Teaching evaluation: Antecedents of teachers’ perceived usefulness of the follow-up conversation and of stress related to the evaluation process

Author(s):

Eli Lejonberg(presenting / submitting)Eyvind Elstad Knut-Andreas Christophersen

Conference:

ECER 2015

Network:

01. Continuing Professional Development: Learning for Individuals, Leaders, and Organisations

Format:

Paper

Session Information

01 SES 02 C, Evaluation and Teacher Stress

Paper Session

Time:

2015-09-08

15:15-16:45

Room:

428.Oktatóterem [C]

Chair:

Hanna Korhonen

Contribution

Teaching evaluations can contribute to teachers’ professional development as an informational element for self-evaluation and reflection upon one’s own teaching practices (Darling-Hammond, Wise, & Pease, 1983; Delvaux et al., 2013). However, undesired outcomes of teacher evaluations, such as unnecessary stress, are often used as arguments against their implementation (Kelly, Ang, Chong, & Hu, 2008). For teaching evaluation systems to actually contribute to teachers’ professional development, follow-up conversations with a supervisor can be part of the appraisal system (Akershus County, 2013, 2014). The aim of this work is to explore the links between teachers’ perceptions of the purpose of teacher evaluations, the perceptions of communication with the management and recognition of the supervisor who undertakes the follow-up session with the teacher after the evaluation, in addition to teachers’ condemnation of the relevance of the follow-up session and of stress related to the evaluation process.

Two overarching research questions drive this article:

1) Which antecedents contribute to teachers’ perceptions of the usefulness of the follow-up session?

2) Which antecedents contribute to teachers’ perceptions of stress related to the teaching evaluation process?

Statistical associations between four independent and two dependent variables were tested using structural equation modelling. The independent variables were:

1) teachers’ perceptions of the purpose of teaching evaluations as developmental

2) teachers’ perceptions of the purpose of teaching evaluations as control

3) teachers’ recognition of the person undertaking the follow-up session

4) teachers’ perceptions of the communication with the management as clear

The two dependent variables were:

1) teachers’ perceptions of the usefulness of the follow-up session

2) teachers’ reported levels of stress related to teaching evaluations

Data were gathered from 217 teachers at four upper secondary schools in the district of Norway with the most systematic implementation of teacher evaluations. In 2011, the OECD reported a lack of systematic assessment of teachers in Norway. In addition, TALIS 2013 highlighted the fact that Norwegian teachers receive little feedback on their professional practices compared to other groups of employees (OECD, 2014). How teaching evaluations are carried out and used varies significantly in Norway. Pupils have been able to assess teachers’ instructional performance via anonymous surveys since 2010 in the district from which we collected these data (Akershus County, 2014). The expressed goal of teacher evaluations in Norway, to function as a tool for teachers’ professional development, is quite unique and makes Norway an especially interesting case for studies of teacher evaluation systems (Akershus County, 2013).

Teaching evaluations in the area of our data collection are carried out as follows: teachers are involved in the process of picking out which students will evaluate which teachers. The students fill out a survey to express their views about the relevant teachers’ teaching practices. After a certain number of days, the teachers receive the assessment results and are expected to present these results to the class that evaluated them. There is a clear expectation that students should be invited to elaborate on and explain the results, in order to contribute to their teachers’ interpretation of the results and to the teacher’s development. The last formal step in the assessment process is that every teacher has a conversation with his or her department head about the results and about how to improve his or her teaching (Akershus County, 2013, 2014). It is this follow-up conversation, as well as teachers’ reported levels of stress related to the evaluation process, that constitutes this article’s area of focus.

Method

Structural equation modelling (SEM) was used to estimate and compare the strengths between the independent and dependent variables. The questionnaire that constitutes the basis of this study was constructed based on acknowledged measurement instruments previously reported in the literature, as well as on new developments. Instruments to distinguish and measure teachers’ perceptions of the developmental and control purposes of teaching evaluations were adapted from Kelly et al. (2008). Sample item to measure teachers’ perceptions of the developmental purposes of teaching evaluation: “The purpose of teaching evaluation is to help teachers in their professional development”. Sample item to measure teachers’ perceptions of the control purposes of teaching evaluation: “The purpose of teaching evaluation is to monitor the teachers’ classroom work”. The instrument to measure recognition for the person who undertakes the follow-up session with the teacher after the evaluation was adapted from Bryk and Schneider (2002). Sample item: “I have great respect for the person who undertakes follow-up sessions with me regarding the evaluation of my teaching”. The instrument used to measure whether teachers perceive communication with the management to be clear was adapted from Hulpia, Devos, and Rosseel (2009). Sample item: “The communication with the management helps me understand what is expected of me”. For the dependent variables, the perceived usefulness of the follow-up session was measured with an instrument adapted from Heneman III and Milanowski (2003). Sample item: “The conversation with the management concerning the results of the evaluation of my teaching has helped me gain insight into how I can improve my teaching”. Finally, the instrument to measure perceived stress related to the teacher evaluation was developed by the authors for the purpose of this work based on descriptions of such instrument development by Haladyna and Rodriguez (2013). Sample item: “The thought that my teaching will be continuously evaluated is highly stressful to me”. Each variable was measured with three items. Cronbach’s alpha for all used instruments is satisfactory.

Expected Outcomes

With regard to the first research question, the results indicate that teachers who perceive that the purpose of the evaluation system is to contribute to their own professional development are more likely to perceive the follow-up session with their nearest leader as useful in relation to their professional development (the referred path coefficient is 0.24). In contrast, whether teachers perceive that the purpose of the evaluation system is to control their work is not statistically associated with whether they perceive the follow-up session as useful (the referred path coefficient is -0.01). These findings indicate that for follow-up sessions to have the intended developmental function that policymakers explicitly hope for, it is important to convince participating teachers that the aim of the teaching evaluation system is, in fact, to contribute to their professional development. The path coefficient between teachers’ reported levels of recognition of the person who undertakes the follow-up session and teachers’ perceptions of the usefulness of the follow-up session is 0.44, which is quite high. This indicates that teachers’ recognition of the person conducting the follow-up sessions is highly relevant to whether the teachers perceive the follow-up session as useful. Furthermore, teachers who report that they perceive clear communication from their leaders are also more likely to report that they perceive the evaluation system as beneficial (the referred path coefficient is 0.24). With regard to the second research question, the findings indicate that the perception of control purposes is the strongest indicator of teachers’ reported levels of stress related to the evaluation process (the referred path coefficient is 0.39). This underlines the importance of leaders communicating to their teachers that the purpose of the evaluation system is not merely to control them, but also to prevent unnecessary stress.

References

Akershus County. (2013). Evaluation of teaching 2013/2014. Akershus County. (2014). Status report on teaching evaluation 2013-2014. Avalos, B., & Assael, J. (2006). Moving from resistance to agreement: The case of the Chilean teacher performance evaluation. International Journal of Educational Research, 45, 254-266. Bryk, A., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. Russell Sage Foundation. Darling-Hammond, L., Wise, A. E., & Pease, S. R. (1983). Teacher evaluation in the organizational context: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 53(3), 285-328. Darling-Hammond,L. (2013). Getting Teacher Evaluation Right: What Really Matters for Effectiveness and Improvement. New York: Teachers College Press. Delvaux, E., Vanhoof, J., Tuytens, M., Vekeman, E., Devos, G., & Van Petegem, P. (2013). How may teacher evaluation have an impact on professional development? A multilevel analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36, 1-11. Gaziel, H.H., & Ifanti, A.A. (2014). Teachers’ appraisal and its impact on their perceived effectiveness and efficacy beliefs: The case of primary teachers in Israel. Curriculum and Teaching, 29(1), 37-52. Haladyna, T. M., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2013). Developing and validating test items. Routledge. Hallinger, P., Heck, R.H., & Murphy, J. (2014). Teacher evaluation and school improvement: An analysis of the evidence. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 26, 5-28. Heneman III, H. G., & Milanowski, A. T. (2003). Continuing assessment of teacher reactions to a standards-based teacher evaluation system. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 17(2), 173-195. Hughes, J.N., Cavell, T.A., & Willson, V. (2001). Further support for the developmental significance of the quality of the teacher–student relationship. Journal of School Psychology, 39(4), 289-301. Hulpia, H., Devos, G., & Rosseel, Y. (2009). Development and validation of scores on the Distributed Leadership Inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69(6), 1013-1034. doi: 10.1177/0013164409344490 Kelly, K. O., Ang, S. Y. A., Chong, W. L., & Hu, W. S. (2008). Teacher appraisal and its outcomes in Singapore primary schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(1), 39-54. Master, B. (2014). Staffing for success: Linking teacher evaluation and school personnel management in practice. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(2), 207-227. MET Project. (2013). Ensuring fair and reliable measures of effective teaching: Culminating findings from the MET project’s three-year study. Seattle: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Murphy, J. F., Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2013). Leading via teacher evaluation: The case of the missing clothes? Educational Researcher, 42(6), 349-354.

Author Information

Eli Lejonberg (presenting / submitting)

University of Oslo

Department of teacher education and school research

Oslo

Eyvind Elstad

University of Oslo, Norway

Knut-Andreas Christophersen