The association of administrators' learning styles, background differences, and teacher appraisal judgments

Abstract

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION No longer is the matter of teacher performance evaluation a question of whether or not it should be done. The question now is how best to evaluate teacher performance and what should be evaluated (6, 7, 78, 108). All teachers are evaluated. Regardless of how formal the evaluation system is, what evidence is collected and analyzed, or how often formal reports are written, teachers are evaluated and evaluated often. They are evaluated by students, parents, other teachers, administrators, super visors, and the public. The question is not whether teachers should be evaluated, since this cannot be avoided, but rather how systematic the evaluation should be in order to be most effective (6). Teacher performance evaluation has evolved from teacher supervision. Gwynn reports three major factors that have operated since the turn of the twentieth century to give rise to the value of supervision, viz., changes in ideas of how children learn, major advances in methods of teaching, and a tremendous growth in the amount and variety of textbooks and teaching materials. In a comparison of the concepts of supervision, circa 1920, Gwynn reviewed reports by Cubberley (1916), Wagner (1921), Burton (1922), and Scott (1924). Wagner and Burton listed rating of teachers as a task of supervision and Cubberley listed reporting oh skill and success of teachers (52). As the school accountability movement has grown, there has been a movement to tie teacher evaluation to pupil outcomes. Berliner (5) states a belief that the heart of performance and competency-based teacher education, evaluation, and accountability programs is the

Rating teacher performance to determine career ladder advancement: An analysis of bias and reliability

“…However, for male evaluators a similar trend was found, with higher mean ratings given to female teachers (4.02) than to male teachers (3.89). These findings are similar to those of Harrington (1984) but dissimilar to results obtained by Landy and Farr (1983). Both of these research efforts, however, were conducted In laboratory settings using simulated samples of employee work performance.…”

“…The only trend noted among some of those studies was a tendency for female raters to assign more lenient ratings than their male counterparts, a tendency noted also by Carroll (1982). Harrington (1984), on the other hand, found that females gave lower ratings than male evaluators when assessing the performance level of a teacher's video-taped lesson.…”

Instructor performance evaluation: a nationwide survey of performance appraisal in two-year colleges

“…Standards have long been a topic of study. At least six Iowa State University researchers sought to contribute knowledge in this area (Cameron, 1973;Garcia, 1980;Rucker, 1981;Westerberg, 1983;Harrington, 1984;and Peterson, 1988). How one monitors and reports progress has been the topic of another group of researchers (Edwards, 1985;Semones, 1987;Stevenson, 1987;Floden, 1987;and Wicks, 1988).…”

Surgency bias: effects on teacher performance evaluation

“…In more recent studies of the relationship between gender and performance evaluation in the educational setting, gender was concluded to be a main effect. Females were found to be tougher raters than males (Harrington, 1984;Peterson, 1988).…”

“…In a study conducted in 1960, D. G. Ryans attempted to show a correlation between predicted teacher performance and summative effectiveness rating. Recent studies conducted at Iowa State University (Harrington, 1984;Bourisaw, 1988;and Peterson, 1988) have concluded that biases do influence the rating of teacher performance.…”