DOI: 10.3886/icpsr34414.v3
title: Measures of Effective Teaching: 2 - Core Files, 2009-2011
title: Version 3

description: The Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) ProjectThe MET project is based on two premises: First, a teacher's evaluation should depend to a significant extent on his/her students' achievement gains; second, any additional components of the evaluation (e.g., classroom observations) should be valid predictors of student achievement gain. Student achievement was measured in two ways -- through existing state assessments, designed to assess student progress on the state curriculum for accountability purposes, and supplemental assessments, designed to assess higher-order conceptual understanding. The supplemental assessments used were: Stanford 9 (SAT-9) Open-Ended Reading Assessment in grades 4 through 8Balanced Assessment in Mathematics (BAM) in grades 4 through 8ACT QualityCore series for Algebra I, English 9, and Biology Panoramic digital video of classroom sessions were taken of participating teachers and students, teachers submitted commentary on their lessons (e.g., specifying the learning objective) and then trained raters scored the lesson based on classroom observation protocols using the following five observation protocols: Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS), developed by Robert Pianta, University of Virginia Framework for Teaching (FFT), developed by Charlotte Danielson Mathematical Quality of Instruction (MQI), developed by Heather Hill, Harvard University, and Deborah Loewenberg Ball, University of Michigan Protocol for Language Arts Teaching Observations (PLATO), developed by Pam Grossman, Stanford University Quality Science Teaching (QST) Instrument, developed by Raymond Pecheone, Stanford University A subset of the videos are also being scored using an observational protocol developed by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS). Close to 3,000 teacher volunteers from across the following 6, predominantly urban, school districts participated in the MET project: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, Dallas Independent School District, Denver Public Schools, Hillsborough County Public Schools, Memphis City Schools, and the New York City Department of Education. Participants teach math and English language arts (ELA) in grades 4-8, Algebra I, grade 9 English, and high school biology. Data File Description <strong>District/School File</strong> - This data file contains an ID for the district where MET teachers taught and data on the schools where they taught. All data are from year one of the study. The data included for schools include limited measures of school organization, student composition, and aggregated test score information. The file also includes data collected from school principals about the nature of teacher evaluation processes in a school. <strong>Teacher File</strong> - This data file contains data on those MET teachers who participated in year one of the study only or who participated in both years of the study. There is one data record per teacher. Data in the teacher file was collected (or recorded) only once during the study. Among the variables included in the file are: (1) teacher IDs; (2) ID variables for district and school; (3) variables indicating a teacher's grade, subject, and study status; (4) measures of teachers' personal characteristics and professional background; (5) teacher responses to MET teacher working conditions survey [administered in year one of the study]; (6) teacher responses to the MET teacher survey administered [in year two of the study]; (7) teachers' scaled scores as well as multiple choice and constructed response sub-scores for the CKT measures; and (8) principal ratings of a teacher's effectiveness. <strong>Class Section File</strong> - This data file contains data on the focal class sections taught by MET teachers. There is one data record per section. In most cases, generalists have one class section per year in the study, so that teachers who participated in both years of the study will have a total of 2 class sections of data per teacher record per year. Specialists generally have 2 class sections in year one and 1 class section in year two year, so that teachers who participated in both years of the study will have a total of up to 3 class sections of data per teacher record. Among the variables included for each class section taught by a teacher are: (1) section IDs; (2) ID variables for teacher, school, and district; (3) variables indicating a teacher's grade, subject, and study status; (4) measures of class composition, including aggregated data on students' prior year test scores, ethnic composition, free lunch status, and special education status; and (5) class size. Also included in this data file are: (6) value-added measures of teaching effectiveness based on student achievement scores [aggregated to the section level]; (7) measures of teaching effectiveness based on classroom observation score data [aggregated to the section level]; and (8) measures of teaching effectiveness based on student survey data [aggregated to the section level]. <strong>Student File</strong> - These data files contain data on students who were in the focal class sections of MET teachers during either year. Data on each student include: (1) student ID; (2) ID variables for section, teacher, school, and district; (3) measures of current and prior student achievement for all tests/years recorded [e.g., 2010-2011, 2009-2010; and up to three prior years]; (4) measures of student background [sex, ethnicity, lunch status, special education status, program participation]; and (5) student survey responses. <strong>Classroom Observation Scores File</strong> - These data files contain data from all classroom observation sessions conducted on each teacher. There will be one file per observation instrument and each file will have one record for each segment scored by a rater. Data on each observation session include: (1) a segment ID, (2) ID variables for video, section, teacher, school, and district; (3) variables indicating the video's grade, and subject; (4) a variable indicating whether score comes from the primary scorer or a secondary scorer; (5) scores on the dimensions of the given observation instrument; (5) a variable indicating if the rater deferred scoring of the video to the scoring leader. Note that each video will generally have multiple rows because scores were given at the segment level. Additionally, instruments with different segment scoring lengths will not be comparable at the segment level.
description: Response Rates: 2746 teachers began the year 1 of the MET project, 1868 completed year 2 of the MET project.
description: Presence of Common Scales: Classroom observational measures include:Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS), developed at the University of VirginiaThe Framework for Teaching (FFT), developed by Charlotte DanielsonMathematical Quality of Instruction (MQI), developed at the University of MichiganProtocol for Language Arts Teaching Observation (PLATO), developed at Stanford University Quality of Science Teaching (QST), developed at Stanford UniversityUTEACH Observation Protocol (UTOP), developed at the University of Texas-Austin for assessing math and science instructionSupplemental student assessments include:Stanford 9 (SAT-9) Open-Ended Reading Assessment in grades 4 through 8Balanced Assessment in Mathematics (BAM) in grades 4 through 8 ACT QualityCore series for Algebra I, English 9, and Biology
description: Datasets: DS0: Study-Level Files DS1: District/School File DS2: Teacher File DS3: Class Section File DS4: Student File DS5: Classroom Observation Scores - CLASS File DS6: Classroom Observation Scores - FFT File DS7: Classroom Observation Scores - MQI File DS8: Classroom Observation Scores - PLATO File DS9: Classroom Observation Scores - QST Lab File DS10: Classroom Observation Scores - QST Non-Lab File
description: Teachers and students within the six participating school districts. Smallest Geographic Unit: School Districts
description: coded video observation; cognitive assessment test; mail questionnaire; self-enumerated questionnaireParticipating academic institutions include Dartmouth College, Harvard University, Stanford University, University of Chicago, University of Michigan, University of Virginia, and University of Washington. Participating non-profit organizations include Educational Testing Service, RAND Corporation, and the New Teacher Center. Participating education consultants include Cambridge Education, Teachscape, and Westat. The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards and Teach For America supported the project and have encouraged their members to participate. The American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association were involved in discussions about the MET project and supported the research.Teachscape conducted the classroom video recordings, Educational Testing Service (ETS) managed the lesson-scoring process.