To print this page, select "Print" from the File menu of your browser

Back to Graphic Version

Eye on Evaluation

Measuring Teacher Collaboration and Student Achievement

By R. Newton Hamilton, Roy Kruger, and Richard Smiley

Collaboration:
1. To work together, especially in a joint intellectual effort
2. To cooperate treasonably, as with an enemy occupation force in one’s country
   Worldnet 2.0, Princeton University, Dictionary.com

Synonyms—accord, bond, compact, connection, cooperation, friendship, pact, partnership, relation, union
Antonyms—antagonism, discord, hostility, nonalignment
   Roget’s New Millennium Thesaurus (2005)

As illustrated by the definitions above, collaboration can take numerous forms. It can support autonomy in decisionmaking, aligning curricula to state standards, personalizing education for students, and enhancing instructional practices. Collaboration can play an important part in building stronger staff relationships and improving the work climate within a school. However, collaboration for collaboration’s sake can also detract from the improvement efforts of a school and waste valuable resources.

A well-designed and implemented evaluation can help legislators and educational leaders see if collaborative efforts are achieving their goals. In this era of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and its accountability measure—Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), evaluators can help school and district leaders look deeply into their programs and professional practices to see what is and isn’t working.

Evaluations of the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory’s (NWREL) work with low-performing partner schools during the past five years have consistently shown effective collaboration appears crucial in improving student outcomes. The probability of improving student achievement goes up when schools provide the framework and opportunity for staff to jointly develop and revise curriculum, improve instructional practice, and address student academic and personal needs. Study findings also suggest that a key element in the process is making decisions based on data, which in turn increases the likelihood that educators link improvement activities to student achievement and address factors hindering progress.

Background

During the past five years, NWREL technical assistance teams have worked with 15 low- performing schools across the region as part of a contract with the U.S. Department of Education: There were three schools each from Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana. NWREL’s primary goal was to help these schools transform themselves into high-performing learning communities (HPLCs). One aspect of the evaluation of this work was to test the relevance and utility of the High-Performing Learning Communities Transformation Model developed by Research, Policy, and Practice International (RPPI) of California.

Procedure

NWREL evaluation teams assessed the schools’ progress using a framework adapted from RPPI’s HPLC model. NWREL identified and added an additional domain. The six domains and the dimensions defining them are:

• Domain I—Shared vision: includes the dimensions of inclusiveness, high expectations, and diversity
• Domain II—Shared facilitative leadership: includes the dimensions of participatory decisionmaking and a culture of inquiry and improvement
• Domain III—Supportive organizational structures: includes the dimensions of organization for learning, environment, and use of time
• Domain IV—Challenging curriculum and engaged student learning: includes the dimensions of high standards and challenging curriculum, instruction, and multiple assessments
• Domain V—Collaborative learning community: includes the dimensions of collaboration, professional growth, and use of data
• " Domain VI—Proactive community relations: includes the dimensions of parent and family engagement, community partnerships, school board and district relations, and community resource

NWREL evaluators developed an assessment rubric, with a five-point scale for each dimension, that they used to rate the schools’ annual progress. The ratings were based on data collected during onsite visits to each school and included interviews, focus groups, and classroom observations. Teachers, students, parents, support staff, and school and district administrators were included as subjects to ensure a comprehensive perspective of transformation for each school.

The HPLC study of partner schools in Washington is an instructive example of the relationship between program evaluation and effective collaboration. Evaluators have collected data annually for four years, beginning with baseline data in 2002. The evaluation team conducted interviews, held focus groups, and gathered observational data twice annually from the three partner schools and measured their progress in implementing more effective strategies in leadership, curricula, and instruction. The evaluators assessed the progress of each school in the spring and shared that information with staff in the following fall. This has proven to be an effective way of validating collective perceptions and providing objective data to use in developing and updating school improvement and action plans.

In addition, evaluators collected and presented other data in conjunction with the HPLC findings:

• Professional learning community (PLC) surveys measured staff members’ perceptions of their progress in establishing effective collaboration
• State assessments, standardized instruments administered by the school, and other instruments accepted by the state as reliable measures showed student performance

At the end of every year, each school’s progress on the HPLC domains was reviewed and reported by NWREL to the Institute of Educational Sciences of the U.S. Department of Education.

Summary

During the four years of the study, all three Washington partner site schools demonstrated increases in staff collaboration as measured by the HPLC scoring rubric. Additionally, two of the schools showed increases in collaboration as measured by the PLC survey. All three schools reported progress toward increased student achievement through enhanced staff collaborative activities, including professional learning teams; professional learning communities; lesson study groups, critical friends groups, and school improvement action teams.

What evaluators found to be significant with regard to collaborative efforts was that shared facilitative leadership, aligned rigorous curriculum, and effective instructional practices all combined to focus efforts on improving student performance. Evaluators also discovered that organizational structures such as scheduled planning times and ongoing focused professional development were instrumental in supporting the work of the collaborative groups and maintaining their focus on student achievement. In addition, evaluators concluded there is a need for a close collaborative relationship between district offices and individual schools to ensure that resources and efforts are effectively focused on student achievement.

The reader should not draw the conclusion that this demonstrates a causal relationship between collaborative activities and student achievement. However based on data from the Washington schools, both collaborative activities and student achievement increased; this suggests a logical relationship exists between the two.

Note: Roy Kruger and Richard Smiley are members of NWREL’s Evaluation Program; R. Newton Hamilton is with the Laboratory’s Office of Planning and Service Coordination.