【正文】 分類）。表6說明主要從這樣的分析結(jié)果。由教師提出的問題表明，有效的教師做無效的教師（即，應(yīng)用，分析，綜合，評價），約7倍多的教師認(rèn)為是無效的要求更多更高層次的問題的類型的對比分析。4討論當(dāng)前的環(huán)境洋溢著對教育的問責(zé)性，在學(xué)生，教師和學(xué)校層面的新的呼叫。 NCLB法要求更注重教師的學(xué)生收益性和有效性。在目前的研究中，我們將重點放在老師的鑒定結(jié)果可以緊扣問責(zé)。公平性和易用性是任何問責(zé)制度，將在教育環(huán)境中使用提出的核心問題。教師效能評估服務(wù)的改善方向，以滿足專業(yè)需求的老師，學(xué)校內(nèi)和支持改革努力。從邏輯上講，如果教學(xué)提高學(xué)生的成績也將進(jìn)一步改善。這種探索性的跨案例分析的一個重要的發(fā)現(xiàn)是教學(xué)的教師在學(xué)生的學(xué)習(xí)產(chǎn)生高收益的特征和行為的初步鑒定。在這項研究中，評估，密切配合課程所教的老師，這使得學(xué)生的學(xué)習(xí)收益有意義的解釋，更大低于預(yù)期。像這樣的研究可以幫助我們開始更好地理解課堂流程和理想的學(xué)生的學(xué)習(xí)成果之間的聯(lián)系。此外，專注于有效教師的標(biāo)志，我們最終可能會更好的裝備，以教育教師更熟練，一次有意義的績效期望教師在教室，更公平地評估和獎勵教師。由于非常有限的樣本大小跨案例分析（N = 11），大量的變量，以及大量的統(tǒng)計檢驗，分析，提出了專注于探索性分析的結(jié)果，而不是趨勢統(tǒng)計分析。因此，應(yīng)謹(jǐn)慎行事，在解釋或概括的研究結(jié)果。鑒于這些研究結(jié)果的承諾，并考慮目前的研究的局限性，我們建議在今后的工作中繼續(xù)研究這一行的。特別是將允許更強大的統(tǒng)計分析，以進(jìn)行研究，可以提供一個更大，更代表性的樣本。5結(jié)論雖然決策者定期建議，學(xué)校對學(xué)生的學(xué)習(xí)有多大影響，最近的研究表明，學(xué)校和他們的努力確有差別，這種差異可以直接鏈接到教師。鑒于教師效益和學(xué)生學(xué)習(xí)之間存在明確和不可否認(rèn)的鏈接，使用的學(xué)生成績信息，當(dāng)它是課程的基礎(chǔ)，可以提供一個非常寶貴的工具，探索提高學(xué)生的學(xué)習(xí)成就超出預(yù)測水平教師的課堂實踐。的確，學(xué)生成績，應(yīng)該是，學(xué)校，管理員和教師反饋的有效性的一個重要來源。教育工作者和政策制定者所面臨的挑戰(zhàn)是使某些學(xué)生的成績是擺在更廣闊的背景下，什么樣的教師和學(xué)校辦成。此外，由于教師始終扮演成功的學(xué)校，教師表現(xiàn)和學(xué)生的表現(xiàn)連接的核心作用，是教育改革議程的自然延伸。參考文獻(xiàn) 柏林，D. C.。專家教育家的追求。教育研究員，（1986）,15（7），513。布魯姆，B. S.（1984）。搜索組指令的方法有效地作為一個一對一輔導(dǎo)。教育領(lǐng)導(dǎo)，41（8），417?？曝愄?，D.，＆威爾遜，B.（2004）。哪些城市學(xué)生說，良好的教學(xué)。教育領(lǐng)導(dǎo)，60（1），1822?？唆斂讼憧耍珼. R.，＆黑費勒，D.（2001）。老師好，復(fù)數(shù)。教育領(lǐng)導(dǎo)，58（5），2630。What is the Relationship Between Teacher Quality and Student Achievement? An Exploratory StudyJames H. Stronge amp。 Thomas J. Ward amp。 Pamela D. Tucker amp。 Jennifer L. HindmanReceived: 19 December 2007 /Accepted: 25 January 2008 / Published online: 13 February 2008 Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2008Abstract The major purpose of the study was to examine what constitutes effective teaching as defined by measured increases in student learning with a focus on the instructional behaviors and practices. The exploratory study identified instructional behaviors and practices of teachers that result in higher student learning gains.Keywords Teacher quality. Teacher effectiveness . Ineffective teacher. Effective teacher. Student achievement . Questioning . Student learning gains1 Background Demand for AccountabilityThe current demand for educational accountability has been building and crystallizing although the postSputnik period when reforms based on “excellence” and “accountability” emerged due in part to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965. This predecessor of today’s No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was intended to increase quality and equity by emphasizing an accountability ponent that required evidence of effectiveness for Title I programs . In subsequent decades, we have experienced wave after wave of educational reform efforts, most notably those advocated in A Nation at Risk in 1983 which “solidified the accountability trends of the 1960s and 1970s” and galvanized the national agenda of high standards. The last 40 years of reform efforts have focused primarily on the development of curriculum standards, assessments to measure student achievement, and school level reporting mechanisms to publicly explain results. Most recently, reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, better known as the No Child Left Behind Act, is intended to tie federal education funding directly to improvements in student test scores. Relationship Between Teacher Effectiveness and Student AchievementOver the past few decades, numerous studies have focused on defining the charac teristics of effective schools and teachers. Contemporary research has focused on the valueadded connection between teaching and learning, with leading examples of this assessment process including the Tennessee Valueadded Assessment System and the Dallas Independent Public Schools. Analysis of data from these and other programs offer dramatic evidence regarding the influence of the classroom teacher on student learning . There is a growing body of research critiquing the Tennessee Value Assessment System research . Nonetheless, the evidence from multiple studies seems to confirm th