Methods Of Educative Evaluation

Educative Evaluation Assuming that no one is perfect and therefore everyone has room for improvement, evaluation of oneself and of one’s teaching content is a vital role in the improving of oneself as a professional (Fink: 1999). “Teachers are professionals, and to maintain professionalism we must strive to be the best we can. This means constantly looking to improve ourselves” (personal communication April 1, 2009 E, Heyman experienced teacher). The question then arises as to, ‘how do teachers monitor their teaching effectiveness as well as their teaching programs?’ Heyman, Pearson & Scott (2009) say the answer lies within multiple strategies. They suggest five core methods; self evaluation, peer review, student reviews, student performance, and portfolios (personal communication April 1, experienced practising teachers) (Ory & Ryan: 2001) (Doyle: n.d.).

Self Evaluation Self evaluation is what people do semi-automatically and semi-consciously whenever they teach. When guiding a lesson one portion of their mental attention is concerned with "How is it going?" "Are they with me?" "Am I losing them?" "Are they interested or bored?” (Fink: 1999). Within the method of self evaluation the processes of; keeping a log book, producing a portfolio of created unit programs, and comparing oneself to the quality teaching framework and professional teaching standards, come into it. The maintaining of a log book and the production of a unit program portfolio work hand in hand, and are a good way in enabling a collection of quick initial ideas to be jotted down and recalled upon for later use (Brady & Kennedy: 2003). While a unit program portfolio looks solely at the effectiveness of the teacher’s programs, the maintaining of a log book addresses both the effectiveness of the program as well as the teaching style, of individual lessons day by day. However, the very strength of this source is also its weakness, because this information is created by us for us, it is also subject to our own biases and misinterpretations. This means that, at times, teachers are going to misread the responses of students in relation to their teaching (Fink: 1999). The New South Wales Department of Education and Training (2009) advocates the use of ‘Quality Teaching framework’ and ‘Professional Teaching Standards’ in relation to teacher evaluation. The use of these two documents allows teachers to self evaluate themselves to professional standards that have been developed by educational authorities in relation to both programming and teaching. However the effective use of these documents in relation to self evaluation is very time consuming as the documents themselves are quiet lengthy and require personal reflection time for thorough analysis.

Peer Review Peer review is the process of teaching colleagues reviewing the performance of their fellow teachers (Barrett: 1986). The various methods conducted to create peer reviews include; team teaching, staff review meetings, supervisors observing lessons and teacher assessment review schedules (TARS). Team teaching is when two teachers are paired together, and work side by side for a period of time, i.e. two weeks. While paired they worked together on assessments, unit plans, and evaluate each other’s performance in the classroom. The use of team teaching, similar to student collaboration, allows teachers to learn from one another and to efficiently be evaluated, as it is internal, informal and formative. However it may lead to possible peer conflict. Staff review meetings on the other hand, usually supplements more formal evaluation methods and is used with other data to identify weak areas of instruction and classroom management skills (Barrett: 1986). Due to everyone being evaluated, this lends itself well as a method that avoids peer conflict.

Supervisors and the use of ‘TARS’ are other formal methods of evaluation that can take place within the classroom. Supervisors are usually senior members of the staff that are assigned to new teachers to help them develop professionally. ‘TARS’ is program run within schools where the principal or nominee assesses the teacher’s performance and development. The strength of being an outsider is also its weakness. Outside observers can usually only visit one or two class sessions and therefore does not know see everything. Apart from this the only other disadvantage is the program is summative, therefore not providing information continuously throughout the year allowing for teacher growth.

Student Review Student review is the process of students helping their teacher to improve, through providing feedback on the teacher as well as the content being taught. If teachers want to know whether students find their explanations of a topic clear, or whether students find their teaching exciting or dull, who else could possibly answer these kinds of questions better than the students themselves? Of the five sources of information described here, student reviews are the best source for understanding the immediate effects of individual teaching styles. This information can be obtained in two distinct ways: questionnaires and interviews after each assignment and after a unit program, each with its own relative values (Fink: 1999). The questionnaire is one of the best methods of obtaining student reactions to our teaching, as it helps to determine what the student is thinking and feeling (Brady & Kennedy: 2003). Fink (1999) states; “The special value of questionnaires, compared to interviews, is that they obtain responses from the whole class and they allow for an anonymous (and therefore probably more candid) response. The limitation of questionnaires is that they can only ask a question once, i.e., they cannot probe for further clarification, and they can only ask questions that the [teacher] anticipates as possibly important.” “The other well-established way of finding out about student reactions is to talk to them... The teacher... can talk with students for 15-30 minutes about the [unit/assessment as well as the teacher themself]... The special value of interviews is that students often identify unanticipated strengths and weaknesses, and the teacher can probe and follow-up on topics that need clarification” (Fink 1999). The limitation ofcourse is that this whole process takes a lengthy period of time. “Returning to the general issue of information from students, regardless of how such information is collected, one needs to remember that this is information from students. Although they know better than anyone what their own reactions are, they can also be biased and limited in their own perspectives. They occasionally have negative feelings, often unconsciously, about women, people who are ethnically different from themselves, and international teachers. Perhaps more significantly, students usually do not have a full understanding of how a unit might be taught, either in terms of pedagogy or content.” (Fink: 1999). Hence therefore the use of ‘Student Reviews’ is only appropriate for upper primary school children and the respective higher educational levels.

Student Performance According to Heyman et al (2009) student performance not only means student achievement within assessments, but also the student’s attendance and engagement in lesson activities, as these observable descriptors are further signs of effective teaching and learning content (Drake: 1984). Student achievement within assessments is a major component in determine teacher evaluation, but it’s not the only way (Duke & Stiggins: 1988). While the whole reason for teaching may be to help someone else learn. We can’t assume that a test can accurately on its own determine how effective a teacher’s methods and programs are. There are various factors that influence student performance that teachers cannot control, for example; socio-economic background, disabilities, and luck (or lack of i.e. silly mistakes). The benefit of students’ results is that they are physical allowing teachers to see whether or not the student has achieved the outcome being assessed. They are also standardised in some cases (NAPLAN) and allow for greater accuracy when assessing students, therefore resulting in greater accuracy to determine, the ability of the teacher to teach the content needed to be taught. Student attendance and engagement are also important components in determining teacher effectiveness. There have been various studies conducted linking student learning with attendance and engagement in class activities. Ofcourse a child who turns up to class, and is engaged with the lesson will learn more than a child who doesn’t (Brady & Scully: 2005). Therefore one way for teachers to quickly evaluate their style of teaching as well as their programs, is to look at the attendance and engagement within their classroom. As usually a child will only be disengaged if they don’t understand or if they are boring (the work is too easy).

Portfolios Portfolios according to the New South Wales Department of Education and Training (NSW DET) are; a deliberate, strategic and specific collection of work, or evidence of work (2007). Within the classroom Heyman et al (2009) advocates the use of portfolios for teacher evaluation in two ways; the first is to maintain student sample work for the teacher to reflect on, and the second is to maintain unit programs with reflection appendices attached for later unit programming. Student sample work portfolios are a great reflection tool for teachers. The usually consist of varied and strategically selected work samples from students and are collected in a folder by the teacher. The use of such a strategy allows teachers to look at student performance in various learning activities. The use of the portfolio specially allows the teacher to collate the sample work and reflect upon their success in their programs and teaching styles through their student results in the learning activities. They can also due to the use of the portfolio, reflect on the data at a time that suits them. The disadvantage of this method is that it is not formal and therefore students may for whatever reason not produce their best work. The use of a unit program portfolio, allows teachers to collect their various unit plans and compare results through reflection appendices. By collating every unit plan they have produced, the teacher can look at what was effective last time and incorporate that as well as looking at what didn’t work, so that they can create a more effective teaching program. Thus encouraging a continuous and effective self reflection procedure.

Conclusion In conclusion it can evidently be seen that no evaluation method/process is perfect, every method/process has its strengths and limitations. Therefore Heyman, Pearson & Scott (2009) are right in saying that effective evaluation of both teachers and their programs, lies within the use of multiple evaluation strategies. (personal communication April 1, experienced practising teachers).

Reference List: Barrett, J. (1986). The Evaluation of Teachers. Retrieved March 26 from . Brady, L. & Kennedy, K. (2003). Curriculum Construction (2nd Ed.). Frenchs Forest, N.S.W.: Pearson Education Australia. Brady, L. & Scully, A. (2005). Engagement inclusive classroom management. Frenchs Forest, N.S.W.: Pearson Education Australia. Doyle, T. (n.d.) Evaluating Teacher Effectiveness- Research Summary. Retrieved March 28 2009 from . Drake, J. M. (February 1984). Improving Teacher Performance through Evaluation and Supervision. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Secondary School Principals. ED 250 782. Duke, D. Stiggins, R. (1988). The case for commitment to teacher growth: Research on teacher evaluation. Albany: State University of New York Press. Fink, L. (1999). Evaluating your own Teaching. Retrieve March 29 from . NSW DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING (2007). Principles for Assessment and Reporting in NSW Government Schools. Accessed on 11 March 2009 from . NSW DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING (2009). Quality Teaching in Curriculum K-12. Accessed on April 1 2009 from . Ory, J. C. & Ryan, K. “How do Student Ratings Measure up to a New Validity Framework?” In M. Theall, P. Abrami, and L. Mets (eds.), The Student Ratings Debate: Are they Valid? How can we best Use Them? New Directions for Institutional Research, no. 109, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001.