The Widget Effect: Our National Failure to Acknowledge and Act on Differences in Teacher Effectiveness. Second Edition.

By D. Weisberg, Susan Sexton, J. Mulhern, David Keeling, Joan Schunck, Ann Palcisco, K. Morgan. 2009

641 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f1bbf6d5f1aaf278b56f38badcfca01948b298cb

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Classroom Composition and Measured Teacher Performance (2016, background): “The latter goal aims to inject more rigorous accountability into teacher evaluation systems that historically did a poor job of identifying and removing underperforming teachers (Weisberg et al., 2009).”
Teacher Quality and Quality Teaching: Examining the Relationship of a Teacher Assessment to Practice (2012, background): “Ad hoc observations performed by principals are little better; one widely cited report notes that in several large districts, only 1% of teachers received “unsatisfactory” ratings (Weisberg et al. 2009).”
Emotional intelligence can make a difference: The impact of principals’ emotional intelligence on teaching strategy mediated by instructional leadership (2018, background): “Literature on teacher effectiveness shows that teachers’ classroom strategies are the most critical factors with regard to predicting student learning success (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Hattie, 2012; Weisberg et al., 2009).”
The New Educational Accountability: Understanding the Landscape of Teacher Evaluation in the Post-NCLB Era (2016, background): “Despite this, traditional teacher evaluation systems have done a poor job of differentiating teacher effectiveness (Weisberg et al. 2009).”
Teacher Performance Appraisal: More about Performance or Development? (2015, background): “Less than half (43 per cent) believed that performance appraisal practices actually helped teachers to improve and that professional learning was rarely tied to the process (Weisberg et al., 2009).”
Teacher Evaluation Policy and Conflicting Theories of Motivation (2014, background): “Therefore, policy makers and administrators should worry less about selecting good teachers but use available data to remove poor teachers after teachers have had a chance to prove themselves (Weisberg et al., 2009).”
Teacher Self-Efficacy, Professional Commitment, and High-Stakes Teacher Evaluation Policy in Louisiana (2017, background): “Precipitated by Race to the Top, increased attention to and efforts to redesign teacher evaluation systems were ostensibly to address their past limitations (The New Teacher Project, 2010; Weisberg et al., 2009).”
The Instructional Challenge in Improving Teaching Quality: Lessons from a Classroom Observation Protocol (2014, result): “These findings also indicate that the historic tendency to give high and undifferentiated evaluations to teachers may not simply be a matter of institutional and administrative will, as suggested by recent reports and policy statements (e.g., Glazerman et al., 2010; Weisberg et al., 2009).”
Teacher Progress Monitoring of Instructional and Behavioral Management Practices: An Evidence-Based Approach to Improving Classroom Practices (2014, background): “This landmark report highlighted that teacher evaluation systems do not practically differentiate levels of individual teacher performance and, unfortunately, are not linked to targeted professional development (Weisberg et al., 2009).”