The following study was designed to examine student feedback items from four (K--2, 3--5, 6--8, and 9--12) teacher feedback instruments in anticipation of uncovering specific dimensions or domains of teaching. These items were measured against student achievement scores from criterion-referenced tests in reading, language arts, and mathematics to determine which instructional behaviors are associated with high student achievement. And finally, this study developed and tested additional items that best reflect exemplary teaching practices in reading, language arts, and mathematics instruction. The new items were written with the expectation that these teaching practices promote higher-order thinking and learning among students in the three core subject areas. The results of this study can be added to two decades of research by the School Improvement Model Center at Iowa State University. This center has focused on validating and improving these instruments as part of a total systems approach to teacher performance evaluation;Danielson (1996), in her framework for teaching, identified four domains of teaching responsibilities. These are (a) planning and preparation; (b) classroom environment; (c) instruction, and (d) professional responsibilities. The last domain, professional responsibilities was not used for the purposes of this study. In a study by Dietz (1996), three dimensions of teaching were identified as a result of a factor analysis conducted on the 9--12 student feedback instrument. The domains identified from Dietz's study are (a) student/teacher interaction, (b) teacher organization, and (c) the use of supplementary provisions. The multidimensionality of teaching described by both Danielson and Dietz were used to analyze the results from the current study;The results of this study indicated that most items from the K--12 student feedback instruments clustered under each of the domains as described by Danielson. A few items came under the labels presented by Dietz. Three items from the K--2 instrument correlated to mathematics achievement scores; seven items from the 3--5 instrument correlated to reading, language arts, and mathematics; 14 correlations were found among measures from the 6--8 instrument; and four correlations were attained from the 9--12 instrument in both language arts and Mathematics;