The Evaluation of
Teaching: No
Guppies or Goldfish
in My Classroom
J. Merrell Hansen
ONE
The need for administrative leadership in
instructional evaluation and assessing
teacher competence
is becoming more
evident. To that end,
the author attempts to
define some of the
issues, provide insights into the evaluation process, and
assist in determining
guidelines for assess
ment.
OF THE MAJOR PARADOXES of the
teaching profession is the ambiguity with
which we approach the subject of teacher
evaluations. On the one hand we have those
who advise that teaching is so highly personalized and individualized, a reflection of
each teacher’s unique personality and style,
that no common denominators exist, that no
general and encompassing set of standards
might be expected. &dquo;... We would, therefore, define the good teacher as a person
who has learned to
use
fectively.and efficiently
his unique self ef-
to carry out his own
in the education of
and society’s purpose
others.&dquo; (Combs, 1964. p. 36)
Unfortunately, the fact that an individual
performs to the fullest of his abilities is no
assurance that he is performing according to
the goals and purposes of the system. Many
beneficial behaviors might be neglected and
skills imperfectly practiced if the teacher
operates only from a framework of individual style and unique qualities.
Then there are those who decry the inappropriateness of concentrating upon
J. Merrell Hansen is associate
ment
professor, Departof Education, Washington State University,
Pullman.
Downloaded from bul.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
11
12
teacher behavior as a source of evaluation. Popham (1973) claims that it
is indefensible to evaluate successful teaching in terms of teaching behaviors since the evidence should be based upon how much the students
learn:
It is indefensible because it is focused on the wrong things, namely, what the
teacher does. The supervisor should be most attentive not to teacher activity,
but to what happens to the learners as a consequence of what the teacher does.
A criterion-referenced supervision strategy is based on the assumption that
the chief reason a teacher is in the classroom is to promote desirable modifications in learners. If a teacher lectures with the eloquence of Demosthenes, yet
his students leave his course basically unchanged, he is an instructional failure.
A far less eloquent teacher who brings about worthwhile changes in his learners
is an instructional success (p. 47).
Yet this obsession with student learning as the singular criterion to
judge teaching effectiveness seems woefully obvious in its shortcomings.
Additionally, variables are so extensive that the cause-and-effect relationship between teaching and learning is difficult to assess. Because of
the diversity of these variables, including the uniqueness of the personality
of the teacher, the styles of learning and learners, the appropriateness of
the content and the readiness of the student to learn it, and the circumstances where the learning and teaching are to occur, research has demonstrated uncertain results. As Rosenshine and Furst (1971) observed: &dquo;...we
know very little about the relationship between classroom behavior and
student gains&dquo; (p. 37).
Needed: Additional Research
A plea for additional research is made. Because specific teaching behaviors have not empirically been demonstrated, the absoluteness that we
approach the task of evaluating teachers in terms of student learning
becomes totally untenable.
The review of the literature provides frustrating and contradictory results. Obviously, good teaching results in student learning. But again, the
human, interpersonal, institutional, methods and means, and the content
influence dramatically the predictability of that which is to occur.
What do we really know about teaching? Young people who are about to
become teachers are anxious to acquire the substantive knowledge of their
chosen field; those who are already teachers would like to improve their skills;
and teacher-educators would like to supply both with knowledge that has been
verified through vigorous research. Unfortunately, most of these persons will
be disappointed in their search for knowledge. Most of the research on teaching
conducted so far does not provide adequate answers. (Dunkin and Biddle,
1974, p. 11)
More appropriately, the conditions of evaluation need definition. B. O.
Smith (1967) provides some appropriate suggestions. The tendency to
Downloaded from bul.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
13
&dquo;teacher effectiveness&dquo; and &dquo;teacher characteristics&dquo;
ages intellectual confusion:
use
uniformly encour-
&dquo;For how a teacher deals with pupils and handles the content of instruction
factors that can be distinguished from his characteristics as a person. He
may be warm and understanding and yet fail to employ tested ways of attaining his objective&dquo; (p. 68).
are
The concentration on other criteria to evaluate teacher competence has
produced peculiar results. Evaluation based on criteria extraneous to
teaching ability ought to be examined in moral and legal terms. Some
criteria, remote from teaching and learning activity, only hinder a good
educational climate. As a beginning teacher I found my annual evaluation
included statements that no living things were in my classroom. No goldfish, gerbils, or plants. Additionally, the blinds were not uniformly pulled at
the windows. The variety of classroom activities, the delightful interpersonal relationships, and the innovations and experiments were ignored
because of peripheral and tangential criteria used to judge teaching effectiveness.
O. L. Davis (1970) commented on the preparation of teachers and observed that &dquo;most of these flawed components seem characterized by little
fidelity to realism, lack of specificity, and meager personal activity&dquo; (p.
341). If these are needed elements in a teacher’s preparation it seems paradoxical that evaluation includes characteristics and conditions totally
foreign to them.
Therefore, in the process of
need to be considered:
evaluating teaching,
certain
assumptions
1. The criteria to be used in the evaluation process must be understood
and accepted by both the teacher and the evaluator.
2. The varieties and variables of instruction must be
relationship to a particular classroom situation.
acknowledged
in
3. Effective communication between the teacher and the evaluator will
facilitate the success of the evaluation procedure.
4. The results of evaluation
itself.
are more
important than the evaluation
5. The process should be objective, demonstrable, and appropriate.
Any teacher who has been evaluated can attest to the intimidation
produced. The prospect of being judged inadequate or incapable is threatening. To reduce this inherent aspect of evaluation, the evaluator must be
able to define and explain the criteria that will be used. The teacher must
not be expected to perform certain behaviors if these are not explained as
part of the criteria. The
success
of any instrument,
technique,
Downloaded from bul.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
or
device is
14
dependent upon the understood objectives of that device and the validity
and reliability associated with its use.
Joyce and Weil (1972) have condemned the &dquo;one-theory&dquo; approach to
teaching. There are varieties of methods and techniques, each with apparent value and worth. The lecture method, the inquiry process, scientific
discovery, verbal learning, and recitation have all risen and fallen, not beof shortcomings but because of the one-method evangelism employed by their advocates. The more we study learning and teaching the
more we appreciate the varieties of techniques that might be utilized.
Rubin (1973) advises that, &dquo;every teacher, in a sense, has his own particular cup of tea. Since children too seem to prefer one blend to another, we
would be well-advised to search for arrangements that place both teacher
and learner at the right table.&dquo; (P. 35.)
Communicating the results of evaluation is a necessary component of
the process. Too frequently teacher evaluations begin and end with an
cause
.
observation or activity and limited disseminatiorf of results. As Wiles and
Lovell (1975) contend, &dquo;In the most critical sense, communication is the
basis of cooperative effort, interpersonal influence, goal determination, and
achievement of human and organizational growth.&dquo; (P. 82.)
In addition to clarifying the criteria to be used in the evaluation, it is
_
necessary to determine the intended results or outcomes, such as:
’
.
improving teacher performance and behavior;
improving school and classroom climate;
’
’
enhancing student.learning;
maximizing professional capabilities;
’
and
innovative
curricular implementation;
assessing
and
’_
quantifying program
instructiona! progress;
implementing accountability; and
-.-’
,
’
.
.
&dquo;
.
.
&dquo;
.
.
’
.
.
.
,
’
.
_
· determining retention and dismissal policies.
The intent of teacher evaluation is to make a difference in the success of
the schooling enterprise. To do this, we must engage in certain activities.
As Jackson (1971) suggests:
Here, then, are three sets of problems in need of solution: how to encourage
teachers to become fully committed to their professional role-to try harder, so
to speak; how to help them look critically at their own work and that of their
colleagues; and how to make available to them the practical knowledge that is
already possessed by others. (P. 29.)
will be resolved without
and
consequences.
determining results
None of these
problems
an
effective
Downloaded from bul.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
means
of
’
15
The evaluation should be based upon criteria that are either demonor activity-based. Medley, Soar, and Soar (1975) have provided a
paradigm for teacher assessment. Steps in measuring effective evaluation
of teacher performance include: obtaining a sample of the relevant behavior ; making a scored record of that particular behavior; and scoring or
quantifying the record.
Teacher evaluation is less to be feared or disregarded than it is to be
implemented as a meaningful way for the continuing improvement of instructional practice. Practices, behaviors, and competencies may be defined and observed. Frustration occurs when the criteria of evaluation, the
communicative and interpersonal dimensions, the means and processes
of assessment, and the results and implications of that evaluation are
poorly defined..
strable
’
&dquo;
References
Jere E., and Good, Thomas L. Teacher-Student Relationships; Causes
Consequences. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1974.
Combs, Arthur W. "Can We Measure Good Teaching Objectively?" NEA Journal,
January 1974.
Davis, O. L., Jr. "Realism, Specificity, and Activity." Social Education. March 1970.
Dunkin, Michael J., and Biddle, Bruce J. The Study of Teaching. New York: Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1974.
Hughes, Marie M. "What Teachers Do and the Way They Do It." NEA Journal.
Brophy,
and
September 1964.
Jackson, Philip W. "The Difference Teachers Make," In How Teachers Make a
Difference. Washington, D.C.: Office of Education, 1971.
Joyce, Bruce, and Weil, Marsha. Models of Teaching. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972.
Medley, Donald M., Soar, Robert S., and Soar, Ruth. Assessment and Research
in Teacher Education: Focus on PBTE. Washington, D.C.: American Association
of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1975.
Popham, James. Evaluating Instruction. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
1973.
Rosenshine, Barak, and Furst, Norma. "Research on Teacher Performance Criteria." In Research in Teacher Education, edited by B. O. Smith. Englewood
Cliffs; N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1971, pp. 37-72.
Rubin, Louis J. "Matching Teacher, Student, and Method." Today’s Education.
September
1973.
Smith, B. Othanel. "Teaching: Conditions of its Evaluation." The Evaluation of
Teaching. Washington, D.C.: Pi Lambda Theta, 1967.
Wiles, Kimball, and Lovell, John T. Supervision for Better Schools. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1975.
Downloaded from bul.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016