INFORMATION TO USERS

This reproduction was made from a copy of a m anuscript sent to us for publication
and microfilming. While th e m ost advanced technology h as been used to pho­
tograph and reproduce this m anuscript, the quality of the reproduction is heavily
dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. Pages In any m anuscript
may have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify notations which
may appear on th is reproduction.
1. M anuscripts may not always be complete. When It is not possible to obtain
m issing pages, a note appears to indicate this.
2. When copyrighted materials are removed from the m anuscript, a note ap­
pears to indicate this.
3. Oversize materials (maps, drawings, and charts) are photographed by sec­
tioning the original, beginning at the upper left hand com er and continu­
ing from left to right In equal sections with small overlaps. Each oversize
page Is also filmed as one exposure and Is available, for an additional
charge, as a standard 35mm slide or in black and white paper format. *
4. Most photographs reproduce acceptably on positive microfilm or micro­
fiche b ut lack clarity on xerographic copies made from the microfilm. Fbr
an additional charge, all photographs are available In black and white
standard 35mm slide format,*
•For more information about black and white slides or enlarged paper reproductions,
please contact the Dissertations Customer Services Department.

TU TA/f.T
Dissertation
1V1A Information Service
University Microfilms International
A Bell & Howell Information C om pany
300 N. Z eeb Road, Ann Arbor, M ichigan 48106

8613323

O n g w e la , G r a c e H u lty

A STUDY O F C U R REN T TEA C H ER EVALUATION PRA CTICES AND
PE R C E PT IO N S HELD TOW ARD TH O SE PRA CTICES BY ELEMENTARY
SC H O O L PRIN CIPA LS IN T H E MICHIGAN CO N FER EN C E O F SEVENTH-DAY
ADVENTISTS

M ich ig an S ta te U n ive rs ity

University
Microfilms
International

300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106

Ph.D .

1986

PLEASE NOTE:

In alt cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy.
Problems encountered with this document have been Identified here with a check mark V .

1.

Glossy photographs or p ages_____

2.

Colored illustrations, paper or print______

3.

Photographs with dark background____

4.

Illustrations are poor copy______

5.

Pages with black marks, not original copy_____

6.

Print shows through as there is text on both sides of p a g e _______

7.

Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages

8.

Print exceeds margin requirements_____

9.

Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine_______

/

10.

Computer printout pages with indistinct print______

11.

Page(s)___________ lacking when material received, and not available from school or
author.

12.

Page(s)___________seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows.

13.

Two pages num bered

14.

Curling and wrinkled pages______

15.

Dissertation contains pages with print at a slant, filmed a s received_________

16.

Other______________________________ ______________________________________

. Text follows.

University
Microfilms
international

A STUDY OF CURRENT TEACHER EVALUATION PRACTICES AND
PERCEPTIONS HELD TOWARD THOSE PRACTICES BY ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL PRINCIPALS IN THE MICHIGAN CONFERENCE OF
SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS

By
Grace Hully Ongwela

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Teacher Education
1986

© Copyright by Grace Hully Ongwela 1986
All Rights Reserved

ABSTRACT
A STUDY OF CURRENT TEACHER EVALUATION PRACTICES AND
PERCEPTIONS HELD TOWARD THESE PRACTICES BY ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL PRINCIPALS IN THE MICHIGAN CONFERENCE
OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS

By
Grace Hully Ongwela

The

purpose

of

this

study

was

two-fold:

first,

to

investigate the current teacher evaluation practices and the
perceptions held toward those practices by elementary school
i

principals

in

Adventists;

and

the

Michigan

second,

to

Conference

design

a

of

Seventh-day

proposed

evaluation

system for the Conference.
The research questions for this study were grouped into
two

categories:

Michigan

(a)

Conference

teachers,

and

how

the

currently

(b)- process

for

Adventist
evaluate

schools
their

designing

an

in

the

elementary
educational

practice— teacher evaluation.
The population
five

elementary

Conference.
adapted

from

The

of

this

school
survey

study consisted
principals

Instrument

the one used by Hauge

used

In

of all
the

fifty-

Michigan

in

the

study

was

(1981).

The

instrument

Grace Hully Ongwela
was designed to reflect the teacher evaluation practices as
perceived

by

elementary

school

principals.

The

survey

instrument and the cover letter were sent to the principals
by first class mail.
Data analysis was done by a tabular arrangement of the
items and giving account of the number of observations
each

item.

The

account

given was

based

on

the

number

for
of

responses for each item computed into percent.
A

summary

of

significant

findings

dealing

with

how

Adventist schools currently evaluate teachers was presented
according to the four research questions and general areas
investigated in this study:
current

evaluation

principal's
practices,

purpose of

practices.

perception

toward

and differences

teacher evaluation,

Adventist
current

in teacher

elementary
teacher

school

evaluation

evaluation practices

between the Michigan Conference elementary schools and those
found in research.
To answer part B of the study,
process used
findings

here result

into

further data

on

in the

edu'cational
the

the design process.

"Does the formal design

incorporation of

practice?"

Conference

schools

of

obtaining

and delineation

of

This design was organized according to

context and knowledge base and included:
purpose of

required

research

teacher evaluation;

teacher evaluation;

(1)

rationale and

(2) procedures and elements

(3) follow-up and staff development,

Grace Hully Ongwela
(4)

assumptions

underlying

the proposed design,

and

(5)

a

proposed plan for evaluating the design.
The contextual
by the

information obtained

Education on
the

base of the proposed design was

data

analyzed.

current teacher

collected
The

from

research

from

the

Conference

evaluation practices

the

elementary

synthesis

Office

of

and also

principals

conducted

knowledge base for the proposed design.

formed

formed

then
the

DEDICATION

I dedicate this dissertation to my family
Husband Gado A.
Son James Aggrey
and
Daughter Janice Hilly

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The
through

completion
the

direct

of

this

study was

or

indirect

made

guidance,

possible

only

assistance,

and

director,

Dr.

support of many people.
My
Robert,

sincere

thanks

Hatfield,

for

to
his

my

dissertation

patience

and

expertise

advising me to go this way with this project.
chair.

Dr.

Bruce Cheney,

and

for

My Committee

who by his patience and directive

skills was an unfailing source of encouragement and guidance
throughout

the

entire

doctoral

program.

To

Dr.

Lawrence

Lezotte for his helpfulness and willingness to serve

in my

doctoral committee.
I

wish

to

thank

the

principals

Conference elementary schools who

gave

to

study

provide

information

for

this

in

the

Michigan

their valuable
without

time

which

the

study would have not been a reality.
My gratitude goes

to ray family,

for their love, patience,

prayers,

husband and children,

and understanding during

my studies, and for undergoing so much to see me through.
Above all,
care,

I give thanks to my Heavenly Father for His

love and protection during the whole process.

be honor, glory, and dominion forever.

ill

To Him

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER
I.

PAGE
INTRODUCTION....................................
Statement of the Problem ....................
Purpose of the study.........................
Background of the Study ......................
Teacher Evaluation: What is I t ? ........
Need for Evaluation.........................
Professional Development....................
Research Questions..........................
How Adventist Schools Currently
Evaluate Teachers.......................
Process for Designing an Educational
Practice.................................
Scope of the Study..........................
Overview of the Study.......................

II.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE..........................
Introduction............................
Purpose of Teacher Evaluation..............
Teacher Evaluation Procedures..............
Sources....................................
Scheduling.................................
Observation................................
Conference.................................
The Role of the Principal In Teacher
Evaluation.................................
Climate and Relationship....................
Setting Climate for Teacher-Principal
Relationships...........................
Principal as a Personnel Manager .........
The Principal as a Communicator..........
Human Relationships: An Asset to
Principal In Teacher Evaluation........
Current Evaluation Processes...............
Administrative Ratings....................
Systematic Rating Procedures...........
Rating Scales...........................
Checklists...............................
iv

1
1
3
3
5
10
12
14
15
15
15
16
18
18
20
22
25
26
29
30
32
38
38
40
42
43
45
46
46
49
52

'

Teacher Self-evaluation................
52
Student Evaluation of Teachers........... 57
Evaluation of Teachers by P eers .......... 59
Student Achievement T e s t s ................ 62
Performance Objectives Approach.......... 67
Teaching Performance T e s t ................ 72
Clinical Supervision...................... 75
Professional G oals ........................ 79
Professional Development of Teachers...... 81
Purpose of Professional Development
Programs................................... 83
Designing Professional Development
Program................................... . 85
Some Evolving Characteristics of
Effective Professional Development....... 86
Synthesis of the Research on Practices
Used in Teacher Evaluation............... 88
Rationale and Purpose for Teacher
Evaluation................................. 88
Goals and Outcomes of Teacher Evaluation. 89
Professional Development................. 91
Major Elements and Program Designs for
Teacher Evaluation........................ 93
Professional G o als ........................ 93
Environmental Conditions.................. 94
Frequencies of Evaluation................ 94
The Role of the Principal................ 96
Formal Classroom Observation Schedules... 97
Criteria and Instrument................... 99
Evaluation Processes.......................100
Administrative ratings.................. 100
Teacher self-evaluation................. 100
Student Evaluation of Teachers......... 101
Evaluation by P e ers ..................... 101
Student Achievement T ests............... 101
Teaching Performance T e s t ............... 102
Performance Objectives Approach........ 102
Clinical Supervision.................... 102
Summary..................................... 103
III.

DESIGN OF THE STUDY ............................ 104
Research Questions......................... 104
How Adventist Schools Currently
Evaluate Teachers..................... 105
Process for Designing an Educational
Practice............................... 105
Population of the Study................... 106
General Design............................. 106
Collection of D a t a ......................... 107
Research Instrument..................... 107
Validity and Reliability of the
Instrument............................. 107
Data Collection Procedures..............107
v

Data Analysis.............................. 108
Designing an Educational Practice*....... 108
School D a t a .............................. 109
Design Process...........................109
IV.

9

SUMMARY OF THE D A T A............................ Ill
Purpose of Teacher Evaluation............ 112
Teacher Evaluation Practices..............115
Criteria U s e d ............................ 115
Classroom Observation................... 116
Follow-up Procedures.................... 119
Teacher Evaluation Models...............122
Teacher Evaluation Instrument.......... 125
Adventist Elementary School Principal's
Perception Toward Current Teacher
Evaluation Practices.................... 125
Differences in Teacher Evaluation
Practices Between Adventist Schools
and Current Practices Found in
Research................................. 127
Purpose.................................. 129
Formal Observation Schedules........... 130
Processes U s e d ........................... 131
Follow-up................................ 131
Summary of Evaluation Practices in the
Adventist Schools....................... 132
Description and Context of Teacher
Evaluation in the Michigan Conference
Elementary Schools..................
134
Personnel and Resources U s e d ........... 134
Description of Schools and the
Conference............................. 135
Current Teacher Evaluation Practices
137
Purpose.................................. 137
Process of Teacher Evaluation.......... 138
Organizational Factors Impinging on
Teacher Evaluation...................... 139

V.

A PROPOSED TEACHER EVALUATION DESIGN FOR
THE MICHIGAN CONFERENCE OF SEVENTH-DAY
ADVENTIST ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS................. 140
Rationale and Purpose for Conducting
Teacher Evaluation...................... 141
Procedures and Elements of Teacher
Evaluation............................... 146
Personnel to be U s e d ...................... 147
Specific Outcomes to be Evaluated........ 148
Evaluation Design..........................149
Data Collection............................ 150
Schedule and Process for
Collecting D a t a ..........................151
Guidelines for Observation................ 153
vi

Method of Analysis......................... 154
Guidelines for Conferencing and
Feedback..................................154
Follow-up and Professional
Development.............................. 155
Schedule for total process..............158
Assumptions Underlying Teacher
Evaluation............................... 159
Evaluation of the Design.................. 160
Implementation of the Design..............161
Purposes..................................161
Expected Outcomes........................162
Instruments. . . . .........................162
VI.

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.... 164
Summary of the Study...................... 164
How Adventist Schools Currently
Evaluate Teachers..................... 165
Process for Designing an Educational
Practice............................... 165
Purpose of Teacher Evaluation.......... 166
Current Evaluation Practices........... 167
Adventist Elementary School
Principal's Perception................ 168
Differences in Teacher Evaluation
Practices.............................. 168
Process for Designing an Educational
Practice............................... 169
Conclusions................................ 169
Recommendations for Further Study........ 171

REFERENCES.................................................. 172
Appendices.................................................. 180

vii

LIST OP TABLES

1.

Purpose of Teacher Evaluation: Frequency and
Percent...........................................

113

How the Purpose is Developed; Frequency and
Pe r cent...........................................

113

3.

How the Purpose is Made Known to the Teacher

114

4.

Criteria Used for Teacher Evaluation..............

116

5.

Teacher Evaluation Based on Student Achievement..

116

6.

Classroom Observation Practices...................

117

7.

Number of Formal Observation: Frequency and
Percent...........................................

118

Formal Observation Schedules: Frequency and
Percent...........................................

118

Length of Formal Observation: Frequency and
P e r cent...........................................

118

10.

Teacher Conference: Frequency and Percent........

120

11.

Written Report of Observation: Frequency and
Percent...........................................

120

12.

Follow-Up Information..............................

121

13.

How Information is Obtained for Evaluation:
Frequency and Percent............................

123

2.

8.
9.

14.

Local School Instrument: Frequency and Percent...

125

15.

Principals1 Perception Toward Current Teacher
Evaluation Practices.............................

126

16.

Emphasis on Criteria Used in Teacher Selection...

127

17.

Occurrences of Comments and Suggestions in
Response to the Statement Concerning the
Improvement of Teacher Evaluation..............

128

viii

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem
The Seventh-day Adventist church operates the largest,
world-wide Christian education system ranging from preschool
through

university

level.

According

to

the

office

of

the

Archives Statistics of the Seventh-day Adventists

(1985, p.

24),

elementary

this

schools.

world-wide
Of

these,

system
the

operates

1985

4,334

record

of

the

Michigan

Conference Office of Education indicates that 55 schools are
located within its territory in Michigan.
The

Seventh-day

Adventist

church

recognizes

that

quality education is a must if its youths are to receive the
training
church

that

and

education

makes

secular

is

a

person

Buchmann

in

(1983)

better

can

teacher does"
system

of

task

is

workers
also

in which

in

both

recognized

the

teacher

the
that

plays

a

The Adventists view of the teacher as the

the education of
in

the

teaching are predicated
the

effective

sectors. It

complex

significant role.
key

them

be

(p. 7).

education

statement
upon

is

that

some

is

"the

the belief

affected in
Hence,

children

supported

by

activities

of

that a

way

change

through

what

for
a

each teacher in the Adventist

considered

1

to

be

an

educational

resource person who should be accorded every opportunity to
grow professionally. With this view of the teacher's role in
the educational process of children,
Office

of

Education

administrator,
will

enable

improve

the

each

principal,

teacher

instruction

in

which the principal
is

to

observe

charges

to

the

the Michigan Conference

each
to

grow

local

provide

in

classroom.

the

leadership

professionally
One

can help a teacher

him/her

educational

of

as

to

the ways

by

improve

classroom

and

so

that

instruction

then

provide

constructive feedback. On this, Hauge (1981) stated:
The

observation

of

the

classroom

instruction

is

a

component of the process to instructional improvement.
The

evaluation

knowledge

and

administrator,
As
needs
teacher

be

teaching

abilities

requires
on

certain

the

skills,

part

of

the

(p. 30)

evidenced

to

of

in

aware

of

evaluation

as

the

above

the

new

a process

statement,

the

principal

developments

that

of

instruction.

improving

affect

He/she needs to maintain skills, knowledge, and abilities to
a level that will be helpful in keeping abreast with current

»
trends

in teacher evaluation.

With an awareness of current

changes in the teacher evaluation process, the principal can
adjust himself/herself to meet
school. To

assist

the needs of teachers in the

principals

in

their

task

of

evaluating

teachers, and inquiry into how they perceive current trends
in the

process

performance.

can

Such

serve as
an

a means

inquiry,

of

according

feedback on their
to

the

Michigan

3
Conference

Office

of

Education,

elementary

school

principals.

has

This

not

been done

researcher,

on

its

therefore,

has undertaken the task by adapting an instrument "designed
to

reflect

the

current

teacher

evaluation

perceived by elementary school principals"

practices

(Hauge,

as

1981, p.

36).

Purpose of the Study
The

purpose

of

this

study

is

two-fold:

one,

to

investigate the current practices of teacher evaluation and
the

perception

held

toward

these

practices

by

elementary

school principals in the Michigan Conference of Seventh-day
Adventists;

and two,

to design a proposed evaluation system

for the Michigan Conference Office of Education based on the
contexts within which the schools operate and the research
base for teacher evaluation.
an

opportunity

to

assess

This process will also provide

the

effectiveness

of

a

formally

stated design process.

Background of the Study
In order for teachers to benefit from their evaluation,
the process must be up-to-date with the changes that affect
classroom
done

if

current

instruction

and education at

the evaluators,
research

the principal

findings

from

large.

This can be

and others,

teacher

utilize

evaluation.

notion is also supported by Peterson and Ward (1980):

This

Those

who

should

design

inform

and

use

themselves

teacher
about

evaluation

the

research

systems
evidence

already available and should resolve to keep abreast of
on-golng

and

understood

future

that

research

teacher

.

.

.

evaluation

.It
is

should

an

be

extremely

complex procedure and that carrying out this task in a
professionally
manner

responsible

requires

great

expertise and time.

and

legally

resources

in

defensible
professional

(p. 13)

Unfortunately, evaluators have not used research findings as
they should to improve or update teacher evaluation systems
(Hatfield,

1985;

Eisner,

1984;

Tikunoff and Ward,

1983; and

Borg, 1973). Borg (1973) gave two reasons why administrators
have

not

been

able

to

apply

research

results

in

teacher

evaluation as follows:
First,
that

research
permits

findings are

their

school problems.

direct

Second,

rarely written
application

in a way

to

practical

promising approaches that are

manipulated in research projects are usually developed
only to the point necessary to provide an independent
%*
variable in the research design, (p.7)
In

order

findings

in

that

new

"a

effective

enable

teacher

educational
research

to

evaluation,

process
practice

for

administrators

practice

educational

for
as

the
a

Is

to

Hatfield
design

means
needed

for
to

improvement"

apply
(1985)

research
suggested

and

development

of

the

utilization

of

bring
(p.

about
3) .

the

most

Thus,

the

5
principal

and

education at
educational

others

teacher

programs which would assist

need

evaluation

and

be

developed

practices

In

classroom instruction.
need

alternatives

in the improvement

Based on research findings,

to

changes and

educators

in

large need to learn how to design and develop

of instruction.
skills

involved

that

teacher

would

"systematic

that

contribute

effect

evaluation as

In other words,

a

procedures and

it

affects

principals and other

process
to

current

of

the

creating

new

improvement

of

educational practice'1 (Hemphill, 1973, p. 3).

Teacher Evaluation: What is It?
Teacher
characterized

evaluation,
by

an

if

not

artificial

understood,

and

routine

can

quality

be

which

makes it a process that becomes an end in itself. That is to
say, evaluation may be used mainly as a disguised weapon for
slashing
conformist
permanent

budgets,

for

teachers,

getting

or

certification

only
or

rid
for

purpose .for

emphasize

subsidiary

with

or

decisions
just

non­
about

cause.

As

they should not constitute

evaluating
reasons

militant

making

dismissal

genuine as these reasons may be,
the major

of

for

teachers.

It

evaluating

is

easy

teachers

there is no proper understanding of the process.

to
if

Different

authors have attempted various approaches to define teacher
evaluation. Redfern (1973) stated:
Evaluation is a means to an end.

It is a tool to help

the teacher to become more competent in the performance

6
of

his

duties

and

responsibilities

responsibilities.

must

These

continually

be

duties

and

evaluated

in

relationship to the primary task of the school— that of
improving

learning

opportunities

for

boys

and

girls,

(p. 15)
Any
teacher

attempt

to

evaluation

define
should

or

to

clarify

not

be

taken

the

for

meaning

granted.

of
The

evaluators, more than ever before, need to understand and to
broaden their views about teacher evaluation.

Rose and Nyre

(1977) have this to say:
The attempt to clarify the meaning of evaluation is not
an idle exercise. Quite the contrary.

It is of a major

importance since no one is agreed upon a definition and
the different definitions people accept carry with them
different advantages and disadvantages,
the way

in which

evaluators approach

each affecting
and

carry

their

tasks. (p. 7)
It is possible that due to lack of a consensus as to what
teacher
problems

evaluation
that

is

the

exactly

process

may

be

faces.

the

When

result

of

many

evaluators

have

different definitions of or views about teacher evaluation,
they are bound to differ
With

this

kind

of

in their approaches

variation

procedures,

teachers

tend

to

evaluators'

interest,

not theirs,

For the reasons given above,
the

meaning

of

teacher

in

think,

to the

teacher
in

general,

task.

evaluation
that

the

is served in the process.

this study attempts to clarify

evaluation

in

the

context

of

the

7
general principles presently applied in the process. In this
study,

there is no claim made for a conclusive definition.

It is hoped that the ideas presented can be of use and have
direct

application

purpose of

to

evaluators.

this study,

is

harmony

broad knowledge

the

1982) is:

the

process

of

making

judgements concerning the professional
and competencies

with

the definition given by the Belmont

school district (Peterson,
Evaluation

In

of all

considered

accomplishments

certified employees,

based on

of the areas of performance involved,

the characteristics of the situation of the individuals
being

evaluated

and

the

specific

standards

performance pre-established for their positions,
Evaluation

should

promote

weaknesses

of

certified

all

for growth and improvement,
in employees.

Teacher

awareness

of

personnel,

the

(p. 8)

strengths

provide

of

and

opportunity

and encourage beneficial change

evaluation

is much

broader

than any

single assessment technique or instrument. It is a necessary
and meaningful function in maintaining a viable profession.
Evaluation of teachers in a school district should be a part
of

the

total

Instructional
children.

educational

Improvement

process

that

enhances

It should be constructive,

evaluatee.

communication

between

of

fair and equitable.

In

the

the

towards

learning

order for the process to be successful,
on-going

directed

there should be an
evaluator

and

the

8
Evaluation, therefore, should be viewed as "part of the
process

of

making

(Hawley,

1976, p.

decisions

16), Thus,

and

planning

for

action"

teacher evaluation "can be and

ought to be viewed as an intrinsic element in both teaching
and

learning"

evaluation,

(Sergiovanni,

teachers

should

1973,
know

p.

275).

their

Through

strengths

and

weaknesses in classroom Instruction. They should be directed
to the resources

that can assist

in improving instruction.

Teacher evaluation should be the means by which teachers can
be more aware of how students perform in the learning tasks.
In teacher evaluation,

it should be remembered that although

the assessment of a teacher as a person and his/her teaching
are

inseparable,

the

"process

is

pointless

unless

starting point is the performance of the teacher"

the

(Redfern,

1972, p. 7). To this, Bolton (1973) adds:
Teacher evaluation has to do with judgments about the
"goodness"

of

teacher

behavior

and/or

the

results

of

that behavior in the light of agreed objectives . . . .
Therefore,

good

determination
(c)

of

evaluation
what

analysis,, and

(d)

is

is

preceded

important,

(b)

interpretation.

by

(a)

measurement,

Judgments

prior to these activities are likely to be unsound,

made
(p.

24)
As can be seen teacher evaluation is a process that involves
certain

stages

before

a

conclusion

is

reached.

Any

conclusion reached should be in relation to the objectives
set, not on the personal worth of a teacher as seen by the

9
evaluator.
rather

Formal

than

whether

a

teacher

comparative.
teacher

does

evaluation

should

It

not

should

better

or

be

be

worse

analytical

an

than

issue
the

of

other

teachers. The whole process should evolve around the idea of
helping an individual teacher to grow professionally and to
improve classroom Instruction.

In other words,

the emphasis

of teacher evaluation should be on assisting an individual
teacher

to improve his/her contribution to the learning of

children rather than taking punitive or controlling actions
making

unnecessary

comparisons,

or

using

self-motivated

techniques.
In general,
merely

rating

results

or

teachers.

teacher evaluation involves much more than
a

teacher

comparing

according
his/her

to

a

student's

performance

with

test
other

It is a process that should provide a continuous

and a responsible basis

for decision-making by the teacher

and also school administrators. As a reminder to evaluators,
Hawley (1976) stated:
Evaluation is based on values,

attitudes,

and beliefs

of individual human beings and groups of human beings.
There

is no universal

authority.

Every

standard,

element

of

no
the

ultimate

or

curriculum,

final
every

instructional technique, every organizational procedure
is

based

upon

values.

Many

of

these

values

remain

unexamlned— taken for granted and one of the principle
problems encountered in evaluation is that individuals
involved

often

think

that

they

have

a

common

10
understanding and agreement concerning the value basis
far their work when, in fact, there is none.

(p. 15)

It can,

therefore, be stated here that the

teacher

evaluation is that evaluators often proceed from the

context

of

behavior

an

in

accepted

the

light

value

of

a

system.

set

of

general trend in

They

view

attitudes

and

teacher
opinions

reflecting the sorts of behavior approved or disapproved by
individuals or groups.
"superior"

value

By

the use of words

concepts

are

like

introduced

"good"

in

or

teacher

evaluation. It is often found that these value concepts grow
out of preferences, beliefs, opinions, and attitudes held by
individuals or groups. This places responsibility on people
or

groups

value

undertaking

system.

While

teacher

an

evaluation

effort

value system for a group,

is

made

to

define

towards

their

forming

a

it might be worth bearing In mind

what Smith (1976) said:
It

seems likely, however,

of

a

and

teacher
too

is possible.

Involved

cognitive

learning

in

that no wholesale evaluation
Teaching is far too complex

various

and

types

reactions

to

of

affective

permit

and

a general

evaluation of .a teacher. This means that the evaluation
of a teacher's work must always be specific,

(p. 85)

Need for Evaluation
Evaluation of teachers continues, in the 1980s, to be a
growing concern in education.
school

systems

are

pressured

Both the public and parochial
from

all

sides

to

evaluate

11
teachers.
Halted

Hence,

the need for evaluation of teachers is not

to Adventist schools only.

Serglovannl

and Starrat

(1983) observe that "from the federal and state governments
down

to

demand

local
for

taxpayer

groups,

evaluation"

(p.

one

finds

285).

an

Noonan

Increasing

(1981)

also

observed:
All aspects of the school organization have been under
closer

scrutiny

enrollment,

due

inadequate

perhaps

to

financing,

the

student

declining
achievement

reports, and lowered public confidence. The emphasis on
accountability

leads

Inevitably

to

a

closer

look

at

what kind of personnel schools have and what manner of
monitoring job performance is being used.
As can be seen,

(p. 1)

the public confidence in education has

been lowered by what takes place in schools. This then leads
to

questioning

teachers

performance

in

the

classroom

and

what the administrators are doing to help teachers improve
classroom instruction.

The school administrators and boards

of education are, therefore, pressured to evaluate teachers.
On this issue Hauge (1981) elaborated:
The increased .demand by the American public for quality
education
are

and

requiring

education

to

recent
school
review

development

in public

administrators
their

procedures

education

and

boards

of

for

evaluating

teachers. The Increased membership and power of teacher

i

organizations,
demand

for

teacher surplus,
accountability,

teacher

"burnout,"

advanced

the

classroom

12
technologies
morale

are

and
all

the

increased

reasons

evaluation practices

to

need

study

to

the

promote

current

and perceived attitudes

practices by elementary school principals,

staff

teacher
of

those

(p. 1)

The increased demand from different groups

in society

to evaluate teacher performance in the classroom

is a clear

indication

that

parochial,

to

society
give

expects

direction

education for children.
has

been

increasingly

tax-supported
1981;
major

agents

and

of

to

and

both

to

public

provide

Beginning in the 1970s,
concerned

educational

Sergiovanni

schools,

about

system

Starrat,

education,

the

1983).
the

the public
of

1972;

Since

of

of the means

its

Noonan,

teachers

evaluation

performance Is considered to be one

better

quality

(Popham,

and

are

their

by which

classroom Instruction can be improved.

Professional Development
The

evaluation

process

should

be an

the professional development program.
Doyle

(1983)

when he stated,

integral

This view

part

of

is held by

"evaluation for diagnosis and

improvement not only of tbe person as a teacher, but also of
the teacher as a person;
personal
school,

as
as

teachers,
community,

well
an

as

professional

organization

should
and

that is, evaluation can assist

an

be

a

open

growth"

composed

growing
living

of

organism,
system

in

(p.

in

13).

The

students

and

a

learning

which

staff

13
development

programs

lead

to

the

Improvement

of

education

for children and youth (Klopf, 1979),
The professional development programs which incorporate
teacher
exert

evaluation

principles

leadership by:

stating

of seeking solutions,
accepting

should

teachers

their problems,

participating

responsibility

assist

for

to

devising ways

in decision-making and

the

outcome.

In

summary,

McNergney and Carrier (1981) stated:
The

goal

growth

of

of

teacher

classroom

development
teachers

is

in

to

their

support

performance

the
in ,

various tasks. The more tasks teachers can accomplish,
the better persons and professionals they are likely to
become,
The

(p. 22)

person

who

can

plan

professional

development

programs for teachers and also create an atmosphere in which
the

programs

can

be

functional

is

the

principal.

preliminary review of literature showed that

A

the principal

generally assumed the primary responsibility for evaluating
teachers
grow

and

professionally

1978;

Wiles

principal,
be

planning

the

and

(Noonan,

Lovell,

that

1981;

1975;

would
Hauge,

and

main

source

an

of

reinforcement

enable
1981;

Redfern,

more than any other person,

his/her teachers.
activate

programs

them

to

Kowalski,
1972).

The

is In a position to
and

encouragement

to

He/she should be the one to institute and

Instructional

enrich the experiences of

development
teachers.

system

that

would

The principal together

with the teachers should do a careful study of the existing

14
situation to determine
the

needed

principal
about

change.

should

and

opportunity"
needs

to

and

they

this

cooperative

that

the
need

that can effect

"teachers

availability

endeavor,

need
of

self-motivation,

the

Information

developmental
commitment

and

(Wilson, 1981, p. 1). The principal, therefore,

keep

practices

In

remember

themselves

resources,

the best strategies

and

abreast
also

be

with
able

current
to

use

teacher

research

evaluation
findings

in

his/her task of teacher evaluation.

Research Questions
Although the principal
have

been

studies,

the

subject

for

and
a

the evaluation of teachers
wide

selection

of

research

there is no study that has dealt specifically with

teacher evaluation
Michigan.

The

expressed

to

principals

in the Seventh-day Adventist

Michigan

Conference

this author
in

Its

the need

elementary

Office

of

schools in

Education has

for a study of how the

schools

perceive

current

teacher evaluation practices. The office has authorized this
study to be done.
It

is hoped

t'hat this study will

provide

information

that the Michigan Conference Office of Education could use
to improve Its teacher evaluation program. Also, It is hoped
that the findings and recommendations of this study will be
useful

to

the

Conference

in

enhancing

the

knowledge

skills of its principals in evaluating teachers.

and

15
The research questions for this study are divided into
two parts, A and B.
A. How Adventist Schools Currently Evaluate Teachers
'The

first

information

on

purpose
how

their teachers.
1.

of

this

Adventist

study

schools

is

to

provide

currently

evaluate

The questions are:

What

is

the

purpose

of teacher

evaluation

in

Seventh-day Adventist schools?
2.

What

are

the

current

teacher

evaluation

practices

being used in the Seventh-day Adventist elementary schools?
3.

What

principal's

is

the

perception

Adventist
toward

elementary

current

teacher

school

evaluation

practices?
4.

Are

there

differences

in

teacher

evaluation

practices between Seventh-day Adventist schools and current
practices found in research?
B . Process for Designing an Educational Practice
This

part

of

the

research

study

seeks

to

design

a

teacher evaluation system by utilizing a systematic process
for designing an educational practice

(teacher evaluation),

which could be used by the Michigan Conference.

Scope of the Study
The

focus

practices

of

of

this

classroom
the

study

is limited

teachers

Michigan

by

to

evaluation

elementary

Conference

of

school

principals

in

Seventh-day

Adventists.

All fifty-five elementary school principals are

16
Included

in

the

study.

Since

this

study

examines

the

perceptions held toward current teacher evaluation practices
by

elementary

principals,

it

is

limited

to

the

interpretation of evaluation as perceived by the respondent.

Overview of the Study
This study is organized into six chapters. Chapter I is
an introduction of the study.
the problem,
study

It Includes

the statement of

purpose of the study, background of the study,

questions,

scope

of

the

study,

and

outline

of

the

organization of the study.
Chapter
evaluation

II

and

reviews
the

literature

process

for

designing

organization of the study deviates
because of
of

the design process.

literature

becomes

more

related
a

to

teacher

practice.

from the typical

For this purpose

important

and

study and constitutes along with Chapter

report

the review

central

IV,

The

to

the

the data base

for the design proposed in Chapter V, The literature review
focuses

on

professional

major

elements

development,

and

of
the

teacher

evaluation,

principal's

role

in

teacher evaluation.’ In addition, a synthesis of the research
on practices used in teacher evaluation is given.
Chapter

III

describes

the

methodology

used

in

this

study. Details are given on the population of the study, the
instrument

for obtaining data,

data collection procedures,

and the method used for data analysis.

17
Chapter

IV presents

the

survey data,

the analysis

of

the data from the survey, and a discussion of the findings.
Chapter V presents a design for the proposed evaluation
process that could be used by the Michigan Conference.
Chapter
conclusions,

VI

contains

a

summary

and

recommendations

for

of

the

further

study,

study

teacher evaluation and the design of educational practice.

of

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The review of literature has been developed to provide
a background of

information which relates to the practices

of teacher evaluation in the elementary school. The review
is

divided

into

evaluation,

(b )

principal

in

following

evaluation
teacher

relationships,
professional

the

(e)

sections:

procedures,

evaluation,

evaluation

development.

A

(a)
(c)

(d)

purpose
role

section

the

climate

and

and

(f)

processes,

second

of

of

is

included

providing a synthesis of the research on teacher evaluation.
Introduction
The school,

as an organization,

growing organism,
system.

It

must

a learning community,

should

be

a

place

where

see

itself as a

and an open living
teachers

have

the

opportunity to grow professionally and the children are able
to

express

their

potentials

through

learning.

Teacher

evaluation, when properly used, can be an educational aspect
of

the

entire

school

program

that

Improves

teacher

performance and student learning. Peterson (1982) indicated:
Evaluation,

along with all other major aspects

educational system, has as its goal,

18

of the

the improvement of

19
learning

for

programs.

all

those

Evaluation

instruction.

It

is

who

take

focuses

part

upon

concerned

the

with

in

educational

improvement
the

of

continuous

redefining of goals, with the wider realization of the
human dynamics for learning and for cooperative effort,
and with

the nurturing of a creative approach

problems of teaching,
In

order

to

evaluation
career

must

be

an

development,

teacher
this

accomplish

performance.

way

and

children

in

the

When
plans

mind,

the

the

(p. 68)
what

aspect

school

to

is
of

stated

a

comprehensive

improvement
teacher
are

above,

and

process

with

plan

improving

evaluation

made

teacher

the

becomes

total '

Is viewed

in

learning

of

beneficial

teachers. According to McNergney and Carrier

for

to

(1981, p. 73),

the process:
1.

Provides

indications

for

teachers'

needs

and

abilities as they are revealed in their work with students.
2. Yields

information that helps teachers become more

aware of their own behaviors and those of their students.
3. Provides data that enables teachers

to compare and

contrast their behaviors with those of their students and to
decide

on

what

changes

in

teaching

styles

might

be

appropriate.
4. Documents classroom behaviors that teacher educators
can use to encourage change based on facts.
On the other hand,
with

care, ‘ can

easily

teacher evaluation,
turn

out

for

the

if not executed
worse

for

those

20
involved.

It

can

evaluator

and

be

a

very

sensitive

evaluatee. However,

issue

there

between

need

not

be

an
any

misunderstanding when there is proper planning and execution
of teacher evaluation process, Peterson (1982) stated:
It should

be emphasized

that

teacher

evaluation

is

a

strategic procedure. Improperly handled, it can destroy
staff

morale

and

seriously

hamper

the

efficient

operation of the school, on the other hand, cooperative
planning of
teacher

a purposeful

program

effectiveness,

procedure,

offers

understandings,

conceived

unusual

more

in

the appraisal
as

a

opportunities

satisfying

of

guidance
for

better

relationships,

and

a

truly cooperative atmosphere between the teaching staff
and administration,

(p. 87)

Purpose of Teacher Evaluation
Teacher

evaluation

can

hardly

succeed

without

the

establishment of a simple, clear purpose. The statement of a
purpose is a major element to a teacher evaluation process.
A

statement

of

purpose

clarifies

evaluation process, in relation to
program.
purpose
are

the

function

the needs

of

likely

threatened

teacher
to

evaluation

feel

(Hawley,

a

1976).

sense

is

stated
of

Without

clearly,

partnership

the

the school

It specifies the reason for the process.
of

of

When the
teachers
and

less

a definite statement of

the purpose of a teacher evaluation process,

Spears

(1953)

saw the possibility of the evaluator's efforts being focused

21
on the instrument rather than on what is to be accomplished.
Hawley

(1976)

stated that

"the most

important principle is

to recognize the clear relationship between the purpose of
evaluation and the means of conducting the evaluation"

(p.

11) ■

In their research,

Ryan and Hickcox

(1980,

pp.

10-11)

identified the following as purposes for teacher evaluation:
1.

Assist

the

teacher

in identifying

areas

that

need

improvement.
2.

Recommend

probationary

teachers

for

permanent

status.
3. Assess effectiveness of instructional program.
4.

Comply

with

central

office,

board,

or

provincial

policy.
5. Stimulate improvement in classroom performance.
6.

Assist

evaluator

in

identifying

areas

that

need

improvement.
Peterson

(1982)

summarized

the

multi-purposes

of

teacher evaluation as:
(a) to improve instruction;

(b) to Improve performance

of teachers by correcting teaching, management or other
deficiencies;

(c)

to

humanize

instruction;

(d)

to

increase overall-accountablllty on the part of teachers
and

school

administrators

and

growth of the teaching staff,
In

the

literature,

primary purpose

of

educators
teacher

to

improve

the

overall

(p. 81)

generally

evaluation is

agree

that

the

to safeguard and

22
Improve

instruction

received

by

Starrat,

1983; Ryan and Hlckcox,

students

(Sergiovanni

and

1980; Hawley, 1976; Bolton,

1973) .

Teacher Evaluation Procedures
The
that

a

first

step

teacher

in

must

a

teacher

be

evaluation

informed

of

procedure

the

duties

is
and

responsibilities that his/her performance of the assignment
requires. On this, Herman (1973) Illuminated:
It is basic that an employee must know what is expected
of him in order that he is able to attempt to perform
in

a

satisfactory

manner.

It

is

unreasonable

to

criticize an employee for not performing his job in a
satisfactory
duties.

manner

Only

discussed

as

and

if

he

the

is

not

informed

expectancies

committed

to

writing

are

of

his

detailed,

can

evaluation

become possible. Two prime means of letting an employee
know

what

is

descriptions

expected
and

are

by

is

evident,

his/her

job

therefore,

expectations

developing

establishment

performance objectives,
It

by

written
of

job

priority

(p, 33)
that
is

informing

absolutely

the

teacher

essential

to

of
a

successful teacher evaluation process.
Another
evaluatee

at

element
the

is

to

beginning

identify

the

of

process.

the

needs

of

the

Both

the

evaluator and the teacher should spend time together so as
to determine the areas of need.

These areas should Include

23
both weaknesses and strengths.
involved
Improve

should
areas

performance.

order

to

remember

that

strength

to enhance

of

Redfern

Identify needs

the

(p.

assessment,

(1980)

there

proposed

is

always

that

maximum

24).

makes

Involving

him/her

evaluation process.

degree

more

to

teaching

"a useful way to

of

the

those

room

the overall

is to regard them as areas

attain

performance"

During such meetings,

to emphasize

in

improvement

in

teacher

committed

to

in
the

needs
entire

The teacher becomes more aware of what

will be evaluated and what needs to be done to prepare for
evaluation.

Hawley

successful

(1976)

pointed

out

evaluation of

teaching

lies

that
in

the
the

key

to

teachers

themselves. The teachers, more than anyone else, know areas
of their strengths and weaknesses.
Thus,
meaningful

"the more the teachers are involved In a real and
way

in

both

planning

and

conducting

the

evaluation, the more likely it Is to succeed in Its purpose"
(Hawley,

1976,

evaluation

p.

18).

helps

determine

the

attitudes

required

The assessment of

both the evaluator

difference
and

between

those

and

needs
the

knowledge,

that

the

in teacher
teacher

skills,

teacher

to
and

presently

applies in teaching.
Teacher evaluation should not be done in isolation.
should
(1973)

be

related

to the entire

school

program.

It

Bolton

points out that "the evaluation of teachers is a part

of a total effort a school system makes to assess its total
program"

(p.

127).

Explanation

as

to

how

the

teacher

24
evaluation
program
It

process

can

be

related

to

the

entire

school

Is given by Wiles and Lovell (1975):
must not be a treatment that Is applied to teaching

alone.

Teachers

cannot

be

expected

to

participate

wholeheartedly In the evaluation of teaching unless It
follows

or

goes

concurrently

administrative procedures,

with

a

school's

and supervisory techniques.

It cannot be something forced on them.
a total process of improvement,
It

can be

evaluation
service
embraces

seen
must

that

from

the

represent

begins

with

above
an

goals,

{p. 231)
statement that

aspect

sound

It is a part of

of

broad

standards

the entire school program.

of

teacher

supervisory
teaching

and

Its planning should be

systematic and based on a set of guidelines and procedures
that

reflect

the

closely related

school's

goals.

The

to school activities

process

should

be

in which teachers are

encouraged to state their problems and then devise ways of
seeking

solutions,

participate
responsibility

in
for

to

have

leadership

decision-making
the

outcome.

On

roles,

and
this

then
major

and

to

accept

element

of

teacher evaluation,' Noonan (1981) adds:
A positive appraisal system is more than a method or an
instrument. The basic philosophy of the school district
needs to be involved.

This philosophy should recognize

that teachers and principals need to work together in
an

atmosphere

of

mutual

understanding

which

involves

25
mutual preplanning,
improvement,

goal

setting,

and suggestions

for

{p. 3}

In conclusion, it can be said that an attempt to relate
teacher evaluation to the entire school program requires a
more

productive

relevant

to

evaluation,

and

the

realistic

educational

therefore,

approach

needs

should

of

be

that
the

viewed

will

make

school.
as

a

it

Teacher

process

of

appraisal in which all elements that constitute the teaching
process are given appropriate consideration (Kortum, 1963).
Sources
The

evaluation

process

plans

should

include

many

sources of evidence to be used and "a variety of instruments
and

techniques

behavior,

employed

satisfaction

relationships,
efficiency"

and

of

other

(Peterson,

in

gathering
pupil

factors

1982,

p.

data

needs,
affecting

87).

on

teacher

pupil-teacher
the

teacher's

The teacher should be

fully aware of the procedures to be used in the evaluation
process, and the division of responsibility for carrying out
those

procedures.

In

other

words,

confidence

must

be

developed in the teacher that there are resources necessary
to

achieve

satisfactory

results

from

the

evaluation

undertaken. The teacher then has the responsibility to carry
out the activities planned while the evaluator monitors the
performance.

On monitoring a teacher's performance,

Redfern

(1980) said:
Basic

to the plan of action

evaluatee's

performance.

The

is the monitoring of
evaluator

the

should monitor

26
the

evaluatee's

Information
pursued.

performance

that

relate

Monitoring

to

to

is

collect

the

data

objectives

concerned

with

and
being

performance

outputs; it is the evidence-gathering part of the total
evaluation process.
it and,

The parties

it is to be hoped,

concerning

the

monitoring

forms

be

used,

to

involved must discuss

agree upon certain matters
(i.e.

kinds

the

of

data

and

gathering,

frequency

of

visitations,

the identity of monitors, conferences, and

other

of

types

monitoring

contracts)

should

never

. . . .

be

Information

stored

feedback will enhance performance,

away

when

from

prompt

(p. 16)

Scheduling
The

school

district's

plan

for

teacher

evaluation

should include how often it should be done. This is a major
element

that

requires

administrators.
literature

There

regarding

general

statement

viewed

as

careful

consideration

are specific
this

that

a one-time

from

school

guidelines given

in the

element.

teacher

Vacc

(1982)

evaluation

prediction activity

offered

should

a

not

be

but rather,

as

continuous throughout one's teaching career. Peterson (1982)
stated

that teacher

process

comprised

planning,
school
program

and

should

frequent

process

supervision

contributes' to

the

conferences

should grow
and

be

a

discussions,

principal-teacher

year. The
of

of

evaluation

out

continuous
cooperative

throughout
of the

in-service training

effectiveness

of

a

teacher's

the

normal
that

classroom

27
instruction.

Throughout

a

teacher's

career,

evaluation

of

teaching should reflect the spirit of inservice development
and

not

effort
the

a

detailed

(Spears,

inspection

and

accounting

teaching

1953). If instructional improvement is made

central

factor

for

teacher

administrators

are

work

constantly

establishing

ways for

assessment

of

permits

to

evaluation,
with

professional growth.

inspection

of

the

school

teachers

The

teaching

in

continuous
process

and

allows the evaluator to assess a teacher's progress relative
to achieving goals;
the

acquisition

decisions

of

In his study,
the

continuous

desired

concerning

strategy or method,

support

the effectiveness of teaching strategy;
behavior

alternative

change(s);

goals

and

the

making
teaching

if necessary (Vacc, 1982).
Shinkfield

idea that

throughout

(1977) reported that teachers

evaluation of

the

year.

It

teaching

should

be

should
an

be

integral

part of school activities and not just a one-shot burdening
experience
that

to

a

teacher.

"teachers will

allows

for

growth"

(Noonan,

Evaluators

need

to bear

in mind

respond to an evaluation process which

their participation,

recognition,

and

self­

19'81, p. 40). In addition, teachers want to

know the level of their performance in teaching, whether the
students are learning or not, and how they can improve their
teaching performance.
their

professional

competencies

needed

Thus,

any

repertoire
is welcomed

(1982) further observed,

effort
by
by

made

to

identifying
the

strengthen
additional

teachers.

Peterson

"teachers perceive more value in an

28
evaluation
rather

system

than

that

judgment

develops

rating"

(p.

professional
85).

Such

an

should be continuous and systematic.

On this,

School

(1974)

Public

"evaluation

Relations

should

be

Association

an

ongoing,

competency
evaluation

the National

suggested

long-term

process

that
that

takes into account all of a teacher's over-all performance
and of

progress

between

periods

shot, stand-or-fall rating"
teacher evaluation,

of

evaluation— not a one-

(p. 57). The value of systematic

according to Redfern (1982),

is that it

enables a teacher to:
1. Understand more completely the scope of duties and
responsibilities.
2. Establish long and short-term goals.
3.

Place priorities upon certain tasks which are more

critical in work performance.
4.

Clarify

working

relationships

with

peers,

subordinates, and supervisors.
5.

Understand better how those to whom the individual

looks for advice,

counsel,

and guidance view the quality of

performance.
As a whole, a 'systematic, continuous teacher evaluation
serves

as

a

multi-dimensional

directions

which

profession.

It

enable
serves

a
as

activity

teacher
a

means

to
to

that

establishes

grow

in

obtain

his/her
and

use

information for generating and establishing teaching goals,
strategies, and teaching effectiveness.

29
Observation
The

evaluatees

classroom

performance

situations.

can

Classroom

best

be

monitored

observation

allows

in
the

teacher and evaluator to work as a team and to concentrate
on

improvement.

It

provides

the

opportunity

evaluator and evaluatee to assess how well

for

both

goals have been

met, whether they should be amended, or others added to the
list.

Hayman

(1975)

highlighted

the

value

of

classroom

observation to the teacher evaluation process as follows:
To

observe

is

much

more

than

mere

seeing.

Observing

involves the intentional and methodological viewing of
the teacher and students.
careful,

Observing

involves

planned,

focused, and active attention by the observer.

Observing involves all the senses and not just sight or
hearing

. . . .

supervisor,
The author

Observing

is a critical

task for the

(pp. 23-24)

further

indicates

that classroom observation is

valuable to the teacher evaluation process because:
1.

It

helps

teachers

by

providing

precise

and

systematic feedback.
2.

It

offers

an

opportunity

to

assess

the

changes

a

teacher makes over time.
3. It makes It possible to gather evidence needed for
teacher evaluation.
4. It enables the evaluator to reflect his/her concern
for the teacher and the students.

It is a demonstration of

30
interest in the teacher and students.

It reveals caring to

know firsthand what is going on in the classroom.
Classroom observation
factors

that

contribute

(Shinkfield,

1977).

is considered

positively

Kleinman

to

(1966)

to be

one of

teacher

indicated,

the

evaluation
"measurement

, of behavior by observation appears to be the most promising
technique
234).

It

that

the

to date

for assessing teacher

effectiveness"

is also pointed out by Anderson and Hanko
solution

to

certain

problems

in

the

(p.

(1973)

evaluation

process lie in the use of pupil-teacher interactions and the
interpretation of this interaction by a trained observer.

A

study by Noonan (1981) stated that classroom "observation is
the

proper

technique

for

considering

classroom

observation

teacher

evaluation

that

data

collecting"

should

as

a

not

(p.

major

be

that

"any

supervisory

or

In

element

of

overlooked,

National School Public Relations Association
out

42) .

evaluative

(1974) pointed

procedure

avoids this is fake at worst or incomplete at best"
It

is

obvious

from

the

emphasis

the

placed

on

which

(p. 17).
classroom

observation that teacher evaluation should not be based on
impressions but on close observation of what the teacher and
the students do in the classroom.
Conference
Another
evaluation
aspect,
said,

is

element

which

the assessment

the process
"interpreting

must
of

its

is worthless.
the

be

meaning

On

a

part

results.
this,
and

of

teacher

Without

Redfern

this

(1980)

significance

of

31
monitored data Is a very Important part of the total process
of

evaluation"

evaluator

(p.

should

24)
be

that should not be
knowledgeable

of

overlooked.

how

to

The

analyze/

interpret, and present the data.
Teacher evaluation is not complete until

the evaluator

and teacher hold the final conference to discuss the results
of

the

process.

involved

in

By

the

this

entire

time,

if

process,

the

teacher

there

should

has

been

exist

intimate relationship between the evaluator and teacher.
Spears

(1953)

noted,

"the

most

appralsaJ, either written or

fruitful

oral,

source

of

an
As
any

is a teacher-supervisor

conference that reflects a wholesome atmosphere"

(p.

424).

The final conference should give a clear indication that the
evaluator

has

a

continued

teacher and his/her work.

concern

teacher

to

constructive

view

rather

interest

in

the

As the discussion focuses on the

objectives set at the beginning,
the

and

the

the evaluator should help

results

than

of

negative

evaluation

perspective.

from
Both

a
the

evaluator and evaluatee should ultimately find out from the
information gathered whether the objectives have been met.
Prom

the

present
this

data

the

is

strengths

done,

prevailing

analysis,

the

atmosphere

the

evaluator

and weaknesses
evaluator
and

should

the

way

of

should

carefully

the teacher.
remember

he/she

When

that

the

presents

the

results will determine the teacher's acceptance or rejection
of

certain

opportunity

evaluation results.
to

respond

or

The

teacher

comment

on

should have
the

an

evaluation

32
outcomes. When the teacher's weakenesses are revealed, there
should

also

be

remedies

suggested.

The

evaluator

should

accept the responsibility to assist the teacher and to make
plans

for

activities

like

in-service

education

for

the

improvement of weaknesses. A plan for a consistent follow-up
should be set by both the evaluator and teacher to ensure
improvement.
When the evaluator has developed the final report
evaluation,

the teacher should see it and be given a chance

to reply to it,
place.

The

teacher

for

if she/he wishes,

school

may

should

request

the

make

before
a

the

filing takes

provision

removal

from

whereby

the

the

file

any

information considered obsolete.
In

summary,

comprehensive
should
When
have

procedure

involve

the

It

be

rating

process.

and

concerned with

process

be

should

approach

should

be

an

a

should

than

constructive

improvement.

evaluation

rather

purposes

finalized,
a

teacher

enable
to

the

a

more

situations.
teacher

self-analysis

opportunity

to

It

to
and

commend

a

teacher for good work done and to boost the general morale
of workers in the school.

The Role of the Principal in Teacher Evaluation
The teacher evaluation process

is an integral part of

the entire school program and its management. Like any other
organizations,

schools

are

accountable

to

the

public

that

supports them. In order for a school to know what goes on in

33
general and the level of its Instructional performance,

the

teaching personnel must be evaluated. The primary purpose of
teacher evaluation,

therefore,

is to provide

feedback that

helps teachers in their professional growth and improvement
of

instruction

{Herman,

1973;

Kowalski,

1978;

and

Hauge,

1981).
In elementary school, "principals
primary evaluators"
observed

that

(Noonan,

principals

1981,

"are

are regarded as the

p.

160).

obliged

to

judgments about teaching effectiveness"

Redfern
make

(1972)

evaluative

(p. 64) . The degree

to which they are able to make good evaluation judgments is
often considered to be a mark of their competence. Peterson
(1982) noted;
Today's

principal

technical

must

be

capabilities

familiar

to

with

evaluate

teachers

evaluation is part of his responsibilities.
of

the

year,

he

usually

district officials
effectiveness.

some

Is

required

current

to

for

At the end

turn

to

the

type of evaluation on teacher

He should take the opportunity to visit

classrooms, to observe teachers and classes, using some
teacher

approved

rating

scale,

conferences with the teachers,

and

hold

post­

(pp. 76-77)

For the past two decades or so, the expectations of the
principal's

role

as

the

elementary schools has
that

"the

elementary

principal
school"

key

increased.

does
(p.

evaluator

most

77) . A

of

of

Goedken
the

study

teachers
(1969)

Nield

the

indicated

observation
by

in

and

in

the

Oldham

34
(1974)

revealed

certain

direction

that

the

role

of

the

principal as key teacher evaluator has taken:
Traditionally,
usually

the

teacher's

principal

evaluating the
approaches,

the

teacher,

has
and

Immediate
been

today,

supervisor,

responsible
despite

for

changes

in

the principal is still the Individual most

often charged with this important duty. Some principals
have

reported

performing

they

spend

functions

up

related

to
to

90*

of

their

evaluation,

time

classroom

visits, conferences, inservice training, etc., and many
districts identify teacher evaluation as the major duty
of principals,

(p. 10)

There seems to be agreement between the above study and that
done by Ryan and Hickcox

(1980)

in which

"the respondents

indicated that for both probationary and permanent teachers,
principals were involved in 90* of the observations"
The

authors

finding,

it

note

that

does

serve

"while
to

this

is not

emphasize the

a

(p. 7).

surprising

crucial

principals play in current evaluation practices"

role

(p. 7).

The task of evaluating teachers is not an easy one.
involves different *stages
and

experiences

from

It

that require a variety of skills

the

principal.

Thus,

the

principal

needs to acquire knowledge about teacher evaluation through
training.

Noonan

(1981)

Indicated

that

"if principals

are

taught to observe, know what it is they are looking for, and
observe what

happens

and not

what

they think Is happening

nor how they

feel about what is happening"

(p.

42), teacher

35
evaluation

can

be

a productive

classroom instruction.
provide

valid

endeavor

towards

improving

In addition, if principals have to:

and

reliable

data

on

the

interpersonal

communications between a teacher and students,
undergo

extensive

categories
messages;
forms

used
he

and

training

for

must

the

to

classifying

master

other

the

learn
teacher

use

recording

the

of

he must
behavior

and

student

behavior

procedures

record

so

that

accurate judgments can be made; and he must demonstrate
that his records are consistent from one observation to
another.
In

(Bolton,

order

to

knowledgeable.
National

1973, pp. 110-111)

know

They

what

should be

to

do,

trained

evaluators
for

must

their

School Public Relations Association

task.

(1974)

be
The

stated

that "those who do the evaluating should be trained for the
job and must themselves be evaluated regularly"

(p.

57).

A

trained evaluator is in a position to approach his/her duty
in a professional manner. It should often be remembered that
teaching is a complex process and there is no easy formula
to

evaluate

(Peterson,
evaluation
will

it

without

1982). * With
requires

attempt

for

to develop

proper
the

its
an

skills

knowledge
success,

atmosphere

a

and

of

knowledge

what

trained

in which

teacher
evaluator

creativity

and teamwork between the teacher and appraiser are the basis
for all
for

plans.

their

job

Bolton
as

(1975)

crucial

to

sees
the

training
success

for
of

evaluators

the

teacher

36
evaluation

process.

He

suggests

some

ways

by

which

evaluators could be trained:
1.

Elective

in-service

course or

courses

at

devoted

entirely

univer­

sities .
2.

A

principals1 meeting

to

evalu­

ation.
3. A general explanation given at principals1 meetings.
4. Workshop or clinic,

lasting from one to three days,

using the assistance of an outside consultant,

observation

of films of live classrooms, and discussions.
5. Written manuals describing procedures and explaining
forms and policy,
6.

Work

of

central

office

personnel

with

individual

principals.
The training of evaluators is a likely means
professionalism into teacher evaluation.

to bring

It may be a means

to eliminate certain problems which often beset the teacher
evaluation process due to an evaluator's lack of skills
knowledge.
teaching

When
and

teachers

its

deal

evaluation

with

is

those

all

who

about,

know

or

what

instructional

improvement will be* attained easily.
The

literature reveals

principals

in

the

area

that

of

inadequate

teacher

preparation of

evaluation

detrimental to teachers' professional growth which,
may lead
who

to poor

surveyed

instruction in the school.

twenty-six

elementary

Hodel

principals

to

can

be

in turn,
(1979),
identify

formal and informal evaluation practices used by principals

37
to

improve

found

teaching

this

to

be

true.

adequately possess
contributed

effectiveness
He

supervisory

significantly

successfully

found

improve

to

of

individual

that

skills

their

“principals
and

this

perceived

instruction"

teachers,

(p.

do

not

deficiency

inability

133).

If

the

to

main

purpose of teacher evaluation is to improve instruction and
If the evaluator’s lack of skills hinders it, "the knowledge
and

ability

guide

or

of

the

evaluator

program"

are

(Peterson,

more

1982,

p.

important

than any

77).

issue

is

can

be

The

further highlighted by Washington (1977):
The

performance

of

evaluated

only

by

Competent

evaluation

the

a

classroom

qualified
depends

teacher

professional
on

the

educator.

perceptiveness,

experience, and technical skill of the evaluator
. His

knowledge

instruments

used

well-defined
assessment
skilled

and
in

intelligence

are

chief

the

The

evaluator

technical
of

program.
skills

teachers'

scientific

to

make

expertness.
observer,

. . .

measuring
needs

meaningful

He

must

have

be

a

extensive

professional experience, know how to relate an observed
action, and be* thoroughly acquainted with the classroom
program

and

the

conditions

he

Is

observing.

He

must

know how to look for it, know when he sees It, and how
to assess it.

(pp. 2-3)

In essence, the professional expertise of the principal
In

teacher

emphasized.

evaluation
It

must

be

is

a

must.

understood

It
and

cannot
acted

be

upon

over­
if

the

38
teacher evaluation process is to fulfill
proper

training,

significant

the

role

in

principal

the

can

stages

of

its purpose.

successfully

the

teacher

With

play

a

evaluation

process.

Climate and Relationship
The

atmosphere

evaluation
considered.
between

is

in

conducted

which
is

a

the
major

It should be conducive

evaluator

and

evaluatee.

process
factor

of

teacher

that

must

be

to a cooperative effort
Flexibility

must characterize each phase of the process.

and

openness

At any stage,

there should be no indication of exercising authority by the
evaluator.

The National School Public Relations Association

(1974) pointed out:
Evaluation

must

take

place

nonthreatening atmosphere.

The

in

a

constructive

teacher must

feel

and
that

improvement of his performance is a cooperative effort
involving him,

his evaluator and others on the school

staff. No matter how well designed— in the abstract— an
evaluation

program

may

seem,

if

teachers as negative or punitive,
teaching,

it

is

perceived

by

it will not improve

but will lower teacher effectiveness because

of teacher fears and lowered morale,

(p. 57)

Setting Climate for Teacher-Principal Relationships
A

conducive

relationships

atmosphere

is essential

for

employer-employee

for a successful

leadership.

At

school, t h e 'principal is the person who can set a climate in

39
which
must

teachers

can work

and students

set up a climate of

the teachers.
"easy
and

learn.

"acceptance"

The

between

principal

himself

and

Such relationships may be established through

face-to-face
operational

communication,

sharing

problem-solving,

and

decision-making

confidence

integrity and motivations of each other"

(Redfern,

in

the

p.

68) .

The principal-teacher rapport should reveal genuine respect
and

interest

teachers

as

in each other.
professional

When

the principal

colleagues,

he/she

recognizes

sets

the pace

for mutual respect.
The
which

teacher

the

evaluation

principal

and

process

teacher

requires

can

work

a

as

climate

a

team.

principal-teacher relationship should be on a sound,
understanding for teacher evaluation
principal

can

establish

the

The

mutual

to be successful.

necessary

working

in

The

atmosphere

from the beginning of a school year when a meeting is held
to acquaint

teachers with each other and to orient them to

the

program.

school

During

the

meeting,

the

old

teachers

will, of course, be updated on any changes from the previous
year

while

Information
policies,

the
on

new
school

pupils,

teachers'
plant,

parent

orientation
school

groups,

and

may

personnel,
overall

include
school

nature

of

school community {Redfern, 1980).
During

the

school

year,

the

principal

personal contacts with each individual teacher.

should

have

In order to

build a good evaluation climate, the principal should show a
daily genuine interest in helping and working with teachers.

40
He should try to give the time and energy required to work
with

each

teacher

on

instructional

improvement

through

evaluation. Redfern (1972) cautions principals that "a rigid
superior-subordinate

relationships

evaluation

(p.

personnel
person,

climate"
manager,

the

Through

communicator,

principal

relationship

68).

detracts

with

should

teachers

and
be

that

from

his/her
a

is

role

public

able

to

a

good
as

a

relations

establish

conducive

to

a
the

evaluation process.
Principal as a Personnel Manager
The principal's
an asset

skills

in personnel management

to teacher evaluation.

As he/she plays

can be

this role,

the principal can establish a working relationship with the
teachers

that

will

evaluation process.

set

the

In order

right

atmosphere

to establish

for

such a

the

climate,

the principal should recognize human diversity in his staff,
whether it be in terms of personality,
or

cultural

heritage

(Wiles

and

experience,

Bondi, 1980).

beliefs,
In

other

words, the principal must accept the individual teachers as
they

are

He/she

with

must

be

no

conditions

willing

to

attached

work

with

for

personal

individual

gain.

teachers

wherever they are in their development. The principal should
recognize the diversity in teachers and also be sensitive to
their

potentials

that

could

be

used

to

improve

the

educational program of the school.
The principal, as a personnel

manager, makes

evaluation

of teachers a smooth process if he/she "builds and maintains

41
thegroup,

gets

comfortable and

the

job

done,

helps

the

group

feel

at ease, helps set and clearly define goals

and

objectives, and cooperatively works toward

and

objectives" (Wiles and Bondi,

1980,

p.

those goals

141).

In order

for principals to develop a school environment suitable for
-teacher

evaluation,

Redfern

(1972,

p.

76)

recommends

the

following personnel procedures:
1. Treat each other as an individual
2. Tailor needs of individual teachers
3. Make assignments equitable
4. Enlist teachers to contribute ideas and to share in
problem-solving
5. Be available when problems arise and help is needed
6. Promote peer-level interaction
7. Be consistent and fair
8. Anticipate problems and face them realistically
9. Give credit where due and be sparing in allocating
blame.
10. Give criticism only in example
11. Lead by example
When these procedures are often applied by the principal in
personnel

management

of

the

school,

formal

or

informal

evaluation of teachers will not be difficult to perform. The
principal-teacher
principal
classroom.

to

help

relationships
teachers

will

both

make

inside

it
and

easy

for

the

outside

the

42
The Principal as a Communicator
Without

communication

between

the

principal

and

teachers, evaluation of teachers becomes an impossible task.
There

must

principal

be

and

effective
teachers

daily

such

communication

that

"the

between

receiver

the

interprets

the message he has received in a way the sender intended him
to"
the

(Hayman,

1975, p.

principal

confidence

and

and

160).

Effective communication between

teacher

empathy;

should

accurate

involve

mutual

sending

and

trust,

receiving

verbal messages mixed with non-verbal ones; and listening to
each other.

Bolton

(1963)

has this to say about principal-

teacher communication in relation to teacher evaluation:
Continuous
assists

interaction

both

to

between

analyze

teacher

information.

and

principal

This

does

not

negate the use of formal written feedback at stipulated
periods.
be

To be most

two-way,

effective,

requiring

that

the communication must

each person

listen

to

the

other. Effective evaluation of teachers is dependent on
both

adequate

quality

and

quantity

between teachers and principals,
When principal-teacher
evaluation becomes
times

and

communication

(p. 97)
is

an on-going process

convenience.

The

same

communication

view

effective,
not
is

teacher

limited
shared

to set

by

Hodel

(1979) who stated:
The evaluation
school

systems

of

teachers

and

is

is an

not

on-going process

limited

to

or

in

totally

governed by formal evaluation procedures. Considerable

43
evaluative
during

data

normal

is

obtained

operations

informally

of

schools,

by

principals

and

this

data

affects the principal's perception of a given teacher's
performance,
A

continued

principal-teacher

principal to
the

(p. 133)
communication

e.g.

diary

with

observational notes and reactions"
proper

principal
appraisal
77).

and

communication

teachers,

relationships

It

is

the

communication

with

listen

to

what

communicate

to

needed

why

and

effective
her/his

the

'-keep an informal record of his contacts with

teacher,

When

enables

"the
is

not

have

teachers,

in

it

is

to

every

task of

be

The

the

teachers

evaluating

a

between
and

1963,

maintain
willing

routine

to

must

whatever

principal

p.

open

principal

instance,

needed. If
with

(Redfern,

must

say.

1963, p. 76).

supervisory

to

She/he

contacts,

exist

of

diminished"

teachers

the

does
value

teachers.

of

(Redfern,

principal's duty

communication

Job,

dates

is

makes
part

of

teachers would not be

difficult.
Human Relationships: An Asset to Principal in Teacher
Evaluation
A

principal

evaluation

may

process

relationships.
human resources

encounter
if

Perceiving

difficulty

in

she/he lacks skills
teachers

and

other

In the educational process,

the
in

teacher
human

personnel

as

and perfecting

skills in a wide spectrum of Interpersonal relationships are

)

44
some

of

the

imperatives

of

the

principal’s

leadership

responsibilities as an effective evaluator.
Human relations involve "one’s ability and judgment in
working

with

people"

(Sergiovanni

and

Starratt,

1983,

p.

286).

Self-understanding and acceptance are the avenues of

human

relations

which

when

extended

from

one

to

others,

leads to considering their needs as people. To develop such
a

relationship

with

teachers,

principals,

according

to

Redfern (1972, p. 67), should:
1. Avoid the "boss complex" wherever possible. Help the
teacher feel that evaluation is a means to help, not hinder.
2.

Seek

to

establish

that

evaluation

is

a

means

to

enhance teacher's effectiveness.
3. Be aware that the principal's personality as well as
that

of

the

teacher

have

influence

upon

the

evaluation

relationship.
4.

Be

willing

feelings

without

opinion

is

to

fear

markedly

allow
of

the

censure

different

teacher
or

to

reprisal

from

the

express
even

his

if

that

of

the

teacher

and

views

principal.
5. Strive for 'a climate of mutual respect.
6. Be prepared to take as well as to give.
7. Be committed to the concept
principal

are

members

of

a

team

that

the

working

interest of a good educational program.
8. Invite constructive criticism.

for

the

best

45
9.

Avoid

giving

the

teacher

the

"brush-off”

when

problems are presented.
10. Be genuinely interested in the teacher as a person,
willing to take time to help work through problems.
The day-to-day
teachers

should

incorporated.

interactions between

be

Any

relationship

such

that

attempt

between

the

made

the principal

and

suggestions

are

above

to

do

day-to-day

this,

makes

"the

supervisors

plus

administrative contacts with the teacher and appraisal more
direct and close" (Redfern, 1963, p. 74).
In his daily contacts with teachers,
set

a

climate

that

makes

the

teacher

the principal can
evaluation

process

possible and helpful to teachers. When the principal is able
to

communicate

relations,

with

teachers

teachers
often

and

to

cooperate

establish
during

good

the

human

evaluation

process.

Current Evaluation Processes
The

evaluation

of

teachers

can

be

done

through

different methods and techniques. This section discusses the
current

teacher

literature.
student

evaluation

The

ratings,

achievement

tests,

processes

processes
peer

are

ratings,

teaching

as

are

found

in

the

administrative

ratings,

self

ratings,

students

tests,

clinical

performance

supervision, and performance objectives.

46
Administrative Ratings
In the literature,

the principal

is identified as the

key teacher evaluator in elementary schools (Peterson, 1982;
Hauge, 1981; H o d e l , 1979; Kowalski,
1977) . It

is

also

revealed

in

1978; Lovell and Phelps,

the

literature

administrators like the vice-principal,

that

supervisors,

other
and so

on may be involved in teacher evaluation.
Administrators can use various techniques available for
collecting data

on

These techniques

teacher/student

classroom

interactions.

include systematic observation procedures,

rating scales, checklists, and narrative reporting.
Systematic
these
and

rating

procedures
student

behavioral

Is

by

procedures.

to study

keeping

events

a

The

main

interactions
running

purpose

between

record

of

for

teacher
selected

that occur within the classroom

(Bolton,

1973). The author also indicated that these procedures are:
Designed

to

minimize

the

influence

of

observer

bias.

These measurement techniques are characterized by prior
analysis

of

behavior

category dimensions,

record

the

for

interrater
training

criterion

'recording
and

of

The

most

commonly

defined

establishment

reliability,

observers

recording techniques,

clearly

use of an observational

purposes,

intrarater
the

behaviors,

in

and

of

Intensive

observational

and

(p. 113)
used

systematic

observation

procedures are listed by Kowalski (1978, pp. 4-5).

47
1.
verbal

Flanders

Interactional

Analysis,

which

Interaction between teachers and students

analyzes
(Flanders,

1970).
2. Galloway's Non-Verbal Communication,

which analyses

the types of non-verbal behaviors teachers use with students
by means of video tape recording (Galloway).
3. Parson's Types of Question Analysis,
the

types

of

questions

teachers

use

which analyses
with

students

(Evaluation Handbook, 1975).
4. Bales's Interaction Process Analysis, which analyzes (
interaction patterns of group members

(Evaluation Handbook,

1975).
5. The Verbal Interaction Category System,
of

the

Flanders

system,

including measurement

an adoption
of

the

non­

verbal behavior of the teacher and student (Griffith, 1973) .
6.

The Classroom Observational Method,

which analyzes

cognitive levels on which classroom verbal interaction takes
place (Griffith,
7.

1973).

Observation

itemization
teaching and

of

Guides,

specific

learning which

and

which

are

a

comprehensive

observational

helps

aspects

a supervisor

of

to monitor

certain phases of instruction (Griffith, 1973).
8.

The

Briggs

Observational

Guide,

a

collection

of

questions which serves as a guide to help supervisors arrive
at

judgments

climate,

regarding

organization,

others (Griffith,

1973).

the purpose of
and

development

a lesson,
of

classroom

lessons,

among

48
9.

Video-tape

supervisor

to

analysis,

review

constructive

a

which

lesson

alternatives

allows

and

for

reach

teacher

and

consensus

teaching

on

improvement

(Griffith, 1973).
10.

Observation Schedule and Record

category

system

which

yields

(OScAR),

frequency

a verbal

counts

of

the

occurrence of different verbal behaviors (Medley, 1973).
11.

Instrument

Activities

(IOTA),

for

the

which

is

observation
a

written

of

Teaching

description

of

classroom behavior by a team of at least three observers.
The

above

weaknesses.

techniques

Brandt

"observational

and

have

Perkins

methodology

may

their

strengths

(1973)

indicate

simplify

some

and
that

of

the

complexity of analyzing classroom activity to the point at
which

it

can

supervisors"

be

better

(pp.

understood

79-80) .

The

by

both

teachers

systematic

and

observation

procedures have been found to enhance the quality of teacher
evaluation (Kowalski,
One
that

the

of

the

local

training

and

return

for

practitioners

1978).

shortcomings

of

administrators

such' systems
expenses
have

also

may

systematic

using
not

incurred
faced

procedures

them

need

provide

a

(Bolton,
the

problem

is

intensive
justifiable

1973).
of

The

adopting

systematic observation procedures to their particular needs.
Despite the shortcomings of systematic procedures, educators
still

find

them

useful

because

they

provide

a

language for analyzing the teaching-learning process.

common

49
Rating scales. There are many different types of rating
scales.

Remmers

(1963,

pp.

329-343)

identified

groups

of

assigned

to

rating scales as follows:
1.

Numerical

categories,

Rating

usually

on

Scales:
an

Numbers

a-priori

are

basis.

The

observer

assumes that the intervals of this kind of scale represent
equal psychological intervals between adjacent numbers.
2 . Graphic

Rating

Scales:

The

graphic

rating

scales

provides a continuous straight line with cues or categories
along

the

varieties,
in many

line

to

guide

the

rater.

It

for it is possible to present

ways,

with

or

without

appears

in

many

the straight

line

descriptive

categories

and

with or without numbers for the scale units.
3. Cumulated-Points Rating Scale:

The cumulated-points

method of scoring is common to several
By

this

method,

scales

are

scored

rating scale

in

the

same

types.
way

as

psychological tests, usually one or zero per item.
4.

Multiple-choice Rating Forms:

The alternatives

each item may be arranged in multiple choice
choices weighted a priori according to their
of

degree

of

representation

of

a

specified

for

form and

the

"desirability"
dimension

of

teaching.
5. Forced-choice Rating Scale: The forced-choice rating
scale is not an a-priori kind of scale but a psychologically
scaled

instrument

requiring

for its construction.

considerable

experimental

work

50
Kowalski
In

(1978)

general

the

extent

describing

rating

descriptions
behaviors.

in

scales

regarding

rating

contain

certain

which

a

teacher

a

said:

listing

teacher

When using such a scale,
to

scales

classroom

the rater

manifests

of

the

judges
quality

described by putting a check on a number scale or on a
comment

(such

as

good,

improving,

conditional,

or

any

instruments

for

strengths

and

unacceptable). (p .5)
The

rating

measuring

scales,

teacher

weaknesses.

As

like

behaviors,

for strength,

other

have

their

the rating

scales

"allow

the

‘observers to consider clues from a variety of sources before
making

a

judgment"

(Mohan

and

Hull,

1975,

p.

266).

The

problem with rating scales is that they tend to enhance the
subjective biases when they cover a considerable period of
time and a wide variety of conditions and teacher behaviors
(Brandt,

1973).

Other

problems

are

pointed

out

by

Bolton

(1973, p. 36):
1. When too many ratings are clustered at a particular
point,

the evaluator may infer that raters are too lenient,

too harsh, or unwil'ling to be decisive and objective.
2. It is easier to identify the very poor and the very
good than to differentiate

in the middle range of a rating

scale. Therefore, mlddle-range ratings are more difficult to
justify.
Although rating scales have these shortcomings,
(1974,

p.

143)

observed

that

"if

an

evaluator

Popham
has

no

51
practical
are

alternative

probably

better

tc

rating

than

scales

nothing,

then

rating

especially

if

scales

they

are

used only to isolate the extremely weak and extremely strong
teachers.
Checklists. Checklists are similar to rating scales in
certain

ways.

They are

teaching-learning

composed

process.

As

of. items
in

relevant

rating

to

scales,

the
"the

evaluator usually checks appropriate items or writes a brief
comment next to it to indicate the specific type of behavior
manifested by the teacher" (Kowalski,
certain

advantages

teachers.

for

using

One of the advantages

1978, p. 5). There are

checklists
is that it

in

evaluating

is possible

to

construct checklists "locally to meet particular needs, once
their

potential

utility

is

recognized

and

procedures for their development understood"
p.

29) . Other

54) : (a)

advantages

are

given

by

the

general

(Brandt,

Griffith

1973,

(1973,

p.

It directs attention to aspects of a lesson which

an observer might otherwise miss;

(b)

It gives a degree of

objectivity to an evaluator's observations;

(c) It provides

a permanent record which is quick and easy to make; and

(d)

It helps a teacher*to analyze his or her own lesson and to
determine what a supervisor considers important.

The author

also gives the disadvantages of using checklists as follows:
(a) A checklist influences an evaluator to analyze

teacher

performance during

pattern

a lesson

according

to a common

even though lessons may vary widely in form and purpose thus
making

classroom

observations

a

mechanical,

routine

,

52
procedure;
vary

in

(b)

Items on a checklist often are numerous and

significance

and

there

is

weigh their relative importance;

rarely

make

checklists
judgments

becomes

routine,

without

attempt

to

(c) Checklists usually deal

with details which are often superficial;
use of

any

patient

and

{d) When the

supervisors
reflection

are apt
and

to

careful

analysis.
The decision as to the kind of evaluation Instrument is
suitable

for

local

administrators
checklists
clearly
specific
and

are

use

and

the

focus

adequate

made

When

"their

, low-inference

providing

be

teachers.

chosen,

defining

should

by

rating

accuracy may

of

the

items;

both

training

scales

be

for

or

improved by

evaluation;

using common

school

developing

record

observers"

forms;

(Bolton,

1973, p. 36).
Teacher Self-Evaluation
Self-evaluation of teachers should be an integral part
of a school's evaluation program.

On this,

Peterson

(1982)

stated,

"self—evaluation should and must play an important

role

the evaluative

in

school system.
that

and

can

can

help

allocate a reasonable
improvement

in

(p.

88)

of

teachers

In a

Researchers in teacher education often find

"self-evaluation

change

process"

the

form

the

the basis

instructor

amount of

areas

where

likely to be most profitable"
Bolton (1973) Indicated:

for
to

time and
he

effort

1966,

rational

systematically

believes

(Simpson,

the

for self-

changes
p.

are

1). Also,

The

teacher's

conflict
makes

that

analysis helps
is

judgments

to

reduce the

often encountered

about

teacher

when an

behavior.

natural
outsider

Since

the

supervisor is placed In the role of a resource person,
assisting to develop the teachers coding and analysis
skills, he

is no longer perceived as a threat to the

teacher. The common goal of the supervisor or principal
and

the

teacher

in

self-evaluation

is

to

provide

a

teacher the opportunity to improve his teaching skills
by

observing

his

own behavior

in

a threat-free

atmosphere (p. 140-141).
In the self-evaluation of teachers, the principal plays
the role of a counselor and works together with the teacher
throughout

the

evaluation

process.

Olds

(1973)

offered

suggestions for self-evaluation cycles as follows:
1.

Individuals

select

proposed

job

targets

for

the

evaluation period based upon review of previous evaluations
and/ or self-appraisal.
2.

Present

proposed

targets

to

evaluator

and

reach

mutual agreement on plan at target-setting conference.
3. Monitor and* help gather performance data.
4. Hold periodic conferences with evaluator to discuss
progress made toward targets and to review data flow.
5.
analysis,

Review
and

performance
prepare

data

from

self-evaluation

made toward selected targets.

all

sources,

report

on

make

progress

54
6. At

a

final

progress

conference,

review self-

evaluation with evaluator and discuss evaluation report made
by the evaluator.
7. Propose follow-up activities and discuss evaluator's
proposals based upon analysis of the evaluator's preliminary
discussion of target ideas for next cycle.
8.

Offer

evaluation

suggestions

program

for

under

improvement

procedure

of

performance

established

for

the

evaluation system.
As can be seen,

the final progress conference provides

the time to review what has taken place in a teacher's selfevaluation and to propose what needs to be done in the next
cycle. Redfern (1980) states that "self-evaluation, properly
used,

is

a

guide

for

planning

further

self-improvement"

(p.33).
School administrators need to understand that teachers,
as professionals, want to be autonomous in seeking their own
improvement.

Directly

or

indirectly,

teachers

have

"expressed a desire to be the determiner of whether process
goals

were

(Bolton,

met

1973,

and

of

p. ’ 141).

self-evaluation,

the
Hhen

it recognizes

appropriate
a

school

system

"teachers

systematically

behavior"

(McNeil and Popham, 1973, p. 231).
teacher

evaluation a

has

the

success while

and

to be

teaching,

The

assessing

action

working with

of

take"

encourages
students of

revising

responsibility

to

their

making

own

self-

the evaluator

who

acts as a counselor. The teacher should view self-evaluation

55
as a way of continually diagnosing his/her work in terras of
what

is

being

done,

and

how

it

is

progressing.

To

the

evaluators and teachers, Redfern (1963) suggested:
Self-appraisal
framework

of

appraisee's
other

judging

own

words,

picture

should

of

accomplished

performance

concept

each
what

be

of

has

considers

in

to

standards

merely means

measuring accomplishment

service.
with

the

and

It

does

teacher

personal
not

mean

across

trying
the

own

the
In

mind

a
or

Self-appraisal
in terms

of

to

hall.

of

acceptable

achievement.

standards

the

service.

his

be

satisfactory

individual

of

terms

satisfactory

appraisee
he

in

within

of the

satisfactory

compare

oneself

Thoughtful

self­

appraisal is a process of reporting as honestly and as
accurately as possible how well the appraisee feels he
has done in each of the areas of performance,

(pp. 37-

38)
Self-evaluation can

take different

forms.

An audio or

video tape recording of teaching behavior can be used.

The

teacher then analyzes the recorded behavior for the purpose
of

judging whether the behavior is useful to teaching. Films

or

recordings

outside
interpret

can

be used

evaluators,

cooperatively

principal

or

certain teacher behavior

with

other

the help
teachers,

and student

of
to

response to

those behaviors in the classroom. Although the use of audio­
visuals is becoming a common practice in teacher evaluation
programs,

teachers should remember that the student body is

56
an asset

to a self-evaluation process.

"teachers
students

should
as

a

be

encouraged

regular

part

to

of

Bolton

acquire

(1973)

said,

feedback

from

self-evaluation procedures"

(p. 141).
In any teacher evaluation program, self-evaluation has
been found to play a significant role (Olds,

1973; Redfern,

1980;

Knicker and Nyler,

seem

that

self-improvement

1981).

based

The authors

on

to agree

self-evaluation

is

desirable and crucial to an evaluation program. Olds

both
(1973)

indicated:
One of the great advantages of self-evaluation efforts,
when

made

evaluation

as

part

plan,

of

is

a

school

that

the

system's

performance

evaluation

is

a

mutual

venture. The evaluatee has definitive rights as well as
responsibilities,
On

the

other

shortcomings.
disadvantage
not

(p. 43)

Redfern

hand,

self-evaluation

(1980)

states,

relate

readily

implementing

a

to

outside

criteria

specify

teacher

self-evaluation

or

needs

their

own

goals

their
needed

own
for

of

the

operating

and

a

school

training to help

in measurement

behavior,

recording their own behavior.

program,

(a)

framework (e.g., an observational system)

competence

primary

(p. 38). The author recommends that before

district should provide teachers with

Interpreting

"the

its

is that the standards used for evaluation may

school district"

them

has

terms,

(b } a

for analyzing and
(c)

various

the
new

technical
media

for

57
Student Evaluation-of-Teachers
Although teacher evaluation by students does not seem
to

be

a

popular

practice

at

the

elementary

literature indicates that it takes place.
survey

on

evaluation

(1978)

showed

that

responding school
classroom

of

teachers'

1.7S5

of

districts

teachers

as

performance,

elementary

part

the

schools

in

the

evaluations of

formal

students to

evaluate teachers, but allow the results to be

used

by

teacher's

personnel

superintendents,

file

and

do

record.

principals,

suggest

recorded

Other

teachers

districts

Kowalski

evaluation.

mainly

school

of

the

In her nationwide

require student

a

level,

not

become

Noonan

and

or

part

(1981)

teachers

require

of

shows
agree

the
that
that

students should be involved in teacher evaluation. Peterson
(1982)

recommend

evaluation"
teacher

(p.

that
87).

evaluation

"students
The

be

involved

involvement

process

has

of

in

students

its

teacher
in

the

advantages

and

disadvantages. Knicker and Naylor (1981) give both sides:
Ratings of teachers by students are

the least popular

form

of

of

evaluation,

in

the opinion

the

educators.

Teachers belie’ve that students will praise the easy or
popular
the

teachers,

maturity

to

or that
judge

young students
good

teaching.

do not

have

Conversely,

advocates of greater student input argue that students
are the consumers of education and have every right to
be heard. Additionally, there is evidence that students

58
pick up the same best teachers as do their elders when
there have been comparative ratings,

(p. 126)

Acheson and Gall (1980) consider the results of student
evaluation

to

be

often

are

very concerned about how their students perceive them"

(p.

139).

and

Herman

useful

(1973,

data

pp.

"because

41-42}

teachers

indicated

disadvantages of student evaluations.

advantages

Advantages of student

evaluations:
1.

The

user

(student)

is

best

able

to

evaluate

the

giver (teacher).
2.

Students

teachers;

are

in

and therefore,

daily

contact

with

a

number

of

have the best basis upon which to

make comparative judgments of teacher production.
3.
the

The number of evaluations

evaluation

biased

becomes

evaluations

much

can

is greatly

broader

quickly

be

in

increased and

scope.

Also,

discarded,

and

any

cost

a

the
large

number of evaluations will remain.
4.

This

method would

not

add

dollar

to

the

process.
Disadvantages of students evaluations:
1. Students ma'y tend to provide low evaluations for the
stricter
work,

teacher,

the

the teacher who

subject

that

is

teacher

who

gives

a

great

deal

of

is a low marker or the teacher of a

mandatory

and

considered

boring

by

the

majority of students.
2.

Students

performance.

are

too

immature

to

evaluate

teacher

59
3.

A

student

may

influence

other

students

to

rate

teacher poorly because he has a particular axe to grind with
the

teacher

being

evaluated.

Youngsters

sometimes,

have

cliques and a single student's dislike for a teacher might
cause

an

overall

negative

bias

to

be

present

in

the

evaluations,
As a whole, student evaluations of teachers can provide
useful data.

The data

can be compared with

evaluators,

principals

and

others,

to

those

of

other

ensure

that

information obtained is valid for making decisions about the
teacher's behavior in the classroom.
Evaluation of Teachers by Peers
In

a

evaluating
that

nationwide
teacher

survey

of

performance,

current

Kowalski

(1978)

"poor evaluation of classroom teachers

several
author
whenever

of

the

further
a

surveyed

school

notes that,

teacher

selects

in
peer

districts"
these

practices

indicated

takes place in
(p.

schools

evaluation

as

66).

become

process. Oldham

part of

an

option

is

formal teacher

the

evaluation

(1974) stated:

Peer evaluation,
another,

the

The

districts,

during the period of a required supervisory evaluation,
results

of

the evaluation of the one teacher by

being

used

increasingly,

most

often

in

conjunction with evaluation performed by a supervisor.
Teachers themselves generally are receptive to the idea
of

being evaluated by a peer,

not

only because

they

feel a fellow teacher will be sympathetic, but because

a

60
they

believe

a

fellow

teacher

is

more

competent

to

judge what transpires in a classroom than a supervisor
who is less familiar with the classroom,

(p. 10)

The evaluation of teachers by peers should not be taken
lightly.

It

should

not

evaluating another.
teacher

be

just

a

The evaluator

(Sargent,

1978).

On

matter

of

one

teacher

should be an experienced

peer

evaluations,

Lancaster

(1974) stated:
A

colleague's

rating

should

be

based

upon

certain

things which are known that students would not know or
would not be eligible to

judge;

such as knowledge

the subject matter, devotion to teaching,
presentation

at

technical

meetings,

feeling toward students, etc.
classes

to

get

their

different

learning

Regardless

of

should

be

how

Evidently,

level
an

presented

the basis for it.

views,

in an

clearness of

attitudes

and

Even if colleagues visit
they

than

opinion

of

are

that

is

given
of

formed,

organized

a

from

a

student.

the

opinion

fashion,

showing

(p. 246)

evaluation

by

one's

peers

seems

to

be

a

logical way of achi’eving appropriate information for teacher
evaluation purposes.

However,

there are pros and cons about

the peer evaluation methods. Herman (1973) gives both sides.
Advantages of peer evaluations:
1.

A

fellow

worker

assigned

the

same

task

possesses

more in-depth knowledge of the requirements of the specific
assignment than any other individual.

61
2.

A

fellow

worker

objective analysis

is

best

of strengths

equipped

to

provide

an

and weaknesses, and he

is

also best able to provide detailed assistance in overcoming
the weaknesses that have been located.
3.

A

comradarie

exists

between

co-workers

that

makes

t>~o evaluation process less threatening, and this fact puts
the person being evaluated at ease.
4.

A

peer

throughout

evaluation

the

entire

process

employee

produces

group

better

because

morale

peers

are

placed in a helpful relationship.
Disadvantages of peer evaluations:
1.

The

peer evaluator

may

be

myopic

in

vision; and

therefore, he may not understand the total district's needs.
This

could

cause

some

very

important

information

to

be

completely missed.
2. The peer evaluator is placed in the unfair position
of evaluator when he has no authority or responsibility to
make

judgments

about

workers production

the quantity and quality of a

level.

This

responsibility

fellow
is

an

administrator's responsibility, and the administrator should
shoulder this complete load.
3.

The

peer evaluator

will

not

be

objective

in his

evaluation since he is a member of the same employee group.
The

tendency

to

with the presence
4.
immediate

whitewash

all

employees

may

be

increased

of unions and collective bargaining.

The peer evaluation may conflict with
administrative

supervisor

who

that

has

to

of the
make

62
recommendations

as

to

hiring,

firing,

and

promotion.

Peer

positive evaluations may undergird his case and hinder the
administrator's
administrator
stewards

in

decision.

might

have

defending

At
to

his

the

spend

very

many

decision

„

least,

the

with

union

hours

if

the

administrator

- Jf

presents a negative overall evaluation of an employee.
5.

A

coworker

peer
by

evaluation

the

could

evaluatee

lead

if

to

the

resentment

evaluation

of

is

a

not

favorable. This, in turn, could lead to intra-group conflict
which could

be

detrimental

to

the

total

school

district's

operation.
6.
amount

Peer
of

evaluations

released

time

could

be

from

the

very

costly

prime

when

the

of

the

duties

evaluators is considered.
Student Achievement Tests
Wiles

and

Bondi

(1980)

indicate

that

"many

state

legislatures are demanding greater teacher accountability in
terms of the performance of students on achievement tests"
(p. 239). As an example of this demand by legislatures, Ryan
and Hickcox (1980) stated:
It

is

clear

that

the

teacher

evaluation

student

achievement.

achievement

California

to

be

based

However,

and the methods

legislators

the

upon

intended

assessment

standards

for

of
the

for assessing achievement

were left to the discretion of local school districts,
(p. 57)

63
This view of legislatures seems to receive the support
of

Erickson

and

Erickson

(1980)

when

they

say,

"student

achievement is an important criterion for assessing teaching
effectiveness,
completely"

and

would

evaluation

standardized
should

by

a

use

achievement

probably

total

mistake

be

of

to

ignore

the
only

retained;

they

not

also

do

Finally,
including

and

a

on

achievement

the

instructional

to

attitudes,

due

of

tests argue
therefore,

evaluating
that students

their

determine teacher
Bondi,

1980).

people

whose

accouting,
them to

gains

are
should

effectiveness

the
be

by

for

to

consumers

(Oldham,

values,
of

scores

the

many

test.

factors

provided

student

one

tests

test

environment

teachers

must

outgrowths

teach

is

the

information

standardized

teacher

pupil

however,

of

important

that

of

standardized

with

on

method

teachers who had the students in prior years,
Advocates

it

scores

portion

areas

deal

other

the

one

as

that

the

Overreliance

cause

is

The evaluator,

fact

measure

information.

student

incorporated

normally

appreciations

of

tests

evaluation scheme.

cognizant

may

be

(p. 66). Herman (1973) gave this view:

Teacher

be

it

(p. 48)

achievement

of

of

by

education,

the

1974;

ways

to

and Wiles &

This kind of reasoning "has popular appeal to
experience

quality

control

in
and

science,
similar

look for quantitative results

into a product system"

industry,
fields

cost

predisposes

for each action put

(Oldham, 1974, p. 12).

64
The supporters of the method quote research finding on
teacher

effectiveness.

Research has

been able

to document

that certain teacher behaviors are related to student gains
(Sergiovanni & Starrat,

1983).

Those who do not favor evaluating teacher's performance
by student achievement tests offer various reasons for their
stand. Ryan and Hickcox (1980) give two reasons:
1. Measuring teaching ability in terms of student gains
assumes

that

the teacher alone determines such gains.

And,

such an assumption is clearly unwarranted since it has been
shown that students1 home background and other factors have
a major effect upon their achievement.
2.

If

a

student

necessary effort

does

in order

not

cooperate

to learn,

or

expand

it is unfair

to

the

fault

the teacher.
These

reasons

measuring their
that,

apart

involved

in

why

teachers

do

competency by student gains.

from
a

indicate

their

student's

profession where

efforts,

there

learning.

Just

not

favor

Teachers know

are

many

as

in

factors

any

other

the condition or progress of a client

not the determining

factor of effectiveness,

is

student gains

may be viewed the same in teaching. Medley (1982) stated:
To say
the

that

basis

regard

the

teacher

of pupil
work

of

that

competence

should

learning makes
a
of

teacher

as

be assessed

sense

only

if you

subprofessional,

the salesman

or

the

on

as

comparable

to

television

repairman.

If you regard the teacher as one whose role

65
is comparable to that of physician or the attorney,
does not make sense,
Teachers,

it

(p. 10)

like other professionals,

"do not have to be able

to guarantee outcomes; rather they must defend what they are
doing

in a professional

sense"

(House,

1975,

p.

76).

They

may be answerable to such things as their competence on the
subject matter, their ability to communicate with students.
The

argument

against

using

student

achievement

assess teachers may be given by spelling out what
are expected

to do

as professionals.

to

teachers

Peterson and Walberg

(1978) expressed:
Teachers

are

students'

not

heads

hired

to

be

to

cram

retained

information

just

long

into

enough

to

enable them to pass objective tests. Teachers are hired
to

educate

changes

in

children,
their

to

produce

behavior,

not

important,

short-term

lasting

changes

in

tests. Teachers are supposed to teach children to read,
to communicate,

to reason, to become happy, productive,

responsible members of this democracy,
It can be seen
embraces

broad

that teaching

and* lasting

(p. 17)

is a complex task which

aspects

of

students'

learning.

Thus, it becomes difficult to measure a teacher's competence
by students'

gains.

increase

the

students,

he

While

it

achievement
or she

may

levels

are so

ability

on

concentrate

true
of

be unable

whose home backgrounds
to

is

most

to

chaotic

academic

that

a
of

reach
as

tasks

teacher
his
some

"may

or

her

students

to cripple

their

(Sergiovanni

and

66
Starratt,
teaching
Knight

1983,
and

(1981)

p.

278).

In

considering

different learning
says,

the

abilities

nature

of

of

students,

"one form of staff appraisal which must

firmly be rejected is assessement based on pupil performance
in standardized tests"
When

the

pros

(p. 66).
and cons

of

achievement

tests

measure of teacher effectiveness are considered,
clear

that

a school

system

whether to use the method.

or

an

evaluator

has

as

a

it becomes
to

decide

In deciding to use student gains

to evaluate teachers, Howsan

(1973)

suggested to evaluators

to remember the following about achievement tests:
1.

They

are

limited

to

the

small

segments

of

the

educational program which can be adequately measured and so
are never a comprehensive measure of the teacher.

can

2.

Those

aspects of the school

be

applied

may

not be

the

program

most

to which

significant

of

they
the

aspects.
3. Their use is largely restricted to research since to
use pupil gain in school systems would tend to place undue
emphasis on the measured areas of the program.
4. It is never possible to isolate the influence which
can be attributed to a given teacher over a given period of
time.
5.

The

imperfections

in

tests used make

it

difficult

for some pupils and classes to demonstrate satisfactory gain
no matter how effective the teacher.

67
6. Pupil gain measures tend to have low reliability and
a doubtful validity.
7. Researchers, with few exceptions, have not been too
successful

in demonstrating

that

the methods differentiate

between more or less competent teachers.
8.
but

The methods take more

fail

to consider

the

Immediate gains

long-term

into account

influence on the child

(success in later school work or behavior in adult life).
Performance Objectives Approach
The

Performance

evaluation

Objectives

provides

an

Approach

opportunity

to

for

teacher

teachers

and

evaluators to work together. Since this method of evaluation
is based upon analysis or measurement of the progress made
on

predetermined

must

together

objectives,

agree

and

the

evaluator

establish

the

and

evaluatee

objectives.

To

do

this, there must be mutual understanding between the teacher
and
for

the

evaluator.

the

Objectives

teacher

performance

during

objectives

provide

the basis

classroom

approach

places

of

action

instruction.

The

responsibility

for

the evaluation process on both the teacher and evaluator. On
this, Redfern (1980) said:
There
new

is no doubt
demands

that

upon

administrators who

evaluation

leadership
are

by objectives
talents

involved

in

the

of

puts

school

process.

They

are obliged to know more about evaluation as a process.
They have to improve their skills in helping teachers
set

appropriate

performance

objectives.

They

are

68
obliged

to

gathering

devise

better

techniques.

monitoring

And

and

inescapably,

informationthey

have

to

perfect counseling and conference competencies,

(p. 8)

At

jointly

the

time when

the evaluatee

establish work objectives,

and evaluator

they should also agree upon well

established action plans, and how to measure accomplishments
in

terms

of

objectives

results
set

in

obtained.
classroom

In

order

to

implement

instruction,

they

the

must

be

communicable and measurable. Hence, the objectives should be
stated in behavioral terms.
a

performance

commitment

Since the objectives constitute

on

the

part

of

a

teacher,

they

should be clearly stated so that it can be determined when
they

have

been

"objectives
and

the

reached.

should

be

anticipated

percentages,

communicate
ambiguity

written

results

ratios,

measurable terms"

Bell

or

(1974)
using

should

some

suggests

that

quantitative
be

other

stated
way

the

language

in

numbers,

very

definite

(p. 63). Such objective, therefore, should

performance

eliminated,

and

intent,

have

all

avoid

words

that

elements
have

of

several

meanings or to which there can be many interpretations.
Redfern

(1980)

identified

six

basic

components

performance objectives-oriented program aimed

at

of

a

improving

an individual teacher's performance:
1.

Set

responsibility

criteria:

Duties

and

responsibilities in the performance of an assignment must be
indicated.

69
2.

Identify

evaluatee

and

needs:

the

Using responsibility criteria,

evaluator

cooperatively

identify

the
the

status of the former's current performance.
3.
action

Set

objectives

plans

are

the

and action
means

to

plans: Objectives

achieve

desired

and

outcomes

determined by the evaluation process.
4. Carry out action plans: The evaluator should monitor
the evaluatee's performance to collect data and information
that relate to the objectives being pursued.

Monitoring is

concerned

the

with

performance

outputs;

it

is

evidence-

gathering part of the total evaluation plan.
5.

Assess results:

Interpreting

the

meaning

and

signinficance of monitored data is a very important part of
the

total

process

ofevaluation.

This

represents

the

culminiation of all that has gone before.
6.Discuss
exceedingly
most

results:

important.

intimately

The
It

involved

evaluation

conference

is the occasion for
in

the

process to

the

to achieve

the objectives.

important

Is

upon

responsibility

placed

the

persons

discuss

outcome of their efforts

is

the

A very

evaluator

to

help the evaluatee’view evaluation as a constructive rather
than a negative process.
During the discussion stage, the current objectives are
reconsidered

and

those

which

are

no

longer

necessary

are

eliminated. Depending on an individual teacher's ability and
need, new objectives may be added to the previous ones which

70
have not

been met.

In other

words,

performance

objectives

evaluation is cyclical.
The

evaluator

and

performance objectives
weakness

of

require

know

that

the

evaluation is not problem

free.

The

the method

Identify and
teachers

evaluatee

set

set
much

lies

realistic

either
of

too

their

need

in the teachers'
job

targets.

ambitious

time

to

or

It

inability
is

found

that

that

may

objectives

invalid

ones

to

in which

the

pupils already possess the competence and do not need more
work in

(McNeil,

1971).

Frequently heard criticism of goal-

based evaluations is that focusing attention on the results
of

performance

narrows
used

the

to

only

in

terms

evaluation,

achieve

of

so

that

results

and

its
the

intended

objectives

different

procedures

their

relationship

to

performance outcomes are ignored.
On

the

other

hand,

performance

objectives

evaluation

has its strengths. Redfern (1980) listed the following:
1. Establishment of clearer perceptions of performance
expectations:
an

The process definitely clarifies the scope of

Individual's

about

duties

and

especially ' during

conducted

before

responsibilities.

the

specific

needs

This

assessment

performance

comes
process

objectives

are

determined,
2. Use of feedback to refine performance strategies and
procedures:
regarding
timely

Evaluatees

their

manner.

profit

performance
Feedback

is

needs

most

when

communicated
to

be

used

information
to

as

them
it

in

a

becomes

71
available.

Periodic

year,

should

alter

objectives,

progress

be used

evaluations,

throughout

to modify performance

to

discard

some,

and

the

procedures,

to

replace

to

those

discarded with more relevant ones.
3. Availability of more valid data:
in this
and

type of

assessing

evaluation

performance

is

The major emphasis

upon collecting,

information.

These

analyzing,
data

enable

both the evaluatee and the evaluator to be more precise In
making judgments about and estimates of accomplishment.
4.
The

Reinforced

performance

practitioner-supervisor

objectives

approach

to

relationships:

evaluation

changes

the nature of the working relations between the practitioner
and supervisor as the emphasis is upon partnership.
5.
clients:

Greater

sensitivity

to

needs

and

It is repeatedly emphasized that

objectives

a

major

consideration

concerns

of

in evaluation by

is

the

learning

achievements of students. The welfare of the student/ client
is paramount.

Performance objectives stress what happens to

students under the instruction and guidance of the teacher.
While objectives may be fixed in other areas,

the learner's

needs and concerns 'come first.
6.

Stronger

practitioner
process.

emphasis

proficiency

While

other

is

upon
the

purposes

improvement:

focus

may

be

of

the

Greater
evaluation

Included,

they

are

extent

of

secondary to the central purpose of improvement.
7.

More

adequate

documentation

of

incompetency: While the major emphasis Is upon improvement,

72
it is not possible to avoid the necessity,
document areas of inadequacy
of

help

provided,

data

. . . .

on occassion,

to

Carefully kept records

monitored,

and

results

achieved

become the documentation that is necessary if and when due
process must be carried out.
8.

Skill in evaluation given higher priority:

Skill in

evaluation is not often given a high enough priority on the
list of administrative and
principals

supervisory

and other administrators

responsibilities

. . . .

Yet

by

evaluator

skills are tremendously important in performance objectives
evaluation,
clearly,

and,

as

administrators

they will accommodate

see

the

need

more

themselves to a realignment

of their job priorities.
The objectives-based evaluation,
learner-oriented
able

to

work

process.

tcgether

and

the

evaluatee

throughout

accomplish the objectives.
the classroom

The

as can be seen,

the

and

is a

evaluator

process

are

in order

to

The teacher carries out plans

in

evaluator assists

by monitoring

the

teacher's performance.
Teaching Performance Test
The teaching performance test is generally referred to
as a "teaching performance" or "instructional mini-lesson."
This method of evaluation attempts to measure how effective
a teacher is by having him/her teach a special brief unit to
a group of pupils for a time usually no longer than a single
class period.
unit,

A special test is then administered after the

and the amount of gain shown by the average pupil is

73
taken

as

a

measure

of

effectiveness

or

competence

of

the

teacher (Medley, 1982).
The purpose of a teaching performance test,
is

to determine a

students'

teacher's

performance

in

effectiveness
a

test.

The

therefore,

in terms
steps

of the

for

this

evaluation approach is given by Popham (1973):
1.

A

teacher

is

given

a

measurable

Instructional

objective (along with a sample test item) and directions to
plan a
promote

short

lesson

learner

of

15

mastery

to

of

20

the

minutes

designed

objective

and

(b)

to

(a)

elicit

interest in learners.
2. The teacher plans the lesson, incorporating whatever
instructional procedures he deems appropriate.
3. The teacher presents the lesson to a small group of
learners— six to eight students. For certain objectives, the
learners

should

be

children:

for

others

they

should

be

adults (for example, the teacher's colleagues).
4. The learners are then administered a post-test based
on the objectives. Although the post-test has not previously
been seen by the teacher,

its nature is readily inferrable

from the objective ’and sample test item.
5.

An

appraisal

of

the

instructor's

skill

on

the

teaching performance test is provided by both the cognitive
index— learners'
index—

post-test

performance— and

the

affective

the learners' interest ratings.

McNeil and Popham

(1973)

suggest

that

the reliability

of a performance test can be increased by using a number of

74
lessons and different kinds of objectives— different subject
matter,

different

the pupils

levels

of

expected

behavior,

can be divided into small groups

etc.

Also,

in such a way

that no teacher instructs

the same group of pupils in more

than

no

one

lesson

so

that

group

receives

a

particular

lesson more than once. Retention tests as review lessons may
be given
the

to

learners,

teacher's

thereby adding

ability

to

another dimension

accomplish

to

pre-specified

objectives.
The

evaluation

of

teachers

by

performance

tests

also

has it shortcomings. On these, Medley (1982) stated:
Because

the

time

allotted

is

so

brief,

the

teacher

cannot be expected to bring about any changes in pupils
that

take

important

time

to

effect,

that

kinds

of

learning.

is,

any

What he

of

can do

the

more

is

raise

scores on tests that measure only concepts that can be
absorbed

quickly

by

most

pupils— such

as

facts.

The

kinds of outcomes measured are, then, representative of
only a

small

part

of

those

a

teacher

is

expected

to

achieve, a part limited to those things that pupils can
learn (and presumably forget) very quickly. Progress in
learning to read— or to get along with others— would be
too slow to detect
tests,

in the few hours involved in these

(p. 12)

The results of teacher evaluation by performance tests will
vary

from

that

some

teacher

to

teachers

teacher.
are

more

However,

it

successful

is
than

often

found

others

in

75
getting desired results when there is control over factors
such

as

teacher

familiarity

with

content

and

pupil

populations.
Clinical Supervision
Clinical supervision is defined as supervision focused
upon the improvement of instruction by means of systematic
cycles of planning,
analysis of actual

observation,

and intensive intellectual

teaching performance

in the interest of

rational modification (Weller, 1971). It "refers to face-toface

contact

with

teachers

with

the

intent

instruction and increasing professional growth"

of

improving

(Sergiovanni

& Starratt, 19S3, p. 292). Specifically, the word "clinical"
is

"meant

to

suggest

face-to-face

relationship

between

teacher and supervisor and a focus on the teacher1s actual
behavior in the classroom"

(Acheson and Gall, p. 8).

Clinical supervision acknowledges the need for teacher
evaluation,

under

participates

with

the
the

condition

supervisor

Expanding on this concept,

in

that
the

the

teacher

entire

process.

Sergiovanni and Starratt

(1983)

stated:
In

practice,

intense

clinical

relationship

supervision

between

requires

supervisor

a

and

more

teacher

than that found in traditional evaluation, first in the
establishment
supervision.
intense,

of
The

colleagueship
heart

continuous,

of

through

clinical

mature

the

cycle

supervision

relationship

is

of
an

between

76
surpervisor

and

teacher

with

the

intent

improvement of professional practice,
The

primary

goal

professional

development

improving

teacher's

a

being

(p. 299)

of

clinical

supervision

of

teachers,

with an

classroom

the

performance"

is

"the

emphasis
(Acheson

on
and

Gall, 1980, p. 11). The authors further indicate the aims of
clinical supervision to be the following:
1. To provide teachers with objective

feedback on the

current state of their instruction.
2. To diagnose and solve Instructional problems.
3.

To

help

teachers

develop

skill

in

using

instructional strategies.
4. To evaluate teachers for promotion, tenure, or other
decisions.
5. To help teachers develop a positive attitude about
continous professional development.
In

order

to

achieve

these

aims,

Sergiovanni,

and

Starratt (1983) suggested:
The

focus

formative
foremost

of

clinical

evaluation.
interested

supervision

The
in

should

supervisor
improving

is

with

evaluation

holding

professional,
accountability

emphasis

teachers
not
is

is

and

instruction

and

entirely

accountable,

occupational

commitment to consistent improvement,

. . . .

A

consistent

but

sense.

growth-oriented

on

first

increasing the teacher's personal development
formative

be

in

a

Professional
and

(p. 293)

implies

77
The authors also mention that "clinical supervision can and
should take many forms, and
different

forms

phase/stages

is

of

that more experimentation with

needed"

clinical

(p.

324).

supervision

have

Although
been

the

identified

with various labels attached to the components involved, the
content is similar with general emphasis placed on planning,
observation
Gall

and

(1980)

evaluation

view

clinical

(Sullivan,

1980).

supervision

as

Acheson
"a

and

model

of

supervision that contains three phases: planning conference,
classroom observation, and feedback conference"

(p. 11). The

authors also suggest that planning and feedback conferences
be

used

to

identify

and

share

evaluative

criteria.

And,

classroom observation data be used not only as a feedback to
the teacher but also as the basis

for objective evaluation

of the teacher's performance.
Cogan

(1973)

identified

eight

phases

to

the cycle

of

clinical supervision:
1. Phase 1 requires establishing the teacher-supervisor
relationship
2. Phase

2 requires

intensive planning of

lessons and

units with the teacher
3.

Phase

3

requires

planning

of

the

classroom

observation strategy by teacher and supervisor
4. Phase 4 requires the supervisor to observe in-class
instruction
5. Phase 5 requires careful analysis of the teachinglearning process

78
6. Phase 6 requires planning the conference strategy
7. Phase 7 is the conference
8. Phase 8 requires the resumption of planning.
Another

model

is

that

consists only of five stages:
(b) observation,

of

Goldhammer

{1963)

which

(a) preobservation conference,

{c) analysis and strategy,

.(d) supervision

conference, and (e) post-conference analysis.
From

the

above

clinical

models,

it

can be

seen

that

"the supervisor works at two levels with teachers during the
cycle:

helping

professional
the

skills

them

to

and

improve

their

practice and helping them to learn more about
of

classroom

(Sergiovanni & Starratt,
supervision

understand

models,

analysis

needed

in

supervision

1983, p. 302). After using clinical

Sullivan

(1980)

in

his

research

indicated:
1. The model's tenants and process are compatible with
the dessires of teachers and administrators.
2. Changes in the teacher's classroom behavior occurred
in directions designated as "desirable."
3.

There

was

evidence

of

teacher

growth

in

self-

confidence and self-direction.
4.

The

nature

of

the

teacher-supervlsor

relationship

affected the teacher student relationship.
5. Supervisor-teacher relationship was found to be more
democratic in clinical supervision than in other supervisory
approaches,

rapport

and

importan characteristics.

openness

have

been

revealed

as

79
In

general,

supervision

It

has

process

"professionally

been

found

often

responsible

that

ends

the

up

teacher

who

clinical

producing

is

a

analytical

of

his/her own performance, open to help from others, and selfdirecting"

(Cogan,

professional
supervisor

growth

1973,

p.

are

that

participate

12).

The

both

actively

reasons

the

in

for

teacher

and

conferencing,

such
the
data

gathering and analyzing information gathered; they both work
on the
and

level

may

of decision makers;

agree

to

disagree

they work as

with

the

shared

individuals

understanding

about the final decisions and their implementation.
Professional Goal3
In

order

objectives
evaluator
specific

for
and

for

teacher

the
the

evaluation

process
teacher

performance

is

a

major

should

objectives

to

be

succeed,
element.

involved

which

will

basis for the collection of data needed.

setting
Both

in

form

the

setting
a

useful

The importance of

setting objectives is given by Redfern (1980):
Objectives

and action plans

are

the means

to

achieve

desired outcomes determined by the evaluation process .
. At
upon,

it

the
is

time

performance

Important

to

objectives

discuss

the

are

agreed

actions

and

efforts that will be expended to obtain the objectives,
(p.15)
It

is

performance

a

consensus

objectives

in
is

the
a

literature

major

step

in

that

setting

the

teacher

evaluation process and that It should be done jointly by the

80
teacher

and

evaluator

1979; Stocker,
stated

in

purposes.

in

1978;

Beecher,

1979;

Wood,

1971; McNeil, 1967). The objectives should be

behavioral

evaluation
together

(Barth,

setting

terms
As

that

the

can

teacher

objectives,

the

be

measured

and
needs

for

evaluator
of

the

work

teacher

should be defined by her/him and then be incorporated.

The

teacher may also suggest ways to secure the data that will
determine whether

the objectives have been achieved.

It is

the responsibility of the evaluator to assist the teacher to
see

how

the

evaluation
should

suggestions

procedure.

agree

on

given

Both

how

the

progress

recognized and recorded.

can

be

best

teacher
on

the

and

fitted
the

into

evaluator

objectives

will

be

They should also agree on how any

help, technical or personal, will be obtained or obtainable.
The

joint

effort

responsibility
evaluation
teacher

on

the

teacher

both

for

the

process.

as

a

implementation,
partnership,
teacher

of

It

also

and

Noona

results

success

allows

participating

the

evaluator
or

of

the

and

places

failure

of

recognition

professional

(1981) observed,

evaluation* effective

and

process.

in

the

of

a

design,

This

kind

of

can make the process of
successfull.

The

author

also observed:
The job satisfaction of teachers would increase both by
recognition as a professional whose
and

by

participation

in

the

input

is critical

process.

Personal

development so crucial to teachers would have direction

81
and the backing of the administrator for the need would
be clear and methods for correction available,

(p.9)

As can be seen, the teacher involvement at any stage of
the

evaluation

necessity.

In

evaluatee

in

process

is

summarizing
setting

not
the

just
role

objectives

a

formality

of

and

the
the

but

evaluator

a
and

importance

of

objectives to teacher evaluation, Redfern (1980) stated:
The nature of the performance targets is influenced by
the

strategies

that

are

devised

to

attain

them.

The

plan of action is composed of those activities that the t
evaluatee and

the evaluator have decided are the most

promising

achieving

and

for

the

evaluator

the objectives. The

have

mutual

evaluatee

interest

in

the

successful achievement of the targets. The former has a
direct

and

interest

personal

that

stems

responsibilities
place,

it will

precisely how
the year.

interest
from

. . . .

and

the

management

latter
and

has

an

supervisory

When proper planning has taken

be possible
to proceed

for

the evaluatee

in independent

to know

action during

(p. 29)
*

Professional Development of Teachers
An

effective

system

for

professional

development

of

teachers is one that permits teachers to grow in their own
way

and

at

their

own

pace.

The underlying

theme

for

all

professional development programs is that the adult must see
learning

and

the

acquisition

of

new

competencies

as

a

82
lifelong

process.

has

given

been

principle
1978;

In

literature,

various

professional

definitions

(McNergney and Carrier,

Hite

and Howey,

1977).

which

are

1981; Klopf,

Howey

development

(1985)

the

same

in

1979; Rubin,

broadly defined

the term "as activities pursued by teachers individually or
in groups to enhance their capacity as professionals after
they

have

practice"
person

obtained
(p.

and

59).

how

to

licensure

Here

and

the focus

improve

begun

is on

the

daily

leader

of

professional

the teacher as a

performance

in

the

classroom.
The
Initiates
The

principal
the plans

principal

and

as

the

for professional
the

teachers

work

teachers

in a

development
together

in

school

programs.
planning

activities appropriate for their needs in the school.

Klopf

(1979) stated:
The

principal

is

the

key

individual

in

the

school

setting responsible for the staff development program.
The establishment of the climate and the involvement of
persons and resources

to support staff

the responsibility of the principal,

development

is

(p. 2)

In order to involve teachers in productive professional
programs,

Marks,

Stoops and King-Stoops

(1978)

suggest the

principal consider the following:
1.
communication
Communicate!

Build
links,

a

relationship
develop

with

empathy

teachers— establish
and

dialogue.

03

2. Needs assessment—
differences
required

between

and

those

a needs assessment determines the

the

knowledge,

that

presently

skill,
exist.

and
In

attitudes

other

words,

encourage self-evaluation.
3.

Strategies

objectives
each

have

objective

specified,

and

been
to

what

media— the

determined,

determine

the

instructional

action

the

phase.

supervisor

primary

strategy

type
is

Once

analyzes

of

learning

necessary,

and

what media is to be used.
4.

The

fourth

major purposes,
the

is

evaluation

which

serves

two t

(a) to determine if the learner did achieve

criterion

objectives,

phase

measure

and

(b)

stated

to

in

determine

the

the

instructional

validity

of

the

instructional strategy and its components.
5. The last phase is program revision.
The

authors

teachers

to

capability
learning.

point

develop
in

As

out
to

teaching
the

that
their

and

principal

this

approach

possible

helping

can

potential

students

endeavors

to

enable

apply

and

in

their

the

above

suggestions, a total picture will emerge that hopefully can
provide the necessary framework for productive professional
development programs.

Purpose of Professional Development Programs
In
authors

literature,
that

development

the

programs

there

is

ultimate
for

a

consensus

purpose

teachers

is

among

various

for

professional

the

learning

of

84
children and youth (Howey and Vaughan,

1983; Griffin,

Klopf,

1975).

1979;

Sergiovanni

and

Elliot,

Howey

1983;
(1985)

identified six major purposes:
1.

Pedagogical

development:

Activities

in

this

developmental area focus on teaching in specific curriculum
areas.
2. Understanding and discovery of self: More attention
should be given to self-understanding because of the highly
interpersonal

nature

of

teaching

and

the

tendency to

view

teachers instrumentally rather than personally.
3.

Cognitive

development:

Adults

including

teachers

differ in their development status in terms of developmental
stages

proposed

Differences
affect

in

the

by

cognitive/developmental

cognitive

way

and

teachers

interpersonal

learn

in

staff

theories.
development
development

activities and interact with students in their classroom.
4.

Theoretical

development:

Theories

related

to

the

core functions of teaching do exist but teachers rarely use
them.

To be useful

grounded

in

and meaningful,

practice

through

these
cycles

theories must be
of

action

and

reflection.
5. Career development: The career of many teachers can
be

enhanced

creation
roles

for

of

in

two

fundamental

differentiated,

teachers.

ways.

The

first

realistic

and

complementary

The second

is

is

the

the development of more

viable hierarchical leadership roles for teachers.

85
Designing a Professional Development Program
In

designing

teachers,

a

professional

development

program

there is need to consider various factors.

for

Those

who design these programs should remember that the potential
patterns

continuing

professional

limited only by the constraints of

imagination.

for

a

for

organizing

professional

development

particular

objectives

objectives

and

determined,
essential

involved.

irrespective

of

program

Nonetheless,
how

and

by

Provisions
fit

whatever
whom

is

they

the
the
are

the program organizer should consider these six

factors suggested by Rubin

expert consultation,
evaluation,

must

growth

and

(f)

(c) motivation,
recognition.

(1978):

(a)

time,

(b)

(d) reinforcement,

(e)

To this list Klopf

(1978)

adds other factors:
1. Assessment of the needs of staff based upon school's
goals, objectives and program.
2. Goals of long-term development program.
3. Objectives of a year's program.
4. List of events and activities with specific objec­
tives for each.
5.

Review

of 'resources

available

for

conducting

pro­

gram.
6. Calendar of dates and times.
7. Selection of satisfactory spaces.
8. Revision of calendar as year progresses with elimi­
nations,

substitutions,

reassessment.

and

additions

on

the

basis

of

86
9. Plan for evaluation, both ongoing and final.
In addition to considering these factors, the organizer
should keep in mind that the selection of the training mode
or

strategy

to

be

used

dynamics of the setting,
the

resources

depends

upon

appraisal

of

all

the objectives to be attained, and

available.

Whether

or

not

a

program

is

perceived as a continuing one and each activity is part of a
sequence,

there

needs

objective

for

particular

(1975)

indicated

usually of
or

a

that

four kinds,

another,

helping

to

be

a

statement

event.

staff

of

purpose

Sergiovanni

development

and

or

Elliot

objectives

are

"presenting information of one kind

teachers

understand

this

Information,

helping teachers apply this understanding in their teaching,
and helping teachers accept and be
approaches"

by

"teachers must
own

strengths

professional
progress

to these new

(p. 155).

Professional
meaningful

committed

development
involving

teachers.

should
As

be

made

participators,

take the responsibility for assessing their
and

plans

toward

programs

for

weaknesses,
Improvement,

these goals"

developing
and

personal-

measuring

their

(Marshall and Caldwell,

1984,

p. 24) .

Some Evolving Characteristics of Effective Professional
Development
Effective professional

development

programs

depend

on

the availability of activities that are congruent with the

87
needs perceived by the learner.

In other words, the needs of

those involved in the program should determine

its course.

Merenbloom (1984) gave the following characteristics:
1. Definite goals, objectives, and organizational plan.
2. A sustained, sequential, continuous effort.
3. A sensitivity to the needs of the teachers.
4. Active involvement of the participants.
5. An

open,

honest

assessment

of

the various

activi­

ties.
6.

The opportunity to add new dimensions

to the pro­

gram.
7. Strong leadership of the principal or project coor­
dinator as well as leadership from the faculty.
For any professional program to materialize,
and

leaderhip

(Marenbloom,

of

1984,

the
p.

principal
28).

professional development

is

the

key

"the input
.

.

.

."

In order to implement effective

programs

that will have

impact on

teachers, Howey and Vaughan (1983) suggested:
1. Interactiveness— considers how the program interacts
with other sets of mediating variables.
2. Comprehensiveness— clear conceptualization and deli­
neation of the why, where, when and how, as well as the what
of staff development is essential.
3. Continuity— staff development must
incremental

process

requiring

continuing follow-up and feedback.

be viewed as an

reinforcement

through

88
4. Potency— -this includes

the need

for both relevance

and practicability.
5.

Provision of support structures and personnel— the

necessity of providing appropriate support to counteract the
individual isolation and pragmmatic fragmentation that often
exists in schools.
6.
about

Documentation— in

the

effort,

impact

and

order

to

viability

of

make
any

valid
staff

judgments

development

it is essential that provisions be made to document

thoroughly the planning,

implementation, and outcomes of all

activities.

Synthesis of the Research on Practices Used in Teacher
Evaluation
This section of the chapter provides the knowledge base
for

teacher

evaluation.

It

is

a

synthesis

of

research

teacher evaluation in the following categories:
le

and

purpose

outcomes

of

for

teacher

teacher

evaluation,

evaluation

and

(a) rationa­

(b)

(c)

on

goals

and

descriptions

of

elements and procedures constituting teacher evaluation.
Rationale and Purpose for Teacher Evaluation
Evaluation
critical

issue

educational
classroom
during

of
in

performance

has

education.

accountability

classroom

students,

teachers

of

in

increasingly
The

schools

teachers.

instruction

public

What

affects

become

demand

focuses

a
for

on

the

the

teacher

does

the

learning

the major consumers in education.

of

In the light of

89
public demands on education,

Sergiovanni and Starrat

(1983)

observe that the stress is placed on teacher evaluation as a
way of holding schools accountable to taxpayers and funding
agencies

that

support

them.

Teacher

evaluation,

besides

being a measure of accountability in schools, has been found
by

educators

helping

and

researchers

teachers

improve

in the

field

instruction

Successful teaching is not an accident.
constant

effort

providing

in

assessing

feedback

that

to

the

for

children.

It is the result of

activities

enhances

be a way of

involved

instruction

in

and
the

classroom.
The

primary

safeguard

and

(Sergiovanni
Hawley,

improve

and

1976;

and

multi-purpose
instruction,
correcting
to

purpose

of
(b)

accountabillty
administrator,

1983,

Bolton,

on

the

has
(a)
of

of

to

1980;

given
to

the

improve

teachers

increase

teachers

to

students

or other deficiencies,

(d)

part

as

by

is

Hickcox,

performance

management

instruction,

and

Peterson

evaluation

improve

evaluation

received

Ryan

1973).

teacher
to

teacher

instruction

Starrat,

teaching,

humanize

of

by
(c)

overall-

and

school

and *(e) to improve the overall growth of the

teaching staff.
Goals and Outcomes of Teacher Evaluation
Teacher

evaluation,

if

characterized by artifical and

not

understood,

can

be

routine quality which makes

it a process that becomes an end in itself.
views teacher evaluation as a tool

Redfern

(1973)

to help teachers become

90
more

competent

In

responsibilities.

the

performance

These

duties

and

of

their

duties

responsibilities

and

should

be continually evaluated in relationship to the primary task
of the school— that of improving learning opportunities for
bays

and

girls.

administrators
professional

Teacher

in

making

accomplishments

employees,

based

performance

involved,

of

the

evaluation

on

broad
the

individuals

judgments
and

school

concerning

competencies

knowledge

of

characteristics

being

helps

evaluated

of

and

of

the

the

certified
areas

of

the situation
the

specific

standards of performance pre-established for their positions
(Peterson,

1982).

Evaluation of teachers should promote awareness of the
strengths and weaknesses of all certified personnel, provide
opportunity

for

positive change

growth

and

improvement,

in employees.

and

encourage

It should be viewed as

"part

of the process of making decisions and planning for action"
(Hawley,

1976,

p.

16).

Thus,

teacher

evaluation should

be

seen as an intrinsic element in both teaching and learning
(Sergiovanni,
idea

of

1975).

helping

an

The

porcess

individual

should

teacher

evolve

around

the

grow professionally

and improve classroom instruction. From evaluation programs,
teachers and school administrators should have a continuous
and a responsible basis for decision-making.
When a teacher evaluation program is properly used,
can be
that

an

educational

Improves

teacher

asset

of

the

performance

entire
and

school

student

it

program

learning.

91
Through

a

teacher

organization,
community,

can

and

evaluation
become

an

a

open

program,

growing

system

a

school,

organism,

where

as

a

teachers

an

learning
have

the

opportunity to grow professionally and the children are led
to

express

(1982)

their

potentials

summarized

the

through

goals

and

learning.

outcomes

Peterson

of

teacher

evaluation as follows:
Evaluation,

along with all other major aspects of the

educational system, has as its goal, the improvement of
learning

for

programs.

all

those

Evaluation

instruction.

It

who

take

focuses

is

part

upon

concerned

in

the

educational

improvement

with

the

of

continuous

redefining of goals, with the wider realization of the
human dynamics for learning and for cooperative effort,
and with

the nurturing of a creative approach

problems of teaching,
Teacher

evaluation

comprehensive
total

teacher

account,

plan

(p. 68)

programs

for

career

performance.

teacher

to the

be

an

development

When

evaluation

must

this

becomes

view

an

aspect
and

is

of

a

improving
taken

enhancement

of

into
the

entire school program.
Professional Development
An

effective

professional

development

program

for

teachers is one that permits teachers

to grow in their own

way

defines

professional

"activities pursued by teachers

individually

at

their

development as
or

in

groups

own

to

pace.

enhance

Howey

their

(1985)

capacity

as

professionals

92
after

they

practice"
among

have

(p.

obtained

licensure

59). There is a consensus

various

professional

authors

that

development

Howey

the

begun

professonal

in the literature,

ultimate

programs

children and youth (Griffin,
and Elliot,

and

is

the

1983; Klopf,

purpose

of

learning

of

1979;

Sergiovanni

1975).
(1985)

development

identifies major purposes of profassional

as

understanding

(a)

and

development,

(c)

development.

pedagogical

discovery

of

theoretical

Professional

development,
self,

(c)

development,

and

development programs

(b)

cognitive
(e)

career

for teachers

should be designed in such a way that particular objectives
involved

are

indicate

that

four kinds;

accommodated.
staff

teachers

teachers

apply

approaches"

(p.

to

be

understand

this

teachers

programs

development

and

objectives

Elliot

(1975)

are usually

of

"presenting information of one kind or another,

helping

helping

Sergiovanni

this

understanding

accept

155).

and

be

information,
in

their

committed

helping

teaching,

and

to

new

these

In order for professional development

meaningful

and

relevant

to

teachers,

they

must be involved in the planning stages. As planning takes
place,

"teachers must take the responsibility for assessing

their

own

strengths

professional

plans

progress toward
p.

24).

on the

and
for

weaknesses,
improvement,

these goals"

Effective

and

personal-

measuring

their

(Marshall and Caldwell,

1984,

professional

availability of

develping

development

activities

that

are

programs

depend

congruent

with

93
the

needs

perceived

by

the

learner. In

other

w o r d s , the

needs of those involved in the program should determine its
course.

Major Elements and Program Designs for Teacher Evaluation
Professional Goals
The
process

first
is

major

that

appointment,

of

element

teachers

be

the duties

in

the

teacher

informed,

at

requires.

her/him in order to plan and discharge
Herman

expectancies

are

time

of

that their

It is basic

teacher should know from the beginning what

effectively.

the

and responsibilities

performance in the assignment

evaluation

that a

is expected of

the duties assigned

(1973) points out that it is only when
detailed,

discussed

writing can evaluation become possible.

and

committed

to

The author suggests

two prime means of letting an employee know what is expected
(a)

by

developing

written

job

descriptions,

and

(b)

establishment of priority performance objectives.
As planning of the teacher evaluation process begins, a
major element

to keep in mind is the identification of the

needs of the teacher.
spend

time

together

Both the teacher and evaluator should
to

determine

the

teacher's

areas

of

need. Both weaknesses and strengths of the teacher should be
put

Into

consideration.

Redfern

(1980)

proposed

that

"a

useful way to identify needs is to regard them as areas to
emphasize

in

order

to

improvement in performance"

attain

the

(p. 24).

maximum

degree

of

94
Setting performance objectives is another major element
in the teacher evaluation process. The teacher and evaluator
should

together

form the basis
(Beecher,

set

specific

performance

objectives

that

for gathering information during evaluation

1979; Barth,

1978; Wood,

1979;

Stocker,

1971;

and

McNeil, 1967).
Environmental Conditions
The setting of a conducive atmosphere

for interaction

between the evaluator and evaluatee is a major factor in the
teacher

evaluation

characterize

each

process.
phase

of

Flexibility
the

and

process.

A

openness
summary

must

of

the

kind of atmosphere needed for the teacher evaluation process
is given by the National School Public Relations Association
(1974) as follows:
Evaluation

must

take

place

nonthreatening atmosphere.

in

The

a

constructive

teacher must

feel

and
that

improvement of his performance is a cooperative effort
involving him, his evaluator,
staff.

and others on the school

No matter how well designed— in the abstract—

the evaluation program may seem,

if it is perceived by

teachers as negative, it will not improve teaching, but
will

lower

teacher

effectiveness

fears and lowered morale,

because

of

teacher

(p. 57)

Frequency of Evaluation
The frequency of teacher evaluation is a major element
which

should

be

considered

in

the

process.

How

often

95
teachers should be evaluated should be included in planning
of

the

teacher

this are
teacher

evaluation

available

in

evaluation

prediction

process.

literature.

should

activity

Helpful

but

not

Vacc

be

rather,

(1982)

viewed

as

suggestions
stated

as

a

continuous

on

that

one-time
throughout

one's teaching career. This means that whether a teacher is
tenured or probationary,
is

needed

teacher

and

is

helpful.

evaluation

be

frequent discussions,
teacher
study,

assessment

conferences
Shinkfield

a

Peterson

(1982)

continuous

cooperative
throughout

(1977)

of his/her performance

found

suggested

process

planning,

that

comprised
and

the

school

that

teachers

of

principal-

year.

In

his

support

the

idea that evaluation of teaching should be more continuous
during the school year.
Relating the teacher evaluation program to the entire
school's program is considered a major element that deserves
attention
done

(Bolton,

1973).

in isolation.

supervisory

It should

service

teaching and

Teacher

that

represent

begins

embraces entire

evaluation should not be

with

an aspect
sound

school program.

of broad

standards
Noonan

of

(1981)

showed that the teacher evaluation program should be a part
of

the

basic

philosophy
need

to

philosophy

should
work

understanding

of

recognize
together

which

the

that

in

involves

an

school

teachers

system.
and

atmosphere

mutual

setting and suggestions for improvement.

This

principals
of

preplanning,

mutual
goal

96
The Role of the Principal
In elementary schools,
primary

evaluators

Redfern {1972,

of

"principals are regarded as the

teachers"

{Noonan,

1981,

p.

160).

p. 64) observes that principals" are obliged

to make evaluative judgments about teaching effectiveness."
The

task

of

evaluating

teachers

is

not

an

easy

one.

It

involves different stages that require a variety of skills
and experience

from the principal.

The

principal

needs

to

acquire knowledge about evaluation through training.
The skills of the principal in personnel management can
be an asset to teacher evaluation program.

In this role, the

principal can establish a working relationship with teachers
that

will

create

evaluation

a

process.

conducive
The

atmosphere

principal

should

for

teacher

recognize

the

diversity in teachers and be sensitive to their potentials
that

could

program.

be

In

principal

used

his

can

to

improve

capacity

make

as

the

school's

personnel

evaluation

of

educational

manager,

teachers

a

a

productive

process by building and maintaining the morale of
and

by

helping

them

to

set

clearly

defined

school

teachers

goals

and

objectives.
The principal must be a communicator to make evaluation
program
between

valuable
the

principal

daily in the school
teacher

to

teachers.
and

teachers

{Hayman,

communication makes

Effective

1975).
the

should

communication
be

carried

out

This kind of principal-

teacher

evaluation process

97
an

on-going

process

not

limited

to

set

times

and

convenience.
Lack of human relation skills by the principal can be a
hindrance to the teacher evaluation process.
suggested

that

"the placing

human relations,
human resources

of greater

Redfern

(1972)

emphasis upon

good

perceiving teachers and other personnel as
in the educational process,

and perfecting

skills in a wide spectrum of interpersonal relationships are
some

of

the

imperatives

of

the

principal1s

responsibilities as an effective evaluator"

leadership

(pp. 77-78).

Formal Classroom Observation Schedules
Classroom observation allows the teacher and evaluator
to work

as

a

team

and

to

concentrate

on

improvement.

It

provides an opportunity for both evaluator and evaluatee to
assess how well goals have been met.
is

considered

positively
1977).

to

to

be

the

Kleinman

behavior

by

one

teacher
(1966)

observation

of

the

Classroom observation

factors

evaluation
indicated

appears

to

that

process
that

be

contribute
(Shinkfield,

measurement

the

most

of

promising

technique to date for assessing teacher effectiveness.
The initial stage of the process is the preobservation
conference.

This

conference serves

as

the stage where

the

principal and teacher meet together to decide what they want
to accomplish during the evaluation process.
referring

to

predetermine

the
much

procedures"' (p.

conference
of

24).

the

said

"any

effectiveness

Bolton

decisions
of

the

(1973)
made

eventual

The preobservation conference enables

98
the

evaluator

and

evaluatee

to

lay

a

foundation

for

the

entire evaluation process.
The next step Is the actual
provides

central

procedures.

When

observation
teacher,

data

is

the

for

feedback

data

properly

classroom observation.
and

collected

analyzed

evaluation

from

and

It

classroom

presented

to

the

there can be motivation by the teacher to initiate

innovative

classroom

responsibility,

activities,

take

on

greater

teaching

and to display creativity far in excess of

what normally takes place in the classroom.
Following
conference
stage

of

classroom

should

be

the teacher

observation,

held.

The

a

postobservation

conference

evaluation process

serves

as

the

in which the data

collected and analyzed by the evaluator are communicated to
the

teacher.

It

is

also

the

time

for

both

evaluator

and

teacher to discuss the results of the evaluation. The key to
the

success

of

the

postobservation

conference

is

communication. The results of evaluation should be viewed in
the context

of the objectives set at the beginning of

the

process.
For

postobservation

Blumberg

(1974)

conferences

suggested,

relationships between a teacher
the

two

manner,
provide

to
and
the

give
(b)

and

receive

(a)

to
the

of

help

a

success

interpersonal

and supervisor must enable
in

a

mutually

the supervisor must have

kind

be

required

resources may be found for the teacher.

or

satisfactory

the resources
know

where

to
the

After the feedback

99
Is

given

and

should plan
They

discussed,

both

for actions

should

arrange

the

evaluator

and

teacher

that need to be taken thereafter.

for

follow-up

visitations

by

the

evaluator to see how the teacher progresses on the feedback
suggestions.
devise

It

is the

different

responsibility of

follow-up

procedures.

the evaluator

The

procedures

to
may

take both formal and informal forms.
Criteria and Instrument
The

plans

for

the

evaluation

process

many sources of evidence and "a variety of
techniques employed
satisfaction
and

other

of

In gathering data on

pupil

factors

(Peternson,

needs,

the

include

instruments and

teacher behavior,

pupil-teacher

affecting

1982, p. 87).

should

relationships,

teacher's

efficiency"

The teacher should be informed of

the procedures to be used in the evaluation process and the
division

of

procedures.

responsibility

Acheson

and

Gall

concerns and anxieties of
involving
example,

the

teacher

for

carrying

(1980)

pointed

out
out

those

that

the

the teacher can be alleviated by
In

the

evaluative

process— for

by sharing the evaluative criteria beforehand and

by basing the evaluation on observational data shared with
the teacher.

This process of sharing ideally results in the

teacher

the evaluator working .together

and

rather

than

at

cross-purposes.
In
should

the
use

process
a

information' on

valid
a

of

teacher

and

evaluation,

reliable

teacher's

the

instrument

performance

during

to

evaluator
collect
classroom

100
observation.

The

harmony with

the teaching criteria agreed upon by both the

teacher

evaluator

and

contents

of

the

Instrument

(Bolton,

1973;

should

Hayman,

be

In

1975).

To

develop an instrument suitable for a local school system,

a

united effort should be made by both school administrators
and teachers.
Evaluation Processes
The

evaluation

of

teachers

can

be

done

through

literature

includes

*

different

methods

different

kinds

student

and
of

models

evaluations,

student

techniques.

peer

achievement,

The

as;

administrative

evaluations,

teaching

ratings,

self

evaluations,

performance,

performance

objectives and clinical supervision.
Administrative ratings. Administrators can use various
techniques

for collecting data on teacher/student classroom

interactions.
observation

These

techniques

procedures,

rating

include

scales,

systematic

checklists

and

narrative reporting.
Teacher

self-evaluation.

Self-evaluation

of

teachers

should be an integral part of a school's evaluation program.
Peterson

(1982)

stated,

"self-evaluation

should

play an important role in the evaluative process"
teachers

in

responsibility
evaluator

can

a
of

school

system.

making

serve

as

a

The

teacher

self-evaluation
counselor

to

a

the

and

must

(p. 88) of
has

the

success.

The

teacher.

Self-

evaluation may take different forms. An audio or visual tape
recording

of

teaching

behavior

can

be

used.

Films

or

101
recording could be used with the help of an evaluator.
self-evaluation

process,

teachers

should

remember

In

that

students are an asset.
Student

evaluation

evaluation

by

elementary

level,

place.

students

Acheson

the

and

of
is

teachers.

not

a

popular

literature

Gall

(1980)

student evaluation to be useful

Although
practice

indicates
consider

data

teacher

that
the

"because

at

it

the

takes

results

teachers are

often concerned about how their students perceive them"
139).
may

When

used

provide

carefully,

useful

student

data

to

the

evaluation of
teacher

of

and

(p.

teachers

to

school

administrators.
Evaluation by

p e e rs. Evaluation

should not be taken lightly as
another.
(Sergent,

The

evaluator

1978).

should

Evaluation

experience in the classroom,
achieving

appropriate

of

teachers

by

peers

just one teacher evaluating
be
by

seems

information

an

experienced

one's

peers,

to be a
for

teacher

who

logical

teacher

have

way of

evaluation

purposes.
Student
indicated

achievement

that

"many

tests.

state

Wiles

and

legislatures

greater teacher accountability in terms of
of

students

on

achievement

tests"

(p.

Bondi
are

(1980)

demanding

the performance

239),

Advocates

of

evaluating teachers by student tests argue that students are
the consumers of education, therefore, their gains should be
one of the ways to determine teacher effectiveness
1974;

Wiles

and

Bondi,

1980).

In

using

student

(Oldham,
gains

to

102
evaluate teacher performance,

it should be kept in mind that

teachers, like other professionals, do not have to guarantee
\

outcomes,

rather,

they \must defend what they are doing in a

\

professional hense (House, 1975). They may be answerable to
1
such Issues a ^ their competence on subject matter, and their
ability to communicate with students.
Teaching Uerformance
are

generally

simply

referred

test. Teaching performance

to

"instructional

as

a

“teaching

mini-lesson."

tests

performance"

This

method

or
of

evaluation provides a way to evaluate teacher effectiveness
by having a person teach a special, brief unit to a group of
pupils

for

period.

a

The

time

usually

results

of

no

longer

teacher

than

a

evaluation

single

by

class

performance

\

tests will vary from teacher to teacher.
Performance

objectives

approach. This

method

provides

the opportunity for both the teacher and evaluator to work
together

in

setting

objectives 'to

be

accomplished.

The

objectives-based evaluation is a learner-oriented procedure.
The teacher carries out
evaluator

assists

by

the plans in the classroom and the

monitoring

and then analyzing *the results

the

teacher's

performance

for discussions between the

two.
Clinical

supervision. Clinical

as supervision

focused upon

supervision

the improvement

by means of systematic cycles of planning,
an

intensive

performance

intellectual
in

the

analysis

interest

of

of

is defined

of instruction
observation and

actual

rational

teaching

modification

103
(Weller,

1971).

It

acknowledges

the

need

for

teacher

evaluation under the condition that the teacher participates
with the supervisor in the entire process.
Summary
This chapter dealt with the various aspects of teacher
evaluation.

It

included

teacher evaluation;

the

following:

(a)

the purpose

of

(b) teacher evaluation procedures which

took into account things such as scheduling, observation and
conferences;
evaluation;
areas

(c)
(d)

like

the

role

climate and
setting

relationships,

of

the

to

climate

principal

the principal

evaluation
and

proccesses

techniques:

evaluation,

as

teachers

by

performance

for
a

tests,

looked into

manager,

evaluation;

involve

evaluation

peers,

teacher

teacher-principal

personnel

in teacher
which

in

the

and human relationships as an

administrative

student

principal

relationship which

principal as a communicator,
asset

the

student
clinical

the

(e)

current

following

methods

ratings,

of

teacher

teachers,

achievement

evaluation

tests,

supervision

self-

and

of

teaching

professional

goals; and (f) professional development of teachers.
A

second

section

synthesized

the

evaluation.

This

following
evaluation,

research

included
on

synthesis

categories:
goals

was

and

in

practices
was

rationale
outcomes

done
and

of

this

chapter

used

in

according

purpose

teacher

for

which

teacher
to

the

teacher

evaluation,

and

descriptions of elements and procedures constituting teacher
evaluation.

CHAPTER III
DESIGN OP THE STUDY

The

purposes

of

this

study

were

two-fold;

first,

to

investigate the current practices of teacher evaluation and
the

perception

held

toward

these

practices

by

elementary

school principals in the Michigan Conference of Seventh Day
Adventists;

and

second,

to

design

a

proposed

evaluation

system for the Michigan Conference Office of Education based
on the contexts within the operation of the schools and the
research

base

provided

an

formally
practices.

for

teacher

opportunity

stated
This

evaluation.

to

design

assess

process

chapter

effectiveness

to

design

Includes

the

the population of the study,

the

collection

analysis.

procedures

In addition,

the

and

process

process

the

questions,
data

This

also
of

a

educational

stated

research

the general design,
procedures

used

for

for designing

data
the

teacher evaluation system is described.

Research Questions
The research questions for this study were divided into
two parts,
and

(b)

(a) how the Adventist schools evaluate
process

for

designing

practice.
104

an

area

of

teachers

educational

105

A. How Adventist Schools Currently Evaluate Teachers
The

first

information

on

purpose
how

of

this

adventist

study

schools

was

to

currently

provide
evaluate

their teachers. The questions were:
1.

What

is

the

purpose

of

teacher

evaluation

in

Seventh-day Adventist schools?
2.

What

are

the

current

teacher

evaluation practices

being used in the Seventh-day Adventist elementary schools?
3. What is the Adventist elementary school principal's
perception toward current teacher evaluation practices?
4.

Are

there

differences

in

teacher

evaluation

practices between Seventh-day Adventist schools and current
practices found in research?

B. Process for Designing an Educational Practice
This

part

evaluation

of

system

the
which

Conference by using a
educational

study

practice

sought

could

systematic

be

to
used

process

(teacher evaluation).

design
by

the

a

teacher
Michigan

for designing

an

The question

to

be answered from the study was: Does the formal process used
here result

in the incorporation of research findings

educational practice?

into

106
Population of the Study
The population

of

this

study consisted

of all

fifty-

five elementary school principals in the Michigan Conference
of Seventh day Adventist.
In order

to identify the elementary principals

Michigan Conference,
and

addresses

was

a current

obtained

list

from

(198S)

the

of

their

Conference

in the
names

Office

of

Education.

General Design
A survey instrument was used
how

teacher

Conference

evaluation

is

elementary

to obtain information on

carried

schools.

out

The

in

areas

included the purpose of teacher evaluation,

the

Michigan

investigated

current teacher

evaluation practices, and how the principals perceived those
practices.
A

proposed

design

for

teacher

evaluation,

based

on

contextual data and a research synthesis, was developed for
the Michigan Conference. The contextual base of the proposed
design

was

formed

by

the

information

obtained

from

the

Conference Office o*f Education on current teacher evaluation
practices and
principals.

also

the

data

collected

from

the

elementary

The summary of the contextual base is presented

in Chapter IV.

The research synthesis

formed the knowledge

base for the proposed design. The synthesis is presented In
Chapter II of this study.

107
Collection of Data
Research Instrument
The
from

survey

the

one

Instrument
used

by

used

Hauge

instruments used by Goedken
instrument

In

the

(1981).

study

was

Hauge

adapted

revised

(1969) and Kowalski

the

(1978).

The

(Appendix A) was designed to reflect the teacher

evaluation

practices

principals.

Current

as

perceived

teacher

by

elementary

evaluation

school

practices

were

identified and used in the framing of the survey Instrument
items.
Validity and Reliability of the Instrument
A panel of professors, administrators and practitioners
reviewed

the

questionnaire

suggestions were

to

verify

incorporated

into

its

the

validity.

final

draft

Their
of

the

questionnaire,
A pilot
twenty

study was

elementary

districts.

conducted

school

An agreement

by

Hauge

principals

in

on

a

sample

twelve

of 933S by the principals

of

school
on final

items of the survey instrument was achieved.
Data Collection Procedures
In order to collect data for this study, questionnaires
were

mailed

to

all

Elementary Schools.

principals

of

the

A cover letter,

Michigan

Conference

with an endorsement of

this study, was obtained from the Michigan Conference Office
of Education.

This letter and a letter describing the study

(Appendix

were

A)

attached

to

the

questionnaire.

These

108
materials and a self-addressed stamped envelope were sent by
first class mall to the principals.
A

coding

system

was

devised

and addresses

on

the

containing

the names

of all

the study.

As the questionnaires were returned,

master

list

the subjects of
a check was

made against each code number on the master list. This made
it

passible

to

seventy-three

identify

percent

those

return

who

was

had

not

received

responded.

from

the

A

first

mailing so a follow-up mailing was not done.

Data Analysis
In the analysis of the data, a tabular arrangement and
account of the number of observations in each item is given.
The

number

determined

of

responses

based

on

the

and

percent

tabulated

for

each

observations.

item

was

Questions

relating to each of the major sections in the questionnaire
were grouped together for analysis.

Designing an Educational Practice
Answering part B of the study,
process used
findings

here result

into

in the

educational

"Does the formal design

incorporation of

practice?"

required

further data on the conference schools and
of the design process.

research
obtaining

the delineation

109
School Data
School data were obtained from the Conference Office of
Education.

These

data

dealt

with

the

organization

of

the

schools and who is responsible for the local schools.
Design Process
This design process has been developed from an analysis
of

the structure of scientific

knowledge utilization

theory and

in education

the concepts

(Hatfield,

1984).

of

It is

also predicated on the concept that the underlying focus for
developing practice in a profession is on the basis of goals
(Simon,

1969).

Using

a

formal

process

to

design

practice

which incorporates a synthesis of research findings and the
contextual data of the site for implementation combines what
has been loosely termed theory and practice.
The final

design proposed here

includes

the

following

elements (a) the expected outcome or goals for the practice,
(b)

a

description

constituting

of

the

procedure

and/or

the teacher evaluation system,

(c)

elements
supporting

assumptions derived from the proposed procedure with related
research and contextual data to determine possible negation
of

the

assumptions,

practice

to

and

determine

(d)

if

the

a

plan

for

proposed

evaluating

goals

are

the

being

achieved.
The data used in the design were based on the research
synthesis

and

dealt with
provided

contextual

the knowledge

the

major

factors.
base of

components

of

Research

synthesis

the design.
teacher

This

data

section

evaluation.

It

110
Included the purpose and goals of evaluation, procedures to
follow in carrying out evaluation and the current evaluation
processes.

The

contextual

how the practice

is

Conference.

section

This

personnel used,

factors

provided

currently carried out
also

description of

included

information

on

in the Michigan

the

the school,

resources

and

current teacher

evaluation practices, and organizational conditions.
The data represented in chapters two and four were used
as

the

basis

for

the

design.

The

design

was

based

on

research findings as to what should be included in teacher
evaluation and the contextual base was used as a vehicle on
how the practice is presently used in the Conference, Using
these

two sources

of

information provided a solid base on

which to build the design.

CHAPTER IV
SUMMARY OF THE DATA

This

chapter

presents

a

summary

and

analysis

of

the

data collected from the survey. A discussion of the findings
is given in relation to the research questions pertaining to
how

the

Michigan

Conference

elementary

schools

evaluate

their teachers. These four research questions deal with,

(a)

the purpose of teacher evaluation in the Michigan Conference
elementary schools,
in

the

Michigan

(b) current teacher evaluation practices
Conference

Adventists elementary school

elementary

schools,

(c)

principal's

perception

the

toward

current teacher evaluation practices, and (d) differences in
teacher evaluation practices between the Michigan Conference
elementary

schools

responses

to

according

to

perceptions

the

and

items

these
of

those

in

research.

in the questionnaire are

research

the

found

questions

elementary

school

and

The

organized

represent

principals

in

the
the

Michigan Conference. The responses are tabulated in percent.
Included
narrative

in

this

chapter

description

of

is
the

a

second

conditions

section
in

giving

which

a

teacher

evaluation is carried out in these elementary schools based
on the summary of the findings and Information obtained from
the Conference office of education.
Ill

112

Purpose of Teacher Evaluation
What
Michigan

is

the

purpose

Conference

of

teacher

elementary

evaluation

schools?

In

an

in

the

attempt

to

answer this question, responses to items 1, 2, and 3 of the
questionnaire
elementary

were

schools

analyzed.
in

the

A

total

Michigan

of

8 2%

Conference

of

the

evaluated

teachers for the purpose of professional development

(Table

1). Rated second by 75% of the principals was improvement of
instruction.

Layoffs,

little need

layoff.

for such action.

to teach in church schools

In

teacher

selected

response suggests that teacher evaluation is not used
or

for

were

This

dismissal

purposes

tenure

less

either

as

and

much

for

frequently

promotion

fact

evaluation.

there

has

been

The teachers generally decide
because

of

their

commitment

to

respondents

to

Adventist philosophy of education.
Item
indicate

2

of

how

the

questionnaire

the

purpose

of

requested
teacher

evaluation

was

developed. Table 2 shows that for 67.5% of the respondents,
the

purpose

of

teacher

Conference

Office

respondents

indicated

and

teachers

of

evaluation
Education.

that

developed

in

is

developed

While

their

the purpose

12.5%

schools
of

the

teacher

by
of

the
the

principal

evaluation,

another 12.5% Indicated that they did not know who developed
the

purpose.

either

no

The

latter

communication

response
or

suggests

little

evaluation guidelines in these schools.

of

it

that
in

there
terms

was
of

113

Table 1
Purpose of Teacher Evaluation: Frequency and Percent

Frequency
N = 40
Professional Improvement
Improvement of Instruction
Dismissal
Promotion
Tenure
Layoff
Salary Increment
other

32
30
4
2
2
1
0
4

Percent

82
75
10
5
5
2.5
0
10

Table 2
How the Purpose is Developed: Frequency and Percent

Frequency
N - 40
By the Conference Office of Education
By the principal and teachers
Don't know
By the school board and teachers
Other
*

In response
teacher

27
5
5
2
1

Percent

67.5
12.5
12.5
5.0
2.5

to how the purpose was made known to the

(Table 3), 47.5% of the respondents showed that an

Individual conference with the teacher was made. The use of
written

correspondence

to

communicate

the

purpose

of

114
evaluation

to

the

teacher

was

indicated

by

32.5%

of

the

principals. There were 22.5% of the principals who indicated
that

the

purpose was

not

made

known

to

the

teacher.

Only

7.5% of the schools used faculty meetings to inform teachers
about the purpose of evaluation.
Table 3
How the Purpose is Made Known to the Teacher

Frequency
N = 40
Individual conference
Written correspondence
Not made known
Policy statements
Faculty meeting
Other

According
the

to

evaluation

elementary

schools

47.7
32.5
22.5
17.5
7.5
7.5

19
13
9
7
3
3

the

of

Percent

information

obtained

teachers

in

was

mainly

done

the

from

Michigan
for

the

the

data,

Conference
purpose

of

professional development and improvement of instruction. How
the

purpose

uniform

of

in

the

coordination
Conference

teacher

in
level

schools.

ways

by

There

developing
or

at

conference and written
main

evaluation

which

seemed

the
the

was

was

to

lack

purpose
school

correspondence

the

developed

purpose

was

be

either

level.
were seen
made

a

at

not
of
the

Individual
to be

known

to

the
the

elementary school teachers in the Michigan Conference. There

115
need

to be

Improvement

or coordination of how

the purpose

was made known to the teacher as suggested by the 22.5% of
the

respondents

who

indicated

the

purpose

was

not

made

known.

Teacher Evaluation Practices
What are the current evaluation practices being used in
the Seventh-day Adventist

elementary schools?

Responses

to

items 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 of the survey
instrument were analyzed to answer this question.
The

areas

related

to

this

criteria used for evaluation,
evaluation

models,

instrument

used.

(d)
The

research

are

(a)

(b) classroom observation,

(c)

follow-up

percent

question

procedures,

summary

of

and

each

area

{e)
is

presented in tabular form followed by narrative discussions.
Criteria Used
Responses to item 4
techniques
teacher
the

were

evaluation

Michigan

beliefs

the

were

evaluation

by

respectively.

(Table 4)

most

57.5%

frequently

used

criteria

in 62.5% of the elementary schools

Conference.
shown

indicated that teaching

to

Student
be

and

Professional

used
50%

of

goals,

achievement
as
the

criteria

respondents, were the least used criteria.

by

in

and

teacher

for

teacher

principals

indicated

for

surveyed

30%

of

the

116
Table 4
Criteria Used for Teacher Evaluation

Frequency
N = 40
Teaching techniques
Student Achievement
Teacher beliefs and characteristics
Teacher knowledge
Professional goals
Other

Responses
the

schools,

to

Item 13

teacher

25
23
20
18
12
4

(Table 5)

evaluation

Percent

62.5
57.5
50.0
45.0
30.0
10.0

show that

was

In 57.5%

partially

based

of
on

student achievement, while in 32.5% of the schools, this was
not the case.
Table 5
Teacher Evaluation Based on Student Achievement

Frequency
N = 40
Partially
No
Yes
No response

Percent

57.5
32.5
5.0
5.0

23
13
2
2

Classroom Observation
Responses
observations

of

to

item

teachers

superintendent and

5
were

assistant

(Table
most

6)

indicate

frequently

superintendent

as

done by

that
the

represented

117
in 40% of

the schools.

In 35% of

the schools,

respondents

Indicated that the assistant superintendent did most of the
observation of
schools,

the

teachers

in the classroom.

principal,

In 12.5% of

superintendent

and

the

assistant

superintendent observed teachers in the classroom.
Table 6
Classroom Observation Practices

Frequency
N “ 40
Superintendent and assistant
Superintendent
Assistant superintendent
Principal, superintendent, and
assistant superintendent
Principal and assistant superintendent
Principal
No response

Responses
continuing

to

item

contract

7

(Table

classroom

observed twice a year

7)

Percent

16
14

40.0
35.0

5
2
1
2

12.5
5.0
2.5
5.0

indicate

teachers

were

that

the

formally

in 65% of the elementary schools

in

the Michigan Conference. Probationary teachers were observed
*

in the

classroom twice a year

response

to

probationary

"other"

25%

teachers

of
were

in 22.5% of the schools.

the

principals

formally

classroom three or four times a year.

indicated

observed

in

In

that
the

118
Table 7
Number of Formal Observation: Frequency and Percent

N = 40

Tenured/continuing
contract teachers
freq.
%
26
3
2
6
3

Twice a year
Once a year
Once a month
Other
No response

Probationary
teachers
freq.
%
9
1
1
10
19

65.5
7.5
5.0
15.0
7.5

22.5
2.5
2.5
25.0
47.5

In answer to item 8 (Table 8), 67.5% of the respondents
Indicated that formal
unannounced

for

classroom observation schedules were

continuing

contract

teachers.

For

probationary teachers, 32.5% of the schools did not announce
Table 8
Formal Observation Schedules: Frequency and Percent

N = 40

Tenured/continuing
contract teachers
freq.
%

Unannounced
Principal request/ *
unannounced
Principal request
Teacher request/
unannounced
Other
No response

formal
appeared

classroom
that

27

67.5

13

32.5

3
2

7.5
5.0

2
2

5.0
5.0

2
3
3

5.0
7.5
7.5

1
2
20

2.5
2.5
50.0

observation

more

Probationary
teachers
freq.
%

probationary

schedules.
teachers

From
than

this,

it

continuing

119
contract

ones

were

informed

of

classroom

observation

schedules.
The

approximate

observation

for

both

length

of

continuing

the

formal

contract

and

classroom

probationary

teachers was from 20 to 40 minutes (Table 9).
Table 9
Length of Formal Observation: Frequency and Percent

N = 40

Tenured/continuing
contract teachers
freq.
%

30 minutes
20 minutes
40 minutes
10 minutes
Other
No response

14
10
8
3
3
2

Probationary
teachers
freq.
%
4
8
5
3
20.0

35.0
25
20
7.5
7.5
5.0

10.0
20.0
12.5
—
7.5
50.0

Follow-up Procedures
In
with

50%

the

of

the

schools, conferences

continuing

classroom evaluation

contract

teachers

(Table 10).

were

always

following

a

held

formal

In 37.5% of the schools, a

conference was always held with probationary teachers after
a

formal

classroom

conferences
teachers

were

after

observation.

sometimes
a

formal

held

In

45%

with

classroom

of

the

continuing

observation

probationary teachers in 15% of the schools.

schools
contract
and

with

120
Table 10
Teacher Conference: Frequency and Percent

N = 40

Always
Sometimes
Never
No response

Tenured/continuing
contract teachers
freq.
*
20
18
—
2

50.0
45.0
—
5.0

Probationary
teachers
freq.
*
15
6
—
19

37.5
15,0
—

47.7

Responses to Item 11, show that a written report of the
observation

was

always

given

teachers in 70* of the schools
teachers,

40* of

to

the

continuing

contract

(Table 11). For probationary

the schools provided a written report

of

the formal classroom evaluation.
Table 11
Written Report of Observation: Frequency and Percent

N = 40

Always
Sometimes
No response

Tenured/continuing
contract teachers
freq.
*
28
7
5

70.0
17.5
12.5

Probationary
teachers
freq.
*
16
4
20

40.0
10.0
50.0

As a means of follow-up after formal classroom observation,
25* of the schools made their continuing contract
set goals for improvement (Table 12).

teachers

121
Table 12
Follow-up Information: Frequency and Percent

N o 40

Tenured/continuing
contract teachers
freq.
*

Set goals for im­
provement

Probationary
teachers
freq.
*

10

25.0

5

12.5

Workshops, seminars,
inservice training

7

17.5

2

5.0

Provide resources, work­
shops, seminars,inservice training and set
goals for improvement

6

15.0

5

12.5

Provide resources,
workshops, seminars and
in-service training

3

7.5

3

7.5

Provide resources

1

2.5

1

2.5

Workshops, seminars,
inservice training and
set goals for improve­
ment

1

2.5

Provide resources and
set goals for im­
provement

1

2.5

_

Other

3

7.5

3

7.5

No response

8

20.0

21

52.5

_

—

In 12.5* of the schools, probationary teachers also set
goals

for

Indicated

that

Inservice

training

principals

Of

improvement.
their

schools

for

indicated

the principals

by

had workshops,

continuing
15*

responding,

and

contract
12.5*

17.5*

seminars,

and

teachers.

The

that

continuing

122
contract teachers and probationary teachers respectively set
goals for improvement and also attended workshops, seminars,
and in-service training as a follow-up to the evaluation. In
7.5%

of

the

observation
teachers

schools,
for

was

a

both

done

follow-up

continuing

by

after

contract

providing

formal
and

resources

classroom

probationary

and

attending

workshops, seminars, and In-service training.
Teacher Evaluation Models
Current
Chapter

teacher

II of

this

evaluation

models

were

study and are reflected

identified

in

in item six of

the survey Instrument (Table 13).
Lesson plans and materials used were indicated by 57.5%
and

32.5%

of

information

the

during

probationary

principals
evaluation

teachers

were

on

of

a

means

continuing

respectively.

evaluated their own performance
they

as

continuing

of

obtaining

contract

Teachers

formally

in 37.5% of the schools

contract.

and

Probationary

if

teachers

evaluated their own performance in 17.5% of the schools.
A checklist describing teacher characteristics was used
in classroom observation in 35% and 15% of the schools for
continuing contract and probationary teachers respectively.
Specific
verbal

detailed

observation

and

non-verbal

behavior

evaluating

continuing

contract

schools
schools.

and

for

probationary

of
was

teacher’s
collected

teachers
teachers

in
in

or

children's

and used

for

32.5%

of

the

12.5%

of

the

123
Table 13
How Information is Obtained for Evaluation: Frequency
and Percent

N = 40

Tenured/continuing
contract teachers
freq.
%

Probationary
teachers
freq.
%

Lesson plans and
materials used

23

57.5

13

32.5

Teachers formally
evaluate their own
performance

15

37.5

7

17.5

A checklist which
describes teacher
characteristics is
used in the classroom
observation

14

35.0

6

15.0

Specific detailed ob­
servations of teacher 1s
or children's verbal
and non-verbal beha­
vior is collected

13

32.5

5

12.5

Teacher and principal
set goals before
classroom observation

10

25.0

3

7.5

Achievement test scores
are used to evaluate
teacher performance

10

25.0

6

15.0

Parents' contacts

10

25.0

8

20.0

Students rate teachers

e

20.0

2

5.0

Teachers formally
evaluate each others'
performance in written
report

7

17.5

1

2.5

Use of video-tape re­
cording to evaluate
teacher performance

2

5.0

1

2.5

Other

4

10.0

3

7.5

124

Achievement test scores and parents' contacts were used
to

gain

schools

Information

for

teacher

for continuing contract

teachers,

achievement

evaluation
teachers.

in

For

test scores were used

in 15* of the schools while parents'

25*

of

the

probationary

for evaluation

contacts were used in

20* of the schools.
The least used avenue to gain information about teacher
performance
only

5*

was

of

teachers

the

and

teachers.

in

the

video

schools
2.5*

Continuing

tape
to

of

recording.

evaluate
the

contract

It was

used

continuing

schools

teachers

for

in

contract

probationary

formally

each other's performance with a written report

evaluated

in 17.5* of

the schools and probationary teachers did the same in only
2.5* of the schools.

Student rating of teachers was used in

20* of the schools for continuing contract teachers and in
5* of the schools for probationary teachers.
As

a

classroom
evaluating

whole,
were

lesson
the

plans

leading

elementary

and

materials

sources

school

of

teachers

in

the

information

for

in

used

the

Michigan

*

Conference.

Teachers'

self-evaluation was

the second means

by which information was obtained to evaluate the teachers.
Video-tape recording was
teacher
schools.

performance

in

the
the

least used method to evaluate
Michigan

Conference

elementary

125
Teacher Evaluation Instrument
In response to Item 14 of the questionnaire, principals
indicated that 5% of the schools used their own instruments
to

evaluate

teachers
80%

for

both

contract

and

probationary

(Table 14). The majority of the schools,
continuing

respectively did
This

continuing

suggests

not

that

contract
use

and

local

teachers

probationary

instruments

were

82,5% and
teachers

in evaluation.

evaluated

by

what

is

developed by the Conference office of education.
Table 14
Local School Instrument: Frequency and Percent

N - 40

Tenured/continuing
contract teachers
freq.
%

No
Yes
No response

33
2
5

82.5
5.0
12.5

Probationary
teachers
freq.
%
32
2
6

80.0
5.0
15.0

Adventist Elementary School Principals1 Perception Toward
■

Current Teacher Evaluation Practices
What

was

the

Adventist

elementary

school

principals1

perception toward current teacher evaluation practices? The
responses to items 15, 16, and 17 were analyzed in an effort
to answer this question.
In response to item 15 of the questionnaire, 45% of the
principals indicated that they were generally satisfied with

126
their

current

respondents,

teacher

evaluation

practices.

Of

the

35% felt that their current teacher evaluation

practices needed to improve. There were 5* of the principals
who were not satisfied with their current teacher evaluation
practices. Another 5* of the principals indicated that they
were

completely

satisfied

with

their

current

practices

of

teacher evaluation. The small percentage of those completely
satisfied seems to suggest that there is need to improve the
current

teacher

Conference
these

evaluation

elementary

principals

schools.

(35%)

who

practices
This

is

in

the

also

indicated

Michigan

supported

the

need

by
for

improvement.
Table 15
Principals'

Perception Toward Current Teacher Evaluation
Practices

Frequency
N = 40
Generally satisfied
Need to improve
Not satisfied
Completely satisfied
No response

Sixty-percent
emphasis

on

45
35
5
5
10

18
14
2
2
4

of

criteria

the

principals

used

in

indicated

teacher

Percent

that

selection

the
was

consistent with teacher evaluation practices in the schools
(Table 16). However,

27.5% of the respondents felt that the

127
emphasis

on

teacher

selection

criteria

was

not

consistent

with the teacher evaluation practices.
Table 16
Emphasis on Criteria Used in Teacher Selection

Frequency
N = 40
Yes
No
No response

Item

24
11
5

17

comments

and

improvement

Percent

of

of

the

questionnaire

suggestions

by

their present

60
27.5
12.5

attempted

principals

teacher

to

identify

concerning

the

evaluation practices.

Of the principals responding to this item (Table 17), 66. 1 %
indicated

the

need

practices.

The principals also

time for educational

for

formalized

teacher

evaluation

identified the need to have

leadership and a better understanding

of the work of the teacher in the classroom.

Differences in'Teacher Evaluation Practices between
Adventist Schools and Current Practices Found in Research
Are

there

differences

in teacher evaluation practices

between Seventh-day Adventist schools and current practices
found in research? To answer this question, a comparison of
the

two

is

made

in

the

following

areas:

purpose,

models

used, formal observation schedules and follow-up procedures.

128
Table 17
Occurrence of Comments and Suggestions In Response to the
Statement Concerning the Improvement of Teacher Evaluation

Responding (N=9)

Frequency

Need for More Time

Percent

2

22.2

6

66.7

"Principals in Adventist schools need
more time— not for teacher evaluation—
but for overall educational leadership."
"Wished we had more time to spend In
the classroom with teachers to re­
lieve their personal anxieties and
pressures."
Teacher Evaluation Practices and
Procedures
"More frequent evaluations: Always
confer with the teacher after an
evaluation."
"Occasional visits by the Conference
educational officers for the purpose
of evaluation seem to be mainly for
boosting morale."
"Evaluation for the most part takes
place at the conference level and from
what I have observed, the teachers are
not informed about the rationale or
purpose."
"More frequent visits from the Conference
office for observation and conference. More
teacher input into teacher evaluation instru­
ments. More Inservice‘for teachers."
"I feel it would be beneficial to have a formal
instrument and evaluation of teachers by using the
Instrument and inservice, etc. to help improve
skills."

129
Table 17 (continued)

"Evaluations should not be based on brief visits
to classroom unless teachers are given opportunity
to inform evaluators as to the progress and suc­
cess of on-going procedures and projects that
are not readily apparent in that brief visit.
Miscellaneous

1

.11.1

"A better parent and board understanding
of teachers— not whims. Teachers are people
not miracle workers to undo in a short time
things done over a lifetime in homes."

Purpose
From
purposes

Table

of

elementary

1,

teacher
schools

it

can

evaluation
were

improvement of instruction.
similar

purposes

1981;

Hauge,

Klopf,

1979;

(Peterson,

1981;

Noonan,

Hawley,

be

1976;

seen
in

that

the

Michigan

professional

two

major

Conference

improvement

and

Research findings also indicate
1982:
1981;

McNergney
Ryan

Sergiovanni,

and

and

Carrier,

Hickcox,

1975;

1980;

and Redfern,

1972).
The review of 'literature indicates that the purpose of
evaluation

should

1973; Redfern,

be

made

1980; Hawley,

known

to

the

teacher

(Herman,

1976; and Beecher, 1979). Table

3 shows that in one way or another the purpose of evaluation
was communicated to the teacher in the Adventist schools. It
appears from the comments given on how evaluation should be
improved in Michigan Conference elementary schools that the

130
way

of

communicating

the

purpose

of

teacher

evaluation

should be definite and clearer than It is now. According to
most studies reported in the literature,
involved

in

identifying

(Barth,

1978;

Wood,

Noonan,

1981;

Redfern,

purposes

1979;

for

Stocker,

1980;

teachers should be

and

their

1971,

evaluation

McNeil,

Peterson,

1967;

1982).

The

results of Table 2 indicate that Adventist elementary school
teachers are not

involved

in developing or

formulating the

purposes of their evaluation.
Formal Observation Schedules
Various

writers

Shinkfield,

1977;

1976)

stated

have

(Vacc,

1982;

Noonan,

1981;

that

teacher

Peterson,

Redfern,

1980

evaluation

and

1982;
Hawley,

should

be

a

systematic and on-going process not just a one-shot activity
which may place a lot of burden on the teacher.
Conference
teacher

elementary

evaluations

in

schools,
the

Table

classroom

7

In Michigan

indicates

are

done,

that

in

most

cases, twice a year.
For the elementary schools, available research findings
state

that

the

principal

is

the

primary

evaluator

of

*

teachers

in

his/her

Ryan and Hickcox,
and

Oldham,

principal

in

school

(Noonan,

1980; Hodel,

1974;

Goedken,

Michigan

1981;

Peterson,

1979; Washington,

1969).

Conference

Table

1977; Nield

6 shows

schools

is

1982;

not

that

the

the

key

person in teacher evaluation.
Acheson and Gall (1980); Redfern (1980); Hawley (1976);
and

H a y m a n ' (1975)

support

the

idea

that

the

goals

and

131
objectives
upon

by

of an evaluation of a teacher

the

teacher

and

the

evaluator

should be agreed
before

an

actual

evaluation is carried out. From Table 8, It can be seen that
moist

of

the

teacher

evaluations

done

in

the

Michigan

Conference elementary schools are unannounced.
Processes Used
Evaluation
methods

and

Noonan,

1981;

and

of

teachers

techniques

1966).

done

(Redfern,

Shinkfield,

Kleinman,

can be

1977;

These

through

1980;

Anderson

authors

seem

different

Peterson,
and
to

1982;

Hunko,
agree

1973;
that

a

variety of instruments and techniques should be employed in
gathering
needs,

data

on

teacher

pupil-teacher

affecting the

behavior,

satisfaction

relationships,

teacher's efficiency

and

of

other

pupil

factors

in the classroom.

Table

13 indicates that a variety of methods and techniques were
used to obtain information during teacher evaluation.
Follow-up
There

is agreement

in the literature

that

purposes of teacher evaluation is to provide

one of

the

feedback that

helps teachers in their professional growth and improvement
of instruction

(Hague,

Herman,

Follow-up practices

1973).

1981; Kowalski,

1978;

Redfern,

in Adventist

1980;

elementary

schools in Michigan can be viewed from the results shown in
Tables 10,
always

held

11, and 12. Table 10 shows that a conference is
by

the

teacher

following

a

formal

classroom

observation. Table 11 indicates that a written report of the

132
observation is always given.
is given help after

Table 12 shows that a teacher

classroom observation

for professional

growth and improvement of instruction after an evaluation.

Summary of Evaluation Practices
In the Adventist Schools
The
teacher

research

questions

evaluation

schools,

in

current

the

dealt

Michigan

teacher

perception

of

the

evaluation

practices,

the

present

differences

evaluation practices between Adventist

schools

of

elementary

practices,

toward

the

purpose

Conference

evaluation

principals
and

with

the

teacher

in

teacher

and

current

practices found in research.
Professional improvement and improvement of instruction
were

identified

as

the

primary

purposes

of

teacher

evaluation in the Michigan Conference elementary schools. In
many

of

the

( 6 7 . 5 S K) ,

schools

the

purpose

evaluation developed by the Conference office
is followed.

It was

have

input

little

teacher evaluation.
the

teacher

found that
in

the

of

teacher

of education

the principals and teachers

development

of

the

purpose

of

The purpose is normally communicated to

through

individual

conferences

and

written

correspondence. This is done by the principal in cooperation
with the Conference Office of Education.
In the area of

teacher evaluation practices,

teaching

techniques form the primary criteria for teacher evaluation
in the Michigan Conference elementary schools. The assistant
superintendent

does

most

of

the

teacher

evaluation

in

the

133
schools.

The

principal

does

teacher

observation

in

the

classroom but not to the extent expected due to the nature
of

his/her

schools

responsibility.

carry

both

The

principals

administrative

in

Adventist

and

teaching

responsibilities.

The visits by the evaluators made to the

teacher

classroom

in

the

Adventist schools.

are

generally

unannounced

in

These visits normally take from 20 to 40

minutes. Following a classroom observation,

a conference is

usually held with the teacher and a written report is given.
The evaluators generally consider the teacher's lesson plans
and

teaching

materials

primary means

used

of measuring

in

the

the performance

Adventist elementary schools.

Next

schools

use

locally developed

of

to

be

the

teachers

in

in consideration is the

information gained from the teachers'
two

classroom

self-evaluation.

instruments

Only

to evaluate

teachers.
The principals
current

teacher

(45%)

are generally satisfied with the

evaluation

practices.

But,

35%

of

the

principals suggest a need to improve the present practices
of teacher evaluation. The principals indicated the need for
more time to be invtolved in overall educational leadership.
It
purpose

was
of

found
teacher

that

there

evaluation

are

no

differences

practices

between

in

the

Adventist

elementary schools in the Michigan Conference and that found
in research.

While research indicates that a teacher should

be involved in teacher evaluation plans
to the end,

from the beginning

Adventist elementary teachers are normally not

134
informed of the evaluators' visits to the classroom. Current
research
actual

findings

indicate

evaluation

in

Michigan Conference

that

the

elementary

principal

does

the

in

the

the principal

does

schools

elementary schools,

while

not play a primary role in evaluation.
There

are

agreements

between

research

findings

in

teacher evaluation practices in terms of the techniques and
methods

used

elementary
observation
are

in

and

schools.
in

the

harmony

conducting

those
The

used

seminars,

the

procedures

Michigan

with

in

those

Michigan

which

Conference
found

inservice

Conference

follow

classroom

elementary

in

research

training,

schools
such

and

as

providing

resource materials for teachers.

Description and Context of Teacher Evaluation in
the Michigan Conference Elementary Schools
Personnel and Resources Used
Evaluation

of

elementary

school

teachers

in

the

Michigan Conference is done by the superintendent, assistant
superintendent and school principals. Of these individuals,
the

assistant

superintendent

does

most

of

the

teacher

evaluation in the schools.
In carrying out this task evaluators obtain information
to

assess

teachers1

performance

Instructional materials used
obtained

from

teachers'

from

in the

lesson

classroom.

self-evaluation,

plans

and

Information

achievement

test

scores, a checklist which describes teacher characteristics,

135
and contacts with parents

is used to assess performance of

teachers. In some schools, video-tape recordings are used to
evaluate teachers.
Description of Schools and the Conference
The
system

Seventh-day
to

ensure

Adventist

that

its

church
youths

physical, mental, moral, social,

operates
receive

a

a

school

balanced

and practical education in

harmony with denominational standards and ideals with God as
the

source

of

program of

all

the

moral

value

and

truth.

church gives primary

The

emphasis

educational
to

character

building and to the spiritual foundation of the life of its
children and youth.
Concern for the individual is basic to the Seventh-day
Adventist
given

philosophy

school

needs

of

is

the

of

education.

designed
church

to

meet

community

The

organization

this
it

objective

serves.

of

a

and

the

is

the

It

responsibility of the local school to determine its specific
goals and objectives in terras of the needs and interests of
its constituency.
The

elementary

school

is

a

unit

within

the

system

operated by the Conference Office of Education. The Michigan
Conference

offers

children

from

and

be

may

an

organized

the beginning

structured

in

level

a

educational
to

variety

program

the secondary
of

ways

in

for

level,

terms

of

school

is

community needs.
Authorization
granted

by

the

to

operate

Conference

as

Board

an
of

elementary
Education.

For

the

establishment and operation of a school,
criteria that have to be met,
need

in

the

established

community

schools,

(a) a demonstrated educational

not

(b)

there are certain

currently

there

physical plant and equipment

met

should

by

exist

presently

an

adequate

for an elementary school,

(c)

the church community should be in a position.to prove their
ability

to

curricular

provide

offerings

adequate
are

to

financial

be approved

support,

by

the

(d)

Conference

Board of Education and adequate curricular materials are to
be

provided

for

the

proposed

denominationally-certified

faculty

provide effective instruction,
enrollment adequate

offerings

for the

of

assignment

administrative duties,
offerings,

class period

regarding organization,
and personnel

are

and

in

in

(g)

the teacher's

time allotments,
administration,

teachers

are

also

the

size

a
to

(f) a principal whose
his/her

load,

subject

finance,

curriculum

the policies

of

It should be noted here

denominational

required

to

specific policies

to be in agreement with

addition * to

to

curricular needs

proportion

the Conference Board of Education.
that

sufficient

financial and

is

addition

(e) a prospective continuing

of an effective educational program,
teaching

in

to

hold

certification,
valid

state

certification.

Although the operation of the schools is the

responsibility

of

the

local

constituency,

the

employment,

assignment, and transfer of teachers is by the action of the
Conference K-12 Educational Board upon the recommendation of

137
the Conference Educational Office in counsel with the local
school boards.
The territory of the Michigan Conference of Seventh-day
Adventists

comprise

the

Conference headquarters

entire

state

of

Michigan.

is located in Lansing.

The

Of the many

departments carrying out various church missions within the
Michigan

Conference

Organization,

the

Conference

Board

of

Education

is a body authorized by the Conference Executive

Committee

to

objectives

of

carrying out
evaluate
states

administer

the

the

K-12

Conference

an effective
teachers.

that both

formal

school

system.

Office

of

elementary school

The

policy

on

and

Informal

One

of

the

Education

for

program

teacher

procedures

is

to

evaluation
are

to be

used.

Current Teacher Evaluation Practices
Purpose
The

primary

Michigan
fold:

purpose

Conference

(a)

of

elementary

professional

teacher
schools

development,

and

evaluation

in

the

is

currently

two­

(b)

improvement of

m

instruction.

In most

schools,

the purpose

is developed

by

the Conference Office of Education and communicated to the
teacher

through

conferences.

a

written

correspondence

and

individual

138
Process of Teacher Evaluation
In

the

Michigan

Conference

elementary

schools,

the

evaluators use various criteria to assess the performance of
teachers.

The

most

frequently

used

criteria

are

teaching

techniques. Other criteria used include student achievement,
teacher

characteristics and beliefs,

teacher

knowledge and

professional goals.
Most

teachers

on

continuing

contract

are

evaluated

twice a year. The probationary teachers are observed in the
classroom

three

observations

to

are

four

not

times

a

scheduled

year.
with

Most

the

of

these

teachers

on

continuing contract, instead the evaluator normally comes in
the

classroom

prior

planning

observations
last
held

unannounced.
is made with

probationary

the

teacher.

in the Michigan Conference

from about
with

For

the

20

to

teacher

40

minutes.
after

A

teachers

Formal

some

classroom

elementary schools

conference

classroom

is

always

observation

and

written report is normally given.
After a formal classroom observation, various follow-up
procedures are used.
setting goals

These procedures may

for 'improvement,

include teachers

providing needed

resources,

workshops, seminars, and in-service training.
In the Michigan Conference
found

that

teachers

the

are

most

lesson

frequently
plans

and

elementary schools,
used
the

models

materials

in

it was

evaluating

used

in

the

classroom by the teacher followed by a checklist describing
teacher characteristics. The principals indicated a need for

139
more time to assist

teachers in their endeavors

classroom instruction.

to improve

They also stated a need for a formal

teacher evaluation instrument.

Organizational Factors Impinging on Teacher Evaluation
Within

the organizational

structure of

the elementary

schools in the.Michigan Conference, are certain factors that
impinge

on

teacher

principal

also

carries

responsibility,
the

evaluation.
a

One

of

teaching

these
load.

principal-teacher, makes

principal

to

spend

adequate

is

it

time

to

that

This

double

difficult
help

the

for

teachers

through classroom observations. The fact that the Conference
educational personnel,

far removed from the school and day-

to-day needs of teachers,

do most of the teacher evaluation

makes the program less effective in fulfilling its purpose.
The

size

of

the

territory

to

be

covered

by

the

superintendent and his/her assistants makes it difficult to
visit

the

teachers

as

often

as

should

be.

The

Conference

educational personnel who do most of the teacher evaluation
are not

always

on-site

as

is

the school

principal

who

is

answerable to the local school boards in matters pertaining
to

day-to-day

activities

of

the

teacher

both

inside

and

outside the classroom in school. If the Conference policy of
carrying out both formal and informal evaluation of teachers
is

to

teacher

be

effective,
in

the

the

school

principal,
than

the

who

is

closer

Conference

personnel, has to do most of the task.

to

the

educational

CHAPTER V
A PROPOSED TEACHER EVALUATION DESIGN FOR THE MICHIGAN
CONFERENCE OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

The purpose of this chapter is to present a design for
teacher

evaluation

which

could

be

used

by

the

Michigan

Conference of Seventh-day Adventist elementary schools.

The

proposed design has been developed according to a specific
design process.

The data base for this design included the

synthesis of research on teacher evaluation and the analysis
of conditions,
the schools,
organized
includes,

related to teacher evaluation,

where the design will be used.

according
(a)

to

context

and

procedures

(c)

follow-up

and
and

elements
staff

of

base

and

teacher evaluation,
teacher

development,

underlying the proposed design,

in

This design is

knowledge

rationale and purpose of

(b)

prevalent

(d)

evaluation,
assumptions

and (e) a proposed plan for

evaluating the desi'gn.
The program for teacher evaluation is one in which the
entire professional
responsibilities.

staff
The

must

assume

certain duties

superintendent,

principals,

and
and

teachers are all concerned with improving the instructional
program in schools.
system

has

for

Instruction is the only reason a school

existing.

Democratic

140

organization

demands

141
that

the

teachers

evaluation.
contact

help

establish

policies

for

teacher

It is, therefore, important that there be direct

between

those

people

responsible

for

carrying out

teacher evaluation programs and the teaching staff.

Teacher

evaluation programs should be formulated cooperatively as an
expression of the combined thinking of the Conference Office
of

Education

program

personnel,

should

provide

communication

principals,
a

including

planned,
adequate

and

teachers.

effective
records,

The

system

of

information

retrieval, and policy systems, through which all members can
be kept informed. Other considerations to take into account
have

to

teacher

do

with

who

evaluation

will

and

have

what

access

to

resources

the

are

results

available

of
for

conducting the evaluation. This proposed plan can provide a
basis for conducting this kind of joint planning effort.
Rationale and Purpose for Conducting Teacher Evaluation
Teacher evaluation is a management tool for monitoring
and maintaining the quality of
and

should

decisions

be
and

viewed

as

planning

instruction within a school

part

for

of

the

action.

process

The

of

making

expectation

from

using this practice is that student learning and development
will meet the goals set by the school and the needs of the
students.
Evaluation,
educational
learning

along with all other major aspects of the

system,

for

all

has
those

as

its

who

goal

take

the
part

improvement
in

of

educational

142
programs.

Evaluation

instruction.

focuses

upon

the

improvement

of

It is concerned with the wider realization of

the human dynamics for learning and for cooperative effort,
and

with

the

nurturing

of

a

creative

approach

to

the

problems of teaching.
The duties and responsibilities

of teachers should be

continually evaluated in relationship to the primary task of
the

school— that

boys

and

of

girls.

improving

Evaluation

of

learning

opportunities

teaching

should

be

for

broadly

looked at as a part of the entire school program evaluation,
and must not be done in isolation. Given these expectations,
the

purposefs]

guiding

the

evaluation

system

need

to

be

established and agreed to by the parties involved.
The

primary

safeguard and
accomplish
these

these outcomes,

performance

management,

or

instruction,

(d)

of

of

teacher

evaluation

is

improve instruction received by students.

multi-purposes,

improve

part

purpose

(a)
of

teacher
to

improve

teachers

other

evaluation should

by

instruction,
correcting

deficiencies,

(c)

to
To

serve
(b)

to

teaching,

to

humanize

to increase overall accountability on the

teachers 'and

school

administrators,

and

{e)

to

improve the overall growth of the teaching staff.
In order far these purposes to be achieved,

there must

be some kind of organization in the schools that encourages
teachers

to

stating

their

solutions,

use

by

evaluation
problems,

data
by

participating

of

staff

devising
in

improvement

ways

of

decision-making,

by

seeking
and

by

143
accepting responsibility for the outcome. A systems approach
to problem solving could be applied in developing specific
solutions to staff and instructional development.
In order to Involve teachers in effective professional
and

instructional

development

activities,

the

following

approach could be followed:
1. Build a relationship with the

client(s)— establish

communication lines, develop empathy and dialogue.
2.

Pre-plan

difference

for

between

needs

the

assessment

knowledge,

to

skills,

determine
and

the

attitudes

required and those that presently exist.
3. Analyze the objectives to determine the primary type
of learning specified,

instructional strategy necessary, and

materials to be used.
4.
purposes

Develop an evaluation phase which serves
(a)

to

determine

if

the

two major

learner did achieve,

and

(b) to determine the validity of the instructional strategy,
and Its components.
5. Provide for teacher development.
6. The last phase would be plans for program revision.
In the research literature, there is agreement that the
primary

purpose of

improve instruction
Starrat,

1983;

teacher

evaluation

received

Ryan

and

by

Hickcox,

is to safeguard

students (Sergiovanni
1980;

Hawley,

and
and

1975;

and

Bolton, 1973). Redfern (1973) viewed teacher evaluation as a
tool

to

help

performance.

teachers
Peterson

become
(1982)

more
also

competent
stated

that

in

their
teacher

144
evaluation

should

judgments

help

concerning

competencies
indicated

of

that

school

the

professional

certified
teacher

administrators

making

accomplishments

employees.

evaluation

In

Sergiovanni

should

be

and

(1975)

viewed

as

an

intrinsic element in both teaching and learning.
An

effective

professional

development

program

for

teachers is one that permits teachers to grow in their own
way at their own pace. There is a consensus in the research
literature

that

development

programs

youth

(Griffin,

1975).
and

the

ultimate
is

1983;

in

the

Klopf,

purpose

of

learning

of

1979;

to

teachers,

planning

stages.

take

responsibility

the

and weaknesses"

As

they

planning
for

must

takes

and Elliot,

involved

place,

in

"teachers

their

Caldwell,

and

to be meaningful

be

assessing

(Marshall and

children

Sergiovanni

In order for professional programs

relevant

professional

the
must

own strengths

1984,

p.

24).

The

needs of those involved in the program should determine its
course.
According to the survey results, the primary purpose of
teacher

evaluation

in

the

Michigan

schools is currently two-fold:
improvement of instruction.
Conference
primary

Office

objective

of
of

Conference

elementary

professional development and

In the policy statements of the

Education,
teacher

it

is

evaluation

stated
is

to

that

the

assist

the

teacher in becoming more professional in his/her work.
Based on research findings and the current practices as
carried out in the Michigan Conference elementary schools, I

145
would propose that the Conference Office of Education adopt
the

following

evaluation.

two

One,

purposes

the

as

the

professional

basis

development

of

teacher

of

teachers

which focuses primarily on the teaching staff in attempts to
provide the means for the total staff to meet the students'
needs— the
career
goals

academic,

objectives
of

that

students

instruction

personal,

and

which

are

social,

perceived

intellectual,

as

essential

and

to

the

society.

Two,

the

improvement

concentrates

more

on

the

of

objectives

concerned with curriculum and instruction.
In

teacher

evaluation,

coordination,

and

evaluation

organized

science

is

will

growth

there

of

teachers.

both

instruction

should

as

and

a

be

Only

creative

instructional

planning,

when
art

teacher

and

as

procedures

a
be

improved. The following goals are proposed as the basis for
this teacher evaluation system:
1.

Help

the

professional

staff

see

more

clearly

the

goals of education and of the school.
2. Help teachers see the problems and needs of children
and youth they will be teaching.
3. Provide effective democratic leadership In promoting
the

Improvement

of

the

school

and

its

activities,

and

in

fostering harmonious and cooperative staff relations.
4.

Help

the

professional

staff

develop

greater

competence in teaching.
5.

Aid

teachers

learning difficulties.

in

the

diagnosis

and

remediation

of

146
Procedures and Elements of Teacher Evaluation
Teacher
and

evaluation

organizing.

requires a

In planning

are a variety of political
be made such as,
the

evaluation,

and

(c)

great

for teacher

deal

of

planning

evaluation,

there

and organizational decisions

to

(a) who is to be involved in carrying out
(b)

the specific outcomes

the process

of

Issues are discussed

carrying out

to be evaluated,

the evaluation.

These

in this section.

Evaluation of the teacher can be done through different
methods

and

processes
ratings,

techniques.

were

In

Chapter

identified.

student

ratings,

student achievement

tests,

teaching

performance

clinical

supervision.

II,

the

evaluation

These

include

administrative

peer

ratings,

self-ratings,

teaching performance objectives,

tests,

performance

Under

objectives,

administrative

ratings

and
are

various techniques which can be used by the administrators,
i.e.

systematic

observation

procedures,

rating

scales,

checklists, and narrative reporting.
According

to

the

data

collected

for

this

study,

the

Michigan Conference currently uses the following evaluation
processes,
(b)

(a)

teacher

teacher

lesdon plans and materials used by teachers,
self-evaluation,

characteristics,

(d)

(c)

specific

by an evaluator of the teacher's
non-verbal

behavior,

(e)

a

detailed

or children's

student

teacher and principal set goals,

checklist

achievement

(g) parents'

student ratings, and (1) peer ratings.

describing
observation
verbal

and

tests,

(f)

contacts,

(h)

147
Prom
teacher

research

literature

evaluation

in

the

and

the

Michigan

current

practice

Conference,

it

can

of
be

said that the two are in harmony with regards to evaluation
processes.
could

The only process that is not currently used but

be

Incorporated

in

the

program

is

clinical

supervision. This process is focused upon the improvement of
instruction

by

observation,

means

and

of

systematic

intensive

teaching performance.

cycles

intellectual

It has

been

of

planning,

analysis

found

that

of

the

actual

clinical

supervision process often ends up producing a professionally
responsible

teacher

performance,

open

who
to

is

analytical

help

from

of

others,

his/her
and

is

own
self­

directing.
Personnel to be Psed
Results gained from the collected data indicate that
the superintendent,
are

currently

evaluators,

involved

the

more

instructional
involved

schools,

in

assistant

teacher evaluation
the

assistant superintendent and principals

with

schools.
of

teacher

the principal

evaluation.

superintendent

in the
leader

teacher

the

Since

school,

evaluation.

is also

does

Of

most

these
of

the

the principal

is

he/she

be

Since

should

in Adventist

involved in teaching he/she

may wish to arrange for a substitute teacher to permit time
for

classroom

activities.

visitations,

conferences,

and

Because of the size of the schools,

be done at least twice a year.

supervisory
this could

In the case of a one teacher

148
school, self-evaluation should be encouraged and this could
be compared with the formal evaluation.
Specific Outcomes to be Evaluated
In carrying out this process,

the following areas are

to be evaluated;
1. Teacher knowledge which is the extent the teacher is
knowledgeable

in

a

given

subject

area

and

planning

and

preparation for that area.
2. Teacher characteristics and beliefs.
3. Teacher competence which takes into account the way
a teacher

asks questions,

how instructional

objectives are

stated, and techniques of instruction.
4.

Teacher

performance

his/her competence

which

is how

a

teacher

uses

in an actual situation and the response

of students to the teacher and classroom management.
5.

Teacher effectiveness

which

is

the

result

of

teaching based on student achievement.
6. Teacher decision making.
7. Teacher responsibilities and functions.
8.

Professional goal setting.

In

order to evaluate the above outcomes effectively,

should be
out,

remembered

that

before an

evaluation

decisions must be made concerning,

design,

(b)

data

collection,

(d) presentation of results.

(c) methods

(a)

is

it

carried

the evaluation

of analysis,

and

149
Evaluation Design
In

designing

components
teacher

should

is

to

the

be

evaluation

clearly

be

described,

observed
of

process

in

(a)

following

how often

classroom

classroom

the

and

the

by

the

approximate

length

evaluator,

(b)

observation,

and the kind of information to be gathered and

the

each

the

the

instruments

to

visitation
be

how that information will be analyzed,

used

in

the

and (c) presentation

of the results to the teacher.
Teachers
planned,
for

want

an

constructive,

these

evaluation

process

that

is

and democratically applied.

expectations

to

be

realized,

the

well

In order
following

criteria should be met:
1.

Classroom

elements of

observation

visits

the teaching-learning

should

situation,

focus

on

all

not merely on

the teacher.
2. The

chief purpose

of

classroom observation,

should be the improvement of learning.
Inspirational

and

instructive

rather

visits

The visits should be
than

inspectional

and

repressive.
3.

Classroom ‘observation

visits

should

afford

each

teacher a definite and concrete basis for improvement.
4.
safety,

The

evaluator1s

welfare

first

and development

concern
of

the

should

be

students;

for
and

the
then

for the safety, welfare and development of the teacher.
5.

The

evaluator

should

measures of self-evaluation.

help

the

teacher

use

various

150
6.

Teachers should feel free to discuss their problems

and to make suggestions.
Data Collection
There are various methods
information on an individual
These

include,

(a)

that

can be used

to gather

during an evaluation process.

classroom

observations,

(b)

previously

collected data including reports and the teacher's personnel
file,

(c)

consultation

with

individuals

information about the teacher,
generic

or

students'

specific

work.

who

may

provide

(d) structured interviews for

purposes,

(e)

lesson

plans,

and

(f)

When multiple methods and sources are used

to obtain information,

the data collected will back up any

final decision made affecting

the

teacher.

The data being

described here pertain to information that an evaluator will
have

to

gather

when

using

this

proposed

design

and

are

different from the data collected for this study.
Specific measurement of a teacher's performance may be
obtained by direct observation,
data.

Assessment

of

the

inventories,

teacher

should

and

not

be

interview
based

on

impressions but on close observations of what a teacher does
in

the

classroom.

self-report

In

measures,

addition,
written

the

evaluator

records

and

should

impressions

use
of

others about the teacher to write a full and complete report
on the teacher.
I

would

personnel
preparation

recommend

involve
of

an

the

that

the

principals

instrument(s)

to

Office
and
be

of

teachers
used

for

Education
in

the

recording

151
data during an observation. These Instruments could take the
form

of

These

checklists,

farms

should

rating
focus

scales,

on

or

open

Individual

or

ended
team

forms.

goals.

I

would suggest they be developed cooperatively following the
establishment of

jointly agreed upon Conference and school

criteria.
Schedule and Process for Collecting Data
Data

should

not

be

gained

from

only

one

source

Information. Data can be obtained from the students,
self-evaluation,

parents

of

the

children,

of

peers,

and

classroom

the

evaluator

observations.
In
should

planning
be

planning

classroom

acquainted

observations
evaluator

for

and

should
for

with

observation,
techniques

conferences.
precede

a classroom

a

Careful
classroom

observation,

classroom

planning

by

observation.

the
When

I would propose

following should be taken into account;
observation, who initiated the visit,

for

the

the purpose of the

techniques to be used

in data collection and duration of the visit, and plans for
a post-conference.
Before an observation is conducted,

I would recommend

that the teacher be informed about the visit. Many teachers
fear a visit

by

dislike having
have

found

someone

who

the

evaluator

to defend

unsuccessful.
drifts

into

and with

methods
They
and

unannounced; unplanned visit.

and

also

out

of

good

reason.

techniques
fear
the

being

that

They
they

rated

classroom

on

by
an

152
Teacher evaluation should not be viewed as a one-time
prediction
one's

activity,

teaching

inspection

of

continuity,

I

but

rather

career.
the
am

as

continuous

Continuous

throughout

assessment

teaching

process.

recommending

that

permits

Because

of

continuing

this

contract

teachers be formally observed in the classroom twice a year
for

about

forty

observed

four

minutes.
times

during

thereafter twice a year.
evaluator

to

assess

achieving goals,
(c)

decisions

teaching
then

strategy

take

a

the

teachers

probationary

should
year

be
and

This continuous process allows the
teacher's

progress

relative

to

(a)

(b) effectiveness of the teaching strategy,

acquisition of

making

Probationary

into

the desired behavior change(s),
concerning

alternative

or

This

method.

account

all

of

goals

on-going
a

and

(d)

and

process

teacher's

the
would

over-all

performance and progress between periods of observation.
These
teacher

data

and

collection

the

evaluator

procedures
to

work

should
as

a

allow

team

the

and

to

concentrate on important classroom observations in the most
practical

way

of

collecting

data

about

the

teacher.

It

involves the intentional and methodical view of the teacher
and students. Observing involves planned, carefully focused,
and active attention by the observer.
senses

and

critical

not

task

just
of

the

sight

or

observer.

It

hearing

involves all
and

Classroom

should

be

observation

the
a
is

considered one of the factors that contributes positively to
teacher evaluation.

For these reasons,

I would propose that

a carefully planned classroom observation should be carried
out with every teacher in the Conference.
Guidelines for Observation
In

planning

for

classroom

observations,

I

would

recommend that the following outline be used as a guideline
for observation:
1. The teacher's role in the classroom
a. Maintains adequate student records
b.

Communicates

with

and

motivates

students.

{See Good and Brophy (1978).)
c.

Plans,

organizes

and

prepares

instructional

activities.
d. Demonstrates skills in classroom management.
(See Good and Brophy (1978).)
e. Uses career education resources and concepts
in teaching (resource people, trips, etc.)
2. The teacher as an individual
a.

Participates

in

achieving

Conference

and

school standards and monitoring objectives.
b. Assists In school program and activities.
c.

Is prompt

In arriving at work and starting/

ending classes on time.
3. Recommendations
This

section

evaluator's
improvement.

is

to

be

used

to

recommendations

for

a

state

the

teacher's

154
Method of Analysis
The data gethered are
goals set

to be analyzed In terms

of

the

for teacher evaluation to see If these goals are

being met and to determine areas of need. The analysis could
be done under the following headings; goals of education and
of

the

school,

problems

and

needs

of

children

and

youth,

teacher competence, and school improvement.
Analyzing the data under these headings makes it easier
and clearer

for the

weaknesses.

It

information

is

teacher

also

takes

to see areas
away

communicated

the

back

of strengths

guesswork

to

the

when

teacher.

and
the
The

analysis should also be done on the specific outcomes to be
evaluated to see how

those are

being met

and

to determine

the kind of follow-up the teacher would need.
Guidelines for Conferencing and Feedback
The goal of a follow-up conference between an evaluator
and the teacher should be by cooperative planning,
imposition

of

attempt

reach

to

a

plan on the
a

teacher.

union of

minds

individual

conference is

the most

technique

for

the

instruction.
followed

by

use

Below
the

in

are

A conference

and of

the

is

purposes.

important

an
The

supervisory

specific

improvement

of

proposed

criteria

be

certain

evaluator

not

in

the

formal

to

follow-up

conference:
1.

First,

the evaluator should establish

the teacher at the beginning of the conference.

rapport with

155
2. The evaluator should Include a general commendation
of

the

lesson

as

a

whole,

and

specific

aspects

of

the

les3on.
3. The evaluator should commend the teacher on his/her
skills.
4.

The

evaluator

should

help

further

the

teacher1s

confidence in hlra/herself and his/her work.
5.

the

evaluator

should

include

constructive

suggestions whereby the teacher's good work can be further
improved.
Teacher evaluation is not complete until the evaluator
and

the

teacher have held the

the results of the data.
the work

day when

the

final

conference

to discuss

This should be done at the end of

two

can sit

together and

talk over

what took place. When the evaluator has developed the final
report of observation,
chance

to reply to

the teacher should see and be given a

it. A conference is

aspect of any appraisal.

the most

important

It provides an opportunity for the

parties involved to plan for follow-up that is needed. This
follow-up should be related to the identified needs
teacher and

the be'st methods or ways by which

of the

these needs

can be m e t .

Follow-up and Professional Development
The rapidly changing scene in the instructional program
is a challenge

to

instructional

leadership

in schools.

It

must be met with increased skill and understandings through

156
professional growth. Professional growth is promoted through
the kind

of organization

leadership by

stating

seeking solutions,

that

encourages

their problems,

members

to exert

by devising ways

by participating in decision-making,

by accepting responsibility for the outcome.

of
and

Teacher growth

is promoted when teachers exchange ideas and when they are
encouraged to test the hypotheses they establish.
Programs
service

of

training.

curriculum
Too

Improvement

frequently

it has

constitute

in-

been assumed

that

In-service education and curriculum development are separate
functions.
the

As

present

teachers work on identifying
program,

they

are

growing

inadequacies

in

Insight

in

in

and

teaching skills. They themselves improve as they improve the
program.
Underlying any
people.

program of

Improvement

is

a belief

in

If staff development is to be successful, then there

must be a belief that teachers can grow. Mere are some goals
for carrying on such an effective staff development program:
1. Staff development training is not something that is
provided by the official

leader

for members

of

the staff;

be

haphazard.

he/she must also participate.
2.

Staff

development

training must

not

The first task of the official leader is to learn what type
is needed.

A second source of guidance is the direction the

Conference education program is taking.
3.

Staff

development

is

more

profitable

centered on improving the Conference program.

when

it

is

157
4.

Staff

development

should

not

be

confined

to

experiences that provoke only academic growth.
5.

Staff development needs to contribute to a growing

together of the teachers in the Conference.
The

staff

activities

of

development
school

program

personnel

that

should

include

contribute

to

all
their

continued professional growth and competence. Also it should
be a program in which both supervisors and teachers grow in
improving
goals of
and

the

learning

situation

staff development

the

instructional

development,

the

of

should be

program.

first problem

In

is to

children.

The

basic

improving instruction
planning

for

determine needs

staff
then

the next move is to determine how the teacher can be helped.
There

is no

single best method

to use.

The

following

are some techniques that could be used in staff development
programs for personnel growth and improvement in educational
program:
I . Group devices
A. Doing techniques
1. Workshops
2. committees
B. Verbal techniques
1. Staff meeting
2. Group counseling
3. Course work
4. Documentary aids
5. Directed reading

158
C. Observational techniques
1. Directed observation
2. Field trips
3. Travel seminars
4. Audio-visual aids
II. Individual devices
A. Active techniques
1, Participation in the total teaching act.
2. Individual problem-solving
B . Verbal techniques
1. Individual conferences
2. Adjustment counseling
C. Observational techniques
1. Directed observation
2. Intervisitatlon
I

would

techniques
include

also

indicate

here

that

that could be recommended

experimental

measurement,

if

studies,

needed,

and

a

the

there

are

to the teacher.
course

use

of

in
a

tests

other
These
and

professional

library and learning or instructional centers.
Schedule for total process
In
schedule

carrying
could be

out
used

this

whole

for one

process,

year

to

see

the

following

if

this

is a

observation

and

data

program that can be Implemented permanently.
1. Schedule for classroom observation.
2. Visit
collection.'

the

classroom

for

159
3. Conference and feedback.
A

conference

should be

held

following a classroom observation
on

the

teacher's

performance

with

the

teacher

to provide

feedback

and

suggest

follow-up

activities.
4. Follow-up
The

follow-up

appropriate

and

should use

meets

the

the

technique

needs

of

the

that

is

individual

teacher. The follow-up should be provided based on the
identified needs.

There is no single best method for a

follow-up but the most appropriate method or technique
should be used.

Assumptions Underlying Teacher Evaluation
The assumptions

identified here were derived

from the

proposed design:
1. The most common and the most fundamental assumption
about

the purpose of teacher evaluation is that evaluation

contributes to the professional development of teachers and
the

improvement

Peterson,

1982;

of

instruction

Setgiovanni

(Ryan

and

and Starrat,

Hickcox,

1983;

1980;

and Hawley,

1976) .
2.

Salary

increment,

layoffs,

promotions,

or

recommendations are not major purposes of teacher evaluation
(Ryan and Hickcox,

1980).

3. An evaluation process should include many sources of
evidence,

so that there can be a valid base for decisions,

160
and

an

evaluation

1962; Redfern,

instrument

1980; Bolton,

should

be

used.

(Peterson,

1973; Wiles and Lovell,

1975).

4. Experienced teachers do not need as much supervision
as do probationary teachers.
1982; Shinkfield,

(Ryan and Hickcox,

1977; Redfern,

1980; Vacc,

1982; and Peterson,

1982).

5. Observation of the teacher should be planned for and
arranged before the actual observation takes place
1981;

Hauge,

1981;

Hayman,

1975;

H anko, 1973;

(Noonan,

Shinkfield,

1977).
6.

A

following

conference
classroom

1981; Kowalski,

should

be

observations

held

with

(Redfern,

the

teacher

1980;

Hauge,

1978).

7. Staff development helps teachers grow professionally
and

improves

Vaughan,
Elliot,

1983;

their

instructional

Griffin,

1983;

1975; and Howey,

performance

Klopf,

1979;

(Howey

and

Sergiovanni and

1985).

Evaluation of the Design
The

design

can

be

evaluated

using

the

following

criteria to see if the stated goals are met;
Are these real'istic goals?
What

kind

of

data

are

collected

to

meet

the

stated

goals? It is important that the goals be looked at in terms
of data collection procedures.
What kind of professional development activities are to
be provided for those who do not meet

the goals? Answering

161
this question would also determine If these are goals that
should be stated for the design.
How are stated goals going to be achieved?
question

that

should

be

looked

Into

to

see

if

This

is a

the

goals

Identified can be met.
Are these goals going to Improve teacher effectiveness?
Provisions

should

be made

in which

the

information gained

can help a teacher grow and develop as a professional in a
supportive way with formal professional opportunities.

Implementation of the Design
In

implementing

this

design,

the

following

is

an

outline as to how to proceed.
Purposes
The evaluation of teachers
should have two purposes.

One,

in the Michigan Conference
the professional development

of teachers which focuses primarily on the teaching staff in
attempts
the

to provide the means for

students1

needs— the

Intellectual,

and

essential

the

to

career
goals

improvement

of

objectives

concerned

the total

academic,

objectives
of

students

instruction

which

with

and

Lovell

(1975,

King-Stoops

that
and

are

pp.

121-187;

pp.

217-245);

society.

and

and Johnson (1975, pp. 141-162).

Two,

more

on

as
the
the

instruction.

found

163-241);
and

social,

perceived

concentrates

curriculum

{1978,

to meet

personal,

Complete details on these two purposes are
Stoops,

staff

in Marks,
Wiles

Stoops,

and

Rafferty

162
Expected outcomes
These

are

the

expected

outcomes

or

goals

of

this

proposed evaluation design system:
• l . Help

the

professional

staff

see

more

clearly

the

goals of education and of the school.
2. Help teachers see the problems and needs of children
and youth they will be teaching.
3. Provide effective democratic leadership in promoting
the

improvement

of

the

school

and

its

activities,

and

in

fostering harmonious and cooperative staff relations.
4.

Help

the

professional

staff

develop

greater

competence in teaching.
5. Aid

teachers

in

the diagnosis and

remediation of

learning difficulties.
Additional

Information

obtained from Marks,

on

expected

outcomes

Stoops and King-Stoops

(1978,

can
pp.

be
76-

115; 289-336) and Ryan and Hickcox (1980).
Instruments
Different

Instruments

may be used to observe behavior

in the classroom. They may be classified in various ways but
should have the following characteristics
reason for the observation,
specifies

when

observed,

and

details

on

and
(d)

various

in

(b) a recording procedure

what

methods

(a) a purpose or

units
of

Instruments

behaviors

analyzing
may

be

are

data.

to

that
be

Complete

obtained

from

McNergney and Carrier (1981, pp. 73-119); Borlch (1974); and
Marks, Stoops, and King-Stoops (1978, pp. 211-242; 289-336).

Apart from direct classroom observation of the teacher,
other methods of data collection should be used. Information
could be obtained from sources such as student evaluation of
the teacher,

teacher self-evaluation,

evaluation of children's parents.

peer evaluations,

and

CHAPTER VI
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The purpose of this chapter is to present (a) a summary
of

the

study,

this study,

and

(b)

conclusions

drawn

from

the

findings

of

(c) recommendations based on the results of

this study.

Summary of the Study
The

purpose

of

this

study

was

two-fold;

first,

to

investigate the current teacher evaluation practices and the
perceptions held toward those practices by elementary school
principals

in

Adventists,

and

the

Michigan

second,

to

Conference

design

a

of

proposed

Seventh-day
evaluation

system for the Conference.
The research questions for this study were grouped into
two

categories;

Michigan
teachers,

(A)

Conference
and

(B)

how

the

currently
process

for

practice— teacher evaluation.

164

Adventist
evaluate

schools
their

designing

an

in

the

elementary
educational

165

A. How Adventist Schools Currently Evaluate Teachers
The

first

information

purpose

on

how

of

this

Adventist

study

schools

was

to

provide

currently

evaluate

their teachers. The research questions were:
1.

What

is

the

purpose

of

teacher .evaluation

in

Seventh-day Adventist schools?
2.

What

are

the

current

teacher

evaluation

practices

being used in the Seventh-day Adventist elementary schools?
3. What is the Adventist elementary school principal's
perception toward current teacher evaluation practices?
4.

Are

there

differences

in

teacher

evaluation

practices between Seventh-day Adventist schools and current
practices found in research?
B. Process for Designing an Educational Practice
The question
with whether
incorporation

the

to be

formal

of

answered

in

process used

research

this
here

findings

section
results

into

dealt
in

the

educational

practice.
The population
five

elementary

of

this

school

study consisted
principals

in

of

all

the

fifty-

Michigan

Conference. The survey instrument and the cover letters were
sent

to

the principals

by

first

class

mail,

and

seventy-

three percent of the principals responded.
Data analysis was done by a tabular arrangement of the
items with an account of the number of observations for each

166
item. The account given was based on the number of responses
for each item computed into percent.
A

proposed

evaluation— that
was

developed.

design
could
The

of
be

educational

used

by

practice— teacher

the Michigan

research synthesis

and

Conference

contextual

data

formed the base for this design.
A

summary

elementary

of

significant

schools

in

the

findings

Michigan

evaluate

teachers

is

presented

research

questions

and

general

study,

(a)

purpose

of

evaluation

practices,

(c)

principal's

perception

toward

practices,

and

(d)

the

investigated

Adventist

(b)

teacher

in

teacher

four

in

elementary

current

how

currently

to

evaluation,

differences

with

Conference

according

areas

teacher

dealing

this

current
school

evaluation
evaluation

practices between the Michigan Conference elementary schools
and those found in research.
Purpose of Teacher Evaluation
What
Michigan
this

is

the

Conference

question

teacher

purpose

of

teacher

elementary

showed

that

evaluation;

improvement

of

evaluation

schools?

there

was

a

professional

instruction as

the respondents respectively.

The

the

responses

to

purpose

of

dual

development,

indicated by
Layoffs,

in

823s and

and
758S of

promotion and tenure

were checked less frequently as purposes for evaluation.
The

principals

also

reported

that

teacher

was not used as a basis for salary raises.

evaluation

This purpose was

checked less frequently by those responding to the survey.

167
Current Evaluation Practices
What are the current teacher evaluation practices being
used

in

the

Seventh-day

Teaching techniques

Adventist

elementary

schools?

and student achievement ranked high as

criteria for classroom observation.

The least used criteria

was professional g o als.
The

principal,

superintendent
the assistant

all

superintendent,

observed

teachers

and

in

the

assistant

classroom

but

superintendent does most of

the observations

frequently used

information when

in the schools.
The

most

sources

of

observing teachers in the classroom were found to be lesson
plans

and

materials

used

by

the

source was video-tape recording.

teacher.

The

continuing

contract

used

Probationary teachers were

observed in the classroom from three to four
while

least

teachers

were

times

observed

a year
twice

a

year.
For

the

continuing

contract

teachers,

most

of

the

classroom visits were unannounced whereas

for probationary

teachers,

made

there

were

prior

observation was don'e. And,

arrangements

before

the

these classroom observations last

anywhere from 20 to 40 minutes.
A conference was always held with both probationary and
continuing contract teachers following classroom observation
and

it

was

also

indicated

observation ’
was always made.

that

a

written

report

of

the

168
Follow-up Information was provided as deemed necessary
and

it

was

found

that

only

two

schools

currently

used

a

local school instrument for teacher evaluation.
Adventist Elementary School Principal's Perception
What is the Adventist elementary school principal1s
perception

toward

current

Thirty-five percent
that

the

present

of

saw

teacher

selection as

the

evaluation

the principals

improve" while 45& felt
principals

teacher

responding

evaluation

on

consistent with

indicated

practices

"generally satisfied."

emphasis

practices?

criteria

"need

to

Most of the

used

in

teacher

teacher evaluation practices.

Sixty-six percent of the principals responding to the openended

item

indicated

that

there was

a need

for

formalized

teacher evaluation procedures.
Differences in Teacher Evaluation Practices
Are

there differences

in teacher

evaluation practices

between Seventh-day Adventist schools and current practices
found

in

research?

differences

with

It

was

regards

found
to

the

that

there

purpose

of

were

no

teacher

evaluation.
For the elementary schools, available research findings
state

that

teachers

in

the

his/her

Ryan and Hickcox,
and

Oldham,

principal
school

is

(Noonan,

1980; Hodel,

1974;

and

the

primary
1981;

evaluator

Peterson,

1979; Washington,

Goedken,

1969).

In

of

1982;

1977; Nield

the

Michigan

169
Conference schools,

It was

found that the principal

is not

the key person in teacher evaluation.
Evaluation
methods

and

Noonan,

1981;

and Kleinman,

of

teachers

techniques

done

(Redfern,

Shinkfield,
1966).

can be

1977;

through different

1980;

Anderson

Peterson,

1982;

and Hanko,

1973;

In the Michigan Conference,

of methods and techniques were employed.

a variety

The only technique

that was not used was clinical supervision.
Process for Designing and Educational Practice
To answer the (B) section of the research questions,

a

design of an educational practice was developed that could
be

used

by

the

Michigan

Conference.

organized according to the contextual
base

and

included,

(a)

rationale

evaluation,

(b)

procedures

evaluation,

(c)

follow-up

assumptions

underlying

and

the

design

was

factors and knowledge

and

and

This

purpose

of

elements
staff

proposed

teacher

of

teacher

development

design,

and

(e)

(d)
a

proposed plan for evaluating the design.

Conclusions
The conclusions of this study are based on the review
of

related

literature,

elementary

school

instrument

administered

the

principals
for

data
who
this

collected

responded

to

from
the

investigation,

the

survey

and

the

process for designing and educational practice.
Principals
In

the

process

in the Adventist schools were
of

teacher

evaluation

as

not involved

they should.

The

170
responses

received

Indicated

principals

involved in only 18* of the schools,
principal

should

be

the

main

were

actually

while in reality,

evaluator.

In

the

elementary

schools,

"principals are regarded as the primary evaluators"

(Noonan,

1981, p. 160).

Teacher

evaluation

perfunctory.

to

the

Michigan

Conference

the

the purpose of

teacher.

Also

the

the visit

results

of

is not made

the

evaluation

process were not used for such things as promotion,
or

salary

was

In most cases the formal classroom observations

were unannounced and
known

in

increments.

The

purpose

of

layoffs

evaluation

was

developed by the Conference Office of Education without the
involvement

of

the principals

or

the teachers

and

In some

Instances this purpose was not communicated to the teachers.
Concerning the design for an educational
can be concluded
the

incorporation

that
of

the

practice,

it

resulted

in

formal process used

research

findings

into

educational

practice. The design process proposed here was built on the
research or knowledge base

found in Chapter

II which acted

as the foundation for the whole design. This design process
provided a means
related

to

"by which theory/research can be directly

practice

providing

practices based on research"

a

means

(Hatfield,

for

modifying

1984, p. 122).

171
Recommendations for Further Study
The

findings,

summary,

and

conclusions

of

this

study

resulted In the following recommendations for further study:
1.

A

similar

perceptions

and

study

be

attitudes

conducted
of

teachers

to

determine

regarding

the

formal

evaluation practices.
2. Replication of the present study should be conducted
with a

larger population

involving more Conferences within

the Adventist Organizational system.
3.

More

studies

need

to

be

done that

incorporate

research findings into educational practice.
4.

Research

needs

to

be

conducted to

determine

the

inservice needs of elementary school principals which would
enable them,

through teacher evaluation,

in improving classroom instruction.

to assist teachers

REFERENCES

Acheson, K.A.
& Call, M.D.
(1980).
Techiniques In
clinical supervision of teachers. New York: Longman.
Adams, E. (ed.) (1975). In-service education and
centers. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Adelman, C. & Alexander, R.J.
institution. London: Methuen.

(1982).

The

the

teachers1

self-evaluating

Alkin, M.C.; Richard, D. & Peter, W. (1979). Using evalua­
tions . Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Anderson, C.C. & Hunko, S.M. (1964). Teacher evaluation:
Some problems and a proposal. Harvard Educational Review,
34, 74-75.
Baker,
E.
(1984).
Can
educational
research
inform
educational practice? Yes. Phi Delta Kappan. 65(7), 453455.
Barth,
R.S.
(1978).
Teacher
evaluation
development. Principal. 54, 74-77.
Becher, T. ; Erant, M. & Knight, J.
educational accountability. London:
Books.

and

staff

(1981). Policies for
Heinemann Educational

Beecher,
R.
(1979).
Staff
evaluation:
The
essential
administrative task. Phi Delta Kappan. 6 0 , 515-517.
Bell, T.H. (1974). A performance accountability system for
school administrators. West Nyack, N . Y . : Parker Publishing
Books.
Blumberg, A.
McCutchan.

(1974).

A

private

cold

w a r . Berkeley,

CA:

Bolton, D.L. (February, 1973). Collecting evaluation data.
National education elementary principal, 52(5), 76-86.
Bolton, D.L. (1973). Selection and evaluation of teachers.
Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing Corporation.

172

173
Borg, W.R. (1973J. Educational research and development and
educational change.
In J.K. Hemphill &
F.S.
Rosenau
(eds.). Educational development. Eugene, Oregon: Center
for Advanced Study of Educational Administration.
Borg,
W.R.
{1973).
The
balance
between
development. In Hemphill & Rosenau. Ibid.

research

and

Borich, G.D. & Madden, S.K. {1977). Evaluating classroom
instruction: A sourcebook of instruments. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Borich, G. (ed.) (1974). Evaluating educational programs and
products. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ:
Educational
Teaching
Technology Publications.
Brandt, R.M. (1973).
Toward a taxonomy of
observational
information.
In
W.
Charles
&
R.M.
Brandt
(ed.).
Observational methods in the classroom. Washington, D.C.,
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Brody, J.A. (July, 1977). A good teacher is harder to define
than to find. The American School Board Journal. 164, pp.
25-28.
Brophy, J. fit Evertson, C.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

(1976).

Learning

from

teaching.

Buchmann, M. (1983).
The use of research
knowledge in
teacher education and teaching. (Occasional Paper No. 71).
East Lansing, MI: Institute for Research on Teaching, MSU,
1983.
Carroll, J. (1981). Faculty self-evaluation. In J. Millman
(ed.). Handbook of teacher evaluation. Beverly Hills,
California: Sage Publications.
Cogan, M. (1973).
Mifflin.

Clinical

Coker, H. ; Medley, D.; &
expert
opinions
about
Kappan, 62, 131-135.

Supervision. New York:

Houghton

Soar, R. (1980). How valid are
effective
teaching?
Phi
Delta

Cooley, W. & Lohnes, P.
(1976). Evaluation
education. New York: Irrington Publishers.

research

in

Dillon-Peterson,
B.
(ed.)
(1981).
Staff
development/
organization
development
perspective.
Association
for
Supervision
and
Curriculum
Development
Yearbook.
Alexandria, Virginia; ASCD.

174
Doyle,
K.
(1983).
Massachusets.
Duck, L.
Bacon.

(1981).

Evaluating

Teaching.

Lexington,

Teaching with charisma. Boston:

Allyn and

Duke, D. & Corno, L. (1981). Evaluating staff development.
In B. Dillon-Peterson (ed.). Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development Yearbook. Alexandria, Virginia:
ASCD.
Eble, K.E.
(ed)
(1980).
Improving
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.

teaching

styles.

_________ . (1975). Evaluation handbook. Fairfax,
Fairfax County Public Schools.

San

Virginia:

Eisner,
E.
(1984).
Can
educational
research
Inform
educational practice? Phi Delta Kappan, 65(7), 447-452.
Flanders, N.A. (1970). Analyzing teaching behavior. Reading,
Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Gage, N.L.
(1978). The scientific basis of
teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.

the

art

of

Galloway, M. (1973). The nonverbal realities of classroom
life. In Charles W. Beegle & Richard M. Brandt (ed.).
Observation Methods in the Classroom. Washington, D.C.:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development in
Education, 43-45.
Goldhammer, R. (1969). Clinical observation. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
Good, T. & Brophy, J.
Harper and Row, 1978.

(1978).

Looking

in

classrooms. NY:

Gray, J. (1979). Reading progress in English infant schools:
Some
problems
emerging
from
a
study
of
teacher
effectiveness. British Educational Research Journal. 5(2),
pp. 141-157.
Griffin, G. (ed.) (1983). Staff development. 82nd Yearbook
of the NSSE, Part 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hatfield, R. (1984). Functions and tasks of teaching. East
Lansing: Unpublished manuscript.
Hatfield,
R.
(1984).
The structure and
knowledge
for
educational
practice.
Unpublished manuscript.

development of
East
Lansing:

175
Hauge, B. (1981). A study of teacher evaluation practices
and perceived attitudes of those practices by elementary
school principals In the twin cities. Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of Minnesota.
Hawley, R.C.
(1976). Evaluating
positive approaches. Amherst,
Research Associates.

teaching: A handbook of
Massachusetts:
Education

Hemphill,
J. & Rosenau,
F.
(eds.)
(1973).
Educational
development. Eugene, Oregon: Center for the Advanced Study
of Educational Administration.
Hemphill,
J.
(1973).
Educational
research,
educational
development and evaluation. In Hemphill, J. fit Rosenau, F.
(eds.). Educational Development. Eugene, Oregon: Center
for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration.
Hemphill, J. (1973). Educational development. In Hemphill,
J. & Rosenau, F. (eds.). Educational development. Eugene,
Oregon: Center for the Advanced Study of Educational
Administration.
Herman, J.J.
evaluation
Company.

(1973). Developing an
program. West Nyack,

effective school staff
NY: Parker Publishing

Hite, H. & Howey, K. (1977). Planning inservice
education: Promising alternatives. ERIC.

teacher

Hodgkinson, H.L.; Hurst, J.; & Levine, H. (1975). Improving
and
assessing
performance. Berkeley,
CA:
Center
for
Research and Development in Higher Education.
Holzner, B. & Marx, J. (1979). Knowledge application:
knowledge system in society. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

The

House, E. (ed.) (1973). School evaluation: The politics and
process. Berkeley, CA: MuCutchan Publishing Corporation.
Howey, K. (1985). Six major functions of staff development:
An expanded imperative. Journal of Teacher Education.
36(1), 58-64.
Howey, K. & Vaughan, J. (1985). Current patterns of staff
development.
In G.
Griffin
(Ed.).
Staff development,
36(1), 58-64.
Howsan, R.B. (1976). Current issues
Elementary Principal, 52(5), 12-17.

in education.

Natural

Hughes, M.M. (1959). Assessment of the gualitv of teaching
in elementary schools. University of Utah.

176
Hyman,
R.T.
(1975).
School admi n i s t r a t o r s
handbook of
teacher supervision and evaluation methods. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Jones,
A.S.;
Bagford,
L.W.;
&
Wallen,
Strategies for teaching. Metuchen, NJ.
Johnson,
E.W.
(1979).
Teaching school.
Association of Independent Schools.

E.A.

Boston:

(1979).
National

Johnson, C.E.; Okey, J.R.; Capie, W . ; Ellett, C.; & Adams,
P.T.
(1978). Identifying and verifying genetic teacher
competencies. Athens, GA: College of Education University
of Georgia.
Kleinman,
G.A.
(April,
1966).
Assessing
teacher
effectiveness: The state of the art. Science Education,
50(3), 234.
Klopf, G. (1978). The principal and staff development in the
elementary school. Bank Street College of Education.
Klopf, G. (1979). The principal and staff development in the
school. Bank Street College of Education.
Kniker, C.R. & Naylor, N.A.
(1981). Teaching today and
tomorrow. Columbus: Charles E. Merril Publishing Company.
Kounin, J.S.
(1970). Discipline and group management
classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Washington.
Kowalski, J.P.S.
(1978). Evaluating teacher
Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.

in

performance.

Lancaster, O.E. (1974). Effective teaching and learning. New
York: Gordon and Breach.
Manatt, R.P.; Palmer, K. ; & Hldlebaugh, E. (1976). Teacher
performance evaluation with improved rating scales. The
Bulletin. NASSP, 60(401), 21-24.
Marks, J . ; Stoops, E; & King-S.oops, J. (1978). Handbook of
educational supervision. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Marshall, J. & Caldwell, S. (1984). How valid are formal and
informal needs assessment methods for planning staff
development programs? NASSP Bulletin, 68(475), 24-30.
McGreal, T. (1980). Helping teachers set goals.
Leadership. 37(5), 414-419.

Educational

McNeil,
J.D.
(1967).
Concomitants
of
using
behavioral
objectives. Journal of Experimental Education. 31(1).

177
McNergney, R.F. & Carrier, C.A. (1981). Teacher d e v e l o p m e n t .
New York: MacMillan Publishing Co.
Medley, M.
(1973). Closing the gap
teacher
effectiveness
and
the
curriculum.
Journal
of
Research
Education. 7, 39-46.

between research in
teacher
education
and
Development
in

Medley,
M.
(1982).
Teacher competency
teacher
educator.
Charlottesville,
Educational Research.
Merenbloom,
E.
(1984).
effective middle level
25-32.

testing and
VA:
Bureau

the
of

Staff
development:
The
key
to
schools. NASSP Bulletin. 68(474),

Millman, J. (ed.) (1981). Handbook
Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

of

teacher

evaluation.

Mohan, M. & Hull, R.E. (1975). Teaching effectiveness: Its
meaning, assessment, and improvement. Englewood Cliffs,
N J : Education Technology Publications.
Ness,
M.
(1980).
The
administrator
as
instructional
supervisor. Educational Leadership. 37(5), 404-406.
Noonan, J.A. (1981). An analysis of perceptions of Michigan
superintendents, principals, and teachers in regard to
present
versus
preferred
teacher
evaluation
systems.
Doctoral dissertation, Western Michigan University.
Oldham, N.
(1974). Evaluating teachers
gr o w t h . Arlington, VA: National School
Association.

for professional
Public Relations

_________ . (January, 1975). Observation procedures, in Staff
evaluation skills. pp.
3.32 g/h
1-2.
Arlington,
VA:
American Association of School Administrators, National
Academy for School Executives.
Olds, R. (1973). Sblf-evaluation for teachers and adminis­
trators . Washington, Ohio: School Management Institute.
Peterson,
C.H.
(1982).
A
century's
growth
in
teacher
evaluation in the United States. New York: Vantage Press.
Peterson, P.L. & Walberg, H.J. (1979). Research on teaching.
Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing Corporation.
Peterson, D. & Ward, A. (1980). Due Process in Teacher
Evaluation. Washington, D.C.: University Press of America.
Popham, W.J. (November, 1974). Pitfalls and pratfalls of
teacher evaluation. Educational Leadership. 3 2 . 141-146.

1

178
Popham, W.
(May, 1972). Pound: A
appraise teacher achievement in
School, (89).

practical procedure to
the classroom. Nations

Redfern, G.B. (1980). Evaluating teachers and administra­
tors: A performance objectives approach. Boulder: Westview
Press.
Remmers,
H.H.
(1963).
Rating
methods
in
teaching. In N.L. Gage (Ed.). Handbook of
Teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally, 329-378.
Rose, C.
ERIC.

& Nyre,

G.P.

(1977).

research
Research

on
on

The practice of evaluation.

Rose, G.W. (November, 1963). The effects of administrative
evaluation. National Elementary principal, 43, 50-56.
Rossi, P. & Freeman, H. (1982). Evaluation: A
approach. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

systematic
’

Roy, J.J. (February, 1979). Teacher evaluation in an era of
educational change. The Clearing House, 52, 275-276.
Rubin, L. (1978). Perspectives on preservice and inservice
education. Syracuse, NY: National Disseminational Center.
Ryan,
D.W.
& Hickcox,
E.S.
(1980).
Redefining teacher
evaluation. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in
Education.
Ryans, D.G. (1960). Characteristics of teachers. Washington,
D.C.: American Council on Education.
Sargent,
R.
(February,
1979).
An appraisal scheme
teaching. Schoolmaster and career teacher, 37-39.

for

Sergiovanni, T.J.
(Ed.). (1975). Professional supervision
for professional teachers. Washington, D . C . : Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Sergiovanni,
T.J.
& Elliot,
D.
(1975),
Educational and
organizational
leardershlp
in
elementary
schools.
Englewood Cliffs, N J : Prentice-Hall.
Sergiovanni, T.J. & Starrat, R.J. (19830. Supervision: Human
perspectives. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Shinkfield, A.J.
(1977). The professional improvement of
teachers through positive appraisal technigues. Doctoral
dissertation, Western Michigan University.
Simon, H. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge,
MA: The MIT Press.

179
Simpson, R.H.
MacMillan.

(1966).

Teacher

self-evaluation. New

__________ . (1967). The evaluation of
D . C . : Pi Lambda Theta.

York:

teaching. Washington,

Soar,
R. ; Medley,
D.;
&
Coker,
H.
(1983).
Teacher
evaluation: A critique of currently used methods. Phi
Delta Ka o p a n . 65(4), 239-246.
Tinkuoff, W. & Ward, B.
(1983). Collaborative research on
teaching. The Elementary School Journal, 83(4), 453-468.
Trump, J. & Miller, D. (1979). Secondary school curriculum
improvement: Meeting changes of the times. Boston: Allyn
and Bacon.
Vacc, N.A. (1982). A conceptual framework
assessment of clients.
Measurement and
guidance. 0_S (9) , 30-35.

for continuous
evaluation in
1

Walberg, H.J.
(1974). Evaluating educational performance.
Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing Corporation.
Washington,
E.
(1971).
Expert teacher
action program.
Belmont, CA: Fearon Publishers/Lear Siegler, Inc.
Weller, R.H. (1971). Verbal communication in instructional
supervision. New York: Teachers' College Press.
Wiles,
K. & Bondi,
J.
(1980). Supervising a
guide to
practice. Columbus: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co.
Wiles,
K. & Lovell,
J.
(1975).
Supervision
schools. Englewood Cliffs, N J : Prentice-Hall.

for

better

Wilson, D. (1981). The
relative
impact of two forms of
assessment
data
feedback
on
a
teacher's
perceived
strengths
and
needs
for
improvement. Michigan
State
University, Unpublished Dissertation.
Yarger, S.; Howey, K . ; Joyce, B. Inservice teacher education
Palo Alto, CA: Booksend Laboratory.

Appendices

Appendix A
Cover Letter and Questionnai

J u l y 28,

1985

Dear Principal,
Thank you for agreeing to participate in this research study
on "Teacher Evaluation Practices."
Presently,
I am a Ph.D.
candidate in the Teacher Education Department at Michigan
State University.
I am currently on assignment to join the
faculty of the University of Eastern Africa, Kenya.
You have been selected to be an important
part of this
survey.
I, therefore, personally invite you to participate
in this
research study by taking a few minutes of your
valuable time to complete and to return the attached
survey
instrument.
Without your response,
it is impossible
to
complete this study.
The Michigan Conference Office of Education has expressed
great interest in the results of this study which may be
used in the improvement of teacher evaluation practices.
As
a professional educator, the results of this study will also
be beneficial to you.
The time required to fill out this
survey is only fifteen minutes.
All
the data collected will
be treated with
strict
confidentiality.
To
ensure you confidentiality,
the
information received will be used for overall analyses only
and you will not be identified individually or by school.
If you or your school wants a copy of the final results
of
this study,
it will be provided.
Please return the
completed survey and the requested forms,
if available,
in
the enclosed, stamped, self ..addressed envelope.
I must thank you in advance for giving this matter your top
priority since I am expected at the place of my appointment,
Kenya,
by December,
1985.
Please return the information
requested by August 24, 1985.
Thank you very much for your
prompt, professional assistance.
Sincerely,

Grace H. Ongwela
Enclosure

M IC H IG A N

CONFERENCE

Phone (517) 485-2226
P.O. Box 19009
Lansing, Michigan 48901

June 18, 1985

ELEMENTARY AND JUNIOR ACADEMY PRINCIPALS
Michigan Conference
Dear Friends:
Today I had the pleasure of meeting with Dr. and Mrs. Gado Ongwela.
They are currently under appointment to join the staff of our
Adventist college in Kenya, the University of Eastern Africa.
Mrs. Ongwela is completing the requirements for her Ph.D. Degree
in Teacher Education at Michigan State University. As part of
her thesis research she would like each of you to assist her by
completing the short questionnaire she has prepared. Your prompt
reply will be greatly appreciated.
May the Lord's blessings be yours as we work together to finish
His work.
Sincerely,

T. Alvin Astrup
1
Superintendent of Education
lsr

3 2 0

W E S T

S A I N T

J O S E P H

STREET

A STUDY- OF TEACHER EVALUATION PRACTICES

. i :: This survey shall refer to classroom teachers who are
employed on a full-time contract in grades K-8 in Michigan
Conference of Seventh-day Adventist.
Please complete each question as indicated on the survey.
1.

What is the purpose of teacher evaluation in your school?
(please check those which apply)
Tenure
Salary increament
Dismissal
Professional improve­
ment
Other (please specify)

2.

Promotion
Improvement of instruction
Layoff

How was this purpose developed?
By the conference office of education
By the school board and teachers
By the principal and teachers
D o n 11 know
Other (please specify)

3.

How is the purpose made known to the teacher?
Individual conference
Not made known
Policy statements
___ Faculty meeting
Written correspondence
Other (please specify)

4.

What criteria do you use for teacher evaluation?
Teacher knowledge
Teacher beliefs and characteristics
Student achievement
Teaching techniques
Professional goals
Other (please specify)

5.

Who does the actual observation of the teacher in the
classroom?
Principal
Superintendent
Assistant superintendent
Other (please specify)

Tenure/continuing
contract teachers

Probationary
teachers

Which of the following best
describes how information is
obtained for evaluation?
(please check one in each
column)
A checklist which describes
teacher characteristics is
used in the classroom obser­
vation ..........................
Teacher and principal set goals
before classroom observation...
Achievement test scores are
used to evaluate teacher per­
formance......................
Students rate their teachers...
Lesson plans and materials are
used............................
Parent contacts
Use of video-tape recording to
evaluate teacher performance...
Teachers formally evaluate
each o t h e r 's performance in
written report..................
Specific detailed observation
of teacher's or children's
verbal and non-verbal behavior
is collected....................
Other

(please specify).........

How often is the teacher formally
observed in the classroom?
(Please check one in each column)
Once a w e e k .....................
Once a m o n t h ....................
Once a year .....................
Twice a y e a r ....................
Once every two y e a r s ...........
Other (please specify).........

t

Tenure/continuing
contract teachers
8.

Which of the following best
describes the means by which
formal classroom visits are
scheduled?
(please check one
in each column)
Teacher request......... ......
Principal request.............
Unannounced....................
Other (please specify)........

9.

What is the approximate length
of the formal classroom obser­
vation?
(please check one in
each column)
10 minutes .....................
20 m i n utes .....................
30 minutes.....................
40 minutes.....................
Other (please specify)

10.

Is a written report made of the
observations?
(please check
those which apply in each
column)
A l w a y s..........................
Sometimes....... ...............
N e v e r........... *...............

12.

....
....
....
....
____

A conference is held with the
teacher following the formal
classroom evaluation.
(please
check one in each column)....
A lways.........................
Sometimes......................
N ever..........................

11.

....
....
....
....

What type of follow-up informa­
tion do you provide the teacher
with after a classroom observa­
tion? (please check one in each
column)
Provide resources..............
Workshops, seminars, in-service
training. ......... ■ • • •........
Set goals for improvement.....
Other (please specify).........

....
....
...

Probationary
teachers

13.• Is teacher evaluation in your school based on student
achievement?
Yes
14.

No

Partially

Do you use a local school developed instrument for
evaluation of teachers?
Tenured/continuing teachers
Probationary teachers

15.

Yes
Yes

No
No

How do you feel about your present teacher evaluation
practices?
Not satisfied
Need to improve
Generally satisfied
Completely satisfied

16.. Do you see the emphasis on criteria used in teacher
selection as consistent with your evaluation practices?
Yes

No

17.

Please indicate your comments and suggestions for the
improvement of your present teacher evaluation prac­
tices .

18.

If the following copies are available, please enclose.
Enclosed
School evaluation instrument.....
Student evaluation forms..........
Self-evaluation instrument........
Peer evaluation instrument........
Other instruments/forms...........

Not available

....
....
....
....
....

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SINCERE COOPERATION I N .COMPLETING
THIS SURVEY!

....
....
....
....
....

Appendix B
Conference Statements on Teacher Evaluation

TEACHER EVALUATION PROGRAM
It is the objective of the Office of Education to evaluate
the teachers
periodically as determined by the Office of
Education.
Both formal and informal evaluation procedures
will be used.
The primary objective of the evaluation is to
assist the teacher in becoming more professional in his/her
work.
Teachers of larger schools may be evaluated by their
principals in cooperation with the Office of Education.
The steps in a formal evaluation are:
A.

Visit by the evaluator in the classroom for at
one hour with the teacher.

B.

Comparison
evaluator.

C.

Establishment of
for completion.

objectives for improvement and

date

D.

Return
by
evaluator after completion
date
objectives for a visit of at least one hour.

for

E.

Conference between evaluator and evaluatee
for
evaluation of the work completed on the objectives.

F.

Complete the report which is signed by both evaluator
and evaluatee with a copy going to the files of the
Office of Education.

of

self-evaluation

and

least

evaluation

by

an

An informal evaluation will be a brief visit,
which may or
may not bring forth a written report,
but usually has some
dialog between teacher and evaluator.

Appendix C
School Evaluation Instrument

BATTLE CREEK ACADEMY
TEACHER EVALUATION

T each er_______________________________________

School

Subject Area,__________________________________

Evaluator_______________________________ _

BASIC PURPOSE)
The purpose of this form is fourfold: (a) for the improvement of instruction, (b) for the
professional growth of the teacher, (c) to insure optim um looming oonortunitics for the student^ (d) and to provide
for teacher self-evaluation.

Directions:

pH

CU

Commendable
Satisfactory

0

A rea of Concern

□

Leave box em pty when evaluation cannot
be made

COALS AND OBJECTIVES

CLASSROOM
Appearance
Physical Comfort
Display o f Learning M aterial

Coals Clearly Stated
Objectives Appropriate to Goals
A ctivities Directed Toward Coals and
Objectives

AFFECTIVE CLIMATE

B
□

TEACHING PROCEDURES

Dem ocratic Control
Positive Rapport
Student Respect

Active Response
Aooronriate Practice
Individual Differentiation
Perceived Purpose
Graduated Sequence
Knowledge of Results
Appropriate Evaluative Procedures

PROFESSIONAL MANNER f
Appropriate Professional Behavior
Enthusiasm
Fair Mindedness

GENERAL TEACHING "METHOD"
■

Classroom Practices Consistent with
SDA Philosophy

r-— j
L I

INSTRUCTIONAL MEDIA USED

G ENERAL OBSERVATION;

Evaluator’s Signature:_______________________ Date;_
T EACHER’5 OBSERVATION:____________________________________________________________

D ate of Consultation*:_____________________
*

**

Teacher's Signature **: _

The consultation Is based upon
number of classroom visits on the following dates on which this
evaluation form was used:
. The teacher's signature is required
on the form used at the tim e of the consultation.
Signature docs not necessarily imply agreem ent with the evaluation given.
White Copy - School

Yellow Copy - Teacher