Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

The Implications Associated with Teacher Perception and Understanding of the Danielson Framework in Selected High Schools in the U.S.A.

Peter Monaghan


The improvement of teacher pedagogical practice is a central focus of contemporary school reform in the U.S.A.  Moreover, the systematic evaluation of teacher pedagogical practice is viewed as an essential means to improve student achievement.  The Danielson Framework is a theoretical construct that is widely used by school districts in the U.S.A. to conduct the evaluation of teachers.  This paper is based on the summary findings of a study conducted in three selected suburban Chicago high schools in the State of Illinois.  The study assessed teacher perceptions of their understanding of the Framework, teacher perceptions of their evaluators understanding of the Framework, and the extent to which teachers altered pedagogical practice as a result of teacher evaluation.  Data were collected through survey, interviews, document analysis, and focus groups and were analyzed employing descriptive statistics and qualitative research methods to identify codes and themes. An analysis of the data revealed that there is an ongoing need to develop professional practices that enhance collaboration and deepen the mutual understanding among stakeholders of components within the Framework.  While the survey results demonstrated a clear understanding of the Framework among the teachers, it was also revealed that teacher evaluation has a low impact on teacher’s pedagogical practice.  There are important implications of this study related to teacher development and the targeting of particular components within the evaluation that are high impact.  The study highlights the limitations of teacher evaluation as a tool to improve pedagogical practice.  Implications for practice for school administrators responsible for the planning, development, and implementation of teacher evaluation are presented.  

Full Text:




Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students' learning

strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology,

(3), 260.

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (2013). Ensuring fair and reliable measures of effective

Teaching; Culminating findings from the MET project’s three-year study. Seattle, WA: Author.

Brophy, J., & Good, T. L. (1984). Teacher behavior and student achievement.

Occasional Paper No. 73. East Lansing, MI: Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University.

Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. Alexandria,


Danielson, C. (2012). Observing classroom practice. Educational Leadership, 70(3),


Darling-Hammond, L. (2014, Spring). One piece of the whole: Teacher evaluation as part of a

comprehensive system for teaching and learning. American Educator, 4-13.

Delvaux, E., Vanhoof, M., Tuytens, M., Vekeman, E., Devos, G., & Van Petegerm, P. (2013).

How may teacher evaluation have an impact on professional development? A

Multi-level analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36, 1-11.

Hanushek, E. A. (2011). The economic value of higher teacher quality. Economics of Education

Review, 30(3), 466-479. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.12.006

Kane, T.J., & Staiger, D.O. (2012). Gathering feedback for teaching: Combining high-quality

observations with student surveys and achievement gains (Research paper, MET Project). Seattle, WA: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Marzano, R. J., & Toth, M. D. (2013). Teacher evaluation that makes a difference.

Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Maslow, V. J., & Kelley, C. J. (2012). Does evaluation advance teaching practice? The

effects of performance evaluation on teaching quality and system change in

large diverse high schools. Journal of School Leadership, 22(3), 600-632.

Monaghan, P. (2015). An investigation of teachers' perceptions of the Danielson Framework

for Teaching as a tool for evaluation and instructional improvement: A case study

of a suburban Illinois school district (Doctoral dissertation, Roosevelt University).

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115,

Stat. 1425 (2002).

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New

Reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.

Strong, M. (2011). The highly qualified teacher. New York, NY: Teachers College


Weisberg, D., Sexton, S., Mulhern, J., & Keeling, D. (2009). The widget effect.

Education Digest, 75(2), 31-35.

Wilen, W. W., & Clegg Jr., A. A. (1986). Effective questions and questioning:

A research review. Theory & Research in Social Education, 14(2), 153-161.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement:

An overview. Educational psychologist, 25(1), 3-17.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2019 The International Education and Learning Review