Reviewed: October 2017
Grant Competition (findings for MyTeachingPartner–Secondary)
Meets WWC standards with reservations
because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
English language learners
Free or reduced price lunch
| Not Hispanic
The study took place in five schools in an urban district in Virginia. The schools were middle schools or high schools. Schools had between 1,120 and 1,900 students.
Teachers in the intervention group had on average 10.2 years of teaching experience, while the teachers in the control group had 8.6 years of experience. 81.8% of teachers in the intervention group had a master's degree or higher, while in the comparison group, 78.% did. 59.1% of the intervention teachers were female, while 70.7% of the comparison teachers were female.
46.6% of students in the intervention group were male, while 49.1% of students in the comparison group were male. 37.2% of students in the intervention group were from families <200% of the poverty line, while in the comparison group 37.2% were. The intervention group was 1.2% Asian, 59.3% African American, 9.3% Hispanic, and 30.2% white, while the comparison group was 3.9% Asian, 56.5% African American, 8.6% Hispanic, and 31.0% White.
Participants from both conditions attended a three-hour workshop before the start of the new school year during which teachers chose their focal class (i.e., their most academically challenging class that would have SOL data available), and learned about the consent process and how the data would be collected. Teachers in the intervention group attended an extended workshop with master teacher coaches. Teachers learned about the principles of the My Teaching Partner-Secondary (MTP-S) program, which are derived from the CLASS-S (Classroom Assessment Scoring System-Secondary). They discussed the theory behind the program as well as watched videos of teachers using the principles.
Several coaching cycles (about every 6 weeks) were scheduled where teachers videotaped their own classrooms and the master teacher coaches created video segments of relevant (CLASS-S dimensions) teaching practices and posted them on the internet for the teacher to consider their own behavior in the video clip and how it was effecting students. The teacher and master teacher coach then discussed improving teacher-student relationships and engaging all students.
The comparison condition was a business-as-usual comparison condition. Participants from both conditions attended a three-hour workshop before the start of the new school year during which teachers chose their focal class (i.e., their most academically challenging class that would have SOL data available), and learned about the consent process and how the data would be collected.
Support for implementation
Each teacher was randomly assigned to a master teacher coach who aided them during the school year. Part of the intervention was coaching cycles that occurred about every 6 weeks. Teachers and master teacher coaches examined teachers' coaching and discussed ways that teachers could improve their use of the principles.