**Figure 3.**  **Hypothesized m easurement**  **m odel**  **except performance variable**

**Figure 4. Hypothesized**  **m easurement model for**  **p erformance**  **v ariable by**  **s tate**  **Table 5**  **: Data collection instrument for each variable** 

**Latent Variable Latent Variable Name**  **in the Model Instrument**  Usefulness of Feedback Usefulness (USE) Usefulness items from the researcher d eveloped t eacher s urvey Accuracy of Feedback Accuracy (ACC) Accuracy items from the researcher d eveloped t eacher17 s urvey

Credibility of the Person Providing Feedback Credibility (CRED) Credibility items from the researcher d eveloped t eacher s urvey Responsiveness to Feedback Responsiveness (RESP) Responsiveness items from the researcher d eveloped t eacher s urvey Access to Opportunities to Learn Opportunities (OPP) Opportunities items from the researcher d eveloped t eacher s urvey Performance Ratings Performance (PERF) Ratings on the state’s t eacher e valuation standards, including professional standar ds and the student growth standard (provided by the district) **Table 6**  **: Example t**  **eacher s**  **urvey i**  **tems by model variable**  **Model Variable Example Survey Items (model variable**  **names provided in parenthesis)**

Usefulness (USE) - My evaluator recommended next steps for finding professional development to

improve my teaching. (REC)

- My evaluator provided feedback within an appropriate timeframe. (TIME)

- My evaluator provided feedback as frequently as I needed it. (FREQ)

- My evaluator’s feedback included specific suggest ions to improve my content/subject knowledge. (CIMP)

- My evaluator’s feedback included specific instructional strategies that I could use to improve my teaching. (SIMP)

- My evaluator’s feedback included specific classroom management strategies that I could u se to improve my teaching. (MIMP)
Accuracy (ACC) - The feedback I received was an accurate portrayal of my teaching. (ACCU)

- The classroom observations that informed the feedback I received represented a typical day in my classroom. (REP)

- I would receive the same feedback from a different evaluator. (EVAL)

- I would receive the same feedback if my evaluator had examined different evidence (for example, if they observed a different lesson, or reviewed additional evidence). (EVID) Credibility (CRED) - My evaluato r had sufficient knowledge of my subject/content. (CONT)

- My evaluator had sufficient knowledge of instructional strategies. (INST)

- My evaluator had sufficient knowledge of how my students learn. (STUD)

- My evaluator had a sufficient understanding of the cur riculum being observed. (CURR)

- My evaluator had a sufficient understanding of the established teacher evaluation criteria. (CRIT) Opportunities (OPP) - I had access the professional development that I needed in order to implement

suggestions provided in my feedback. (PD)

- I had access to a coach/mentor who supported me in implementing suggestions18

**Model Variable Example Survey Items (model variable**  **names provided in parenthesis)**

provided in my feedback. (COACH)

- I was able to observe expert teachers modeling skills that related to my feedback. (MODEL)

- I had time during the school day to plan for implementing new strategies based on my feedback. (PLAN)
Responsiveness (RESP) * - Because of the feedback I received from my evaluator, I tried new instructional

strategies in my classroom. (INSTRA)

- Because of the feedback I received from my evaluator, I tried new classroom management strategies in my classroom. (CMSTRA)

- Because of the feedback I received from my evaluator, I sought advice from a coach or mentor. (ADVICE)

- Because of the feedback I received from my evaluator, I sought professional develo pment opportunities. (PROF) * The responsiveness items were based on items used in Tuytens & Devos (2011), and Geijsel, Sleegers, Stoel, & Krüger (2009).19

**Table 7**  **: Indicators of performance in the Colorado Model Evaluation System Name of**  **Indicator for Performance**  **in the Model**  **Colorado**

**Standard Description of Indicator** 

PED Demonstrate

pedagogical expertise in the content Rating using a rubric based on observations and at least one

of the following measures : (a) student perception measures (such as surveys), (b) peer feedback, (c) feedback from parents or guardians; and/or (d) reviews of teacher lesson plans or student work samples ENV Establish a safe

and respectful learning environment INST Plan and deliver

effective instruction REF Reflect on

practice LEAD Demonstrate

leadership SAG Student academic

growth Rating based on multiple measures of student academic

growth, such as median student growth percentiles ALL Overall Weighted average of the ratings received for each of the professional practice standards (50%) and the student growth standard (50%)
**Table 8**  **: Indicators of performance in the Kansas evaluation system Name of Indicator**  **for Performance in the Model**  **Kansas Standard**  **Description of Indicator**
LEARN The Learner and

Learning Rating using a rubric based on observations and other

evidence, such as student work samples, lesson plans and professional learning plans. CONT Content

Knowledge INST Instructional

Practice PROF Professional

Responsibility
SAG N/A Student growth is a significant factor in the teacher evaluation rating. Kansas is currently determining how student growth will be measured and how it will be incorporated into the evaluation system20

**Table 9**  **: Indicators of performance in the Missouri evaluation system**  **Name of Indicator for Performance**  **in the Model Description of Indicator**  EOY End
- of

-year rating using a rubric on three selected indicators based on evidence

includ ing data on professional commitm ent (such as credentials and professional development plans), professional practice (such as classroom observation data), and/or professional impact (such as student performance measures) GROW Growth rating based on difference between the end

- of

-year and baseline ratings

on three selected indicators ALL O verall rating on the rubric based 50% on overall growth and 50% on end
- of

-year

ratings SAG Student growth is identified as a significant factor in the Missouri Educator

Evaluation System, and the system is structured such that a teacher cannot receive a proficient or distinguished rating if student growth is low. The plans for including student growth are currently under development. Each state’s model will be examined separately using a two

- step modeli ng process. First, researchers will examine the fit of the measurement model
. Researchers will examine multiple fit indices (  2 , g oodness
- of

-fit i ndex [ GFI ] , parsimony goodness
- of

-fit i ndex [ PGFI ] , root m ean s quare e rror of a pproximation [ RMSEA] , and c ompa rative fit i ndex [ CFI ] ) and whether or not factor loadings are significant to determine the degree to which the model fit s the data. If it is determined that the measurement model fits the data , analysis will proceed with the structural portion of the mod el. If it is determined that the model does not fit the data, researchers will examine the modification indices, residuals, factor loadings, factor correlations, and theoretical considerations to potentially re - specify the model. The model would only be re

- specified only if the re

- specification is in line with the theory that supports the model
. Re
- specification may include allowing indicators to load on more than one factor and allowing measurement errors to covary
. To determine the relationship among the variables proposed in each model of performance feedback, the fit of the structural model will be tested and the path coefficients within the model will be examined. Information about the model for eac h state is presented in Tabl e 10
. Maximum likelihood will be used as the estimation method. In maximum likelihood, “the estimates are the ones that maximize the likelihood (the continuous generalization) that the data (the observed covariances) were drawn from this population”(Kline, 2005, p. 112). Once the model is tested, the path coefficients will be examined, and several goodness

- of

-fit indices (  2 , g oodness
- of

-fit i ndex [ GFI ] , parsimony goodness
- of

-fit i ndex [ PGFI ] , root m ean s quare e rror of a pproximation [ RMSEA] , and c omparative fit i ndex [ CFI ] ) will be examined to determine the degree to which the model fit s the data. Multiple

- model fit indices are needed to accurately examine model fit (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Modification indices , which are reported in most SEM statistical output, will be examined to determine the extent to which the overall model fit would increase if particular paths are freely estimated
.21

**Table 10**  **: Information about**  **each state’s structural equation model** 2 **Colorado Kansas**  **Missouri** Parameters 69 65 63 Variances of Measurement Error 30 28 27 Factor Loadings 30 28 27 Factor Correlations 6 6 6 Factor Covariances 3 3 3 Indicators 30 28 27 Data Points 435 378 351 Degrees of Freedom 366 313 288 The assumptions of multivariate normality and linearity will be evaluated by analyzing the multivariate and univariate skewness and kurtosis
. The distribution and shape of all survey data and evaluation ratings will be examined to screen for outliers, skew ness, and kurtosis. If significant skewness or kurtosis is found (alpha ≤ .01) , estimation techniques that address non

- normality, such as robust maximum likelihood (RML) , will be used
. RML gives standard errors with unspecified distributional assumptions, yielding the least biased standard errors when multivariate normality assumptions are false (Bentler & Dijkstra, 1985; Chou & Bentler, 1995). Researchers will synthesize the findings across the states using meta

- analytic structural equation modeling (MASE M) techniques such as the two

- stage structural equation modeling (TSSEM) approach (Cheung and Chan, 2005). Using the TSSEM approach, researchers will first use multiple

-group confirmatory factor analysis approaches to test the homogeneity of the correlatio n matrices across the states. Next, the pooled correlation matrix and its asymptotic covariance matrix (ACM) will be calculated from the state matrices. The pooled correlation matrix will be analyzed and its ACM will be used as the weight matrix using the asymptotic distribution

-free method as the estimation method. Fit indices from this analysis will be examined to determine the extent to which model fits the pooled data. **Publication Plans** All results for REL Central’s rigorous studies will be made available to the public through peer

- reviewed evaluation reports that are published by IES on the IES website . The datasets from these rigorous studies will be turned over to the REL’s IES project officer. These data will become IES restricted use datasets requiring a user’s license that is applie d for through the same process as NCES restricted use datasets.

2 These numbers were calculated using methods proposed by Tab achnick & Fidell (2001). The number of parameters equals the total number of regression coefficients, variances, and covariances to be estimated in the model. Each of the indicators in the models have an associated variance of measurement error and factor loading. The six straight arrows between the factors represent factor correlations and the three curved arrows in the model represent factor covariances. Data points equals n ( n– 1)/2, where n is the number of indicators. Degrees of freedom equals the numbe r of data points minus the number of parameters.22

Even the REL contractor would be required to obtain a restricted use license to conduct any work with the data beyond the original evaluation. **Timeline** The timeline for data collection, analys is and reporting is shown in Table 11
. **Table 1**  **1 :**  **Schedule of a**  **ctivities Study**  **Activity Schedule**  Pilot Study Hold in

- person recruitment meeting November 2013
– February 2014

Administer s urvey i nstrument April 2014
– May 2014 Conduct interviews May 2014 Analyze and report May 2014–July 2014 Full Study Hold in
- person recruitment meeting August 2014–January 2015

Administer survey instrument April 2015
– May 2015 Collect existing teacher evaluation rating data May 2015–June 2015 Analyze and report May 2015– November 2015
**A17. Approval	to	Not	Display	the	Expiration	D**  **ate	for OMB	Approval**  No request is being made for exemption from displaying the expiration date. **A18. Exception	to	the	Certification	S** **tatement** No exceptions to the certification statement are requested or required.23

**References** Aaronson, D., Barrow, L., & Sander, W. (2007). Teachers and student achievement in the Chicago public schools. Journal of Labor Economics, 25 (1), 95
– 135. Bentler, P. M., & Dijkstra, T. (1985). Efficient estimation via linearization in structural models. In P. R. Krishnaiah (Ed.), Multivariate analysis VI (pp. 9
–42). Amsterdam: North Holland. Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programm ing. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Central States Education Laboratory (2011). Technical Proposal
– Final Proposal Revisions, Regional Educational Laboratories 2012

- 2017 Central Region, RFP ED

- IES
- 11
- R
- 0036. Centennial, CO: Marzano Research Laboratory. Cheung, M. W.

- L., Chan, W. (2005). Meta

- analytic structural equation modeling: A two

- stage approach. Psychological Methods, 10 (1), 40–64
. Chou, C. P., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Estimates and tests in structural equation modeling. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling (pp. 37
–55). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Colorado Association of School Executives. (n. d.). Colorado School Leaders Speak Out on Teacher Evaluation. Retrieved July 18, 2012 from http://www.co

case.org/associations/779/files/2%200%20Colorado%20School%20Leaders%20Speak%20Out%2 0On%20Teacher%20Evaluation.pdf
. Geijsel, F., Sleegers, P., Stoel, R., & Krüger, M. (2009). The effect of teacher psychological, school organizational and leadership factors on teachers’ professional learning in Dutch schools. The Elementary School Journal, 109, 406–427. Gamse, B.C., Bloom, H.S., Kemple , J.J., Jacob, R.T., (2008). Reading First Impact Study: Interim Report (NCEE 2008

-4016). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64 (4), 349
–371. Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. O. (2012). Gathering feedback for teaching: combining high

- quality observations with student surveys and achievement gains. Methods of Effective Teaching project, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, WA. Retrieved July 18, 2012 from http://www.metproject.org/downloads/MET_Gathering_Feedback_Practioner_Brief.pdf
. Kline, R.B. (2005). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford. Konstantopoulos, S., & Chung, V. (2010). The persistence of teacher effect s in elementary grades. American Educational Research Journal 48 (2), 361
–386. National Center for Education Evaluation (2005). Guidelines for incentives for NCEE impact evaluations
. Washington, DC: Author.24

Nye, B., Konstantopoulos, S., & Hedges, L. V. (2004). How large are teacher effects? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 26 (3) , 237–257. Papay, J. P. (2012). Refocusing the debate: Assessing the purposes and tools of teacher evaluation. Harvard Educational Review, 82 (1), 123
– 141. Tabachnick, B . G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Tuytens, M., & Devos, G. (2011). Stimulating professional learning through teacher evaluation: An impossible task for the school leader? Teaching and Teacher Education 27, 891–899. Wright, S. P., Horn, S. P., & Sanders, W. L. (1997). Teacher and classroom context effects on student achievement: implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 11 : 57–67.