[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-592613-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":80,"doc-detail-592613-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":73,"head_meta":75,"extra_data":77,"updated_unix":79},105,"en","using-observational-assessment-to-inform-professional-development-decisions-alternative-scoring-for-the-danielson-framework-for-teaching","Using Observational Assessment to Inform Professional Development Decisions - Alternative Scoring for the Danielson Framework for Teaching","","The Framework for Teaching (FFT) is a widely used observational system for evaluating teacher effectiveness and shaping professional development discussions. This study compares reliability and validity evidence for FFT traditionally scored ratings versus a composite scoring approach linked to practice feedback. Using data from 156 teachers and 34 administrators in 12 high-poverty charter schools, composite domain and total scores show strong internal consistency. Compared with traditional scores, composites are more stable over time and better predict student reading and mathematics growth.",{"@graph":14,"@context":72},[15,34,55],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/using-observational-assessment-to-inform-professional-development-decisions-alternative-scoring-for-the-danielson-framework-for-teaching/592613/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/using-observational-assessment-to-inform-professional-development-decisions-alternative-scoring-for-the-danielson-framework-for-teaching/592613.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Mimi","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-21","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":30},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",{"@type":56,"mainEntity":57},"FAQPage",[58,64,68],{"name":59,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":61},"What problem does the study address about the Framework for Teaching (FFT)?","Question",{"text":62,"@type":63},"It addresses how FFT can be scored to better support professional development decisions, comparing traditional scoring with a composite approach tied to specific practice feedback.","Answer",{"name":65,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":66},"How is the alternative composite scoring approach computed in this study?",{"text":67,"@type":63},"It averages the 22 FFT components nested within each domain to produce composite scores for domain and total levels.",{"name":69,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":70},"What do results suggest about composite scores compared with traditional FFT scores?",{"text":71,"@type":63},"Composite scores are internally consistent, more stable across time, and more predictive of student growth in reading and mathematics achievement.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":74,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":76,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":78,"site_id":7},592613,1792208664,{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":82},"success",[83,87,91,95,100,105,110,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":84,"show_sort_weight":85,"slug":86},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":88,"show_sort_weight":89,"slug":90},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":92,"show_sort_weight":93,"slug":94},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":96,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":97,"show_sort_weight":98,"slug":99},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":101,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},8,30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":96,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":131},{"doc_id":78,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":111,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":30,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":144,"read_time":112},2336477974920,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_155a257f0dc6eb9ab79c44ca47cae57d","Using Observational Assessment to Inform Professional Development Decisions: Alternative Scoring for the Danielson Framework for Teaching  \nAssessment for Effective Intervention 2019, Vol. 44(2) 69–80  \n© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2017 Article reuse guidelines: [sagepub.com/journals-permissions](sagepub.com/journals-permissions)[ ](sagepub.com/journals-permissions)[DOI: 10.1177/1534508417745628](DOI: 10.1177/1534508417745628)[ ](DOI: 10.1177/1534508417745628)[aei.sagepub.com](aei.sagepub.com)  \nRyan J. Kettler, PhD 1 and Linda A. Reddy, PhD 1  \nAbstract  \nThe Framework for Teaching (FFT) is one of the most widely used observational systems for evaluating teacher effectiveness and driving professional development conversations in schools. This study contrasts reliability and validity evidence relevant to the FFT as traditionally scored with evidence relevant to a composite scoring approach that connects to specific practice feedback. The FFT is typically interpreted at the domain level and at an overall total level using four categories of teacher effectiveness—unsatisfactory, basic, proficient, and distinguished—scored without computational rules governing relationships between the 22 components and four domains. For this study, the composite scoring approach was computed by averaging the components nested within each domain. A sample of 156 teachers and 34 trained school administrators from 12 high-poverty charter schools used the FFT as part of regular evaluation practices, yielding an extant set of de-identified data. Results indicate the composite scores were internally consistent at the domain and total levels. In comparison with traditional scores, the composite scores were more stable across time, as well as more predictive of student growth in reading and mathematics achievement. Implications for professional development and educator evaluation are discussed.  \nKeywords  \ninstruction, observation, rating scales  \nSince the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, large-scale achievement tests in reading and mathematics have been used in Grades 3 through 8, as well as in one grade level in high school, for the purpose of evaluating the effectiveness of teachers, schools, and districts. Using scores from such tests to evaluate teaching is sensible, because the primary purpose of schools is to provide learning, which can be measured through student growth in achievement (i.e., the change in achievement scores from the beginning of a school year until the end). However, best practices in evaluation require focusing on more than solely the primary outcomes of a program; it is equally important to focus on the key processes that lead to the outcomes (McLaughlin & Jordan, 2010) . Solely evaluating teachers based on outcomes ignores that there are many factors outside of their control, including variability in student ability, support within and outside school, and school and family stressors, that influence growth in student achievement. For decades, it has been recognized that how educators deliver instruction and manage their classrooms profoundly influences student academic engagement and learning (Bennet, 1988; Hattie, 1992; Wang, 1991). Accurately measuring such processes is a focus of the current study.  \nSchool districts commonly measure and monitor teaching practices through the use of classroom observation approaches. School administrators gather data during structured and unstructured teaching periods, with varying lengths of time to guide decisions for overall teaching effectiveness, and identify practice strengths and areas for improvement. While there are many different classroom observation tools available, relatively few offer quantitative data that meet acceptable psychometric benchmarks to support inferences and use for effective professional development planning (e.g., Marzano, Frontier, & Livingston, 2011) . To evaluate the teaching process, one needs measurement tools that yield reliable scores from which","cbCaim11klbbHHhS","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaim11klbbHHhS","pdf",336399,12,"English","# Abstract\n# Background and Rationale\n## Student testing and teacher evaluation\n## Need for psychometrically sound observation measures\n# Study Framework and Scoring Approach\n## Framework for Teaching components by domain\n# Participants and Data Source","[{\"question\":\"What problem does the study address about the Framework for Teaching (FFT)?\",\"answer\":\"It addresses how FFT can be scored to better support professional development decisions, comparing traditional scoring with a composite approach tied to specific practice feedback.\"},{\"question\":\"How is the alternative composite scoring approach computed in this study?\",\"answer\":\"It averages the 22 FFT components nested within each domain to produce composite scores for domain and total levels.\"},{\"question\":\"What do results suggest about composite scores compared with traditional FFT scores?\",\"answer\":\"Composite scores are internally consistent, more stable across time, and more predictive of student growth in reading and mathematics achievement.\"}]","Using Observational Assessment to Inform Professional Development Decisions - Alternative Scoring for the Danielson Framework for Teaching | PDF",1792074945]