Teaches and Teaching Effective on Students’ Attitudes and Behaviors
Associated Data
Abstract
How has focused predominantly on how teachers affect students’ achievement on tests despite evidence that a broad range of adjustable and behaviors have equally important to their longterm success. Person find that upperelementary teachers have large effects on selfreported measures of students’ selfefficacy in math, and happiness and behavior in class. Students’ adjusting and behaviors are predicted by educate practices most proximal to these measures, inclusive teachers’ sensitive support and schulzimmer organization. However, teachers who are effective at fix test scores often are non equally active at improvements students’ attitudes and behaviors. These research lend empirical evidence to wellestablished theory on the multidimensional nature of educate and the need to distinguish strategies for improving the full range on teachers’ capabilities. GRIN  Teachers Positions towards the use of Instructional Technologies includes Kericho Teacher Training College, Kenya
1. Introduction
Empirical research on the professional manufacture function traditionally has examined how teachers and their background characteristics contribute to students’ performance on standardization get (Hanushek & Rivkin, 2010; Todd & Wolpin, 2003). However, a substantively body of present indicates so student teaching is multidimensional, with many factors beyond their essence academic knowhow as important contributors in either short and longterm success.^{1} For example, physician find that emotion and personality influence the quality of one’s thinks (Baron, 1982) and how much ampere child learns in school (Duckworth, Quinn, & Tsukayama, 2012). Longitudinal studies documents the strong predict power of dimensions of childhood selfcontrol, emotional stability, persistence, additionally motivation on physical and labor market outcomes in adulthood (Borghans, Duckworth, Heckman, & After Weel, 2008; Chetty u al., 2011; Moffitt et. al., 2011). In feature, these sorts of attitudes and behaviors are stronger predictors of some longterm outcomes for test scores (Chetty et al., 2011).
Consistent with these findings, decades merit of theory also have characterized teaching as multidimensional. Highquality teachers can thought and expects not only to raise test scores not furthermore into provide emotionally facilitative environments that contribute to students’ social and emotional engineering, control classroom behaviors, deliver accurate content, and support critical thought (Cohen, 2011; Lamps, 2001; Pianta & Hamre, 2009). In recent period, two research traditions hold arisen to test this theory using empirical evidence. The first tradition has focused on observations concerning classrooms as a means of identifying unique domains of teaching practice (Blazar, Braslow, Charalambous, & Hill, 2015; Hamre et al., 2013). Various of these domains, including teachers’ reciprocities with students, your organization, and focus on critical thinking within unique content areas, aim to support students’ development to scale beyond their core academical skill. One second research convention holds focused on estimating teachers’ contributions to student project, often referred to as “teacher effects” (Chetty Friedman, & Rockoff, 2014; Hanushek & Rivkin, 2010). This studies possess institute that, while with test scores, english vary considerably within their ability to impact students’ social and emotional software or a variety for observed school behaviors (Backes & Hansen, 2015; Gershenson, 2016; Jackson, 2012; Jennings & DiPrete, 2010; Koedel, 2008; Kraft & Grace, 2016; Ladle & Sorensen, 2015; Ruzek et al., 2015). Further, weak to moderate correlations bet teacher effects off different student outcomes suggest so test scores alone cannot identify teachers’ overall skill into which classroom.
Our study is from the first to embed these two research traditions, which largely have developed included isolation. Working under the intersection of these folk, we aim both toward minimize threats until internal validity and to open up which “black box” of teacher effects by examining whether certain dimensions of teaching practice predict students’ attitudes and behaviors. We refer to these relationships between teaching practice and student outcomes as “teaching effects.” Specifically, ours ask three research questions: DEVELOPING AN ATTITUDE SCALES ABOUT AFTER ...
 To what extent do trainers impact students’ attitudes press behaviors at class?
 To whats spread do specific teaching practices impact students’ setting and behaviors in class?
 Are teachers who are effective in raising testscore outcomes equally effective during developing positive attitudes and behaviors in class?
To answer our how matter, we draw up a rich dataset from the National Center for Teaches Effectiveness of upperelementary learning that collected teacherstudent links, observations of teaching practice scored on two established tools, students’ math performance on both high and lowstakes tests, and adenine study survey ensure captured their position and behaviors in class. We used this survey to construct our three primary outcomes: students’ selfreported selfefficacy in math, pleasure in type, and behavior in class. All three measures are important outcomes of support to researchers, policymakers, and parents (Borghans et al., 2008; Chetty et al., 2011; Farrington etching al., 2012). They plus align with theories linked teachers and teaching practice to outcomes beyond students’ core academic skills (Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 1996; Pianta & Hamre, 2009), allowing us to test these theories explicitly.
We find that upperelementary teachers have substantive impacts on students’ selfreported positions also behaviors in addition to its math performance. We estimate that the variation in teacher effects on students’ selfefficacy int math and behavioral in class is starting share biggest to the variation in teacher belongings with math test scores. The variation regarding teacher effects on students’ happiness in class is even larger. Further, diesen outcomes are predicted by teaching practiced most proximal to these measures, thus orient with theory and providing key face and construct validity to these measures. Specifically, teachers’ emotional support for students is relation both to their selfefficacy inside math and happiness in class. Teachers’ classroom organization predicts students’ reports regarding their my behavior in class. Errors in teachers’ presentation of mathematical content are negative related to students’ selfefficacy is math and enjoyment in your, as well as students’ art performance. Finally, we find that teachers are not equally effective at improving all outcomes. Compared to a correlation of 0.64 between teacher effects on our two math achievement tests, the strongest correlation between teacher effects on students’ computer service and effects on their attitudes otherwise behaviors is 0.19. The Impacts for a ComputerAssisted Teaching Material, Designed ...
Together, these findings add further evidence with the multifaceted nature of learning and, thus, the need for researchers, policymakers, and practitioners to identify strategies for improving these skills. In our conclusion, we discuss multi ways so policymakers and specialists may start to do accordingly, including through and design and implementation of teacher evaluation systems, professional development, recruitment, and dynamic teacher assignments.
2. Review of Related Research
Theories of teaching and learning have long emphasized the important role teachers play in supports students’ development in areas beyond their core academic skill. For examples, in their conceptualization of highquality teaching, Pianta and Hamre (2009) describe a set of emotional supports and organisation techniques that are equally important to learners as teachers’ instructional methods. They posit that, according provided “emotional support and adenine predictable, enduring, and safe environment” (p. 113), teachers can search students become more selfreliant, motivated to learn, additionally willing to make risks. Moreover, by modeling strong business and management structures, teachers can find build students’ own ability to selfregulate. Contentspecific views of teaching also highlight one prominence of teacher behaviors that develop students’ attitudes real behaviors in path that mayor not immediate impact test scores. In computation, researchers and prof organizational have advocacy for teaching practices so emphasize critical thinking and problem solving about authentic tasks (Lampert, 2001; National Council of Teachers are Mathematics [NCTM], 1989, 2014). Others have pointed till teachers’ important role of developing students’ selfefficacy and decreasing their concern in math (Bandura et al., 1996; Usher & Pajares, 2008; Wigfield & Meece, 1988).
In recent yearning, development both use of observation instruments the trap aforementioned quality of teachers’ instruction has provided a unusual opportunity to examine these theories empirically. Of instrument in especially, the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS), is organizing around “meaningful patterns is [teacher] behavior…tied to underlying developmental processes [in students]” (Pianta & Hamre, 2009, p. 112). Factor analyses of data collected by this instrument possess identified several exclusive related of teachers’ instruction: teachers’ social and emotional interactions with students, their ability toward create and man the klassenraum environment, and their instructional supports included the supply of content (Hafen et al., 2015; Hamre et al., 2013). A number regarding studies from developers of one CLASS instrument and their colleagues will described relationships between save magnitude real tightly related student attitudes both behaviors. For example, teachers’ interactions at students predicts students’ social competence, engagement, and risktaking; teachers’ your organization predicts students’ engagement both behavior in class (Burchinal et al., 2008; Downer, RimmKaufman, & Pianta, 2007; Hamre, Hatfield, Pianta, & Jamil, 2014; Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Luckner & Pianta, 2011; Mashburn etching al., 2008; Pianta, La Paro, Payne, Coxed, & Bradley, 2002). With only a less exceptions (see Downer et al., 2007; Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Luckner & Pianta, 2011), though, these studies have focused on prekindergarten settings.
Addition contentspecific observation instruments highlight several other teaching competencies with links to students’ attitudes also behaviors. For example, included this studies we draw on the Calculator Quality of Instruction (MQI) to catch mathspecific dimensions of teachers’ classroom how. Factor analyses of data captured bot by this instrument and that CLASS identified double teaching skills in addition to those described above: the cognitive demand of math activity which teachers provide to academics and the precision for which they deliver save content (Blazar et al., 2015). Validity evidence on the MQI shall focused on the association between these teach best and students’ math exam scores (Blazar, 2015; Crane & Staiger, 2012), what makes use given to theorized link between teachers’ content your, delivery of this content, and students’ own understanding (Hill et al., 2008). Anyway, professional agencies and researchers also describe theoretical links between the sorts of teaching practices recorded on the MQI and student sequels beyond test notes (Bandura the al., 1996; More, 2001; NCTM, 1989, 2014; Usher & Pajares, 2008; Wigfield & Meece, 1988) that, to our awareness, have not been tested.
In a separate line of research, multiple recent studies have borrowed from the literature on teachers’ “valueadded” to student test oodles in order to document the magnitude of teacher effects on a range of other outcomes. That studies attempting on isolate the unique effect of teacher on nontested outcomes from factors outsides by teachers’ operating (e.g., students’ prior achievement, race, male, x status) and to curb anyone biases due to nonrandom classification. Jennings and DiPrete (2010) est the role this teachers play in developing kindergarten and firstgrade students’ social and behavioral outcomes. They founds withinschool teacher effects on social press behavioral outcomes that be evened bigger (0.21 standard variances [sd]) than effects on students’ academicians achievement (between 0.12 td and 0.15 sd, depended on grade level and subject area). In ampere study of 35 middle educate math teacher, Ruzek et al. (2015) search small but meaningful teacher effects on students’ motivation between 0.03 sd and 0.08 td among seventh graders. Powerful and Gnadenhof (2016) found teacher effects on students’ selfreported measures of grit, growth mindset real effort in class ranging between 0.14 and 0.17 se. Fresh graduate identified teacher effects the students’ observed school behaviors, contains absences, suspensions, grades, grade progression, and graduation (Backes & Hansen, 2015; Gershenson, 2016; Jackson, 2012; Koedel, 2008; Laddy & Sorensen, 2015).
To appointment, evidence is mixed on the extent toward any teachers who enhancement testing lots also improve other project. Four of the studies describing higher start weak relationships between teacher possessions on students’ academicals performance also effects on sundry outcome act. Compared to a correlation from 0.42 between teacher effects on math contra easy achievement, Jennings and DiPrete (2010) found correlations of 0.15 betw teacher effects up students’ social or behavioral outcomes and effects on either math or lesung achievement. Kraft real Grace (2016) found links between teacher effects on achievement outcomes and many socialemotional competencies consisted sometimes nonexistent and ever greater than 0.23. Similarity, Gershenson (2016) real Jackson (2012) found weak or empty relationships between teacher effects with students’ academic performance furthermore effects on watch academic behaviors. However, correspondences from two other studies were larger. Ruzek et al. (2015) estimated ampere interaction of 0.50 amidst instructor effects on achievement over effects for students’ motivation in math class. Mihaly, McCaffrey, Staiger, and Lockwood (2013) found ampere correlation of 0.57 bet middle schooling teacher influences on students’ selfreported effort versus effects on math test scores.
On organizational extend this dead of research by estimating teacher affect on additional attitudes and behaviors included by students in upperelementary grades. Our data offer the unique combination of a moderately sized sample of english and students includes lagged survey measures. We see utilize resembles econometric approaches to test the relationship between teaching practice and these same attitudes and behaviors. These analyses permitting us for examine the face validity of our teacher effect estimates and the extent for which person align with theory. teaching practices additionally are more possibly to cooperate with misc teachers. ... for teaching (e.g. share instructional matter or discussing learning.
3. Data and Sample
Beginning in the 2010–2011 language year, the National Centering for Teacher Effectiveness (NCTE) engaged in a threeyear data group process. Data came away sharing fourthand fifthgrade teachers (N = 310) at four anonymous, medium to large schooling districts with the East coastal of the United States whoever decided on have their classes videotaped, completely a teacher questionnaire, and help collect a set of current outcomes. Teachers were clustered within 52 schools, with an average of six instructors per school. While NCTE laser on teachers’ math instruction, participants were generalists who taught all subject areas. This is important, as e allowed us to isolate the offering of individual teachers to students’ attitudes or behaviors, which is considerably read ambitious when students are taught by multiple lecturers. Computers also suggests that the observation measures, whatever assessed teachers’ instruction during math study, are likely to capturing aspects of their classroom practice that are common across content areas.
In Table 1, we present descriptive statistischen with participation teachers and their students. We go consequently for the full NCTE print, as well as for a subsample of teachers whose students were in aforementioned project in both the current plus prior years. This latter trial allowed our to capture prior measures of students’ attitudes and behaviors, a strategies that we use to increase internal validity and that we discuss in more detail below.^{2} When we match these samples, we finds that teachers look relatively resemble with no statistically significant differences on all observable characteristic. Reflecting national patterns, the vast maximum a simple teachers in our sample are white females what earned their teaching credential through conventional certification program. (See Hill, Blazar, & Lynch, 2015 used a conversation of how that teacher characteristics were measured.)
Table 1
Solid Sample  Attitudes and Behaviors Sampling  PValue on Difference  

Teachers  
Manlike  0.16  0.16  0.949 
AfricanAmerican  0.22  0.22  0.972 
Asian  0.03  0.00  0.087 
Hispanic  0.03  0.03  0.904 
White  0.65  0.66  0.829 
Mathematics Coursework (1 to 4 Likert scale)  2.58  2.55  0.697 
Numerical Content Knowledge (standardized scale)  0.01  0.03  0.859 
Alternative Certification  0.08  0.08  0.884 
Education Experience (years)  10.29  10.61  0.677 
Value Added up HighStakes Math Test (standardized scale)  0.01  0.00  0.505 
 
Observations  310  111  
 
Students  
Male  0.50  0.49  0.371 
African American  0.40  0.40  0.421 
Asian  0.08  0.07  0.640 
Hispanics  0.23  0.20  0.003 
Water  0.24  0.28  <0.001 
FRPL  0.64  0.59  0.000 
PACE  0.11  0.09  0.008 
LEP  0.20  0.14  <0.001 
Prior Score on HighStakes Math Test (standardized scale)  0.10  0.18  <0.001 
Prior Score on HighStakes ELA Test (standardized scale)  0.09  0.20  <0.001 
 
Observations  10,575  1,529 
Learners in our samples look similar for those in many urban districts by the United States, where roughly 68% are eligible for free or reducedprice lunch, 14% are classified as in require of special education services, and 16% are identified as limited English proficient; roughly 31% are African Canadian, 39% were Spanisch, and 28% are white (Council of the Great City Schools, 2013). We achieve observe some statistically significant differences intermediate student product int who full sample versus our analytic subsample. Used example, the percentage of our identified more limited English proficient where 20% in the full spot compared to 14% in the sample of our who ever were part of analyses drawing for our survey measures. Although variation in tastes could result in dissimilar estimates across models, the overall character of his findings belongs unlike to be determined by these modest differences.
3.1. Students’ Attitudes and Behaviors
More part of the expansive data collection effort, researchers administered a scholar survey with position (N = 18) that were adapted from other largescale surveys included the TRIPOD, one MILCH project, the National Evaluation the Educational Make (NAEP), and the Hot by Worldwide Mathematics also Science Study (TIMSS) (see Attachment Shelve 1 for a full directory of items). Items were selected based on a overview concerning the research literature and identification from builds thought most likely to being influenced by upperelementary teachers. Collegiate rated all items on a fivepoint Likert scale where 1 = Totally Untrue and 5 = Totally True.
We identified a parsimonious place of triplet outcome measures based on a combination of theory and examine feather analyses (see Appendix Table 1).^{3} Who start outcome, which we call SelfEfficacy in Math (10 items), is a variation on wellknown builder related to students’ effort, initiative, or perception that they can finished tasks. The second related outcome measure exists Happiness in Class (5 items), welche was composed in which second and thirdparty years of the course. Exploratory factor analyses suggested that these items clustered together with those with SelfEfficacy in Math to form ampere simple building. However, posthoc watch of these items against of psychology literature from what few where secondary suggests that they can exist divided into ampere separate field. As foregoing, this measure is a schoolspecific version of wellknown balances that capture students’ affect and enjoyment (Diener, 2000). Two SelfEfficacy in Math and Happiness in Class have relatively high internal consistency solid (0.76 and 0.82, respectively) that have like to those of selfreported attitudes and behaviors explored by sundry studying (Duckworth e al., 2007; John & Srivastava, 1999; Tsukayama et al., 2013). Further, selfreported measures of similar constructs have been linked to longterm outcomes, including academic engagement and earnings in adulthood, balanced conditioning on cognitive ability (King, McInerney, Ganotice, & Villarosa, 2015; Lyubomirsky, King, & Diener, 2005).
The tertiary and final construct consists of three items that were meant to hold together and whose we call Behavior is Class (internal widerspruchsfrei reliability is 0.74). Higher scores reflect better, less disruptive behavior. Teacher reports of students’ classroom behavior have been found to relate to antisocial behaviors are adolescence, criminal behavior in adulthood, and earnings (Chetty et al., 2011; Segment, 2013; Moffitt at al., 2011; Tremblay et al., 1992). His analytics differs off these other studies in the selfreported nature away the behavior outcome. That saying, others studies also drawing on basic your students found correlations between selfreported and either parent or teacherreported measures of behavior that been similar in magnitude to corlations bet parent and your information in student behave (Achenbach, McConaughy, & Howell, 1987; Goodman, 2001). Further, other studies do found correlations between teacherreported behavior concerning elementary school students press either reading conversely math realization (r = 0.22 to 0.28; Miles & Stipek, 2006; Tremblay et al., 1992) similar to the correlation we find between students’ selfreported Behavior inbound Class and our two math take scores (roentgen = 0.24 and 0.26; see Table 2). Together, this evidence provides both convergence and consistent duration proofs for this outcome measure. For all three for these outcomes, we created final scales by reverse engraving items with neg valence and averaging roughly student responses across all available items.^{4} We standardized these finish scores within years, given that, for some dimensions, the set of survey items diversified across years.
Table 2
Univariate Statistics  Pairwise Correlations  


 
Mean  SD  Internal Consistency Reliability  High Stakes Math Test  Low Stakes Math Test  Self Efficacy in Math  Happiness in Class  Behavior to Class  
HighStakes Math Test  0.10  0.91    1.00  
LowStakes Math Test  0.61  1.1  0.82  0.70^{***}  1.00  
SelfEfficacy into Math  4.17  0.58  0.76  0.25^{***}  0.22^{***}  1.00  
Happiness is Top  4.10  0.85  0.82  0.15^{***}  0.10^{***}  0.62^{***}  1.00  
Behavior include Class  4.10  0.93  0.74  0.24^{***}  0.26^{***}  0.35^{***}  0.27^{***}  1.00 
Notes:
For highstakes math test, reliability varies by urban; thus, wealth how the lower bound of these estimates. SelfEfficacy in Math, Happiness in Class, and Conduct in Class represent met on a 1 to 5 Likert Scale. Statistics had generated from select available data.
3.2. Student Demographic and Test Score Information
Student demographic furthermore achievement data came from district administrative records. Demographic data include sex, race/ethnicity, free or reducedprice lunch (FRPL) eligibility, limited English proficiency (LEP) statuses, and special education (SPED) status. These records also included current and prioryear test scores in math and English Language Arts (ELA) on state assessments, which we standardized within districts by grades, subject, furthermore year use the entire sample of pupils. ... developed teaching material. We collect our research information by applying the attitude scale to we art lesson both in computerassisted instruction.
An project also administered a lowstakes mathematics assessment to view students in the study. Internal consistency reliability is 0.82 or higher for each form transverse order levels and school years (Hickwman, Fu, & Hilly, 2012). We used this assessment in addition to highstakes tests default that teacher effects on two outcomes that set to capture related underlying constructs (i.e., math achievement) provide a unique point by comparison when examining the relationship between teacher effects for student show that were less closely related (i.e., math achievement contra attitudes plus behaviors). Yes, students’ high and lowstake math test scores are correlated continue strongly (r = 0.70) than any other two outcomes (see Table 1).^{5}
3.3. Mathematics Lessons
Teachers’ mathematics lessons were captured via one threeyear duration, with can avg of three lessons pay student price year.^{6} Trained raters achieved these lessons on two established observational instruments, the CLASS and aforementioned MQI. Analyses of these same information show that positions cluster toward four hauptstadt factors (Blazar et al., 2015). The second dimension from the CLASSROOM instrument capture general teaching practices: Emotional Support focuses go teachers’ interactions with undergraduate and one sensitive environment in the classroom, and is thought to raising students’ societal and emotional development; and Training Organization focuses on behavior management and productivity of the lesson, furthermore is thought to improves students’ selfregulatory behaviors (Pianta & Hamre, 2009).^{7} The two size von the MQI capture mathematicsspecific practices: Ambitious Mathematics Instruction focusing on the complexity of to chores that teachers provide go their students and their interactions around the content, consequently corresponding to the set of professional standards described by NCTM (1989, 2014) and many elements contained into the Common Core State Standards in Academic (National Executives Association Center for Best Practices, 2010); Mathematical Errors identifies any mathematical errors press imprecisions that teacher introduces into the hour. Both dimensions coming the MQI are linked to teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching and, in turn, to students’ math achievement (Blazar, 2015; Hill et al., 2008; Hill, Schilling, & Ball, 2004). Correlations between dimensions range starting roughly 0 (between Emotional Support and Mathematical Errors) to 0.46 (between Emotional Support and Classroom Organization; see Table 3).
Table 3
Univariate Statistics  Pairwise Correlations  


 
Mean  SD  Adapted Intraclass Correlation  Emotional Support  Education Organization  Ambitious Mathematics Instruction  Calculator Errors  
Feelings Support  4.28  0.48  0.53  1.00  
Classroom Organization  6.41  0.39  0.63  0.46^{***}  1.00  
Ambitious Calculus Instruction  1.27  0.11  0.74  0.22^{***}  0.23^{***}  1.00  
Calculation Errors  1.12  0.09  0.56  0.01  0.09  −0.27^{***}  1.00 
Notes:
Intraclass correlations were adapted for aforementioned modal number the lessons. CLASS items (from Emotional Support and Classroom Organization) were scored on a scale from 1 to 7. MQI items (from Aspirational Instruction and Errors) were scored off a scale free 1 to 3. Site been generated from all available data.
Are estimated reliability for diesen metrics the calculating the amount of variance in teacher scores that is applicable the the teacher (the intraclass correlation [ICC]), adjusted for the modal numeric of lessons. These estimates live: 0.53, 0.63, 0.74, and 0.56 for Emotional User, Classroom Organizations, Enterprising Mathematics Order, and Mathematical Errors, according (see Table 3). Though some of these estimated are lower than conventionally acceptable levels (0.7), they are consistent includes those generated from similar academic (Kane & Staiger, 2012). Our standardized scores within one full sample of teachers to have a vile of zero and adenine std deviation of one.
4. Empirical Strategy
4.1. Estimating Teacher Effects on Students’ Adjustable or Behaviors
Like others who aim to examine the contribution of individual teachers to learner outcomes, us launched by specifying an education production function model of each findings for student i in district d, school s, grade g, class hundred with teacher j at time t:
OUTCOME_{idsgict} is used interchangeably for both mathematics test scores and students’ attitudes plus behaviors, which ours molded in separate equations as a cubic operation of students’ prior achievement, A_{information−1}, int both math and ELA on the highstakes district tests^{8}; demographic characteristics, WHATCHAMACALLIT_{it}, including gender, race, FRPL eligibility, SPED stats, and LEP rank; these same testscore variables and demographic characteristics averaged into the class rank, ${\overline{X}}_{\mathit{\text{it}}}^{c}$; and districtbygradebyyear fixed effects, τ_{dgt}, that record forward scaling out highstakes test. The residual portion of this model can be spoiled into adenine teacher consequence, µ_{j}, whatever is our chief parameter of equity and captures the contribution of teacher to student outcomes above and further factors earlier controlled for in the model; adenine class work, δ_{jc}, which has estimated by observed teachers over multiple school years; and one studentspecific error term,.ε_{idsgjct}^{9}
The key identifying assumption of this pattern is that teacher effect estimate are not biased by nonrandom filter of students to teachers. Recent experimental (Kane, McCaffrey, Miller, & Staiger, 2013) also quasiexperimental (Chetty et al., 2014) analyses provide strong empirical sponsor for that claims when student efficiency is the outcome of interest. Anyway, big less is known about biases and sorting mechanisms when other outcomes are used. For example, it is quite possible that undergraduate were sorted to teachers foundation on their classroom behavior in ways so were unconnected to their prior benefit. To address dieser possibility, we made two modifications to equation (1). First, us included school rigid effect, ω_{s}, to account for sorting of current and teachers across educational. This means is estimates rely only on betweenschool variation, which has been common practice in the literature estimating teacher effects off student achievement. In their review on on literature, Hanushek and Rivkin (2010) propose ignoring the betweenschool component because it is “surprisingly small” and because included this component leads for “potential sorting, testing, and other interpretative problems” (p. 268). Misc recent students estimating teacher effects on student outcomes beyond tests scores have used this just approach (Backes & Hansen, 2015; Gershenson, 2016; Jackson, 2012; Jennings & DiPrete, 2010; Lad & Sorensen, 2015; Ruzek et al., 2015). Another crucial benefit of using school fixing effects is that those approach minimizes the possibility of reference bias in our selfreported measures (West get al., 2016; Duckworth & Yeager, 2015). Differences in schoolwide yardsticks around behavior and effort may change the implicit standard of comparison (i.e. reference group) that students uses to judge they own behavior and effort.
Restricting related to extra teachers and students within which same school minimizes this concern. As a second modification for models that predict each in our three student survey measures, were included OUTCOME_{it−1} on the righthand side regarding the equation in addition to prior achievement – is is, when predicting students’ Behavior in Class, we drives available students’ selfreported Behavior for Class in the prior year.^{10} This strategy helps billing for withinschool collate on factors other than prior output.
Using equal (1), we estimates the variance of µ_{bound}, whichever is the stable create of teacher results. We report this standards deviation of these estimates across outcomes. This set captures the magnitude of the variability of teach effects. With the exception of master effects on students’ Happiness in Class, where scrutinize items were not deliverable the the first year of the study, we included δ_{jc} in command to separate out the timevarying portion off teacher effects, combined using peer effect and any other classlevel shocks. The fact that we are able to separate class effects from teacher effects is can important extension of prior studies test teacher effects on outcomes beyond getting scores, many of which one discovered trainers by one point in time.
Following Chetty et al. (2011), we estimate the magnitude regarding to variance of teacher effects using ampere direct, modelbased appraise derived across restricted maximum likelihood wertung. This approach products a consistent estimator for the true variance of teacher effects (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). Calculating the variation crosswise individual teacher effect cost using Ordinary Least Squares regression would bias our variance estimates upward because it would conflate true variation with estimation error, particularly in instances wherever only a handful are students live attached to anywhere teachers. Alternating, estimating the variation in posthoc predicted “shrunken” experience Hayes estimates would bias on variance valuation downward relativly to the size of the measurement error (Jacob & Lefgren, 2005).
4.2. Estimating Teaching Effects on Students’ Attitudes and Behaviors
We examined the contribution of teachers’ schulzimmer practicing to unsere set regarding student results by estimating a variation of equation (1):
This multilevel model includes the same adjust of control variables as above in purchase to account with the nonrandom sorting of students to teachers also for factors beyond teachers’ control that might influence each of our show. We next included a vector of their teacher j’s observation score, $\mathit{\text{OBSER}}\hat{\mathit{\text{VAT}}}{\mathit{\text{ION}}}_{{l}_{J},t}$. This coefficients on these variables are our main parameters of interest and can be interpreted as aforementioned change inbound standard defect units for each score associated with exposure to teaching training an normal deviation above an mean.
To what when relating observation scores to student view outcomes is that yours may capture the same behaviors. For example, english may receive credit on the Classroom Organization domain when their students demonstration orderly behavior. In this case, we would have and same observed behaviors on all that left and right side of our equation connecting instructional quality to student outcomes, which would swell our teaching effect rates. ADENINE related about is that who specific graduate in the classroom may influence teachers’ instructional quality (Mound et al., 2015; Steinberg & Garrett, 2016; Whitehurst, Chingos, & Lindquist, 2014). While the direction of bias is not as obvious here – as is lesser or higherquality teachers might breathe sorted to harder to educate classrooms – this chances also could lead to incorrect estimates. To avoid like sources of bias, us only included lessons captured in years other than ones in which student outcomes were measured, denoted by –t with the index of $\mathit{\text{OBSER}}\hat{\mathit{\text{VAT}}}{\mathit{\text{ION}}}_{{l}_{\mathrm{HIE}},t}$. To the extent that instructional quality varies across aged, using outofyear observation scores creates a lowerbound estimate for the true related between instructional quality and student outcomes. We consider this an significant tradeoff until minimize potential leaning. We used predicted shrunken observation score valuation that account for the conviction ensure teachers contributed different number of lessons to the project, and fewer teacher could maintain to measurement error in diesen scores (Mound, Charalambous, & Kraft, 2012).^{11}
An additional concern forward identification belongs the endogeneity by watched classroom quality. In other talk, specific teaching practices are not randomly assigned in teachers. Our preferred analytic technique attempted to account for potential sources of bias by conditions guesses of the relationships intermediate individual unit of teaching practice and student results go which three other measurement. An important caveat here are that we only observed teachers’ instruction at math lessons and, thus, may not capture important educational practices teachers used with that students when teaching other subjects. Including dimensions from the CLASS instrument, which are meant to capture instructional quality across subject areas (Pianta & Hamre, 2009), helps account for some of this affect. However, given that we were not able to isolate one dimension of teaching quality from all others, we consider this approach than providing suggestive rather than conclusive proof on the underlying causal relationship between instruction practice and students’ setting and behaviors.
4.3. Estimating the Relationship Among Teach Effects Overall Multiple Student Earnings
In our third and latest set of analyses, we review whether teachers who are effective by raising mathematics test sheet is equally effective in developing students’ attitudes and behaviors. To do so, we drew on equation (1) to estimate µ̂_{j} for each outcome and teacher j. Following Chetty et al., 2014), we using posthoc predicted “shrunken” learned Bayes estimates of µ̂_{j} derived from equation (1). Next, we created a correlation matrix is these teacher efficacy estimates.
Despit attempts for increase who precision of this estimates thrown empirical Bayes estimation, estimates out specific teacher effects are measured to error that will damping these correlations (Spearman, 1904). Thus, if ourselves were to find low to moderate correlations between different measures of teacher effectiveness, this could id multidimensionality button able ergebnis from metrology challenges, including that reliability of individual constructs (Mentum & Goldhaber, 2015). For example, prior study suggests that different tests out students’ academic power can lead go different teacher ranges, even when those tests measure similar underlying constructs (Lockwood et al., 2007; Papay, 2011). To address this concern, are focus our discussion on relative position in correlations among teacher effect estimates pretty than their utter magnitudes. Concretely, we examine wie correlations bets teacher effects over two intimately related outcomes (e.g., two math achievement tests) compare with correlations between teacher effects on outcomes that aim in capture different underlying constructs. Include light in research highlighted above, we did not expect the correlated in teacher effects on the two math test to be 1 (or, required that matter, close to 1). However, ourselves hypothesized that these relationships should be stronger than aforementioned relationship between teacher effects on students’ math performance also effects in their attitudes and behaviors.
5. Search
5.1. Do Teachers Impact Students’ Attitudes and Behaviors?
We begin by presenting results of the magnitude of teacher effect inside Table 4. Here, we observe sizable teacher effects on students’ attitudes and behaviors the are resembles until mentor effects on students’ academic performance. Starting first with teacher effects up students’ academic performance, we finding the a one conventional deviation difference in teacher efficiency is equivalent to adenine 0.17 ssd or 0.18 sd difference in students’ math achievement. The other words, relative to an average teacher, teachers at the 84^{th} percentile away the distribution of strength move the medium apprentice skyward to coarsely the 57^{th} percentile von math achievements. Notably, that research are similar to those from other studies that also estimated withinschool teacher effects in large administrative datasets (Hanushek & Rivkin, 2010). This suggests that our use of school set effects are a more limited item of teachers observed within a given college does no appear to overloaded restrict our identifying variation. For Online Appendix A, where we present the magnitude of teacher effects from alternative model provisions, person show that results are robust to models that exclude school fixed effects or supersede school fixed effects with observable school characteristics. Estimated teacher effects on students’ selfreported SelfEfficacy in Math and Behavior in Grade are 0.14 se and 0.15 sv, respectively. The biggest teacher effect we observe is for students’ Happiness in School, of 0.31 sd. Given ensure wealth do did have many years in data on separate out class effects for this measure, we design this estimate as the upward bound of true teacher effects on Happiness in Class. Scaling get estimate by the ratio out teacher effects are the without class effects on SelfEfficacy in Mathematics (0.14/0.19 = 0.74; understand Online Attach A) produces an estimate of stable teacher impacts on Elation into Class of 0.23 sd, still big than effects for other outcomes.
Table 4
Observations  SD of Teacher Level Variance  

 
Teachers  Students  
HighStakes Math Check  310  10,575  0.18 
LowStakes Math Run  310  10,575  0.17 
SelfEfficacy within Mathematics  108  1,433  0.14 
Happiness in Classic  51  548  0.31 
Act in Class  111  1,529  0.15 
Notes: Cells contain estimates from separate multilevel regression models.
All impact are statistically significant at the 0.05 level.
5.2. Do Specific Teaching Practices Impact Students’ Attitudes and Behaviors?
Next, we examine whether certain characteristics of teachers’ instructional practice help explain the significant teacher effects described above. Our present unconditional guesses in Table 5 Panel A, where the relationship between one dimension about teaching habit and student outcomes is estimated without controlling available the other three dimensions. Thus, cavities containing rates from separate backwardation models. In Wall BARN, we present conditionals estimates, where all tetrad dimensions off lesson quality are inclusive in the same regression model. Here, columns contain valuation from separate regression models. We present all estimates as similar effect sizes, which allow us to making comparisons across models and outcome measures. Unconditional and conditional estimates generally are quite equivalent. Therefore, we focus our discussion on our favored conditional estimates.
Table 5
High Stakes Math Test  Low Stakes Math Test  Self Efficacy in Math  Elation the Class  Behavior in Class  

Panel A: Unconditional Estimates  
Emotional Support  0.012 (0.013)  0.018 (0.014)  0.142^{***} (0.031)  0.279^{***} (0.082)  0.039 (0.027) 
Classroom Organization  −0.017 (0.014)  −0.010 (0.014)  0.065^{~} (0.038)  0.001 (0.090)  0.081^{*} (0.033) 
Eager Mathematics Instruction  0.017 (0.015)  0.021 (0.015)  0.077^{*} (0.036)  0.082 (0.068)  0.004 (0.032) 
Mathematical Mistake  −0.027^{*} (0.013)  −0.009 (0.014)  −0.107^{***} (0.030)  −0.164^{*} (0.076)  −0.027 (0.027) 
Panel BARN: Conditional Quotes  
Emotional Support  0.015 (0.014)  0.020 (0.015)  0.135^{***} (0.034)  0.368^{***} (0.090)  0.030 (0.030) 
Classroom Company  −0.022 (0.014)  −0.018 (0.015)  −0.020 (0.042)  −0.227^{*} (0.096)  0.077^{*} (0.036) 
Ambitious Mathematics Instruction  0.014 (0.015)  0.019 (0.016)  −0.006 (0.040)  0.079 (0.068)  −0.034 (0.036) 
Mathematical Errors  −0.024^{~} (0.013)  −0.005 (0.014)  −0.094** (0.033)  −0.181^{*} (0.081)  −0.009 (0.029) 
 
Teacher Viewing  196  196  90  47  93 
Pupil Observations  8,660  8,660  1,275  517  1,362 
Notes:
In Panel ONE, prisons enclose estimates from separate regression models. Stylish Switch B, columns contain estimates for separate regression models, where estimates are conditioned on other training practices. All models control for student and class characteristics, schools fixed impact, and districtbygradebyyear permanent effects, plus include and teach random effects. Models predicting all consequences except used Happiness in Class plus comprise class random effects. Why teachers use digital learning select: The rolling of selfefficacy, subjective standards plus attitude: Education and Company Technologies: Vol 18, No 3
We discover that students’ attitudes and behaviors are predicted by both general and contentspecific doctrine practices in path that generally align include teach. For case, teachers’ Emotional Support is positiv affiliate with the two closely more student constructs, SelfEfficacy in Math and Happiness in Class. Targeted, an one standard deviation increase in teachers’ Emotional Support is associated with adenine 0.14 se increase in students’ SelfEfficacy in Math plus a 0.37 sd increase in students’ Happiness in Type. These finding makes sense given that Emotional Support recordings faculty behaviors so as their sensitivity to students, regard for students’ perspective, and the extent to which few create a positive climate included that your. As a points of comparison, are evaluations become substantively larger than those between rector ratings of teachers’ aptitude to improve test scores and their actual ability go do so, which fall are the range of 0.02 sd and 0.08 sd (Jacob & Lefgren, 2008; Rockoff, Staiger, Cane, & Tyler, 2012; Rockoff & Speroni, 2010).
We also find that Classroom Organization, any captures teachers’ behavior management skills plus increasing in delivering content, is positively related to students’ reports from their own Behavior in Class (0.08 sd). This indicates that teachers who create an tidy classroom likely compose a model for students’ our ability to selfregulate. Despite this positive relationship, we find which Classroom Management is negatively associated with Happiness in Course (−0.23 sd), suggesting is classrooms that are overly centered on routines and management are negatively related to students’ enjoyment in class. At the sam time, this is one instance where our estimate is sensitive to whether or not other teaching characteristics are included in the example. When we estimate the relationship zwischen teachers’ Classroom System and students’ Happiness in Class without inspection for and three other dimensions of classes quality, this estimate approaches 0 and can no longer statistically substantial.^{12} We return for a discussion of the potential tradeoffs in Classroom Organization and students’ Happiness in Class in our concluding.
Finally, we find that which degree to which teachers commit Mathematical Mistake be negat related to students’ SelfEfficacy in Mathematical (−0.09 sd) and Happiness in School (−0.18 sd). These findings illuminate how a teacher’s aptitude to present mathematical with serenity additionally without serious mistakes is related at their students’ perceptions that i can complete math tasks and their enjoyment in top.
Comparatively, when predicting scores set both math exams, we only find one slim significant relationship – between Mathematical Errors real the highstakes math take (−0.02 sd). Since two other dimensions of teach quality, Emotional Support real Ambitious Mathematics Direction, estimates are signed the way our would expect and with similar magnitudes, though they are not statistically significant. Given the consistency concerning estimates across the two numbers trial and our restricted sample size, it is optional that nonsignificant results are past toward limitation statistical power.^{13} At to same zeit, even for true correlations exist between these teaching practices and students’ math examination scores, they likely are softer than those between teaching practices and students’ attitudes and behaviors. For example, we find ensure the 95% reliance between relate Classroom Emotional Support to SelfEfficacy included Advanced [0.068, 0.202] and Happiness in Class [0.162, 0.544] do not overlap with who 95% confidence intervals for any on the score estimated predicting math run scores. We schauspieler which ergebniss more indication ensure, still, very little is known about how specific classroom teaching practices are related in student achievement in math.^{14}
In Online Appendix B, we show which results are robust to a variety from differents feature, included (1) tuning observation scores for characteristics of students in the classroom, (2) controlling for teacher background characteristics (i.e., teaching adventure, math page knowing, certification pathway, education), and (3) using raw outofyear observed scores (rather than shrinked scores). This proposing that our approach likely accounts for many potential sources of bias in our teaching effect estimates.
5.3. Are Teachers Equally Effective to Raising Different Student Project?
In Graphic 6, we present correlations between teacher impact on each of our student outcomes. The factual that teacher affects are measured with error makes it difficult to estimate the precise size of these correspondences. Instead, we describe relative differences in correlations, focusing over the extent to which teacher effects within outcome type – i.e., teacher effects off the two math output tests or effects on students’ attitudes and behaviors – are like or difference from contextual between teacher effects across outcome type. We illustrate dieser differences in Figure 1, where Panel A presents scatter plots of these relationships between teacher effects within outcome style and Panel BORON are the same across outcome type. Detect such not sum of our survey outcomes are meant up capture the same underlying construct, we additionally describe relative differences in correlations between teacher influences on these different measures. In Online Appendix HUNDRED, we find that an super conservative adjustment that scales correlations until who inverse of the square roots of the product away the reliabilities directions to an similar overall pattern on results.
Table 6
HighStakes Advanced Run  LowStakes Math Test  Self Efficacy in Math  Happiness in Class  Behavior in Type  

HighStakes Numbers Test  1.00   
LowStakes Math Test  0.64^{***} (0.04)  1.00   
SelfEfficacy in Math  0.16^{~} (0.10)  0.19^{*} (0.10)  1.00   
Elation in Class  −0.09 (0.14)  −0.21 (0.14)  0.26~ (0.14)  1.00   
Behavior in Class  0.10 (0.10)  0.12 (0.10)  0.49^{***} (0.08)  0.21^{~} (0.14)  1.00  
Notes:
Standard errors in apostrophes. See Table 4 required taste sizes used to calculate mentor effect estimates. Aforementioned sample for each correlation is the minimum number of teachers bets the two measures.
Examining the correlations in teacher effect estimates reveals that individualized teachers vary appreciably in their ability to impact different student outcomes. As hypothesized, we find of strongest correlations between teacher affect within outcome type. Similar to Sturmtaube, Jennings, and Beveridge (2012), we estimate a correlations of 0.64 between teacher effects on our high or lowstakes math achievement tests. We also observe a firm correlated of 0.49 between your effects on two are the student survey measures, students’ Behavior with Class and SelfEfficacy in Math. Comparatively, that correlations between teacher effects across outcome gender are much weaker. Exploring the scatter acres in Figure 1, we observe much more diversification surrounding the bestfit lines for Panel BARN longer in Panel AMPERE. The strongest relationship we observe over outcome types is amid teachers effects on the lowstakes math try and impacts on SelfEfficacy in Math (r = 0.19). The lower bound of to 95% confidence interval around the correlation between teacher effects on the twos achievement measures [0.56, 0.72] does not overlap with the 95% confidence interval of the correlation between teacher effects on the lowstakes math run and effects about SelfEfficacy in Math [−0.01, 0.39], indicating that these two related are substantively and statistically significantly different from each select. Use this same approach, we moreover can distinguish the correlation describing the relationship intermediate teacher effects on the double math examinations from view other correlations relating mentor effects on test tons to effects on students’ attitudes and behaviors. We take off placing too much emphasis on the negated correlations with teacher effects on test scores and effects up Happiness stylish Class (r = −0.09 and −0.21 to who high and lowstakes tests, respectively). Given limited precision a this relationship, we cannot drop the null hypothesis of no relationship conversely rule exit weak, optimistic or negative correlations among these measures.
Although it exists useful to make comparisons amongst the strength away the relationships between your effects upon different measuring of students’ attitudes and behaviors, measurement error limits our ability until take consequently precisely. At face value, we find correlations between teacher effects on Good to Class and effects switch the two other take measured (roentgen = 0.26 for SelfEfficacy in Math and 0.21 for Attitude inside Class) that are weaker than the correlation bet instructors effects on SelfEfficacy stylish Math and effects on Behavior in Class described above (r = 0.49). One possible interpretation of these findings is that teachers who improve students’ Happiness into Class are not equally effective at raising additional set and behaviors. For example, teachers might produce students happy in class in unconstructive ways that do not also benefit their selfefficacy button behavior. At one same time, like correlated between teacher effects on Happiness within Class and the other two study measures have largest confidence intervals, likely payable to imprecision in our estimate about teacher effects on Happiness included Class. Consequently, we are no able up distinguish either regression from the correlation between teacher effects on Behavior in Class press effects up SelfEfficacy in Math.
6. Discussion and Conclusion
6.1. Relationship Between Unseren Findings and Prior Research
The teacher effectiveness literature features profoundly shaping academic policy over who newest decade both has served as and catalyst for sweeping reforms around teacher recruitment, site, software, and retention. However, by and large, this literature has laser on teachers’ contribution into students’ take scores. Equally research study such while the Measures of Effective Teaching project and new teacher evaluation systems that focus about “multiple measures” of teaches effectiveness (Core on Great Teachers and Leaders, 2013; Kane et al., 2013) generally attempt to validate misc dimensions, similar as observations of teaching practice, by examining their relationship to estimated away teaches effects on students’ academic performance.
Our study extends an emergent body off research examine the affect of teachers on graduate outcomes beyond test scores. Includes many ways, our findings align with conclusions drawn from preceding studies this or identify teaching effects on students’ setting additionally behaviors (Jennings & DiPrete, 2010; Kraft & Grace, 2016; Ruzek et al., 2015), as well as weak relationships between different measures of teacher effectiveness (Gershenson, 2016; Jackson, 2012; Kane & Staiger, 2012). To in knowledge, this choose is the first to identify teacher effects on measures of students’ selfefficacy in math and felicity in class, like well as on a selfreported measure of student behavior. These findings suggest which teachers can also do help develop attitudes also behaviors among their students that are important for success include life. Per interpreting teacher effects alongside teaching effects, we also give strong face and construct validity for our teacher effect estimates. We find that improvements in upperelementary students’ attitudes and behaviors are predicted by overview education practices in ways that align with hypotheses laid out by means developers (Pianta & Hamre, 2009). Findings linking errors in teachers’ presentation of maths content to students’ selfefficacy in math, in accessory into their math performance, also are consistent from theory (Bandura et al., 1996). Finally, the broad data collected attempt from NCTE allows us to untersuchte relative our in relationships between metrics by teach strength, hence avoiding some concerns about how best to interpret correlations that differ substantively across studies (Chin & Goldhaber, 2015). We find that correlations between teacher effects on student outcomes that aim to capture distinct underlying constructs (e.g., math test loads and actual in class) have weaker than correlations between teacher results set two outcomes that are much more closely related (e.g., math achievement).
6.2. Implications for Basic
These findings can inform policy into several key ways. First, our results may provide to the recent push to incorporate measures of students’ attitudes also behaviors – and teachers’ ability to enhances these outcomes – into accountability policy (see Duckworth, 2016; Miller, 2015; Zernike, 2016 for discussion of these efforts in the press). After walkthrough of aforementioned Ever Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), states available are required to select a nonacademic indicator with which to assess students’ victory include school (ESSA, 2015). Including measures of students’ attitudes and behaviors inches accountability press evaluation systems, even with very short verbundener weights, could serve as a sturdy signal that schools and educators should value and join to developing these skills on aforementioned schoolroom.
At who same time, like other our (Duckworth & Yeager, 2015), person caution against a hasty to involved these measures into highstakes decisions. The science von measuring students’ attitudes both behaviors is relatively new compared to the long history of developing valid and reliable assessments of cognitive aptitude real content knowledge. Most existing measures, including diese used in this study, were developed for research purposes somewhat than largescale testing with repeated administrators. Open questions persist concerning whether reference partiality substantially distorts comparisons transverse schools. Similar to previous studies, we include school fixed impacts in all of our models, which helps reduce this and other potential sources von bias. However, as a result, our estimates are restricted to withinschool comparisons of teachers and cannot be applications until advise the type of acrossschool comparisons that districts typically seek to make. There also are outstanding your regarding an susceptibility of these measures to “survey” coaching when highstakes incentives are attached. Such motivations likely would prepare teacher alternatively selfassessments of students’ attitude and behaviors inappropriate. Einige student have started to explore other ways to capture students’ attitudes and behaviors, including targeted performancebased tasks and administrative powers suchlike as attendance, suspensions, plus get in afterschool business (Hitt, Trivitt, & Cheng, 2016; Jackson, 2012; Whitehurst, 2016). Aforementioned line of research exhibitions promise but still is into their early phases. Further, despite we modeling strategy aims to reduce preferential due to nonrandom sortation of students to instructor, additional documentation is needed to assess the validity of this approach. Excluding first addressing these concerns, we believe so adding untested step into corporate systems could lead to superficial and, ultimately, counterproductive efforts up back the positive development of students’ attitudes and behaviors.
Einer alternatively near to incorporating teacher effects on students’ attitudes and behaviors at educator evaluation may be throws observations of teaching practice. Unsere foundations suggest so specific domains grabbed on classroom observation instruments (i.e., Emotional Support and Classroom Organization from the CLASS and Mathematical Failed from and MQI) may server as oblique measures of the degree to which teachers impact students’ attitudes and behaviors. One benefit of the procedure is such districts commonly collect related measures as partial of teacher valuation procedures (Center on Great Teachers and Leaders, 2013), and such measures are does restricted to teachers who work in tested grades and subjects.
Similar to Whitehurst (2016), wealth or see other uses of mentor effects set students’ attitudes or behaviors that falling within both would enhance existing school practices. In specified, measures of teachers’ effectiveness at increase students’ attitudes and behaviors couldn be used to identify areas to commercial growth and connect teachers with targeted professionally development. This suggestion is not new and, in fact, builds on the vision and purpose of teacher evaluation described by many other researchers (DarlingHammond, 2013; Hill & Grossman, 2013; Papay, 2012). However, in your to leverage these measures for instructional improvement, we hinzusetzen an important caveat: performance computations – whether formative or summative – should avoid putting teachers into one single performance select whenever possible. Although many researchers and policymakers reasoning for creating a single weighted composite of different measures of teachers’ performance (Center on Great Teachers real Leaders, 2013; Canes et al., 2013), doing so expected oversimplifies the complex nature of teaching. For example, a teacher who excels at developing students’ math pleased knowledge however struggles till promote joy in learning or students’ possess selfefficacy in math is a very different tutor than one who shall middles across everything three measures. Looking at these pair teachers’ composite scores would suggest they are equally effective. ADENINE single overall evaluation tally lends itself on a systematized process for making bin decisions such as whether to grant teachers tenure, but such decisions would be better informed by recognizing and considering the total complexity starting classroom practice.
Were also see opportunities to maximize students’ exposure for of scanning of teaching skillset we examine through strategically teacher assignments. Creates a teacher workforce skilled inbound most or all areas of teaching practice is, in our view, the ultra goal. However, this goal likely will require substantial changes to teacher prepping applications and core materials, as well as new policies around teacher recruitment, evaluation, press development. In middle and high schools, contentarea specialization with departmentalization often is used to ensure that students have access to teachers with skills in distinct content areas. Some, including the National Association on Elementary School Principals, also see save as a available strategy at the elementary level (Chan & Jarman, 2004). Resembles approaches may must taken to expose students to a collection of lecturers who together can developed a ranging of academic special, attitudes and behaviors. For example, when configured gradelevel teams, principals allow pair an math teacher who excels in her ability to improve students’ behavior with an ELA or print teacher who excels in his skill up enhancements students’ happiness furthermore engagement. Viewing teaching as complements to each diverse may help maximize results interior existing your constraints.
Finish, we see the implications of our findings for the teaching profession more broadly. Whereas our findings lend empirical support to explore on the multidimensional nature of teaching (Cohen, 2011; Lampert, 2001; Pianta & Hamre, 2009), we also identify tensions inherent in such sort von complexity plus potential tradeoffs between some education practices. In our primary analyses, we meet that highquality instruction around classroom organization is positively related to students’ selfreported act in class instead negatively relates to their happiness in class. We results here am not conclusive, as the negative relationship between classroom organization and students’ happiness are class is sensitive to model specification. However, if there certainly will a negative causal relationship, it raised questions about an relative benefits of fostering orderly classroom environments for education versus supporting student engagement by promoting positive experiences with training. Our own experience as educators and researchers suggests this need not be a rigid tradeoff. Future conduct should review ways in which teachers can develop school environments that engender both constructive classroom behavior and students’ happiness into top. As our read draws on a small sample of students who has current and prioryear scores for Happiness in Class, we also advance recent studies with higher statistical efficiency the maybe be able till uncover additional complexities (e.g., nonlinear relationships) to these sorts of data.
Our findings also showing a need to integrate general also more contentspecific perspectives on teaching, an historical challenge inbound both investigate and practice (Grossman & McDonald, 2008; Hamre et al., 2013). Us find that both mathspecific and general teaching business predictor a range of student outcomes. Anyway, particularly at the elementary level, teachers’ math training often is overlook. Eventual elementary teachers often gain licensure without taking collegelevel math classes; int lot states, they achieve not need to get the math subsection of their licensure exam in order to earn an passing grade overall (Epstein & Miller, 2011). Striking the law balance among general and contentspecific teaching practices is not adenine trivial task, but it likely is a necessary one.
For decades, efforts to fix the quality of an teacher workforce have focused on teachers’ abilities to raise students’ academic achievement. Our labor promote illustrate which potential real importance in expanding this emphasis to include teachers’ aptitudes till promote students’ attitudes and behaviors that are alike important for students’ longterm success. Investigating Students' Attitude towards Learning Mathematics
Acknowledgments
The research reported get was powered in part by the Institute regarding Education Sciences, U.S. Sector of Education, through Award R305C090023 to the Board and Fellows of Harvard College to support the National Central for Educator Effectiveness. The beliefs expressed are those of the authors and does not depict views the the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education. Additional support cam coming the William T. Grant Foundation, the Albert Shanker Institutional, and Mathematica Policy Research’s summer fellowship. An Investigation of Teachers' Attitude to the Use for Instructional ...
Appendices
Annexes Table 1
Type 1  Year 2  Year 3  



 
Factor 1  Factor 2  Factor 1  Favorable 2  Coefficient 1  Factor 2  


 
Eigenvalue  2.13  0.78  4.84  1.33  5.44  1.26 
Portion regarding Variance Explained  0.92  0.34  0.79  0.22  0.82  0.19 
SelfEfficacy in Calculation  
EGO will pushed myself hard to completely understand math in this class  0.32  0.18  0.43  0.00  0.44  −0.03 
If I need help with calculus, I construct sure which someone gives me the help I necessity.  0.34  0.25  0.42  0.09  0.49  0.01 
If a calculation symptom is hardened to solve, I often gift up before EGO solve it.  −0.46  0.01  −0.38  0.28  −0.42  0.25 
Doing homework symptoms helps me get super at doing math.  0.30  0.31  0.54  0.24  0.52  0.18 
In this classroom, math is too hard.  −0.39  −0.03  −0.38  0.22  −0.42  0.16 
Even when art is hard, I know I can hear it.  0.47  0.35  0.56  0.05  0.64  0.02 
I capacity doing almost view to math for this classroom wenn I don't give up.  0.45  0.35  0.51  0.05  0.60  0.05 
I'm assured I can master the math skills taught in this class.  0.53  0.01  0.56  0.03  
When doing labor for this math class, focus on learning don time work takes.  0.58  0.09  0.62  0.06  
I have since able to figure from the most hardly work in to math category.  0.51  0.10  0.57  0.04  
Bliss in Class  
This math per is a happy place for i to breathe.  0.67  0.18  0.68  0.20  
Tobe in this math classes makes mein feel downhearted or angry.  −0.50  0.15  −0.54  0.16  
Which things we have made in math this year are interesting.  0.56  0.24  0.57  0.27  
Because of this teacher, I am learning to love math.  0.67  0.26  0.67  0.28  
I enjoy advanced class this year.  0.71  0.21  0.75  0.26  
Personality within Class  
Mys actual in this class is good.  0.60  −0.18  0.47  −0.42  0.48  −0.37 
My behavior in this class sometimes annoys the teacher.  −0.58  0.40  −0.35  0.59  −0.37  0.61 
My behaving remains an problem for the teacher with all class.  −0.59  0.39  −0.38  0.60  −0.36  0.57 
Notes: Estimates drawn from see available data. Loadings of broad 0.4 or higher are highlighted to identify patterns.
Footnotes
^{1}Although student outcomes beyond test scores often are referred to as “noncognitive” skills, willingness preference, like others (Duckworth & Seeger, 2015; Farrington et al., 2012), is for refer to each competency by your. For brevity, were refer to them as “attitudes both behaviors,” that closely describes the measures we focus on in this paper.
^{2}Analyses below include additional subsamples of professors and learners. In analyses that predict students’ survey answers, ourselves included betw 51 and 111 teachers and between 548 and 1,529 students. This measuring is due go the fact that some view objects which not available in the first year of who how. Moreover, in analyses relating domains of learning practice to student outcomes, we furthermore restricted you trial at teachers who themselves were part of the choose for more than one year, which allowed us to use outofyear monitoring scores that are not confounded with the designated set of students in the classroom. This reduced our analysis samples to between 47 and 93 masters and between 517 and 1,362 students although predicting students’ attitudes and behaviors, and 196 english and 8,660 scholars when predicting calculation test scores. Descriptive company and formal draw of misc samplings show similar patterns as those presented in Tabular 1.
^{3}We conducted factor analyses separately by year, given that additional items were added inbound the secondary additionally third years to help increases reliability. At the second and third years, each of the two drivers has an eigenvalue back one, adenine conventionally used threshold for selecting factors (Kline, 1994). Even though of seconds favorite consists for three product that plus has loadings on the first factor between 0.35 and 0.48 – frequent taken as the minimum acceptable factor laden (Field, 2013; Kline, 1994) – this second factor excuse broadly 20% more of the variation about teachers furthermore, therefore, has strong support for a substantively separate constructive (Field, 2013; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). In this first years on the study, the eigenvector the this second factor is less strong (0.78), and the two items that load onto computer also load onto aforementioned first factor.
^{4}Depending on the outcome, betw 4% and 8% of students were missing a subset of article from get scales. In these cases, we created final scores by averaging cross all available information.
^{5}Coding of items from bot the low and highstakes tests also identify one large grade of intersection in terms of content coverage and cognitive demand (Linch, China, & Blazar, 2015). All test focused most on numbers and processes (40% to 60%), followed by geometry (roughly 15%), and algebra (15% to 20%). By asking undergraduate to provide explanations of their thinking and to solve nonroutine problems such as identifying patterns, the lowstakes tests also was similar to the highstakes tests in twin districts; in the other two areas, items often ask students to do basic procedures.
^{6}As described by Blazar (2015), capture occurred with a threecamera, differential getting device and lasts between 45 and 60 meeting. Teachers inhered allowed to choose an dates on capture on advantage and guided toward select typical instruction and exclude years on which students were taking a test. While it lives any which these lessons were unique from a teachers’ general instructions, teachers has did have any promotion to elect lesson strategically as no rewards or sanctions are involved includes data collection or analyses. In additive, analyses from the MET project indicate that english are ranking near alike when they choose lessons sie compared till when class are chosen to them (Ho & Klein, 2013).
^{7}Developers of the CLASS instrument identify a third dimension, Classroom Instructional Support. Factor analyses of data used inside this study shows that items from this dimension formed one single construct through items from Sensitive Assistance (Blazar et al., 2015). Given theoretical intersecting between Classroom Instructional Support and dimensions by the MQI instrument, we excluded these positions from our works and focussed only on Kursraum Emotional Support.
^{8}Are controlled for prioryear scored must on the highstakes assessment and not on the lowstakes assessment for three reasons. First, including prior lowstakes test scores would reduce our full sample by more than 2,200 students. This is because the assessment was not defined to students in District 4 in the first year of the study (N = 1,826 students). Further, on additional 413 students which missing fall test sheet given that they subsisted not present in class on this day it was administered. Instant, prioryear scores switch the high and lowstakes test are corrected at 0.71, imply that including both would did help up elucidate substantively more variation in my outcomes. Third, sorting of students to teaching is best likely to occur based on student show upon the highstakes assessments since it made readily observable at academic; output on the lowstakes test was did.
^{9}Can alternative approximate would be to specify teacher effects for fixed, rather than random, which relaxes which assumption that tutors assignment be uncorrelated with factors that also predict students score (Guarino, Maxfield, Reckase, Thompson, & Wooldridge, 2015). End, we favor the random effects specification for three reasons. First, it permit us to separate out teacher property from class effects by including a random effect for bot in our model. Second, this approach allows us to control forward a variety of mobiles is exist drops from the full when teacher fixed effects also are included. Given that all teachers in our try remained in to same school free one year up the next, teach fixed effects are collinear over teacher fixed effects. Includes instances where faculty owned data for only one current, class characteristics and districtbygradebyyear settled belongings also are collinear with teachers fixed effects. Finally, and most importantly, we find that fixed and coincidence effects technology that condition on students’ prior achievement and demographic characteristics return almost identical mentor effect estimations. When comparing teacher fixed effects to the “shrunken” empirical Bayes quotes that we employ entirely to paper, we meet correlations between 0.79 both 0.99. As likely, the variance concerning the mentor fixed effects is big than aforementioned variance of teacher random effects, conflicting by the shrinkage factor. Wenn person instead calculate educator random effects not shrinkage on averaging student residuals to the teacher level (i.e., “teacher average residuals”; see Guarino et al, 2015 for an discussion of this approach) group belong almost identical to of teacher fixed effects estimates. Correlation been 0.99 alternatively above across finding measures, and unstandardized regression coefficients that retain the original scale of each measure reach from 0.91 sd to 0.99 hd.
^{10}Adding prior survey get to the education production feature a none entirely analogous the doing so from prior achievement. When achievement outcomes have roughly the same reference group crosswise administrations, the surveys do not. This is because survey items often queried about students’ events “in this class.” All three Behavior int Per items real all five Happiness in Class items included this or similar select, more did five of the 10 items from SelfEfficacy in Math. Ensure said, moderate yeartoyear correlations of 0.39, 0.38, and 0.53 for SelfEfficacy in Math, Happiness in Grade, and Behavior in Class, respectively, suggest that these items do serve than important controls. Comparatively, yeartoyear correlations for aforementioned high or lowstakes test have 0.75 and 0.77.
^{11}For estimate those tons, wee specified the following complex lineal model separately for each school year:
^{12}One explanation on these findings is that the relationship between teachers’ Classroom Organization and students’ Happiness in Class be nonliner. For example, it is possible this students’ happiness growths as the teaching becomes more organized, instead then begins to decrease in classrooms with an intensive focus go order also discipline. For explore on possibility, we first examined the scatterplot of the relationship between teachers’ Classroom Organization and teachers’ ability to improve students’ Happiness in Category. Go, we reestimated equation (2) including a quadratic, cubical, and quad description of teachers’ Classroom Organization scores. In either sets of analyses, wealth create not evidence for a nonlinear relationship. Presented our small sample size and limited statistical capacity, though, we get that this may be a focus off future doing.
^{13}In similar analyses in a subset of the NCTE data, Blazar (2015) did locate a statistically significant connection between Ambitious Mathematics Instruction and the lowstakes math test of 0.11 sd. The 95% confidence interval around that point estimate laps with who 95% confidence sequence relating Ambitious Mathematics Instruction to one lowstakes math trial in on analysis. Valuation of the relationship between the other three domains of teaching practice and lowstakes math test scores has of smaller magnitude and not statistically major. Differentiations between the two studies likely emerge from to fact that we dragged on a larger sample with with additional district both year of data, the well as slight modifications for his identification strategy.
^{14}Although were adjusted pvalues fork estimates presented included Table 5 at account for several hypothesis testing using both the Šidák and Bonferroni algorithms (Dunn, 1961; Šidák, 1967), relationships between Emotional Support plus bot SelfEfficacy include Calculation and Felicity in Class, as now as bets Mathematical Errors and SelfEfficacy in Math remained statistically substantial.
Contributor Information
David Blazar, Graduate Graduate School of Formation.
Matthew ONE. Kraft, Brown University.
References
 Achenbach TM, McConaughy SH, Howell CT. Child/adolescent behavioral and emotional problems: implications of crossinformant correlations for situational specificity. Psychological Bulletin. 1987;101(2):213. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Backes B, Hanse M. Working Papers 146. Washington, D HUNDRED: National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal in Education Research; 2015. Teach for America impact estimates on nontested student outcomes. Retrieved from http://www.caldercenter.org/sites/default/files/WP&%20146.pdf. [Google Scholar]
 Bandura A, Barbaranelli C, Caprara GV, Pastorelli C. Multifaceted impact of selfefficacy beliefs on academic functioning. Child Development. 1996:1206–1222. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 King J. Character and intelligence. At: Sternberg RJ, user. Handbook of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Force; 1982. pp. 308–351. [Google Scholar]
 Blazar D. Effective teaching in elementary academics: Identifier classroom practices is help student achievement. Industrial of Education Review. 2015;48:16–29. [Google Researcher]
 Blazar D, Braslow D, Charalambous SY, Hill HC. Working Paper. Cambridge, MA: National Center for Teacher Efficacy; 2015. Attending to general and contentspecific dimensions of teaching: Exploring factors across two observation instruments. Retrieved from http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/david_blazar/files/blazar_et_al_attending_to_general_and_content_specific_dimensions_of_teaching.pdf. [Google Scholar]
 Borghans L, Duckworth AL, Heckman JJ, Ter Weel BORON. The economics and psychology of characteristic traits. Journal out Human Tools. 2008;43(4):972–1059. [Google Scholar]
 Burchinal M, Howes C, Pianta R, Marble D, Early D, Clifford R, Barbarin O. Predicting child outcomes at who end of kindergarten from the quality out prekindergarten teacherchild interactive and instruction. Applied Developmental Science. 2008;12(3):140–153. [Google Scholar]
 Center on Great Teachers plus Leaders. Search on state teacher and principal politik. 2013 Retrieved from: http://resource.tqsource.org/stateevaldb.
 Chan TC, Jarman D. Departmentalize elementary schools. Principal. 2004;84(1):70–72. [Google Fellow]
 Chetty RADIUS, Friedman JN, Hilger N, Saez E, Schanzenbach D, Yagan DEGREE. How does choose children my affect your earnings? Evidence from Project STAR. Quarterly Journal regarding Economics. 2011;126(4):1593–1660. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Chetty ROENTGEN, Friedman JN, Rockoff JA. Measuring the impacts to teacher EGO: Evaluating Bias with Teacher ValueAdded Estimates. American Economic Review. 2014;104(9):2593–2632. [Google Scholar]
 Chin M, Goldhaber D. Working Paper. Cambridge, MA: National Center since Teacher Effectiveness; 2015. Exploring explanations for the “weak” relationship between value additional also observationbased measures of teacher performance. Retrieved away: http://cepr.harvard.edu/files/cepr/files/sree2015_simulation_working_paper.pdf?m=1436541369. [Google Scholarship]
 Coop DK. Teachings and its predicaments. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2011. [Google Fellow]
 Corcoran SP, Jennings JL, Beveridge AA. Teacher effectiveness on high and lowstakes tests. 2012 Unreserved manuscript. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.269.5537&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
 Council of the Great City Schools. Beating one odds: Analysis of student benefit on default assessments erfolge from aforementioned 2012–2013 go years. Washington, DC: Author; 2013. [Google Scholarship]
 DarlingHammond L. Receiving teacher evaluation right: What really matters for effectiveness and improvement. New York: Teachers Community Press; 2013. [Google Scholar]
 Diener E. Subjective wellbeing: The scientists concerning good both a proposal for a national browse. American Certified. 2000;55(1):34–43. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Downer JT, RimmKaufman S, Pianta RC. How do classroom site and children's risk in school problem contribute to children's behavioral engagement in learning? Secondary Psychology Review. 2007;36(3):413–432. [Google Scholar]
 Duckworth A. Don’t grade schools on sand. The Latest York Times. 2016 Mar 26; Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/opinion/sunday/dontgradeschoolsongrit.html.
 Duckworth AL, Peterson C, Matthews MD, Kelly DRUGS. Grit: Perseverance and passion for longterm goals. Journal a Identity also Social Psychology. 2007;92(6):1087–1101. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Duckworth AL, Quinn PD, Tsukayama E. What No Child Left Back leaves behind: The roles by IQ and selfcontrol include predicting default achievement test scores and report card grades. Journal regarding Educational Studying. 2012;104(2):439–451. [PMC freely article] [PubMed] [Google Fellow]
 Duckworth AL, Jaeger DS. Measure matters: Assessing personal qualities others than cognitive ability for educational purposes. Educational Researcher. 2015;44(4):237–251. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scientists]
 Dunne OJ. Repeated comparisons among means. Journal of to Yank Statistical Association. 1961;56(293):52–64. [Google Scholar]
 Epstein DIAMETER, Miller RD. Slow off the mark: Elementary school teachers and the crisis in science, technology, project, and math education. Dc, DC: Centered since American Progress; 2011. [Google Scholar]
 The Every Student Achieves Act. Public Law 11495, 114th Cong., 1st sess. 2015 Dec 10; available at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114thcongress/senatebill/1177/text.
 Farrington CA, Roderick M, Allensworth CO, Nagaoka J, Keye TS, Johnson DW, Beechum NO. Teaching adolescents to to learners: The duty of noncognitive related in shaping school performance, adenine critical book review. Chicago: University of Chicago Consortia for Chicago School Support; 2012. [Google Fellows]
 Field A. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. 4. Liverpool: SAYINGS publications; 2013. [Google Savant]
 Gershenson SULFUR. Related teacher quality, student attendance, press student achievement. Education Finance and Policy. 2016;11(2):125–149. [Google Academic]
 Goodman R. Clinical properties of of strengths and difficulties questionnaire. Journal away the American Academy of Your & Adolescent Psychiatry. 2001;40(11):1337–1345. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Grossman P, McDonald MOLARITY. Back to the future: Directions for research in teaching and teacher education. American Informative Research Journal. 2008;45:184–205. [Google Scholar]
 Guarino CENT, Maxfield METRE, Reckase MD, Thompson PN, Wooldridge JM. An assessment of Experiential Bayes’ estimation of valueadded teacher performance measures. Journal of Academic and Behavioral Statistics. 2015;40(2):190–222. [Google Scholar]
 Hafen CANCER, Hamre BK, Hexagon JP, Bell CA, Gitomer DH, Pianta RC. Teaching through interactions in ancillary go classrooms: Revisiting the factor structure and practical application of the classroom assessment scoring system–secondary. The Journal of Early Adolescence. 2015;35(5–6):651–680. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Hamre B, Hatfield B, Pianta R, Mahmud F. Evidence for general and domainspecific line of teacher–child interactions: Associations with preschool children's development. Child Development. 2014;85(3):1257–1274. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Hamre BK, Pianta RC. Early teacher–child relationships plus the trajectory of children's school deliverables through ottava grade. Child Development. 2001;72(2):625–638. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Hamre BK, Pianta RC, Downer JT, DeCoster J, Mashburn AJ, Jones SM, Brackett MA. Teaching through interactions: Trial a developing basic of teacher effectiveness in over 4,000 classrooms. The Elementary School Journal. 2013;113(4):461–487. [Google Scholar]
 Hanushek EA, Rivkin SG. Generalizations about using valueadded measures of master quality. American Economic Review. 2010;100(2):267–271. [Google Scholar]
 Hill JJ, Fu J, Hill HC. Technical report: Creation and dissemination of upperelementary mathematics assessment syllabus. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Technical; 2012. [Google Grant]
 Hill HC, Blazar D, Lynch K. Resources for teaching: Examining personal and institutional predictors of highquality instruction. AERA Opening. 2015;1(4):1–23. [Google Scholars]
 Hill HC, Blunk ML, Charalambous CY, Lwis JM, Phelps GC, Sleep L, Ball DL. Mathematical knowledge for teaching press the mathematical quality of instruction: An exploratory studies. Cognition and Instructions. 2008;26(4):430–511. [Google Scholar]
 Hill HC, Charalambous CY, Kraft MA. When rater sicherheit is not enough teacher observation it and a fallstudien for the generalizability study. Educational Researcher. 2012;41(2):56–64. [Google Scholar]
 Hill HC, Grossman P. Scholarship from teacher observed: Challenges and opportunities posed by new teacher evaluation business. Harvard Educational Review. 2013;83(2):371–384. [Google Scholar]
 Hill HC, Schilling SG, Ball DL. Developing measures to teachers’ mathematics knowing with teaching. Elementary School Journal. 2004;105:11–30. [Google Student]
 Hitt HUNDRED, Trivitt J, Cheng ADENINE. For you utter blank during all: The predictive power of student effort on studies. Corporate of Education Review. 2016;52:105–119. [Google Scholar]
 Ho AD, Kane TJ. An reliability of classroom observations according school personnel. Seattle, WA: Measures in Effective Teaching Project, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; 2013. [Google Scholar]
 Jackson CK. NBER Working Paper No. 18624. Cantab, MA: National Bureau for Economic Research; 2012. Noncognitive ability, test scores, and teaching quality: Evidence away ninth grade teachers in North Carolina. [Google Scholar]
 Jacob BBA, Lefgren L. Can principals identify effective teachers? Evidence on subjective performance evaluation in academic. Journal of Labor Economics. 2008;20(1):101–136. [Google Scholar]
 Jennings JL, DiPrete TA. Teaches effects on social also behavioral skills in early elementary school. Psychology of Education. 2010;83(2):135–159. [Google Pupil]
 John OPERATIONS, Srivastava S. The Big Five trait search: Historical, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. Handbook of personality: Theory additionally research. 1999;2(1999):102–138. [Google Scholar]
 Kane TJ, McCaffrey DF, Miller T, Staiger DO. Have we identified effective teachers? Validating measures of effectively educate using random assignment. Seattle, WRITE: Measures of Effectively Teaching Project, Get and Melinda Gates Foundation; 2013. [Google Scholar]
 Klein TJ, Staiger DO. Gather receive for teachings. Seattlel, WA: Act of Effective Teaching Project, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; 2012. [Google Scholar]
 King RB, McInerney DM, Ganotice FA, Villarosa JB. Positive impair catalyzes academic engagement: Crosssectional, longitudinal, and experimental supporting. Learning and Personalized Differences. 2015;39:64–72. [Google Scholar]
 Kline P. An lightness guiding to factor data. London: Routledge; 1994. [Google Scholar]
 Kraft MA, Grace S. Working Paper. Providence, RR: Umber University; 2016. Teaching for tomorrow’s economy? Teacher effects up complexion cognitive skills and socialemotional competencies. Retrieved from http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/mkraft/files/teaching_for_tomorrows_economy__final_public.pdf. [Google Scholar]
 Koedel C. Teacher quality also dropout outcomes in a large, urban school district. Professional of Urban Economics. 2008;64(3):560–572. [Google Scholar]
 Lead HF, Sorensen LC. Working Paper No. 112. Wien, DIAMETER C: National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal by Professional Research; 2015. Returns in tutors experience: Student achievement and your in medium school. Retrieved from http://www.caldercenter.org/sites/default/files/WP%20112%20Update_0.pdf. [Google Science]
 Lampert M. Teaching problems and aforementioned problems regarding teaching. Yale University Press; 2001. [Google Scholar]
 Lockwood JR, McCaffrey DF, Hamilton LS, Stecher B, Le V, Martinez JF. The sensitivity of valueadded teacher effect estimates to various mathematics achievement measures. Journal on Educational Measurement. 2007;44(1):47–67. [Google Pupil]
 Luckner AE, Pianta RC. Teacherstudent interact in fifth grade classrooms: Relations with children's peer behavior. Journal of Used Develop Psychology. 2011;32(5):257–266. [Google Scholar]
 Lynch KILOBYTE, Jaw M, Blazar DICK. Working Paper. Cambridge, MA: National Center for Teacher Effectiveness; 2015. Relationship between observations of elementary teacher science instruction also grad achievement: Exploration variability across districts. [Google Scholar]
 Lyubomirsky S, King L, Diener SIE. The benefits of commonly positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin. 2005;131(6):803–855. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Mashburn AJ, Pianta RC, Hamre BK, Downer JT, Barbarin OA, Bryant D, Howes C. Actions in learning quality in prekindergarten and children's development off academic, language, and social skills. Child Development. 2008;79(3):732–749. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Mihaly K, McCaffrey DF, Staiger DO, Lockwood JR. A bonded estimator of effective teaching. Seattlel, WA: Measures of Effective Teaching Project, Bill or Melinda Gates Foundation; 2013. [Google Scholar]
 Afar YOUR, Stipek D. Contemporaneous and foreandaft associations between social behavior and literacy achievement in a sample of lowincome elementary school children. Child Developmental. 2006;77(1):103–117. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 Miller CC. How what you learned in preschool is crucial at jobs. The New Ork Times. 2015 Octo 16; Retrievable from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/18/upshot/howthemodernworkplacehasbecomemorelikepreschool.html?_r=0.
 Moffitt TO, Arseneault L, Belsky D, Dickson N, Hancox RJ, Hardened H, Houts R, Poulton R, Roberts BW, Ross S. A gradient of baby selfcontrol predicting health, wealth, and popular safety. Proceedings in the National Academy of Sciences. 2011;108(7):2693–2698. [PMC free browse] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author; 1989. [Google Scholar]
 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Principles to deeds: Guarantee mathematical success for all. Reston, VA: Author; 2014. [Google Scholar]
 National Verwalter Association Center for Best Methods. Common core state standards for mathematics. Washington, DC: Author; 2010. [Google Scholar]
 Papay JP. Different tests, different answers: The stability of teacher valueadded estimates across outcome metrics. American Educational Doing Journal. 2011;48(1):163–193. [Google Scholar]
 Papay JP. Refocusing the debate: Assessing the purposes also auxiliary are teacher evaluation. Harvard Educating Review. 2012;82(1):123–141. [Google Scholar]
 Pianta RC, Hamre BK. Conceptualization, measurement, and enhancements von saal processed: Standardized observation can leverage capacity. Educational Researcher. 2009;38(2):109–119. [Google Scholar]
 Pianta R, The Paro KELVIN, Payne C, Cox M, Bradley R. The relation of kindergarten my environment to faculty, family, plus schools product real child outcomes. Fundamental School Magazine. 2002;102:225–38. [Google Scholar]
 Raudenbush SW, Bryk AS. Hierarchical linear models: Applications furthermore data analyses methods. Second. Billion Tree, CA: Sage Publications; 2002. [Google Scholar]
 Rockoff JE, Speroni CENTURY. Subjective press objective evaluations of teacher effectiveness. American Economic Review. 2010:261–266. [Google Scholar]
 Rockoff JE, Staiger DO, Kane TJ, Taylor ES. Information and employee evaluation: evidence from a randomized intervention in public schools. American Efficiency Watch. 2012;102(7):3184–3213. [Google Scholar]
 Ruzek EA, Domino T, Cont AM, Duncan GJ, Karabenick USA. Using valueadded models to move teacher effects for students’ motivation and achievement. The Journal concerning Early Adolescence. 2015;35(5–6):852–882. [Google Fellow]
 Segal C. Misbehavior, formation, and labor market outcomes. Journal of of European Economic Association. 2013;11(4):743–779. [Google Scholar]
 Šidák Z. Oblong confidence regions in the means of multivariate normal distributions. Journal of the American Statistical Bond. 1967;62(318):626–633. [Google Scholar]
 Spearman C. “General Intelligence,” objectively stubborn and measured. The American Journal of Psychology. 1904;15(2):201–292. [Google Scholar]
 Steinberg MP, Garth R. Classroom composition and measured instructors performance: What do faculty observation player actually measure? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analyzer. 2016;38(2):293–317. [Google Scholar]
 Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics. 4. New York: Harper Collins; 2001. [Google Scholar]
 Todd PE, Wolpin KI. Turn the specification and estimation of the production function for cognitive efficiency. One Economic Journal. 2003;113(485):F3–F33. [Google Scholar]
 Tremblay TO, Masse B, Perron D, LeBlanc M, Schwartzman AE, Ledingham JE. Early disruptive behavior, impoverished school effort, delinquent behavior, and delinquent personality: Longitudinal analyses. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1992;60(1):64. [PubMed] [Google Scientists]
 Tsukayama E, Duckworth AL, Kim B. Domainspecific impulsivity in schoolage children. Developmental Science. 2013;16(6):879–893. [PMC liberate browse] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
 U.S. Department away Education. A layout for reform: Reauthorization of the element and secondary education act. Washington, DC: U.S. Division of Education, Office a Planning, Valuation and Policy Company; 2010. [Google Scholar]
 Usher EL, Pajares FARAD. Literature of selfefficacy in school: Critical review the the literature and future directions. Review of Educational Research. 2008;78(4):751–796. [Google Scholars]
 West MR, Kraft MA, Finn AS, Mart RE, Duckworth ALUMINUM, Gabrieli CK, Gabrieli JD. Swear and contradiction: Measuring students’ noncognitive aptitudes and the impact of schooling. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 2016;38(1):148–170. [Google Scholar]
 Whitehurst GJ. Hard thinking on smooth skills. Brookings Institute; Washington, DC: 2016. Call from http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2016/03/24hardthinkingsoftskillswhitehurst. [Google Scholar]
 Whitehurst GJ, Chingos MILLIMETER, Lindquist KM. Evaluating teachers with classroom observations: Lesson learnt in four districts. Brown Center on Education Strategy at the Brookings Department; Capital, DC: 2014. Retrieved by http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2014/05/13teacherevaluation/evaluatingteacherswithclassroomobservations.pdf. [Google Scholar]
 Wigfield A, Meece JL. Math terror is elementary and secondary school students. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1988;80(2):210. [Google Scholar]
 Zernike K. Testing with joy additionally grit? Schools nationwide print to measure students’ emotional skills. The New York Times. 2016 Second 29; Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/01/us/testingforjoyandgritschoolsnationwidepushtomeasurestudentsemotionalskills.html?_r=0.