DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 236 776 EA 016 162

AUTHOR McGreal,'Thomas L.
TITLE Successful Teacher Evaluation.
INSTITUTION' Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development, Alexandria, Va.
REPORT NO ISBN-0-87120-120-8
PUB DATE 83
NOTE 175p.
AVAILABLE FROM. Publications, Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development, 225 North Washington Street,
Alexandria, VA 22314 (Stock No. 611-8330/0v $8.75).
PUB TYPE Reports Evaluative/Feasibility (142)
EDRS PRICE MF01 Plus Postage, PC Not Available from EDRS.
DESCRIPTORS Behavioral Objectives; Classroom Observation
Techigues; Elementary Secondary Education;
Evaluation Methods; Management by Objectives; ,

Management Development; Student Teacher Relationship;

Supervisory Training; *Teacher.Administrator
Relationship; *Teacher Attitudes; Teacher Behavior;
Teacher Education;,Teacher Effectiveness; *Teacher
Evaluation; *Teacher Improvement; *Teacher
Supervision; Teaching Skills; *Training
ABSTRACT
Teacher evaluation remains a controversial and
disruptive area. The problems arise from the way evaluations are
carried out. In many cases the evaluation system used is the problem.
This book discusses teacher evaluation-by providing characteristics
separating effective and less effective systems. It presents eight,
commonalities identified in effective evaluation programs. In
building a system, three characteristics are desirable: an
appropriate attitude toward evaluation, an, evaluation model
complementary to the desired purpose, and :separation of
administrative and supervisory behavior. Also, an effective system
should (1) set goals (presented are three approaches: management by
objectives, performance objectives, and practical goal setting), (2)
-focus narrowly on teaching; (3) improve 'classroom observation skills,
and (4) use additional sources of data (peer evaluation, student
performance, parent evaluation, student evaluation, and self
evaluation are discussed). After building an evaluation system, a
training program should be designed that addresses the skills needed.
Recommended training focuses on the teaching-learning process and on
the enhancement of teacher-supervisor relationships. Included is'an
appendix giving an example of an evaluation system reflecting the
commonalities of successful systems. (MD)

*********************** ***********************************************
* Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made *
*
from the original document. *
***********************************************************************
Success Teacher
tion
SCOPE OF INTEREST NOTICE
The ERIC Facility has assigned
Thomas L. McGreal this document for processing
to: 17 A--

In our judgement, this document

is also of. interest to the clear ing-
honses noted to the right. Index-
_Mg should reflect their special
points of view.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER I ERIC)
pcThis document has been reproduced as
received from the person or organization
originating it. ..

Minor changes have been made to improve

reproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in this docu,

ment do not necessarily represent official NIE
position or policy.

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS

MATERIAL IN MICROFICHE ONLY
HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES

INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."
..
Successful Teacher
tion
Thomas L. McGreal

Association for Supervision and

airricullita Development
225 North Washington Street
klexandria, Virginia 223 14
 o

Acknowledgments
The author wishes to thank the, thousands of administrators and teachers who
have graciously sat through his presentations. Their eagerness and willingness to
improve their skills in spite of difficult and unsettled conditions makes the hours in
cars and airports seem worthwhile. Also, his appreciation, is extended to his
colleagues in Educational Administration at the University of Illinois, especially
Tom Sergiovanni, for their encouragement to continue to do what he does best.
Finally, gratitude is expressed to Kathy and the kids for (heir love and support.
Nothing would or could be accomplished without them.

Editing:
Ronald S. Brandt, ASCD Executive Editor
Nancy Carter Modrak, Managing Editor
Cover Design:
William J. Kircher & Associates

Copyright © 1983 by the Askciation for Supervision and Curriculum Develop-

ment. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or -
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including
photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without
permission in writing from the publisher.
ASCD publications present a variety of viewpoints. The views expressed or
implied in this publication are not necessarily official positions of the"Association.

Price: $8.75
ASCD Stock Number: 611-83300
ISBN: 0-87120-120-8
Library of Congress .
Card Catalog Number: 83-071704

ii

4
 3-

gm,

Foreword
Lawrence S. Flake!
Introduction vii
Thomas L. McGreal

The Framework for Building a Teacher evaluation System

Commonality 1. An Appropriate Attitude Toward Evaluation 2
Commonality 2. An Evaluation Model Complementary to the
Desired Purpose
Commonality 3. Separation of Administrative and Supervisory
Behavior' 37

Focusing Activities
Commonality 4. Goal Setting as the Major Activity of
Evaluation .1/4 44
Commonality 5. A Narrowed Focus on Teaching 70 ,

Commonality 6. Improved Classroom Observation Skills 96

Commonality 7. The Use of Additional Sources of Data i25

Training the Staff and Starting the System

Commonality 8. A Training Program Complementary 4o the,
Evaluation System 144
The Next Step: A Short Discussion About Developipg and
Implementing a New Evaluation System 148
1

Appendix:
'An Example of an Evaluation System that Reflects
the Commonalities of Successful Systems 151
 s-
.About the Author
Thomas L. McGreal is Associate Professor of Educational Administration at the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Having served as both a public
/
school teacher and administrator, Professor McGreal now specializes in the
evaluation of educational personnel and th supervision of classroom instruction.
During the past eight years he has workedvith over 350 school' districts around
the country, helping them upgrade their evaluation systems and introduCe their
fatuity members to current teacher and school effectiveness research.
 ,
Vew issues in education are more explosive than the evaluation of
r teachers and teaching. Although evaluators agree that ,the major
general purpose of teacher evaluation is to maintain and improve the
quality of instruction, it nevertheless remains an emotional, controvert
sial, and disruptive issue. Yet there are districts who have found or
created successful teacher eyaluation systems. The premise contained in
this book, therefore, is that the difficulties arise not so much from the
conec of evaluation as from.lhe. Way evaluation is carried Out.
.

EvMuators face problems of identifying, providing outlets° for, and

creating means for discovering the potentialities of their staff members.
Their roleris -Seen as a constructive, consultative, and helpful one that is
possible only in an atmosphere of mutual confidence and freedom from.
suspicion. Author McGreal considers teacher evaluation not only in terms
of its usefulness with respect to employment decisions, but as a tool for
improving, nstruction as well. One way that can be done, he says, is by
facilitating staff members' use of the most recent research on teaching and
learning.
School districts will welcome the techniques and procedures. de--
scribed in Successful Teacher Evaluation. It is our hope that this book
'Will provide the mot (ivation to all districts to ensure that their evaluation
methods are enlightened and ultimately create better learning experiences
for their students.

LAWRENCE S. FINKEL
President, 1983-84
Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development
 C.

rrt here seems little rieed to offer an extensive justification for the
i existence of teacher evaluation. Among educators it is, in fact, one of
the few areas in which there is agreement. While there is often some
argument at the'local level about the espoused versus the "real". purpose
, of evaluation, educators Overall are in accord regarding its general
purpose: 1(134:guard and improve the quality Of instruction received by
students (Bolton, 1973). Bolton lists the following Specific fUnctions of- .
teacher evaluation as the means for fulfilling this mrajor purpose:
I: To improve teaching through the identification of ways o change
t.,..

teaching systems, teaching environments, or teaching behaviors. .

2. To supply information that will lead to the modification of
assignments, such as placements in other positions, promotions, and
terminations , .

3. To protect students from incompetence, and teachers from.unpro-

fessional administrators
4. To reward superior performance
5. To validate the school system's teacher selection procesS
6. Toorovide a basis for teachers' career planning and professional
development. A.,
.
.
,

If all this agreement exists, why does teacherevaluation remain an

extraordinarily controversial and disruptive influence within local school
settings? In 'most instances the difficulties arise not with the concept or
the general purposes, but from the way evaluation is carried out. Actual
.--____ .

evaluation ismost often directed by the requirements of the evaluation

system. And herein lies trouble, because in many cases the system is the
problem.
This'is not surprising. Certainly the major difficulties associated with
developing effective teacher evaluation systems are. well-documented.

vii-
1'

viii SUCCESSFUL. TEACHER EVALUATION

They include such things as pool teacher-supervisot attitudes toward

evaluation (Wagoner and O'flanlon, 196,8), the difficulties in separating
formative' and sumrnative evaluation (Raths, 1982), inadequate measure-
ment devices (Popham, 1981), lack of reliable and consistent teaching
criteria (Travers, 1981), the lack of-reliable data collection. techniques
(Scriven, 1981), the fallibility of standard feedback mechanisms (Mc-
Keachie, .1976), and the general lack of training.of teachers and supervi-
sors in,the evaluation process (McCrea!, 1980). if time isi,,spent reviewing
the available literature, developing effective teacher evaluation systems
seems- a hopeless. task. Regardless of these difficulties, most regular
-----,school-systems-must-have-a-functioning-evaluation-system.7-Whether-the------
mandate is legislative, contractual, political, or professional, the average
school musrbe able to point to some systematic procedure to monitor the
performance of its employees. The question for school' districts is this:
given the fact that it is unlikely that there exists now or in the near future
any totally reliable teacher evaluation system, what can be done to
develop the most realistic and effective local system possible? It is the--
purpose of this book to attempt" to answer that question.
Recently, numerous publications have been intent on selling particu-.
lar evaluation models (Lewis, 1973; Manatt, 1976; Redfern, 1980; lwan-
icki, 1981). While these and other models are potentially sound and
functional, it would be inapprbpriate to "buy" a 'particular model and
attempt to put it in place in a lodal setting without taking into account
local contextual factors. Even though the above-mentioned authors may
not have had the wholesale adoption of their particular system in mind
when they proposed it, this is a disturbingly frequent occurrence. (See
lwanicki, 1981, p. 206 for a more complete discussion of the pitfalls of
wholesale adoption of a system.)
This book is designed to address the needs of those school districts,
schools, or professional educators who, rather than buying into a pack-
aged friddel, would prefer a framework for looking at their existing
evaluation systems and who want direction in determining possible
appropriate alterations or options, Even though the ingredients for a
particular approach are imbedded in the following sections, it is not my
intent to sell a particular model, Rather, my goal is to provide a
perspective on the'characteristics that seem to separate effective from
less effective systerins.
Throughout the' book reference will be made to "effective" or'
"-successful" evaltratiorrsystems-.-It-is-impoitant-tharsome-definition be
provided regarding the use of these or similar terms. The complexity of
the measurement problems prevents any definition of success or effec-
tiveness at an empii-ical, level. The relationship between changes in an
evaluation system of changes in an individual supervisor's behavior to
(-11-;
 INTRODUCTION ix

such measurable outcomes as student achievement is far too-confound:

ing. We must. base such definitions do the assessment of attitudes, beliefs,
and feelings as expressed by the-teachers and supervisors involved in a
system. This is neither inappropriate nor unreliable. Judgments made on
the basis of direct involvement by trained, experienced 'professionals
constitute a valuable and reliable source of data (Stake, 1970;. Glass,
1974). Consequently, as I discuss characteristics or commonalities of
effective systems, my definition of effectiveness in making that determi-
nation is based on the collective opinions of all the 'people involved in
those systems. _
seems-clear.-fhaT there are two issues that a school district must
address if it is to increase the effectiveness of its teacher evaluation
system:
1. It must look seriously at the evaluation system that now exists,
particularly with regard to its purposes, procedures, processes,., and
instrumentation. It is imperative that congruence exists between the
things ,a district wants its system to be and to do and those things that a
Syitem requires of the people involved.
2. The district must provide all the members of the school with
appropriate training and guided practice the skills and knowledge
necessary to implement and effectively maintain the system.
Both of these requirements tend to focus on the procedural side of
evaluation. This concern for the system and for its procedures and
processes is not intended to deny the importance1 of the individual
relationship between a supervisor and a teacher. Expe fence shows that a
positive, supportive relationship between a knowledgeable supervisor
. and a committed teacher is still the most effective way to produce
improved instruction. This type of relationship can, in many cases,
supercede an inadequate system. Unfortunately, the relationships in the
average school setting are not always as positive as desired. In many
instances the breakdown of these relations is fostered by the unrealistic
and impractical demands of systems past and present. It is '-increasingly
apparent that all participants must not only receive adequate training,
they must also be provided with a system that supports and enhances
supervisory-teacher relationships. .
)
,-.
The collection of attitudes and feelings about evaluation systems that
form the basis for this book grew naturally from my direct involvement
over the last eight years with nearly 300 school districts. In the process of
encouraging- a rid--; mo n i to ringtheeffortsof_these_districts_to_de_velop
teacher evaluation systems that'reflected their unique needs and interests,
it became clear that a- set of commonalities were frequently present in
those systems that were ultimately viewed by their staffs as effective. It is

1tJ
 sucassi.111:i.E;6CITCIT.A7,ALLIATIoN

this set of commonalities that are the core of this book.

Section 1 discusses the first three commonalities of-effective evalua-
tion systems. These commonalities are grouped together since they are all
concerned with the general theme -M attitude and philosophy regarding
the viewing of teacher evaluatiprijn a realistic and practical manner..They
are presented firstbeeauselhey address issues, concepts, and general
information about alternative evaluation models that must be dealt with
before the More specific commonalities of successful evaluation systems
n be- d ise u s sed .

Section II presents four commonalities that deal with more specific

and focused ingredients-of effective teacher evaluation systems. Section
Ill 'presents the last of the commonalities as well as a short discussion of
implementation strategies that have been effectively used by school
districts in developing new evaluation systems.
The-book is organized around the eight commonalities. It should be
noted that the length of discussion following each commonality will vary
considerably. Neither the length of the discussion nor the ordering of the
commonalifieS should he construed as indicating increased importance.
Each of the eight could stand independently and all have important
implications for school districts whether taken 'alone or as a-group. The
length of discussion is related only to the amount of information needed to
clearly explain the meaning and the use of the commonality. Also, it is not
necessary that all eight commonalities be present,, before a sYstern can be
judged. effective or potentially effective. Indeed, only a handful of sehOols
have evaluation systems that reflect all eight. These-Toinnionalities-ean-be
and have been best used/ to provide a perspective, an awareness of
alternatives, and if need be, a set of directions to 'follow. The reader
should analyze the concepts and ideas of the commonalities in view of
local conditions, interests, and concerns. While theAlefinitive evaluation
system, may never- be developed, this book does reflect a set of best
practices that can increase significantly the chances of developing realis-
tic and effective teacher evaluation systems at lOcalleV ------------------
in this book is based on either.sound research or on the fact that it is
.already working effecti-Vely in schools. Believe it! Systems can be
developed that make a difference.

References
Bolton, D. L. Selectior! and Evaluation (.)f Teachers, Berkeley. Calif.: McCutchan,
1973.
Glass, Ci. V. ''Teacher Effectiveness." In Evaluating Educational Performance. Edit-
ed by H. Walberg. Berkeley, CarFIVF:CtIfchan, 1974.
lwanicki, E. "Contract Plans: A Professional Growth-Oriented Approach to Evaluating
Teacher Performance." In //andbook of Teacher Evaluation. Edited by J. Millman. Beverly
Hills. Calif.: Sage Publications. 1081.
 IN FROM:C.110N xi

Lewis. J..- Jr. A ppraisinc! -lea( her l'erfOlinam e. West Nock, ()mixer. 1973.
NIc(ireal. I. "Helping Teachers Set Goals.' Leadership 37 iFehrtialy
19801:.414-420.
McKeachie. W. J. "Psychology in America'. Bicentennial Year." Auterieeru P.it, II:ga-
l:iv 31 09761: 819-833.
Manatt. R. Devehipare a Teacher Performance 1:1ahan/ail .VAJI'M HA /ICJ he
Senate Fite 105. Des Moines. Iowa: lov..3 Asso,:iation of School Boards. 1976. .

Popham. W. J. "Teacher Evalitation:Ilie Wrong Tests for the Right Joh." Paper
prii6ented Rese:ach .Association, I us
----Angeles, 1581
. Raths. J. "Research Synthesis on Suinntative Evaluation of Teaching. Educational
Leaders/ill, 39 (1anuaryi 1982): 310-313,
Redfern. G. B. Evaluating Teachery and Adaaniorators: .4 Perf;Pratance Objc,ctive%
Approach. Bbulder, Colo.: Westview. 1980.
Striven. NI, "Simmi:ttive Teacher Evalualion." In iiandhouk Tem.lft'LL valuation
Edited by J. Millman. Beverly Hills. Calif.: Sage Publications. 1981.
Stake. R. "Objectives. Prirrities. and Other Judgment Data." Review of Educational
Research 401197111: 181-221.
Travers. R. M. W. "Criteria of Good Teaching." In Ilandhool, of leacher Evaluation.
Edited by J. Millman. 13e4erly IliIR. Calif.: Sage Publications. 1981.
Wagoner. R. 1... and 011anlon, J. P. "Teacher Attitudes "Iovard Evaluation." .1, au.
nu/ (,( Teacher Education ici,11968): 471-475.
The Framework for
Buil a Teacher
Evaluation stem
 e

Aipropriate Attitude
Toward Evaluation

s Bolton (1973) sugges)s, there are multiple purposes for evaluation

that can and need to be served. These purposes generally are divided
into two major areasyevaluation for making personnel decisions or
weeding out the "bad teachers."' (summative evaluation), a'nd evaluation
for faculty development (formative evaluation).
Traditionally, local school systems have emphasized the accountabil-
ity or summative function of teacher evaluation. This traditional view has
increasingly come into conflict with the instructional improvement orien-
tation being encouraged and supported by such factors as the expanding
number of tenured teachers, the increasing professionalism of teacher
administrator groups/, and the increased visibility of growth oriented
supervisory models such as clinical supervision. Trying to develop an
evaluation system that walks the line between these two attitudes is
extremely difficult, if not impossible. Those districts whose evaluation
systems are Viewed most positively have clearly chosen to operate from a
single dominant attitude and have used that to guidetheir. efforts. This
attitude has invariably been to construct or revise the teacher evaluation
system around the concept of improving classroom instruction.
As lwanicki (1981) and Zimmerer and Stroh (1974) have noted, the
leadership at the top of an organization must be committed to and support
the aims and directions of an evaluation system before it can be expected
to succeed. C nsequently, a first step in developing an effective evalua-
tion system s the need for producing a convincing argument for an
instructiona improvement model.
While t is virtually impossible to address summative and formative
evaluatio equally (HowSarn, 1963), it alSo must be clear that a system
cannot b built that addresses only formative evaluation. hroughout the
process of selling an appropriate attitude toward evali ation, the point
 AN APPROPRIATE ATTITUDE TOWARD EVALUATION 3

must be made that a district's or a supervisor's responsibility for ensuring

competence is not being abrogated. In most instances, accountability
oriented systems have emerged from extraordinary naiveté on the part of
citizens, school boards, and top administrators about what is required in
an evaluation system in order to safeguard the district's interests in the.
case of a potential dismissal situation. Unfortunately, this preoccupation
with trying to build a system that will enable a school to separate the
"good" teachers -from the "bad" and then prOvide such good "hard"
data that a challenged dismissal case will be successful, has done as much
as anything to breakdown the effectiveness of teacher valuation. Still,
there is no denying that the accountability responsibility is real and
important. The point, however, is that the process should be looked at
realistically.
The ultimate outcome of an evaluation system based on a summative
attitude is presumably that a decision can be made to disshiss a te1acher.
While there are obviously a number of grounds that can legally serve as
the basis for a decision to terminate (see Beckman, 1981 for an explication
of the various Bounds for disrhissal), the major reason involving the
teacher evaluaticin system deals with the issue of incompetence. Based on
a number of reviews of teacher dismissal cases, it seems reasonable to
assume that from a legal perspective local evaluation systems should be
primarily concerned with proViding safeguards for the protection of. the
rights of all involved. There is no legal suggestion as to what the major
purpose of eva'- !ion should be, what data must be collected, what
criteria should .1, or what limits should be set On the leVel of teacher
involvement. it would be to the district's advantage to be sure
that local evaluation procedures *do not violate due process safeguards.
But, it should be made clear that evaluation systems can provide these
protections and still be built with the primary focus on the improvement
of instruction. An excellent guide for reviewing procedural safeguards
while still meeting evaluation responsibilities is provided by Strike and
Bull (1981). Their Bill. of Rights for Teacher Evaluation has important
implications for local districts as they attempt to develop an appropriate
attitude toward building an evaluation program/.

A Bill of Rights for Teacher Evaluation

Rights of Educational Institutions:
(I) Educational institutions have the right to exercise supervision and to
make personnel decisions intended to improve. the quality of the
education they provide.
(2) Educational institutions have the right to collect information relevant to
their supervisory and evaluative roles.
(3) Educational institutions have the right to act on such relevant informa-
4 SUCCESSFUL TEACHER EVALUATION

lion in the best interest of the students whom they seek to educate.
(4) Educational institutions have the right to the cooperation of the teaching
staff in implementing and executing a fair and effective system of
evaluation.

Rights of Teachers:
(1) Professional rights
(a) Teachers have a right io reasonable job security.
(b) Teachers have a right to a reasonable degree of professional
discretion in the performance kteir jobs.
(c) Teachers have a right to reasonable participation in decisions
concerning both professional and employment-related aspects of
their jobs.
(2) Evidential rights
(a) Teachers have the right to have decisions made on the basis of
evidence.
(b) Teachers have a right to be evaluated on relevant criteria.
(c) Teachers have the right not to be evaluated on the basis of hearsay,
rumor, or unchecked complaints.
(3) Procedural rights
(a) Teachers have the right to be evaluated according to general, public,
and comprehensible standards.
(b) Teachers have the right to Iliotice concerning when they will be
evaluated.
(c) Teachers have the right to know the results of their evaluation.
(d) Teachers have the right to express a reaction to the results, of their
evaluation in a meaningful way.
(e) Teachers have the right to a statement of the reasons for any action
'taken in their cases.'
(f) Teachers have the right to appeal adverse decisions and to have
`their views considered by a competent and unbiased authority.
(g) Teachers have the right to orderly and timely evaluation.
(4) Other humanitarian and civil rights
(a) Teachers have a right to humane evaluation procedures.
(b) Teachers have the right to have their evaluation kept private and
confidential.
(c) Teachers have the right to evaluation procedures which are not
needlessly intrusive into their professional activities.
(d) Teachers have the right to have their private lives considered
irrelevant to their evaluation.
(e) Teachers have the right to have evaluation not be used coercively to
obtain aims external to the legitimate purposes of evaluation.
(f) Teachers have the right to nondiscriminatory criteria and proce-
dures.
(g) Teachers have the right'not to have evaluation used'io sanction the
expression of unpopular views.
(h) Teachers have the right to an overall assessment of their perform-
ance that is frank, honest, and consistent (Strike and Bull, 1981, p.
307).
 AN APPROPRIATE ATTITUDE TOWARD EVALUATION 5

While there are clear directions for protection .of rights, there is no
requirement that the form and substancethe set of procedures, procc:ss-
es, and instrumentation that direct the attitudes and actions of the
participantsbe built on an accountability orientation ir In one sense, the
only requirements that a local evaluation system need to meet to Ian its
accountability function is that the system does in fact exist and that it is
applied fairly and consistently to all. At th point where a decision has
been mad to put a teacher on notice (a atement of intent to pursue
dismissal unless remediation occu °ma umber of stated deficiencies),
the due process protections come i to play and a series of relatively clear
and precise procedures take effect. t this point, then, the local evaluation
system is then superceded.
An even more practical argument can be made for a growth-oriented
attitude if a school district looks' realistically at what research and
experience suggest about teacher evaluation. Figure 1 depicts the full
range of possible evaluations that could be given a teacher. Research
suggests that it is virtually impossible for most supervisorsgiven the
time they have available, the amount of training normally provided them,
and the diverse nature of the teaching actto reliably rank teachers on
any type of continuum suchas the one in Figure 1. At best, the supervisor
can only deal with very gross measurements of a teacher's competence in
the classroom.

Figure 1. Range of Classroom Evaluations

Lowest Highest
4
Location of Supervisor Judgments

Does this suggest that no reliable judgments of teacher competence

can take place? Certainly it' means 'that there can be no,finite judgments,
but it does not preclude reliable jUdgments that actually have some
purpose and usefUlness. Practically speaking, the majority of all tenured
or continuing contract teachers in the United States will beAected only
tangentially by the outcomes of leacher evaluation durinetheir careers.
The protections provided by judicial precedent, legislative mandate,
statutory requirements, and contractual languagewhen combined with
the political implications of dismi;sal, the strength of teacher associations
and unions, and the expensive and time-consuming nature of termination
proceedingsmake the actual application of sanctions (hOlding up per-
sons on salary schedules, official notice of remediation. notice of termina-
tion, RIF occurring on the basis of evaluations rather than seniority, etc.)
very rare. When it does occur, experience dictates that the initial
6 SUCCESSFUL TEACH ER EVALUATION

identification of these persons usually comes about as the result of very

gross and inforinal measures. As an illustration, assume that the governor
of a state had the authority to allow all school principals to dismiss one
tenured teachertenure would be set aside for just one teacher in each
building forjust one day. It is unlikely that principals would rush to their
offices, review their evaluation files, and from that determine who to fire.
Every school principal in this country already knows who the worst
tekiher in the building is right now. How do they know? They just know!
They know by coming to work in the same place every day, by collecting
ell types of informal feedback on their staffs, and by gut-level, intuitive
judgments. In many respects, these informal assessments are as reliable
as any judgments we have about classroom performance. From a realistic
perspective, they are perhaps all the measurement we really need.

Figure 2. ,Range of Supervisor Judgments

Lowest Highest

Sanctions, Teachers are virtually

are feasible unaffected by evaluation

45'

As Figure 2 suggests, only the teacher or group of teachers that fall at

the lowest end of-the continuum will likely ever be significantly affected
by the supervisor's judgments. Since they can be identified by methods
other than those built into the evaluation procedure, it seems impractical
to build a system around that 2 percent or less of a staff. Hence, the
argument to design an evaluation system around the needs of the great
majority of the staff gains additional credence.
'Based on the work on Wagoner and O'Hanlon (1968), Hov.vsam
(1963), and others, it is obvious that teacher feelings toward evajt_tation
are negatively affected by systems _that promote such practices as high-
supervisor, low-teacher involvement; supervisors making ratings or com-
parisons between people; and heavy emphasis on administrative criteria.
Systems of this nature provide no-reliable- measures of accountabilitY.L_
provide no better,ancl,Irmost cases less valuable documentation for
potential dismissal 0.rlicaures; and because of the negative attitudes they
promote, offer no encouragement for altering classroom instructional_
behavior.
On the other hand, systems built around attitudes truly directed
toward improving instruction, and having procedures, processes, and
instrumentation complementary to that attitude, have been shown to.
significantly increase the likelihood . of promoting change in teacher
behavior (Zelenak, 1973; Zelenak and Snider, 1974).. Since realistic

1.3
 AN APPROPRIATE ATTITUDE TOWARD EVALUATION 7

accountability rests so much on the judgments of the administrators

involved in the implementation, of the evaluation system, it can be
logically assumed that accountability will always accompany instructional
improvement oriented systems. On the other hand, experiace and
research would indicate that no more tiable levels of accountability
accompany, hardnosed, more "objective" systems, while virtually elim-
inating any chance for changes in instructional behavior by teachers in
their classrooms. The acceptance of an appropriate and realistic perspec-
on system is an absolute neceAity
tive on the major function of an evalua ion
for the development of a successful and effective teacher evaluation
system. This acceptance by all concerned leads logically to the next
commonality.

References
Beckman. J. Legal Aspects of Teacher Evaluation. Topeka, Kans.: National Organiza-
tion on Legal Problems of Education. 1981..
Bolton. D. L. Selection and Evaluation of 'Teachers. Berkeley, Calif.: McCutchan,
. 1973. d
Howsam. R. B.- "Teacher Evaluation: Facts and Folklore." National Elementary
Principal 43 (1963): 7-17.
Iwanicki. E. "Contract Plans: A Professional Growth-Oriented Approach to Evaluating
Teacher Performance." In Handbook of Teacher Evaluation. Edited by J. Millman. Beverly,
Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1981.
Strike, K.. and Bull. B. "Fairness and the Legal Context of Teacher Evaluation." In
Handbook .Teacher Evaluation. Edited by J.' Millman. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage
.Publicati&s, 1981.
Wagoner, R. L., and O'Hanlon. J. P. "'Teacher Attitude Toward Evaluation." Journal
of Teacher Education 19 (108): 471-475.
Zelenak, M. J. "Teacher Perceptions of the Teach Evaluation Process.- Doctoral
dissertation. University of Iowa, 1973.
Zelenak, M. J., and Snider, B. C. "Teacher mil Resent EvaluationIf It's Tor the
Improvement of Insuitction." Phi Delta Kapp 4 55 (1974): 348-349.
Zimmerer, T. W., and Stroh; T. F. 'Trepan nage for Performance Appraisal."
S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal 39 (1974): 36-4.0.
 Evaluation odel
Complementa to the r

esixed ^dose

he second commonality relates directly to the general attitude toward

I. evaluation just discussed. As used in this book, the evaluation
system is the set of required or recommended policies, procedures,
processes, and instrumentation that directs the attitudes and 'actions of
the participants. Districts whose evaluation systems are viewed as
successful and effective have, in most cases, consciously worked toward
developing and maintaining congruence between what they have decided
they wanted their system to be and do and the requirements they have
made a part of the system.
While this seems like a perfedtly logical step in developing any-set of
procedures, it is remaricakle how often this' simple step is violated:
Approkimately two - thirds of the school districts in the United States fail
to meet this commonality. As an example, although many districts state in,
some philosophic preamble -that f6f-t- heir school "the primary purpose of
evaluation is the improvement-ofinstrn)ction," they then establish proce-
dures and build instruments that promote high-supervisor, low-teacher
involvement; encourage or condone infrequent and Unfocused observa-
tion; and force supervisors to make comparisons between teachers on
rating scales based on some standardized criteria. All of these conditions
have been found to dramatically hinder ttempts at improving teacher
perfOrmance (Wagoner and O'Hanlon, 1 Morrison and McIntyre,
1969;\ Kult, 197.4; Wolf, 1973; Oldham, 197
In most instances, the ultimate test in det mining the effectiveness
of an valuation system is the quality of what oc at the bottom of the
systenLthe relationship that exiggebetween °the supervisor and the
teachel\ when they meet. one toone. In developing or redesigning an
evaluation system, a sclvol district would do well to start with the contact
between\supervisor and teacher and build backwards from that point. The

8
 A MODEL COMPLEMENTARY T THE PURPOSE 9

systems that work best impose the fewest possible int ingements upon
that supervior-teacher relationship. One of the keys o success is the
amount of flexibility the supervisor and the teat ave to work on the
particular.skills, knowledge, techniques, styles, etc., that best fit the
school's and the teacher's needs and interests. A. school cannot expect to
have an effective system by espousing one purpose and then requiring the
personS within the system to follow procedures that are noncomplemen-
tary to that purpose.
One of the feasons schools often find themselves in a contradiction
between purpose and procedures is a general lack of understanding about
what procedural options are available. In reviewing the literature as well
as 'common practices in schools, five evaluation models emerge. What
follows is a review of each of the models, with comments on their
applicability and appropriateness to local situations. As the remaining
commonalities are presented in this book, it will become clear that_certain
adaptations of several of these models have been combined as a means for,'_
- putting together the most effective systems:-This serves. to emphasize the
importance of knowing the characteristics of available models.

Common Law Models

Logically the first of the models to be discussed should 6e the type
that is used most, frequently in schools. The label "common law" is used
for such systems since most districts who employ this form of evaluation
have done so for so long that they haie finally married it by formalizing
the procedures. In most instar'ces, no one actually claims credit for its
development, choosing to place the responsibility on, some long past
anonymous committee. Approximately 65 percent of thc school districts
in the United States operate.with some form of common law model. The
characteristics of these systems are remarkably similar. Of all the models,
the common law probably provides the most divided and the most
negative images of teacher evaluation. But, as in all situations, segments
of this model may fit the needs of a particular district.
Common law systems are generally kraditional in that they rely on
simplified definitions of evaluation and on iardures and processes that
have remained virtually unchanged for years. Following is a typical
opening statement and set of procedures and processes that define the
activities of a normal cog-mon law system.
'GENERAL STATEMEJT:
This district believes that each child has unique educational and socio-emotional
needs that require quality instruction by all staff members. The district and its
professional employees have a responsibility to see that the needs of the students
 10 SUCCESSFU 1. TEACHER EVALUATION

are being met. One way to meet this responsibility is to have a teacher evaluation
procedure that is designed to improve the quality of instruction, In order to be
most effective, the, procedure. should involve both teachers and administrators
throughout the process.
PROCEDURES:
(1) All nontenured stall' will be evaluated by their principal at least three
times during the school year. A professional evaluation form must be submitted
after each evaluation. The final report must be on file .no later than the end of the
first week in March.
(2) All tenured teachers- will be evaluated by the principal or his or her
designee at least once each school year. A professional evaluation report must be
submitted by April 15.
(3) A conference must be held with the staff member following each
evaluation. The completed evaluation report must be reviewed with the staff
member during the conference. Suggestions for improving areas marked fair or
weak should bq made along with plans for any follow-up visits. Both parties
should tfien sign the report.
(4) Teachers have, the oppon to write comments about any part of the
evaluation in the appropriate spp.ce.
It is particularly appropriate to note the reference to instructional
improvement as the major purpose of the system. This is very common
phraseology. Noteworthy in common law systems is the incongruency
between philosophic preambles and the actual required procedures,'
which is the point\made by Commonality 2.
Characteristics of Common Law Models
The above example also illustrates a number of standard characteris-
tics of common law models:
1. High supervisor -low teacher involvement. In almost all instances,
the procedures defined by common law systems require the supervisor to
t`do something to the, teacher," as can be seen in recommendations as to
how often evaluati&-occurs and who does it to whom. In spite of what is
said in the philosophy statement, the teacher is a relatively passive
6 participant in the process. The supervisor determines when visits will. be
conducted; the supervisor coiiipletes the required instrumentation; and
the supervisor conducts the final evaluative conference.
2. Evaluation is seen as synonymous with observation. One of the
characteristics of the common law model is an almost exclusive reliance
on clasSroom observation as the method of collecting data about a
person's. performance. In a sense, statements like "all tenured teachers
will be evaluated at least once each school year" translate into "all
tenured teachers will be formally visited once e h school year." As will
be seen in Section II, there are a variety of ace pted ways, other than
classroom observation, to collect data about t ching.
 A MODEL COMPLEMENTARY TO THE PURPOSE II

3. Similar procedures for tenured and nontenured teachers. Most

common law systems have a tendency to apply one set of procedures and
required processes to all teachers regardless of their contractual status
with the district. The one exception to this rule is that whatever the
required procedure is, it is done more often to nontenured teachers than it
is to tenured teachers. That it is done more often does not counteract the
'fact that the same procedure is still used with all teachers regardless of
their training, their experience, or their particular situation.

4. Major emphasis on summative evaluation. The major purpose of

most CL systems is to make judgments about people as to their effective-.
ness in a work situation. By definition, this emphasis on judgments *of
people puts common law systems into the category of summative
evaluation. The emphasis tends to be on providing teachers a statement of ,

where they stand or how they compare with others rather than on
'descriptions of the kinds of things they are' doing and how that data might
be to enhance or improve their performance (formVive evaluation).

5. The existence of standardized criteria. The one example of an

instrument that is provided typifies what is often called the trait approach
to teacher evaluation. A district makes some determination of criteria that
can be applied to all teachers. These criteria are most often stated in the
form of traits, characteristics, styles, or behaviors Oat' constitute what is
important for that district. What these criteria are tends to be a locally
determined matter. They usually emerge from an evaluation committee in
the form of individual.preferences of the members of the committees or
are flagrantly borrowed, from instruments used by other districts. The
assumption here seems to be that there does exist a set of criteria tbatFan
be used to evaluate all teachers in a district regardless of the multitude of
contextual conditions that may exist.

6. The formats of the required instrumentation force comparative

judgrpents to be 'nude between and among people. In most common law
systems the standardized criteria are accompanied by some sort of scaling
device. While the actual rating system itself may vary from a fiveitem
scale (magnificent, wonderful, good, fair, rotten) to a threeitem scale
(satisfactory, needs improvement, unsatisfactory) to a narrative format
("Mr. Johnson has a wonderful professional attitude and always dresses
appropriately"), the basic premise remains the same. The supervisor
must provide a high inference judgment on where the teacher stands on
each of the predetermined criteria. These judgments can Only be made by
comparing people. This form of instrumentation is one of the clearest and
most troublesome of the characteristics of the common law model.,

m
12 SUCCESSFUL TEACI I ER EVALUATION

Advantages of Common Law Models

While much maligned, the common law model does offer several
advantages:
1. It can be. used in situations' of high teacher-supervisor ratios.
Most common law models are by design quick and dirty. The normal
requirethents do not demand extensive contact between supervisor and
teacher. Consequently, it is possible for a single supervisor. to. complete
evaluation requirements on a large number of teachers. By a general rule
of thumb; whenever a supervisor is responsible for the annual evaluation
of more than 20 certified staff, the common law model clearly works to the
Supervisor's advantage.
2. The common law' model requires very little training on the part of
supervisors. The system requires a short start-up time and makes very
few demands on supervisors. It obviously does not take any specific
training to assist supervisors in providing high inference-ratings-togen-effir
standardized criteria.
3. Common law systems; allow districts to visably meet accountabil-
ity demands while minimizing the often disruptive influence of evaluation.
The nature of standardized criteria, high inference ratings, high supervi-
sor involvement, and reliance on a single and logical methOd of collecting
data present an evaluation model that is undelstandable to noneducators
who serve on boards of education. These same practices often become
very comfortable to the staff since they promote a relatively cavalier
approach to evaluation and seldom provoke any signifiCant negative
, outcomes.

Complaints About Common Law Models

Most of the disadvantages tend to be the opposites of the advantages.
The common law system clearly seems to violate a number of assump-
tions about how to best promote instructional improvement. Consequent-
ly, as suggested by Commonality 1, if a district does choose to develop a
system around an attitude that accepts as the primary purpose of
evaluation the improvement of instruction,lhen the use of a common law
model would be inappropriate. The major complaints against these
systems include:.

1. The common law model reinforces traditional conc ptspf evalua-

tion that promote "watchdog" attitudes. The very nature of common law
systems is summative. This summative emphasis has a tendency to
promote the use of evaluative data gathered for adminitrative purposes.
It has been shown that teacher attitude towards evaluation is a significant
factor in the effectiveness of, a system. Zelenak_and nider (1974) found

4 .41
 A MODEL COMPLEMENTARY TO THE PURPOSE 13

that teachers who feel evalinition is for instructional purposes are

supportive of evaluation, and teachers who feel evaluation is used for
administrative purposes tend to regard the process negatively.
2. Common law systems proniotc low teacher involvement and
minimal contact, time bettveen supervisors and teachers. Standard proce-
dures in common law always have something being done to the teachers
by he supervisors. Yet teachers, especially tenured teachers,.. only
change when they feel they are a part of the process that is designed to
help them improve their instruction. Experience suggests that it is
unlikely that teachers will be willing to change if they feel no ownership at
all in the system.
3. There is a heavy eniphasis on standardized criteria. It is particu-
larly paradoxical that school districts praise themselves for their pro-
grams emphasi ?ing individual differences in students while maintaining a
teacher evaluation syStem that relies on standardized criteria. In effect
they are saying that regardless of grade level, subject matter, ability levels
of kids, experience, training, physical setting, etc, all teachers can be
compared on the same set of criteria. This concept, perhaps more than
any other, is seen as the major roadblock to jointly developed cooperative
activities between teachers and supervisors in the area of supervision and
evaluatiori. There is a presumptuousness about the concept that anyone
can identify a finite number of criteria that are so important that all
teachers should be compared against them. As can be seen by looking at
the example of a typical common law instrument (Figure 4), the criteria
tend to address relatively general areas of competence, deal with ambigu-
ous definitions, and address a number of characteristics or traits in which
there is virtually no evidence to support their impact on kids and what
they learn in schools. Perhaps this characteristic of common law models,
more than anything else, offers the major reason for considering other
alternatives.
4. Closely related to the preceding criticism is the fact that most
criteria on common law instruments tend to be administrdtive rather than
teaching criteria. The rating scale offers a -classic illustration of typical
criteria. Often as much as 70 percent of the criteria contained on common
law evaluation instruments relate to administrative and personal concerns
rather than to items that deal with thb teacher's 'performance in the
classroom.,This means,of selecting criteria for inclusionon an instrument
only reinforces "watchdog attitudes," promotes the notion of a system
designed primarily for administrative purposes rather than for instruction-
al improvement, and focuses time and energy on the part of the supervi-
sors and the teachers in relatively unproductive areas.

0
 14 StICCESS1.111.1.1-AC111.114 INAHIATfoN

5. Common law nunlels fOrce ...upervisorc make judgments- Ia

people when there is no need to do so. As discussed in C ommonal-
it y I, the due process pitocedures defined by law regarding the dismissal
of tenured teachers do not reqiiire a district to make comparative
judgments between people. Many districts possess a false belief about
what is required and what will aid in the dismissal of a tenured teacher,
What has happened in so many districts is that supervisors are forced by
the common law system to make comparisons and judgments between
people that are ultimately never used in any way. Once the ratings are
made, they are placed in personnel folders in central offices, never to be
seen again. As a result of this type of administrative rating, the relation-
_ship_between-the-supervisor-and the teacher-often- deteriorates-causing
both indilsiattak to question,the value of the procedure and the purpose it
serves. Before long, attitudes towards the evaluation systembecome so
negative that there is virtually no chance for evaluation to have a positive
effect (Bolton, 1973, p. 96). '

Goal-Setting Models
In recent years, the displeasure with traditional evaluation models
has grown steadily. The disadvantages of common law systems provided
a major impetus for trying to change evaluation procedures. This dissatis-
faction was occurring at the same time the general push for accountability
was being felt within the education community. The confluence of these
two motivations for change created the conditions that fostered the
second most frequently practiced model for teacher evaluationgoal
setting.
A major characteristic of goal-setting models is their emphasis on an
individualized approach to evaluation. There is an inherent logic in the
assumption that the clearer the idea a person has of what is to be
accomplished, the greater the chances for success. This belief is basic to
the development of goal-setting systems. Major proponents of goal
setting view it almost as much a philosophy as a technique. While there
are a number of different approaches that can be used in establishing goal
setting systems (these will be discussed in detail under Commonality 4),
there are several assumptions about people, supervision, and evaluation
that form the framework for using goal setting as the basic activity in an
evaluation system.
Basic Goal-Setting Assumptions
1. Evaluation systems that are primarily oriented at finding the "bad
apples" in the system or "cutting out the deadwood" are counterproduc-

26
 A MODEL COMPLEMENTARY TO THE PURPOSE 15

tive. Such an orientation too often equates not doing something wrong
with successful teaching. The focus sh4ld be on showing continual
growth and improvement and continually doing things better.
2. Unless supervisors-work almost daily in direct contact with an
individual there is no way they can evaluate all the things th4t individual
does. At best they can evaluate only three, four, or five thirris and then
only if these "things" are well-defined. This means that priorities must be
set so that the most important responsibilities are always in focus. Just as
students are different., so are teachers and administrators. Priorities will
differ from person to person.
3. Lack of defined priorities results in a dissipation of resources. If
all tasks or responsibilities are viewed equ'ally, individuals tendto be
guided by their own interests or the situation at hand.1
4. Supeti,ision is not a passive activity. Supervisors should be
actively involved in helping subordinates achieve goals and continually
grow in competence. The development of subordinates is probably the
most important supervisory function.
5. People often have perceptions of their priority re§ponsibilities that
,differ from the perceptions of the supervisor or the organization. Until
this is clarified, the individual may be growing in his or her own
perceptions but not in the perceptions of the supervisor/organization.
Where the priorities are the same (or close) between the individual and
the supervisor, the result is positive and productive.
6. Continuous dialogue between supervisor and teacher concerning
agreed upon priorities are both productive to the efficidycy of the school
and to the psychological/emotional well-being of the indNdual (McGrew,
1971),

Goal-Setting Proce,!,,Ires
From these assumptions a variety of practices have developed. Most
are variations of three steps: setting goals in terms of expected results,
working toward these goals, and reviewing progress, towareThe goals.
The flow diagram in Figure 3 (p. 16) is one illustration of the steps that
usually characterize goal-setting models (Bolton, 1973).
Iwanicki (1981, p. 213) provides basically the same outline of steps as
he describes the recommended procedures in a goal-setting approach:
1. Teacher conducts self-evaluation and identifies areas for improve-
ment.
2. Teacher *develops draft of goal-setting "contract."
3. Teacher and evaluator confer to discuss the teacher self-evalua-
tion information, the draft contracts, and the evaluator's perception of

4,
16 SUCCESSFUL TEACHER EVALUATION

areas in which improvement is needed in an effort to reach agreement on

the specifics of the contract for the current evaluation cycle.
4. Teacher and evaluatqr.confer periodically to monitor progress
toward the goals stated in the contract.
5. Teacher and evaluator confer near the end of the evaluation cycle
to assess the extent to which goals have been accomplished as well as to
discuss future directions for improvement, which could be included in the
goal contract during the next evaluation cycle.

Figure 3: Typical Procedures in Goal-Setting Models

(

Take
action

4
Examine
results

6
Continue
as planned

The pre-conference that begins the evaluation 'cycle clearly sets off
goal-setting models from standard common law procedures. In all the
various approaches using goal setting, the initial conference is viewed as
the most valuable and the most important activity of the process. Hyman
(1975) illustrates the importance of this step when he talks about the value
of teachers and supervisors conferring together to develop goals. He
indicates that it:
 A MODEL COMPLEMENTARY TO THE PURPOSE 17

1. Allows the teacher and the supervisor to explicitly focus their

intentions in relation to the entire school context
2. Requires the teacher and the supervisor to convene an initi
meeting to get to know each other better
3. Requires the teacher and the supervisor to put their expectations.
in writing so as to have guidelines for future clfferences, observations,
ud evaluations
4. Requires the teacher and supervisor to make decisions that they
might otherwise delay too long
5. Provides the teacher and the supervisor with the opportunity to tie
together the various elements of the teacher's task in the school
6. Offers an opportunity to talk about improvement of teaching
rather than only maintenance of the status quo
7. Helps set the context for future planning in curriculum and
teaching.
If the document (contract) describing the goals is done well, then the
whole goal-setting.process is.basically set up to produce a satisfactory
experiente. Iwanicki (1981., p. 217) suggests that the qupty of the goal-
' setting contract can be enhanced by considering the folldwing questions:
1. Does the contract identify-specific outcomes that can be observed
or measured? ,

2. Does the cOntract identify the means and criteria by which the ;
desired outcomesvill
, be evaluated?'
,
1

3. Does the/contract specify a projected date for accomplishment off

the outcomes?i,
4. Does t e contract avoid contradiction with system, building, and
de partmentalligoal s'y
5. Is the contract realistic and challenging?
6. Is the -contract consistent with available
1
and anticipated re-
sources ?!., ,, .-
,, 7. Does the contract lead to strengthened professional competencies
or to improved student learning?

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Goal-Setting Model

Iwanicki (1981, p. 226) provides a good summary of the major
strengths and weaknesses of goal setting in the following list:
Strengths
1. Promotes professional growth through correcting weaknesses and
enhancing strengths. . 4
2. Fosters a positive working relationship between teacher and
18 SUCCESSFUL TEACHER EVALUATION

evaluator.
3. Focuses on the unique professional growth needs of each teacher.
4. Clarifies performance expectations and sets explicit criteria for
evaluation.
5. Integrates individual performance objectives with the goals and
objectives of the school organization.
Weaknesses.
1. Cannot be used to rank teachers.
2. Places too much emphasis on the attainment of measurable
objectives.
3. Is not realistic in terms of the time and inservice resources
available in most school settings.
4. Requires tdo much paperwork.
5. Forces evaluators to make decisions about teacher performance in
areas in which they are not qualified.
More detail concerning goal setting and the 'various approaches to
unplementing-are-discussed-in-C-ommOnality-4.--Suffice-it-to-say-at-this----
point that the use of goal setting as the major activity in a teacher
evaluation system seems to hold considerable promise.

Product Models
No model for evaluating teacher performance has generated as much 0
controversy as the use of student performance measures as a method for
assessing teacher competence. In mail}, local and state settings, citizens
and legislatures have established minimum competency measures and
assessment programs that either require or strongly suggest the use of
- such procedures as objective measures of school and teacher effective-
ness. These movements have, in' most instances, gone against the
prevalent attitude of professional educators regarding the appropriate
design and use of such measures. While there is an inherent logic in the
use of student performance data to assess teachers, the problems in doing
so are significant.
Using student achievement as a measure of teacher competence rests
on the assumption that an important function of teaching is to enhance
student learriing (Millman, 1981, p. 1'46). To the extent that this is true,
one criterion by which a teacher, should be judged is the ability to bring
about changes in how much students learn. Thus, 'product models are
based on the results or outcomes of instruction. Feldvebel (1980) states,
"since we cannot prove that any one method, style, or process of
teaching is superior, all that we can do is go by. results." Therefore, the

3
 A MOTEL COMPLEMENTARY TO THE PURPOSE 19.

emphasis of these models is not on the methods, styles, or processes, but

on- the results of achievement tests. Changes in students' behavior, in
their growth in skills, in their knowledge of subject matter, and in their
attitudes are all instances of product model measures. Borich (19N) notes
that.since the business of the teacher is the promotion Of student growth,
product models should assess teacher effectiveness by measuring changes
in student achievement, both affective and cognitive, over a prespecified
period of instruction. This period may be as brief as the span of a single
lesson or as long as a semester or school year.

Methods for Measurement

Generally, the instruments for assessing student growth are norm-
referenced tests (standardized tests) and criterion-referenced tests. Pop -
,ham (1973) makes the following distinction between norm-referenced and
(criterion-referenced tests:
At the most basic level, norm-referenced measures ascertain an individual's
performance i,n relationship to the performance of other individuals lithe same
measuring device: Because the Individual is compared with some normative
groups, such measures are described as norm-referenced. Most standardized tests
of achievement or intellectual ability are norm-referenced measures. Criterion-
referenced measuresascertain an individual's status with respect to some
criterion or performance standard. Because the individual is compared-with some
established criterion, rather than with other individuals, these measures are
described as criterion-referenced. One criterion-referenced test is the Red Cross
Senior Life Saving Test, since an individual must display certain swimming skills
to pass the examination, irrespective of how well others perform on the test.
Working with John McNeil and Jason Millman, Popham developed a
method for assessing teacher performance. This approach, referred to as
the PMM method, operates as follows:
1. A teacher is given a measurable instructional objective (along with a
sample test item) and directions to plan a short lesson-15 to 20 minutes
designed to (a) promote learner mastery of the objective, and (b) be interesting to
the learners. If the topic is novel, the teacher is also given requisite background
information.
2. The teacher plans the lesson, incorporating whatever instructional proce-
dures he deems appropriate,
/ 3. The teacher presents the lesson to a small group of learnerssix to eight
/ students.
4. The learners are then administered a post-test based on the objective.
/ Although the post-test has not previously been seen by the teacher, its nature is
readily inferable from the objective and sample test item. The learners also rate
the lesson in terms of its interest.
5. An appraisal of the instructor's skill on the teaching performance test is
provided by both the cognitive. indexand learners' post-test performanceand.
the 'affective indexthe learners' interest ratings (Popham, 1973, p. 57-58).
 Figure 4. Evaluation of Teacher Performance

SUBJECT DATE
TEACHER

Needed; or number 4 for

DIRECTIONS: Circle number 1 for Outstanding; number 2 for Satisfactory; number 3, for Improvement

No Opportunity To Observe.
rfr

Instructional Skills
t234 <
A, Knowledge of the subject area
1 2 3.4
B, Evidence of preparation and planning that is in accord with objectives of the program
1234 c
C. Teaches so as to guide learning, mptivate, and enlist students' participation

v.
1234
D. Provides for differences of individuals and groups

Evaluates students' growthland achievement in line with objectives of the program

,12 3 4 0
E.

Comm,pts: (Use other side for additional comments.)

...
II. Classroom and School Atmosphere

Maintains purposeful activity in an atmosphere of 'mutual respect in the classroom

1234
A,
2 '3 4
B. Develops good working relationships among students
123
C. Keeps records and reports information
aintenance of school equipment '123
D. Exhibits responsibility in care and
1234
E, Teacher's attendance and promp ess
f1 2 3 4
F, Helps to carry out school policies and regulations

Comme ts:

'3
III. l'eicliiStall-Pirif-CiniiiiiiiitiRelilliiiiiiiis
A. Relations with parents and with Other adults in the community.. ... .. .... 1114 ..... o ..... 11. 1 234
B. Uses information about pupils to improve learning 1 234

C. Utilizes knowledge of the community and its resource when feasible 1 234

II Maintains harmonious relations and cooperative attitua ith co-workers .., ... ..... , ... . .......... . , 1 234

Comments:

IV. Professional Participation

A, Willingness to work outrprocedures.designed to improve instruction 1234 y

B. Assumes share of school responsibilities 1234 4

,

C. Shows evidence of professional growth 1234 . o0

to,

Comments:

V. Additional Comments andlor Recommenqations (Please use reverse side of this form.)

Whilt,--0111cial Copy

PinkTeacher's Copy Evaluator's Signature

,YellowEvaluators Copy
22 SUCCESSFUL, TEACHER EVALUATION

An approach that was once used- in Kalamazoo, Michigan, 'offers.

another example of what a student performance model might look like
within a local school district. Academic achievement of secondary school
students was determined by criterion-referenced tests (Goal-Objective
Test: A Systematic Approach to Teacher Planning, Instruction, and
Evaluation). Jones (1974) listed the steps for using GOal-Objectives-Test
as follows:
1. On a Goal Worksheet;lhe teacher identifies five to ten general goals for
each course. These goals explain the most important topics, units, or concepts to
be covered in a course. Examples: "Students in Eighth Grade .Science will
develop a knowledge and awareness of the human digestive system and how it
functions."
2. Using a Course Performance Objectives Worksheet, the teacher writes
from one to five performance objectives for each course goal. Example of a
performance objective: "By the conclusion of the first semester; eighth grade
science students will demonstrate on a teacher-made test knowledge of the huinan
digestive system by identifying eight parts4,(100 percent) of the body associated
with human digestion." 1 -
3. The teacher prepares an objective - referenced, mastery test designed to
assess student achievement orminimal perfc\rmance objectives by the end of the
particular course or semester.
° The major arguments advanced for the superiority of these types of'
approaches for teacher evaluation are that: (1) These student performance
Models are '"objective," whereas other methods (notably rating scales
and observation methods)-are "subjective," and (2) The changes in pupil
behavior such as those teachers produce during the instructional periods
are_ th_e__"real_thing" about schooling. (See Glass, 1974, for an extended
discussion of these arguments and the countxrarguments to these posi-
tions.)

Methods for Measuring Pupil Gain

1. The Estimated Percentage Method. In this method, a percentage
of proficiency standard is set. The teacher is then evaluated according to
this standard. The procedure involves the evaluator making a judgment of
approximately what percentage of learners should perform with what
percentage of proficiency (Popham, 1973). For example, an expectation
of a 90-90 percentage proficiency standard might be set for a given test,
which signifies that at leaSt 90 percent of learners are expected to earn
scores of '90 percent or better on that test. Generally, this procedure
requires the estimator to make intuitive judgments regarding expected
levels of learner proficiency, - - __ __
2. Raw-Gain Score. Popham (1973) states that a stratghtforwar
scheme for deciding on standards might consist of merely expecting the
progress-of the learners during a particular year to be better than it was
 A MODEL COMPLEMENTARY.TO THE PURPOSE 23

during the preceding year. For instance, if a post-test minus a pre-test

score equals the gain model that is employed, then a standard involving
no more than the following could be used: Gain this year will be greater
than gain last year.
3. Regression Analysis. Klein and Alkin (1972) suggest employing
regression analysis to judge pupil growth. This approach involves the
administration of a pre-test at the beginning of the year and a comparable
or identical test at the close .of the year. Based on the relationship
between these two sets of data, an expected post-test score can be
computed for each learner. By inspecting, teacher by teacher, the
proportion of actual post-test scores that are equal to or above the
expected score, a per-teacher index of the degree to which the teacher is
able to promote predicted achievement can be calculated.
issues Related to the Use of Product Models
I. Use of Tests. For purposes of teacher evaluation, norm-refer-
enced tests have, serious disadvantages when used to Measure pupil
growth (Sax, '1974; Borich, 107; Popham, 1981). For example, a norm-
referenced test contains items that cover not only the main ideas or skills
taught, but also much finer points, knowledge of which may not be
essential to proficiency in the subject area or skill tinder. consideration. In
addition, a norm-referenced test ordinarily has a low degree of overlap
with the actual objectives of instruction at a4 given time or place.
According to Pcipham (1980,, a norm-referenced test does not give a
'clear notion of the skills or knowledge to be tested. It is almost impossible
for teachers to provide a truly on-target instructional experience for their
students. He also points out that if the teachers don't know what the task
is, evaluation, on the basis of such ill-defined criteria, is fundamentally
unjust.
In.-evaluating teachers, pupil performance is often measured as'an
indication of the teacher's effectiveness in communicating specific con-
tent or skills. Therefore, tests used for this purpose must hover the
content or skills the teacher has emphasized rather than more remote,
highly discriminating`corttent. A criterion- referenced test seems to suit
this purpose.
The criterion - referenced test is used to ascertain an individual's
status with respect to a well-defined behavior .domain (Popham, 1978).
Popham notes 'that a well-formed criterion-referenced test will communi-,
cate unaMbiguciusly to teachers wrat the nature of the evaluative criteria
will be In addilion,-,Borich (1977) agrees_with Popham tharl diterion-
referenced test- will- more likely show the teacher's success in achieving
the goal by indicating the number of .pupils who have \mastered the
material taught. 1
24 SUCCESSFUL. TEACHER EVALUATION

2. The Influences of the Classroom. Soar (1973) states that a major

difficulty in evaluating the teacher is the. amount of influence the
classroom can have in relation to other influences on pupil achievement.
Such factors as I.Q. and the socioeconomic status_ of the pupil affect
achievement levels, and can also affect rate of learning and persistence in
learning. 1
Furthermore, Borich (1977) concludes that parental expectations, the
pupil's prior achievement, the socioeconomic status of the family, and the
general intellectual quality of the pupil's home life may have greater
influence on the pupil's measured achievement than does the teacher.
3. Measurement - Statistical Problems. Gain scores are commonly
used in measuring the effect of a teacher on student learning. Some
researchers simply used a raw difference between pre-test and post-test.
Others recommend theuse of regression approaches. Each method has
advantages and disadvantages,
'The major problem of raw difference scores is that they a e unreli-
able. Moreover, students with high pre-test scores usually sho -1 small it ,
gain (Linn and Slide, 1977).-This-phenamenon is- usually referred to
!'regression effect."
The regression approach seems to be somewhat more appropriate
since this method eliminates,, to some . degree, the problem of the
regression effect. However, predicted pbst-test scores resulting from tr
regression equation still have the significant problem of low reliability.
Because of these and other problems associated With product models
(see Millman, 1981, for an excellent discussion of the advantages and
disadvantages of studerit performance models), it seems reasonable to
suggest that there is not sufficient support in the research community to
justify the e of student performance as a form of summative evaluation.
While the e are available suggestions as to how to minimize the dangers of
using s dent achievement as a summative evaltfation tool (Millman,
1981), the recommended procedures seem beyond the training levels and
,

the time constraints of local administrators.

There is, hywever, growing support for the value of including the
collection of student performance data for use as input in thelorniative
evaluation of tegERing. The concept of data-based instruction (Deno and
Mirkin, 1977), while primarily applicable to small special education
settings, offers an excellent example of how student performance data can
be used to make instructional decisions. Millman (19N also offers an
excellent description of how student data can be used fOrmatively.
In summary, while there is a surface logiC to the value of using
student achievement as a summative measure of teacher competence,
prevailing opinion seems to be that the inherent problems in the process
(inadequate tests, confounding influences on student growth, lack of

36
 (1.
15
A MODEL COMPLEMENTARY TO THE PURPOSE

reliable statisticlil measures) prevent product models from being practi-

cal. State and local school officials who are feeling pressure for the use of
such practices should be ready to bring to bear the full .weight Of current
professional thinking. On the other hand) districts committed to the
concept of improving classroom .instractioln would do well to include,
with the cooperation of the teaching staff, the use of student performance
data as one additional form of input in the instructional decisionmaking
process. (See Mil an, 1981, for a discussion of ways.tominimize the
problems'that are also present when using student achievement data 'for
formative evaluation purposes.)

The Clinical Supervision Model

In the area of supervision, no term has more, visibility than clinical
supervision. This visibility and the experiential data that suggest it is an
effective method for improving instructional practices has led many
'districts to proclaim their intent to adopt clinical, supervision as their
evaluation model. On the surface this seems like a logical approaCh to
establishing evaluation systems, especially if the dominant purpose is to
improve instruction. There are, hdwever, significant definitional issues
which must be dealt with befor6 clinical supervision can be "used" in its
most appropriate fashion.

The Collegial Nature of Clinical Supervision .

Clinical supervision takes it label and the assumption behind the

concept-from the initial work of Cogan and Goldhartuner. Cogan (1973, p.
54) defines clinical supervision as follows:
Clinical supervision mayAtherefore, be defined as the rationale and practice
designed to improve the teachs classroom performance. It takes its principal
data from the events of the classroom. The analysis of these data and t
relationships between teacher 'and supervisor form the basis of the progra
procedures, and strategies designed to improve the students' learning by improv
ing the teacher's classrrozitn-beliavior.
\
Goldhammer (1969, p. 54) offers the following definition:
Given close observation, detailed observational data, face-to-face interaction
between the supervisor and the teacher, and the intensity of focus that binds the
two together in an intimate professional relationship, the meaning of "clinical" is
pretty well filled out.
Bothof these definitions stress the importance of a close and intense
relationship between the teacher and ,the supervisor. This relationship
puts a heavy emphasis on a collegial rather than an authoritarian
26 SUCCESSFUL. TEACHER EVALUATION

orientation. The focus is . expected to be on teacher motivation and

improvement rather than on quality control. In this respect it is more of a
supervisory. model than an evaluation model. In stating a series of
principles of clinical supervision, Sergiovanni (1982) reinforces the colle-'.
gial nature of the teacher-supervisor relationship that is a necessary part
of the clinicalsupervisor concept.

1.. Teaching is a complex set of activities that requires careful.

analysis. Most forms of evaluation/sup_ervision oftenversimplify-the-----
nature of teaching and provide the supervisor with an gray of predeter-
mined criteria to be applied to the teaching under study. Clinical
supervision recognizes the complexities involved by extracting issues
from the teaching situation at hand and by relying heavily on the teacher's
analysis of issues to be studied.

2. Teachers are reasonably competent professionals who desire help

if it is offered in a collegial rather than authoritarian way. Clinical
-supervision_assumeS that in most cases it is presumptuous of supervisors
to tell certified .professionals how to teach and that merely prescribing
remedies to teachers. in an effort to improve their teaching is not an
effective change strategy: The heart- clinical supervision is an intensive,
continuous, mature relationship betty n teacher and supervisor col-
leagues that has as its intent the improve ent of professional practiCe.1

3. Supervision is a partnership in inquiry whereby the supervisor

functions as one tlith more experience and insight or, in the case of
equals (working with tenured, experienced teachers), one with a better
vantage point in analyzing another's teaching rather than as an expert
who determines correctness and who provides admonitions. The author-
ity base of the supervisor is Very important to the process. The supervisor
derives his or her authority from being able to collect and provide
information desired by the teacher and from being able to help the teacher
use this information profitably.

4. The purpose of clinical supervision- is to assist teachers to modify

existing patterns of .teaching in ways ,in which the teacher desires.
Supervisionlevaluation is therefore responsive to the needs and desires of '-
the teacher, not the supervisor. What is significant about this principle is
thal.it is the teacher who decides the course of the clinical supervisory
cyc e, the issues to be discussed, and for what purpose. Obviously,
supztrvisors are not and cannot be without influence, but influence stems
from being helpful in clarifying issues of importance to the teacher.
 A MODEL COMPLEMS.NTARY TO THE PURPOSE 27

5. The supervisor's job is to help the teacher select teaching goals to

be improved, teaching issues to be illuminated, and to assist the teacher's
progress toward goals. It is the supervisor's responsibility to provide
general support for the .teacher, to enhance the teacher's overall view of
teaching, and to help clarify issues. This is done by providing technical
assistance through the careful and systematic analysis of' classroom
events. The purpose is to provide a nonevaluative description of teaching
and its effects._ This- description-becomes-the--dald -base to be used by
supervisor and teacher together to analyze issues of importance to the
teacher.

6. Ultimately, effective clinical supervision increases the teacher's

desire for and skills of self-improvement. In clinical supervision the
supervisor works for his or her own obsolescence. Since teachers play a
key role in the process and, in effect, also learn how to supervise in a
clinical way, advocates of clinical supervision hope that the process will
evolve into a syStem of peer and self-supervision.

Steps of Clinical Supervision

While there are different labels and steps in, the clinical supervision
cycle (Goldhammer, 1969; Cogan, 1973; Acheson and Gall, 1980), there is
general agreement that the sequence of clinical supervision contains five
stages:
I. Pre-observation conference
2. Observation of teaching
3. Analysis and strategy
4. Post-observation conference
5, Post-conference analysis
Acheson and. Gall (1980) attempt to simplify the steps by suggesting
that at a practical level clinical supervision can be thought of as the
planning the classroom observation, and the feedback confer-______ _
.....enceDrawing-on--original--material dev-66-Piil-h-ySergiovanni (1982), a
brief description of each of these stages follows. Commonality 6 will deal
in more detail with the way each of these steps are being used in
developing effective evaluation systems., Also, for a more detailed diScus-
sion of the stages of clinical supervision, see Anderson and Krajewski
(1980).
1. Pre: planning. One(of the. purposes of the pre-observation confer-
ence is to establish or re-establish communication in a relaxed manner.
The quality of the relationship established at this point has a significant
effect .on the success of the next stages of the cycle. The supervisor
should engage the teacher in a -conceptual rehearsal of the lesson to be
 28 SUCCESSFUL TEACIllilt EVALUATION

observed. The teacher should provide an overview of his or her intents,

The supervisor might wish to raise some questions for clarification and,
depending on the relationship between the two, even make suggestions
for improving the lesson before unfolds. Typically, this rehearkd by the
teacher identifies an array of teaching issues. Clinical supervision re-
quires that the supervisor and teacher be selective in the sense that a close
study be made of only a small number of issues at any one time, Certainly
supervisors participate in this narrowing process by making suggestions,
but it is the teacher who should assume major responsibility for setting the
supervisory agenda. What would the teacher like to know about this
class? On what aspects of teaching would he or she like feedback? This
phase concludes with the teacher and supervisor reaching a fairly explicit
agreement about the focus and the range of the. supervisory activity and
the specific agendas to be addressed. Advbcates of clinical supervision
feel that the teacher should have as complete a picture as possible of
events to occur as the process of supervision unfolds.
2. Observation of Teaching. Basic to clinical supervision is the
actual and systematic observation of teaching. The focus is the teacher in
action and the classroom story that unfolds as a result of this action. It is
what the teacher says and does, how students react, and what actually
occurs during a specific teaching episode that forms the basis for the data
collected. Notes taken during the .observation should be descriptive
rather than evaluative. These descriptive notes, based on the agreed focus
from the pre-conference, are then analyzed by the supervisor. This raw
data must be converted into a manageable and meaningful form. Clinical
supervision techniques recommend that the analysis yield, significant
teaching patterns and that critical incidents be identified for use in the
supervisory conference. It is important to keep in mind the agreement
initially reached with the teacher. What was the purpose of this observa-
tion originally? How does the collected data.illusirate_this.purposO-Can-
--the-data-be-atrang-FdTiaTisliion that communicates clearly the feedback
the teacher seeks without prejudgments' from the supervisor? Having thus
organized the data; attention must now be given to building a strategy for
working with the teacher. In doing this, the supervisor needs to consider
such things as the initial agreement from the pre-conference, the issues
uncovered during the analysis of the data, the quality, of the relationship
'with the-leacher, and the competency or experience level of the teacher.
Once the 'strategy has been thought through carefully, the supervisor is
ready for the next stage in the cycle.

3. Feedback Confeience. Having accurate and complete information

to discuss is the essential ingredient-of a successful feedback conference.
The information must be as objective as posSible, understandable to both

40
 A MODEL COMPLEMENTARY TO THE PURPOSE 29

parties, and appropriate for the agreed upon concerns. If the observation-
al data meet these criteria, then, according to Acheson and Gall (1980, P.
68), the feedback conference should take the folloWing form:
(a) The observer displays the data recorded during the observation.
(b) The teacher analyzes what was happening during the lesson as
evidenced by the data. The supervisor simply helps to clarify
what behaviors the recorded data represent.
(c) The teacher, with the help of the supervisor, interprets the
behaviors of teacher and students as represented by the observa-
tional data. At this stage the teacher becomes more evaluative
because causes and consequences must be discussed as desirable
or undesirable.
(d) The teacher, with assistance (sometimes guidance) frolii the
supervisor, decides on alternative approaches for the future to
attend to dissatisfactions with the observed teaching or to empha-
size those aspects that were satisfying.
(e) The supervisor reinforces the teacher's announced intentions for
change when the supervisor agrees with them or helps the teacher
modify the intentions if there is some disagreement.
,
Clinical supervision assumes that most teacherswhen supplied
with adequate information and allowed to act on itcan analyze, inter-
pret, and decide in a self-.directed and constructive manner. At the
conclusion of the feedback conference the teacher and supervisor may
recognize a need for other kinds of information or make plans for the next
observation. In many instances, the feedback conferenee-for one observa-
tion becomes the planning conference for the next. ,

While there is sufficient evidence to indicate the effectiveness of

clinical supervision (Blumberg and Amidon, 1965; Boyan and Copeland,
1974; Shinn, 1976), the studies dealt with clinical supervision as a
supervisory model rather than an evaluation procedure. With the heavy
emphasiseein collegial relationships, nondirective technique, and :Than&
on assumptions about teachers being willing and able to assume major
responsibilitY, clinical supervision can be viewed as a philosophy as much
as process. So much of what must be present for true clinical
s pervision,to occur seems to be significantly prohibited-by the nature of
al-life teacher evaluation. SulIgy'ion catfied out by a line-administra-
tor within the framework of a teacher evaluation system would violate
what clinical supervision is by definition. As will be seen in the discussion
of Commonality 6, it may be that some of the techniques inherent in
clinical supervision are especially useful as part of an effective teacher
evaluation system, but it is not appropriate to view clinical supervision as
an evaluation model. y
30 SUCCESSFUL TEACHER EVALUATION

Artistic or Naturalistic Models

The artistic model is the most recently developed of the approaches
reviewed in this section. While this model does not exist in any local
school setting, nor perhaps should, it does include positions and Perspec-/
tives that are unique and potentially useful. Artistic approaches are of
interest primarily because they view teacher evaluation froth a set of
assumptions different from other methods, and look to disciplines and
applied fields not often viewed seriously by those involved in teacher
evaluation. As Sergiovanni (1982) suggests,
Artistic approaches to supervision and teacher evaluation steal from a belief
that despite the existence of scientific aspects of teaching, teaching is essentially
an art. Advocates of this view, for exampie, point out that there is often ,a
performance quality to teaching characterized by both skill and dra'C'd which liken
it to an aesthetic experience. F

Perhaps the best known advocate of teaChing as art is Elliot Eisner.

Eiser (1979) argues that teachers, like painters and dancers, make
judgments based-largely on qualities that unfold during the course of
teaching; that teaching is influenced by contingencies, that are unpredict-
able; and that the ends achieved in teaching are often created in prOcess.
With this sort of conception of teaching, schools, superviSors, and
teachers must accept a broader view of educational objectives and
Outcomes than is common under more traditional ways of looking at
teaching and supervising. Sergiovanni (1982) offers that artistic approach-
es to evaluation are useful because they are able to map out the
unpredictable nature of teaching and to give attention to unanticipated
meanings and outcomes discovered during the course of teaching. Implic-
it in this is the assumption that unanticipated objectives and outcomes are
legitimate and desirable. Obviously, many systems, supervisors,, and
even teachers do not accept this view, preferring to assume that good
teaching follows a certain logic driven by the stating and pursuing of
specific objectives.

Objectives and Outcomes of Artistic Models

It seems clear that advocates of artistic models recognize several
kinds of objectives and outcomes as legitimate,s(See Sergiovanni, 1982,
for a more detailed description of these objedtive'saiid outcomes.)

1. Behavioral objectives specify outcomes in the form of proposed

changes in learners. They are statements about what the learner is to be
like after completing a learning experience. They do not speak to what the
 A MODEL COMPLEMENT.iRY TO THE PURPOSE 31

teacher does, the methods used, or the nature of the educational

encounter. Such objectives are intended to define measurable outcomes
in order to facilitate direct evaluation.
Tinbleiii--:s:OlViiik"Objei:iiVeip....o-ie`' p-rO ig
and a set of criteria to be used in solving the problem. They provide more
freedom than behavioral objectives for students to determine what will be
learned.

3._ Expressive outcomes are the consequences of teaching activities

and learning encounters that are intentionally planned for students. Here
the teacher's concern is not with outcomes per se but with the learning
encounter. Sergiovanni (1982) uses as an example a teacher planning a
mock trial in which the students will participate. No specific ourOmes or
objectives are stated beforehand; rather, the teacher feels that this
activity is right for the moment and will produce a variety of benefits.
4. Ununti used outcomes are gains that are beneficial to students
as a result of n educational encounter, but which are not logically linked
to that enco nter. They are the side benefits of a teaching activity.

bers 3 and 4 above, outcomes replaced the use of objectives.

This further reinforces the difference between how traditional views of
teaching promote more scientific approaches to supervision while more
artistic views of teaching encourage more naturalistic approaches. Artis-
tic approaches to evaluation attempt to focus on the subtleties of
outcomes in classrooms and to provide a process for describing these
subtleties.
Sergiovanni (1982) indicates the following links between objectives
and outcomes as described above and supervision and evaluation strate-
gies:
1. When concerned with b_ ehav_ ioral objectives, the evaluation tem-
tory is specific.
2. When concerned with problemsolving objectives, the evaluation
territory is narrow.
3. When concerned with expressive outcomes, the evaluation terri-
tory is broad but known.
4. When concerned with unanticipated outcomes, the evaluation
territory is unknown.
Thus the more specific or narrow the objectives under consideration,
the more appropriate traditional supervision and evaluation strategies
become. The more expressive and unanticipated outcomes are viewed as
important, the more useful artistic or naturalistic strategies become.
 32 SUCCESSFUL TEACHER EVALUATION

The Intuitive Nature of Artistic Supervision

The actual practices that comprise artistic or aturalistic approaches
include basically classroom observation and tie reporting of those
obsrvationsi The key to these practices is not in Prescribing a specific set
of activities (6 be follbWed, 'Rich as theeqUence oeNerts reCommeiideff
in clinical -supervision. It is, rather, in the geileral appreciative and
intuitive nature of the observer and in the stye and quality of the written
description. Eisner (1982) describes this best: I
By artistic I mean using an approach to "supeivision that relies on tbe
sensitivity, perceptivity, and knowledge of the sdberviisor as a way of appreciating
the significant subtleties occurring in . the classreom, and that exploits/ the
expressive, poetic, and often metaphorical potential of language to convey' what
has been seen to teachers or to others whose, decisions effect what goes on in
schools.
Basic to this approach is not just the presence 'of the supervisor in the
classroom but the supervisor truly seeing theleaching. This takes two
forms. The first deals with sensing/what has unfolded over timethe
character of what has occurred, the words spoken, the pace and timing of
events, the quality of both student and teacher responses. PercePtions are
directed at appreciating the character and quality of the performance as a
whole and the various "parts" that comprise it.,
In addition, every teacher may be said to have a characteristic mode
of expression, which the first-rate supervisor should be able to recognize
in order to help the teacher move in the direction he or she is "by nature"
inclined. Teachers are differentiated by their style and by their particular
strengths.' Artistically oriented supervisors would recognize this style and
help the teacher exploit this strength (Eisner, 1982).
To develop the appropriate appreciation of the qualities described
above, the supervisor must have considerable exposure to the teaching
process. The typical one-shot, 30-minute classroom visit can never
provide the appropriate level of emersion in t4 classroom that is a
necessary-parrof-artistic-and-naturalistic-approaches-An-order-to-gain-a
reliable level of exposure to allow appreciation and_feeiing to grow, a
. supervisor needs to spend from 15 to 25 hOurs in a classroom over several
months. During this time the supervisor would focus particularly on the
expressive character of what the teacher and students were doing and the
messages contained in the explicit actions in which they_ were engaged.
The supervisor wthild attempt to understand the experiences that pupils
and teachers were having, and not simply describe or count the behaviors
they were displaying. This appreciative side of supervision is referred to
by Eisner as educational connoisseurship (Eisner, 1982, p. 62). However,
more than connoisseurship is required, in artistic modelsthe supervisor

44:1
 A MODEL COMPLEMENTARY TO THE PURPOSE 33

is also required to art wally construct the situation he or she experi-

ences. This part of art' is supervision Eisner calls educational criticism.
As he describes it:
By the term cri cism I mean rendering in artistic language what one has
experienced so th it is helpful to the teacher or to others whose views have a
bearing on the schools. I do not mean by criticism the negative appraisal of
some hing. I use the term as a kind of analogue to art criticism, film criticism,
c criticism, drama criticism. . . The critic's'functionand I would argue one
of the major functions of the supervisoris to help others appreciate what has
transpired. Supervisors can do this by first having developed a high level of
transpired.
educational connoisseurship since it is the process that provides the content for
criticism, and second, by being able to convey to others, often through expressive
or artistic use of language what has taken place (Eisner, 1982, p. 62).

Eisner offers the following excerpt from an educational Critique as an

illustration of written educational criticism by a classroom supervisor:.
The room invites me in. It is a large, extended room drawn at the waist: it was
once two single rooms that have come together to talk. Surely I could spend a
w le childhood here. A wealth of learning materials engulfs me, each piece
beck ing me to pick it up. The patchwork rug that hides the floor' is softand
fluffy an warm. Some desks have gathered together for serious business. Chairs
converse oss semicircular tables. At the bookself, dozens and dozens of books,
slouch arou I barely in rows, leaning on each other's shoulders. Children's
drawings line the walls.' What are those masses of shiny'objects growing from the
ceiling like silver stalactites in the secret corners of the room? I focus in on
thousands of tiny . . . beer can pull-tabs . . . crunched together, straining to pull
the roof in.
A massive wooden beehive called The Honeycomb, with geodesic cubicles in
which to hide yourself: A towering ten-foot dinosaur-made of wire and papier-
mache, splotched with paint . . . blue and red colors crawling .up its body. The
monster is smiling helplesslyis he not ? because a convoy of tiny people have
just been tickling him with their paintbrushes.
In another corner, there are several 'plants growing in small cups.. An
incubator with eggs. Over there a p/honograph and some records. A map on the
chalkboard locates the hills I just drove throughthe ones presided over by those
houses. Next to the map there are frozen smiles on faces captured within tiny
squares of paper. Strings connect the smiles with places on the map. This smile
lives there; that one here. But all of the smiles, I have come to learn, live inside
this room.
Mostly in this room there are letters and words. Lined up on the walls: Aa Bb"
Cc Dd Ee Ff. In combinations which have meaningat least for me: leave, would,
said. Blue next to a dab of blue paint. The words appear on the faces of the books
and gather together in great multitudes on their insides. Ori the 'map. On the
material that covers the couch. Soon in my eyes, even when I shut them. And
later they pd.') out of the smiles of the children and hang in the air. Caressing each
other in a low mumur, the-omnipresent words pervade the room.
Soon I am not alone. The other children are pouring through the door,
infusing the room with life, brimming wiith energy hankering for release. Mostly
fair-skinned, light-haired, blue-eyed, and all fresh ancr'ebullient, these are
34 SUCCESSFUL TEACHER EVALUATION

yesterday's Gerber babies. Lots of Erics and ChriSes and Heathers and Lisas.
Each seems to be drawn to his own corner of the room, his energy pulling him
toward a special task. One moves to the bookshelf and snatches up a book.
Several take themselves to the math table. Three crawl in the Honeycomb. One
tickles the dinosaur with a paint brush. Others string pull-tabs or watch a film
(Barone, 1979).
From this, the reader is able to glean a vivid image of the situation
and to infer some of the values it reflects. Detail is also provided about the
nature of the relationships, as well as the character of the tasks that are
used. This ability to see a situation is crucial to supervision. A major role
of a supervisor is.to enable people to see aspects of their situation that
they' a t 6 closely involved in to recognize.

Characteristics of Artistic Supervision

According to Eisner (1982, p. 66), an artistic approach to supervision
and evaluation characteristically:
I. Requires attention to the rhuted or expressive character of events, not
simply to their incidence or literal meaning.
2. Requires high levels of educational connoisseurship, the ability. to see
what is significant yet subtle.
3. -Appreciates the unique contributions of the teacher to the educational
development of the young, as Well as those contributions a teacher may have in
common with others.
4. Demands that attention' be. paid to the process of classroom life and that
this process be observed over extended periods of time so that the significance of
events can be placed in a temporal context.
5. Requires that rapport be established between supervisor and those super-
vised so that dialogue and a sense of trust can be established between the two.
6. Requires an ability to use' language in a way that exploits its potential to
make.public the expressive character of what has been serfN
7. Requires the ability to interpret the meaning of the events occurring to
those who experience them and to be able to appreciate their educational import.
8: Accepts the fact that the individual,supervisor with his or her strengths,
serit.vities, and experience is the major "instrument" through which the
7i:ducati nal situation is perceived-and its meaning construed.
Obv sly, the criticism of artistic or naturalistic models will usually
revolve aro nd the lack of precision by traditional standards that accom-
pan- activi ies relying on intuition and feeling. In one sense, however,
this is bo a strength and a weakness. It can be viewed as a weakness if,
as indicated earlier, . the supervisory. emphasis is based on a more
technical view-of teaching and if this is the only evaluation model applied.
On th other hand, if a more completeview of teaching and learning is
empha's.zed and naturalistic approaches are used as a part of the
superV ory process, then this model can add considerable strength.

4
 A MODEL COMPLEMENTARY TO:1-HE PURPOSE 35

Conceptually, the importance placed by artistic approaches on being

aware of the variety of outcomes that can be anticipated or unanticipated
in the classroom' is important- knowledge that can only enhance the
general superv4sory process. The emphasis,.on descriptive/analytic skills
in the recording and interpreting of classroom observatiOn also provides
considerable overlap for a number of prevalent evaluation practices.
However, from the perspective of its applicability to focal teacher
evaluation systems, the time and training required for the appropriate
involvement of the supervisor in the classroom and for the production of
the type of educational criticism needed to be worthwhile make artistic or
naturalistic models impractical. However, the concepts inherent io this
model make its appearance in this list necessary and useful.
These evaluation models are presented to give school districts a
sense of what options are available for consideration. Section II will deal
with those commonalities that address more specific activities or prac-
tices that seem to contribute to effective teacher evaluation systems.
Combining the information provided in sections I and II should allow
school districts to make logical and more knowledgeable decisions about
how to develop successful and effective teacher evaluation.

References
Acheson, K. A., and Gall, M. D. Techniques in the Clinical Supervision of Teachers.
New York: Longman, 1980.
Anderson, R. H., and Krajewski, R. Clinical Supervision: Special Methods for thc;
Supervisor of Teachers.. New York: Holt; Ilneha , and Winston, 1980. ,

Barone, T. "Of Scott and Lisa and Ot lends." In The Educational Imagination.
Edited by E.6Eisner. New York: Macm an, 1979.
Blumberg, A., and Amidon, E. "Teacher Perceptions of Supervisor-Teacher Interac-
tion." Administrators Notebook 14 (1965): 1-8.
Bolton, D. L. Selection and Evaluation of Teachers. Berkeley., Calif.: McCutchan,
1973.
Borich, G. D. The Appraisal of Teaching: Concepts and Process. Boston: Addison-
.Wesley, 1977.
Boyan, N. J., and topeland, W. D. "A Traicing Program for Supervisors: Anatomy of
an Educational Development." JoUrnal of Educa onal Research 68 (1974): 100-116.
Cogan, M. L. Clinical Supert;ision. Boston`: ighton-Mifflin, 1973.
Deno, S. L., and Mirkin, P. K. Data-B sed r am Modifications: A Manual.
Reston, Va.: Council for Exeeptionaf Children, 1977.
Eisner, Elliot. The Educational Imagination. New Y or : Macmillan, 1979.
Eisner, Elliot. An Artistic Approach to Supervision. In Supervision of Teaching:
1982 ASCD YeUrbook. Edited by T. Sergiovanni. Alexandria, a.: Association for Supervi-
sion and Curriculum Development, 1982.
Feldvebel, A. M. "Teacher Evaluation: Ingredients of t Credible Model. The
Clearing House 53 (1980): 416-420.
Glass, G. V. "Teacher Effectiveness." In Evaluating Educational Performance. Edit-
ed by H. Walberg. Berkeley, Calif.; McCutchan, 1974.
Goldhammer, R. Clinical Supervision. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. 1969.
36 SUCCESSFUL TEACHER EVALUATION

Hyman, R. T. School Administrator's Handbook of Teacher Supervision and Evalua-

tion Methods. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1975.
lwanicki, E. F. "Contract Plans." In Handbook of Teacher Evaluation. Edited by J.
Millman. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1981.
Jones, P. G. "Here's How Mazoo Rates Teachers on Performance." American School
Board Journal 161 (1974): 43. ,
and Alkin;N: C. "EN4duatiiig TeaChers-fOr OutcOme Accountability."
Evaluation Comment 3 (1972): 5-11.
Kult, L. E. "Alternatives to Teacher Evaluation." Clearing House 47 (1973): 277-279.
Linn, R. L., and Slinde, J. A. "The 'Determination of the Significance of Change
Between Pre and Post Testing Periods." Review of Educational Research 47 (1977): 121-
150.
McGrew, J. "Management by Objectives: Accountability by Contract." Bulletin of the
Wisconsin Association of Secondary School Principals 10 (1971): 17-21.
Morrison, A., and McIntyre, D. Teachers and Teaching. Baltimore: Penguin, 1969.
Millman, J. "Student Achievement ,as a Measure of Teacher Competence." In
Handbook of Teacher Evaluation. Edited by J. Millman. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage,
Publications, 1981.
Oldham, N. Evaluating Teachers for Professional Growth, Current Trends in School
Policies and Programs. Arlington, Va.: National School Public Relations Association, 1974.
Popham, W. J. Evaluating Instruction. Englewood Cliffs, N.j.:'Prentice-Hall, 1973.
Popham, W. J. Criterion-Referenced Measurement. EnglewOod Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-
Hall, 1978.
Popham, W. J. "Teacher Evaluation: The Wrong Tests for the Right Job." Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Los
Angeles; 1981.
Sax, G. "Standardized Achievement Tests." In Evaluation in Education. Edited by
W. J. Popham. Berkeley, Calif.: McCutchan, 1974..
Sergiovanni, T. J. "Clinical Supervision and Teacher Evaluation." Urbana: University-
of Illinois, 1982.
Shinn, J. L. "Teacher Perceptions of Ideal and Actual Supervisory Procedures Used by
California Elementary 'Principals." Doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, 1976.
Soar, R.. S. "Teacher Assessment Problems and Possibilities." Journal of Teacher
Education 24 (1973): 205-212.
Wagoner, R. J., and O'Hanlqn, J. P. "Teacher Attitude Toward Evaluation." Journal
of Teacher Education 19 (1968): 471-475.
Wolf, R. L. "How TeachersiF-el Toward Evaluation." In School Evaluation: The
Politics and Process. Edited by E. R. House: Berkeley, Calif.: McCutchan. 1973.
Zelenak, M. J., and Snider, B. C.."Teachers Don't Resent Evaluation If It's for the
Improvement of InstructionY Phi Delta Kappa?, 55 (1974): 348-349.

4 '2'
 Separation 'of
inistrative and
Supervisory ehavior
t

hile it may seem-idealistic, separating administrative from supervi-

sory behavior is an important part of establishing an effective
luatitp system. At this point in the discussion of commonalities, it is
alrea y/clear that an instructional improvement orientation and a set of
procedures reflecting ,that view are necessary ingredients for a successful,
evaluation system.,, In addition, a perspective that views evaluation
realistically seems paramount. This is never more true than in dealing
with this commonality.
Traditionally, teachers have argued that the concept of evaluation is
perfectly acceptable. Most teachers welcome the opportunity to discuss
their work with other adults. Their primary objections concern the way
evaluation is done, not whether it should be done (Zelenak and Snider,
1974). The problem of establishing an appropriate relationship between
the supervisor and the teacher within the evaluation system is difficult and
often exacerbated by traditional supervisory training. Most often, the
superlisory act, as part of an instructional improvement system, is
presented in the literature as a cooperative, nonthreatening experience
occurring between two consenting adults. Suggestions and recommenda-
tions for such things as conferencing styles, goal establistment teaching
behaviors, data collection methods, levels of involvema t nd future
contacts are all built around the.concept of a mutually beneficial, collegial
( elationship. In reality, however,`over 80 percent of instructional supervi-
sion is conducted by line administrators who observe and talk with
teachers because their teacher evaluation systems require them to do so.
In practice, then, we have line administrators whiz; visit classrooms a
minimum number (one to three) of times each school year and then
present teachers with feedback in the form of the district's evaluation
instrument. The administratorgenerally untrained in observatio skills,

37

40
38 SUCCESSFUL TEACHER EVALUATION

instructional technique, or instructional supervision strategiestries to

conduct a formative evaluation to gather data that can be use in making
summative ratings. Those ratings are based on criteria li td on a
districtwide evaluation instrumentcriteria that are primarily administra-
tive-itynature and have little to-do with-the actual classroom observation.
This type of situation places both the supervisor and teacher in\ Koles
that inhibit their ability to operate in an open, cooperative manner. This
does not need to be a natural outcome of a teacher evaluation syste
Effective systems address the problem realistically by establishing proce-\
dures and instruments that allow the teacher and supervisor to work from _
a less administratively oriented framework. Practically, line administra-
tors can never totally remove their administrative hat and become peers
of teachers. However, it does seem that administrators can tilt that hat
and, under certain guid lines, act more as instructional supervisors than
building administrators.
Teachers generally in icate that they do not mind administrators
acting like administrators. They recogni6 that certain bureaucratic rules
and administrative behavior are natural in an educational organization.
Teachers expect to have to conform to certain standards of behavior,
especially as they relate to the efficient and harmonious functioning of the
organization. But the majority of,teachers believe that when administra-
tors walk into the cias'irooth, theY. are entering territory in which the
teacher knows just as inuch, if not more, about how to perform effective-
ly. Bolton (1973) found that administrators also felt considerable discom
fort at having to come into a teacher's classroom for observation and then
being required by the evaluation system to comment on the quality of
what was occurring. Even if it is done artificially, an evaluation system
must try to separate administrator as administrator and administrator as
supervisor.
Many tough, accountability oriented boards of education have been
sold on the concept by being convinced that all teachers are monitored
continuously. Every district should have a set of minimum performance
standards to 'which everyone is expedta to adhere. These minimum
standards tend to be primarily administrative or personal in nature
(adherence to school policy, appearance, professional attitude, personal
relationships with staff and students, parent and community relationships,
and so on). No administrator needs to be trained in how to monitor the
performance of teachers against these standards. They are continuously
assessed by the informal and unobtrusive nature of administrators and
teachers working, living, and interacting in the same environment.'
No special set of procedures or instruments needs to be established ,

to deal with these issues. As violations occur in these areas they are dealt
with as they should be, when or immediately after they happen. If a
 a
SEPARATION 01: ADMINISTRATIVE AND SUPERVISORY. BEHAVIOR 39

teacher shows up late for work three days in a row, it is likely that the
principal will be one of the first to know. It is unlikely that a principal will
wait until an evaluation conference following an observation to encourage
the teacher to5tart.showingup on time, In most cases the principal would
talk with the teacher immediately in order to remind him or her of starting
times and "the procedure for calling in late. The situation is dealt with as
soon as possible after it occurs. Teachers accept these occurrences
because they are handled in an appropriate manner and at the appropriate
time. There is no need to store up evaluation comments on administrative
criteria-for inclusion-in-conferences-following observatiiirg:
Many districts are handling this separation by actually setting up two,
different parts to their evaluation procedure. The first part deals with the
continuous monitoring of performance as guided by a clear and visible set
of minimum expectations. Most often this takes the form of a general job
description that .is included as a regular part of the evaluation system.
Following, is an eexample of how this typically looks:
A. The Monticello appraisal system will be made up of two related but separate
parts:

I. An appraisal of minimum performance expectations

An integral part of both tenured and non-tenured staff's employment in
the school district is an on-going and continuous appraisal by their
supervisor of the staff members ability to meet minimum performance
expectations. As appropriate to the various jobs performed by staff in the
Monticello School District, the minimum performance expectations in-
clude, but are not necessarily limited to, the followhig:
Meets and instructs the student(s) in the locations and at the time
designated.
Develops and maintains a classroom environment conducive to effec-
tive learning within the limits of the resources provided by the district.
Prepares for classes assigned, and shows written evidence of prepara-
tion upon request of the immediate supervisor.
Encourages students to set and maintain high standards of classroom
behavior.
Provides an effective program of instructio:i in accordance with the
adopted curriculum .and ieonsistent with rmysicat limitations of the
location provided and the needs and capabilities of the individuals or
student groups involved to include:
a. Review of previously taught material
b. Presentation of new material
c. Evaluation of student progress on a regular basis
d. Us of a variety of teaching materials and techniques
--IS ves to implement by instruction and action, by one's own example,
thee'' district's Philosophy of education and instru iional goals and objec-
tives. .

Takes all necessary and reasonable precaution to protect students,

equipment, materials, and facilities.
 40 SUCCESSFUL TEACHER EVALUATION

Maintains records as required by law, district policy, and administra-

tive regulations.
Assists in upholding and enforcing school rules and administrative
regulations.
Makes provision for being available to students and parents for
education, related purposes outside the' instructi?nal day when necessary
and under reasonable terms: '
Attends and participates in faculty and department meetings.
Cooperates with other members of the staff in_planning,instructional
----,goalsobjectivesTaicd
Assists in the selection of books; equipmeht, and other instructidhal
materials.
qq Works to establish and maintain open lines of communication with
both the academic and
.

behavioral progress of students ^

Establishes and maintains *fa* rative professional relations with
others. ..) --

Performs related duties ag'asSigne by the administration in accord-

ance with the district policies and prac *ces.

AThe appraisal t of these minimum expectations will typically be made

through a-supervisor's daily contact and interaction with the staff member.
When problems occur in these areas, the staff member will be contacted by
the supervisor lo remind them of minimum expectations in the problem
area and to provide whatever assistance might be helpful. If the problem
continues or reoccurs, the supervisor, in his or her discretion, may prepare
and issue to the staff member a written notice setting forth the specific
deficiency with a copy to the teacher's file. In the unlikely event that
serious, intentional or flagrant violations of the minimum performance
expectations occur, the supervisor, ,at his or her discretion, may put aside
this recommended procedure and make a direct recommendation for more
formal' and immediate action (Monticello Teacher Evaluation System,
1982).

As can be seen from this job description, a number of areas are

covered, including administrative, personal, and general instructional
concerns. .The 'criteria are not accompanied by arty_rating_scales-or
-required narrative comment. They are present as a clear and visible
reminder of the minimum expectations for- perfoitnance for- certified-
employees in that district. Attention is brought to items from this
description only as it is appropriate. There,is no required write-up on
these areas at the end of the year. The attitude is held by the district and
reflected in the procedural 'statements that the great majority of teachers
do their jobs and there is no need to waste the supervisor's or the
teacher's time on these areas unless it is appropriate. A procedure is
clearly laid out for handling those infrequent occurrences when a problem
arises, and it isieft_at_thatAn_effect,no_news-is-good-nlyvs,--There-is-no----
neR1 for supervisors to have to write an evaluative statement on every
 SEPARATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND SUPERVISORY BEHAVIOR 41

teacher's performance in these areas. With rare exceptions, people meet

these standards. This type of procedure eliminates the need for supervi-
sors to produce a series of written comments about the adherence to
administrative criteria.
Typically, then, in an evaluation system reflecting this commonality,
a second part would lay out procedures for how, the_supervisor, and the
_teacher-will-work-togeth-elThii-direct classroom teaching activities. This
type of approach allows supervisors and teachers to focus their time
together on instructional matters that can rely on techniques and activities
that are primarily formative in nature and that promote a more collegial
supervisory relationship.
The major concepts of this section should now be clear. For an
evaluation system to have the best chance to be successful, it must reflect
a consistent attitude about what an evaluation system can be and can do
and what its major purpose should be. In successful evaluation systems
thlit attitude reflects a commitment to improving the quality and effective-
ness of classroom instruction. The system and its parts are then devel-
oped in such a way as to clearly complement the stated purpose. Since a ,
positive attitude on the part of teachers and supervisors plays such a
significant role in shaping effective systems, the next step in developing
evaluation procedures must be to provide ways for administrators to work
with teachers in the most nonthreatening envirsrnmenLpossible,-Attitude----
is paramount. "teachers, particularly tenured teachers, change their
behavior in classrooms only when they want to do so. Theymust be
partners in the system.
Section II examines commonalities dealing with the more specific
procedures Ond processes that seem'; to characterize successful systems.

References
Bolton. D. L. Selection and Evaluation of Teachers. Berkeley, Calif.: McCutchan,
1973.
Monticello Teacher Appraisal Instrument: Part I of the Monticello Teacher Appraisal
System, Monticello, Illinois v 1982.
Zelenak. M.,J., and Snider, B. C. "Teachers Don't Resent EvaluationIf It's for the
v., Improvement of Instruction." Phi Delta Kappan 55 (1974): 348,349.

t.
 -mp.p.oQ
PITATWV--
MVZtlgi4Ve-tfAP,KIMUNNSArrPOPZraWflttMif'lO-Atoifttit

41
 Goal Setting as the
1VWor Activity of
Evaluation

rip here are a variety of ways in which the general concept of goal setting
IL has been used as the basic activity of an evaluation system. The three
methods that are practiced most frequently and seem to have the most
relevance for local school systems are: (1) the Management by Objectives
Approach (MBO), (2) the Performance Objectives Approach (POA), and
(3) the Practidal Goal-Setting Approach (PGSA). All three share the belief
that "successful teaching and supervising does not occur by accident.
Competent persons plan, implement those plans, and evaluate the results
of those plans. This is the essence of goal-setting models" (Redfern,
1980).
Each of the three approaches has been implemented in local school
districts. The selection of one approach rather than another should be
made, as suggested by Commonalities 1 and 2, on the basis of what the
district wants its evaluation system to be and to do. The degree to which
the three approaches will differ revolves around the nature of the goals,
the flexibility of the teachers in setting individual goals, the concept of
measurability applied to the goals, and the practicability of implementa-
tion. Consequently, if a district chooses to use the concept of goal setting
as its.. basic model, then the selection or adaptation of one of these
approaches should be based on the fundamental attitude towards evalua-
tion that is espoused or is being encouraged.
Following is a brief description of each of the approaches. The'
references used in these descriptions should be reviewed if more detailed
'information is needed.
4, 44
 GOAL SETTING AS THE MAJOR ACTIVITY 45

The Management by Objectives Approach

Management by Objectives (MBO) is an administrative process in
which all the efforts of the school system are organized to achieve specific
results by a predetermined date. In turn, those specific results must
contribute to achieving the clearly stated long-range objectives of the-
school system. Odiorne (1965) offers an excellent general description of
MBO:
It is a process whereby the superior and subordinate managers of an
organization jointly identify its common goals. define each individual's major
areas of responsibility in terms of the results expected of him, and use these
guides for operating the unit and assessing the contribution of each of its
members.
Thus, the goals to be achieved dictate almost everything that occurs
in the system. The educational goals, plans, policies, organizational
structure, and, in the case of personnel evaluation, the goals of the
individual members, are related to and determined by the goals and
objectives of the organization (Lewis, 1973).
By design, MBO has a strong accountability orientation. Individuals
are accountable for their contribution to certain predetermined outcomes.
Thus, the MBO process would be most appropriate for 'those school
systems who want an evaluation system that emphasizes accountability,
Once a district is willing to accept the basic assumptions of MBO and
has committed itself to designing its teacher evaluation system around
these assumptions, it is necessary to follow a standard sequence of
events. Lewis (1973) suggests that since the establishment of objectives is
a key to developing an effective MBO program, an appropriate definition
of an objective -must be developed and applied throughout the school
system. He defined an MBO objective as a statement of a personal
commitment to a specific accomplishment or result that is: (1) oriented
towards fulfilling the mission of the school system; (2) stated in observ-
able terms; (3) valuable for achieving the purposes of the school system;
(4) worthwhile for improving performance; (5) beneficial in monitoring
performance; and (6) time-phased for achieving results.
Figure 5 (p. 46) indicates the sequential steps for developing appro-
priate objectives according to the tenets of MBO (Lewis, 1973, p. 58-59).

The benefits of setting objectives come not just from the act itself,
but also from the activities that must occur to ensure achievement. Killian
(1968) offers the following guidelines as schools move from setting
objectives to attaining objectives:
1. Objectives should be clearly stated, in writing.
2. Objectives that require supporting information should be accurately and

5t;
 Figure 5,

The Sequential Steps for Setting Objectives in an MBO System

Initiate

. Needs Assessment

Study
,

.
I

k
,..1
Superintendent discusses needs assessment study with Board of Education to get direction\

and guidance for setting proposed longrange objectives.

.
.

................. a
. .

Board of Education reviews and discusses Superintendent's proposed objectives. New

objectives may be added. Proposed objectives may be modified, revised or deleted. All
\..,
objectives are mutually agreed to. .

Superintendent makes presentation to staff: Where are we presently? If le do nothing

differently, where will we be in 3 or 5 years? Is that satisfactory? Where would we like to be?

What would we like to be? What must we do to get there?

.................._.......................
. .

,
.

Superintendent schedules meeting with individual staff members to discuss objectives.

 Curriculum

and

Instruction
1101impm...014.1

Central staff members prepare a draft statement of their objectives: professional skill, problemsolving,
innovative and personal development. These objectives are discussed with the.superintendent and may be

revise, modified or added to, and are mutually agreed to,

Elementary Secondary

Principals principals

Each principal prepares a draft of his or her proposed objeciives' and discusses them with
immediate supervisors. The draft may be modified and revised, New objectives may be added,
All objectives are mutually agreed to.

Assistants Assistants

Each assistant principal repeats this process with each teacher to discuss individual objeCtivet:

MIMII.mrmnr.rmrnwormorRndrwrmimrra

STAFF

58
4K SUCCESSFUL TEACHER EVALUATION

fully explained to each employee who has a responsibility for achieving

them.
3. All administrators and teachers of the school district should understand
how they and their area of responsibility fit into the total objectives of the
school system.
4. Each educator should be able to determine how his or her personal goals
can be satisfied through the achievement of the school organizational
goals.
5. Motivation must be applied and maintained at all times to ensure that
maximum effort is being exerted tcbachieve the school system's gains.
6. Administration's concern must be given to timing; logistics; flexible,
adequate cheekpointS; and the adjustment of the action plan in puruit of
the ultimate objectives.
7. Educational goals should be broken down into sub-goals and sub-sub-
goals until they have meaning to all personnel.
8. Allowances must be made for revising, modifying, or even discarding
goals if circumstances change after the goal has been set.
9. Comprehensive plans must be set in motion and must be redefined and
modified until the second system's goal and the personal goals of each
educator have reached an effective balance.

Clearly, the major emphasis of MBO is on production rather than

procedures. As Bolton (1980) suggests, this is true in the sense that major
decisions in planning are related to desired outcomes and how measure-
ment will occur in relation to these outcomes. Although procedures are
discussed (see Richie, 1976, for information on performance "contract"
writing), the evaluator's major function is, not to tell the specialist what
procedures to use but rather to make sure that the outcomes are
compatible with school district goals and that the procedures will not
undermine organizational goals.
From the perspective of our discussion of various goal-setting
models, MBO is, potentially the most restrictive of our examples. The
nature of the goals and the.teacher's flexibility in setting them are limited
. by the narrowed range of acceptable objectives growing out of the
district's goals and the supervisOr's goals. The emphasis on measurable
and observable objectives would also seem to limit both the range of the
objectives and the type of measurement activities available. One of 'the
most frequent arguments against MBO has been the difficulty of imple-
mentation. MBO requires that considerable training be provided and that
adequate amounts of time be available for staff to establish Objectives..
McGrew (1971) indicates that a supervisor should allow approximately 8
to 12 hours for the pre-confeOcing'leading up to establishing an MBO
contract. Thus, while MBO clearly contains the positive elpments of goal
setting and can provide a very useful planning model, the techniques and
procedures inherent in MBO do not transfer easily into a practical teacher
evaluation system.
a.'
59
 GOAL SETTING AS THE MAJOR ACTIVITY 49

The Performance Objectives Approach

While there are a number of recommended evaluation programs that
"fit this approach (Armstrong, 1973; Iwanicki, 1981), the originator and
driving force behind it is George Redfern. The major push for the use of
goal setting in teacher evaluation came in Redfern's classic book, How to
Appraise Teaching Performance (1963). His model, which has been
updated and refined, serves as the basis for this description of the
performance objectives approach.
Redfern (1980, p. 1) indicates that the most useful personnel evalua-
tion program will:
1. Engender cooperative.efforts between the person being appraised and the
one(s) doing the evaluating
2. Foster good communication between the parties
3. Put premiums on ntifying what needs improving, planning how to
achieve the needed impr vements, and determining how the results will be
evaluated
4. Promote professional growth and development of the person being ap-
. praised
5. Stress the importance of evaluators becoming insightful and skilled in the
art of evaluating
6. Make a commitment to the proposition that the bottom line is greater
effectiveness in the teaching/learning/supervising process.

Figure 6. The. Performance Ob ectives Model

Responsibilitr Criteria
(Duties/responsibilities)

5. 1.
Discuss Identify
Results Needs

2.
4. Set Objectives
As and
Action Plans

3.
Carry out
Action Plans

u
50 SUCCESSFUL TEACHER EVALUATION

The performance objectives approach is based on the concept that

evaluatee and evaluator jointly establish work objectives, agree on wc.11-
established action plans, and measure accomplishment in terms of
outcomes and results. Figure 6 provides a picture of the performance
,objectives cycle as envisioned by Redfern (Redfern, 1980, p. 14).

Steps of the Performance Objectives Model

The POA is seen as a cyclical process that goes on continuously as
Step 5, the discussion of results, becomes Step 1, the identification of
needs. A closer look at each of the steps in the cycle provides a good
perspective on the basic structure of goalsetting models..
Responsibility criteria. According to POA advocates, a prerequisite
for any good evaluation must be a clear and compreheniskre definition of
the duties and responsibilities of each position. It is Vcessary that the
expectations for all positions be spelled out in detail. Figure 7 provides an
example of a set of responsibility criteria for a classroom teacher's
position that is espoused by Redfern (1980, p. 21-23).

Figure 7. Responsibility Criteria (Teachers)

100Planning and Organizing
101Makes short- and long-range plans
102Correlates individual objectives with school and district goals
in planning
103 Adheres to principles of growth and development
104Plans appropriate sequence of skills
105Has an ongoing program to diagnose and assess needs and progress of
individual students
106Plans for individual differences
107 Involves students in planning
108Encourages student leadership and participation in decision making
109Adjusts physical environment to accommodate variety in learning situations
110Cooperates with others in planning daily schedule
111Manages time efficiently
112Organizes well
113Keeps accurate records
114Is attentive to conditions-that affect the health and 'safety of students
115Organizes work so that substitute teachers can.function with a minimum of
loss of learning for sttl
116Other (specify)

200 Motivating Learners

201Motivates by positive feedback, praise, and rewards
202Is resporiive to the needs, aptitudes, talents, and learning styles of students
203Develops learning activities that are challenging to students
204Provides opportunities for student expression in music, drama, and other
artistic forms

U1
 GOAL SETTING AS THE MAJOR ACTIVITY 51

205Stimulates students to participate in class discussions and activities

206Generates a sense of enthusiasm among students
207Helps students experience social and intellectual satisfactions
208Relates achievement in school to life outside it
209Other (specify)

:00Relationships with .Students

\\ 301Collects pertinent information about students and maintains the confidentiality
of it
302Shows concern for students as individuals
'303 -Counsels-Students indjiiduaffrind in groups
304 tes_anferv-fiekmosphere, enabling students to express their opinions
305:=F-iet_students'develop positive self - concept
306 Eno urages students to define realistic goals for themselves
307Is sensitive to the career needk_of students
308Shows concern for students whollave personal problems or handicaps
309Encourages students to strive for high achievement
310Enables students to make worthwhile contributions in class
311Utilizes the resources of pupil-personnel-staff services
312Makes self available for conferences with students
313Guides students in the observance of democratic principles
314Promotes positive behavior patterns for students
315Manages behavior problems on an individual basis
316 Has good rapport with students . A

317Treats causes, rather than symptoms, of situations that produce discord

318Is consistent and fair in dealing with students
319Shows warmth and understanding in dealing with students
320Shares concerns regarding students with colleagues and parents
321-0ther (specify)

400Utilizing Resources
401Is aware of available resources
402Uses a variety of available resources
. 403Uses physical school environment (both building and grounds) to support
learning activities
404Adapts available resources to individual needs of students
405Uses the services of specialists available in the selection and utilization of
resources
406Uses equipment and materials efficiently
407Other (specify)

500Instructional Techniques
501--Encourages students to think
502Uses a variety of teaching techniques
503Uses a variety of instructional materials
504Varies opportunity for creative expression
505Helps students apply their experiences to life situations
506Conducts stimulating class discussions
507Encourages the development of individual interests and creative activities
508Uses appropriate evaluative techniques to measure student progress
509Assists students to evaluate their own growth and development
510Provides opportunities for students to develop leadership qualities
511Enables students to share in carrying out classroom activities
512 Communicates, with students individually and/or in groups
513Shows flexibility in carrying out teaching activities
52 SUCCESSFUL TEACHER EVALUATION

514Creates an atmosphere of mutual respect between students and teacher

515Enables students to learn how to work independently and in groups
516Promotes group cohesiveness
517Uses feedback information skillfully
518Monitors the progress of students
519Other (specify)

600 Professional Growth and Responsibility

601Participates in the developm nt and implementation of school policies and
procedures
602Maintains good rapport with colleagues
603Keeps self up to date in areas of specialization
604Takes advantage of inservice education opportunities
605Participates in school and systemwide committees
606Assists in out -of -class activities, including student ma agement
607Shares ideas, materials, and methods with profession 'colleagues
608Shares in the evaluation of the effertivenes,s of educational Oograms
609Consults with previous teachers, team leaders, department heads, consultants,
and specialists to imprOve the teaching-learning process
610Interprets school programs to parents and to the community as opportunities
occur
611Other (specify)
700Relationships, with Parents
701Gets parents to assist with school activities
702Encourages parents to visit the classes of the children
703Conducts constructive parent conferences
704Interprets learning programs to parents
705Stresses a positive approach in parent relations
706Maintains confidentiality in relations with parents
707Other (specify)

Identify needs. Using the responsibility criteria, the teacher and the
supervisor cooperatively identify the status of the teacher's current
performance (Redfern, 1980, p. 24). The process of identification and
discussion is used to determine the number and the nature of objectives or
"targets" to be established (Redfern, 1963).

Set Objectives and Action Plans. The objectives and the action plans
are used as the means to achieve desired outcomes (meet the "needs"
identified in the previous step) (Redfern, 1980, p. 24-28). At the time the
performance objectives are developed and agreed upon, it is necessary to
also discuss and agree on the actions and the efforts to be taken to attain
the objectives. It is advisable to have some form on which each objective
and the agreed upon action plan can be written so that both teacher and
supervisor understand what is to be done, the outcome desired, and the
method of measurement that will' be used to determine whether the
objective has been attained. Figure 8 is an example of such a form.

63
 GOAL SETTING AS THE MAJOR ACTIVITY 53

Figure 8. A Form for Listing a Performance Objective and its Action Plan

FORM C (Separate Form C for Teacher

each objective) OBJECTIVE/ACTION PLAN Adm./Supv

Evaluatee: Position

Evaluator: Position

School Year: Date.

Number of Descriptor.
Objective: Be explicit. State desired outcome and method of measuring results.

Action Plan: State steps or activities that will be conducted to achieve 'the objective.
- Also indicate approxiMate date when each. will be completed.

ASSESSMENT OF RESULTS: (To be completed by Evaluatee and reviewed by Evaluator.)

CheckObjective was: Reviewed by Evaluator:

Fully Achieved. Concur with Evaluatee's Assessment
Partially Achieved (*) Don't concur (1
Not Achieved (1

Explanations required; use separate sheet

Note: Attach Form Cs to Summative Evaluation Report (Form D). COPIES: Original to
Evaluatee; Copy to Evaluator.
54 SUCCESSFUL TEACHER EVALUATION

Carry Out Action Plans. 'The plan of action is composed of those

activities that the teacher and the supervisor have decided are the most
appropriate for meeting the objective (Redfern, 1980, p. 29). It is assumed
that the performance targets have been carefully established and that both
parties understand their roles and responsibilities in trying to accomplish
the target. With proper planning, the teacher should be able to proceed
independently during the year.

Monitoring Procedures. Once the details of the plan Of action are

understood and agreed upon, the process of implementation should get
under way (Redfern, 1981, p. 30). Basic to the plan of action is the
monitoring of the teacher's performance, The monitoring process is most
helpful when very precise performance objectives have been developed
and have the capability of reasonable quantitative measurement, which
makes monitoring much more relevant. Monitoring techniques are de-
signed primarily to collect relevant data without making assessments as to
the quality of performance.

Assess Results. Evaluation is focused primarily on the extent to

which the performance objectives have been achieved (Redfern, 1980, p.
32-35). This does not preclude, however, the assessment of overall
accomplishment. The teacher and the supervisor must understand the
basis for assessment. The mechanics of the evaluation should be clearly
stated. All evaluation forms should be understandable. The timetable
should be known by all. Redfe- recommended form for listing the
objectives and the action plans )1 l re 8) has a piaci& at the bottom for
indicating the results of the as c s, rent of the performance objective.
There is space for both the teacher and the evaluator to give their
assessments. Thus both teacher and evaluator participate in determining
the success of the performance objectives. In addition to this assessment,
it is necessary to assess overall performance and to 'record the assess-
ments on a Summative Evaluation Report. Figure 9 is an example taken
from Redfern (1980, p. 35). These assessments are made by the supervisor
without the involvement of the teacher. If they are to be of most use, the
supervisor needs to explain all less-than-satisfactory ratings: Indications
of personnel actions called for as a result of the assessments can also be
indicated in the,comments section. Thus, while the monitoring activities
described in the previous section "are designed to gather formative
evaluation data for use with the teacher, both parties must understand
that a final summative evaluation will be made and that all data relevant to
the teacher's overall performance can' and will be used to make the final
ratings.

65
 GOAL SETTING AS THE MAJOR ACTIVITY 55

Figure 9. A Sample of a Summative Evaluation Report

FORM D. CHECK:
SUMMATIVE EVALUATION REPORT Teacher
Admins.
Evaluatee Position
Evaluator Position
School Year

ASSESSMENT OF OVERALL PERFORMANCE (Only Evaluator assesses overall performance.)

ASSESSMENT KEY: EE = Exceptionally Effective, with commendation; E = Effective;
NS = Needs Strengthening; U = Unsatisfactory. (The latter two ratings require explanation in
COMMENTS section.)

FOR TEACHERS: . ASSESSMENT

100Planning and Organizing
200Motivating Learners
300Relationships with,Students
400Utilizing Resources',
500InstroJctional Techniques
600Professional Growth and Responsibility
700Relationships with Parents

FOR ADMINISTRATORS: ASSESSMENT

100Organization and Administration
200Communications Management
3c10Personnel Mariagement
400Management of Students
500Management of Instruction
600Management of Services ,
700Management of Facilities
800Financial/Business Management
900Professional Competencies and Improvement

COMMENTS:
(If more space is needed, use reverse side)
1.7 .

SIGNATURES:
Evaluatee Date

Evaluator Date
(Signatures do not necessarily imply agreement, only that process was completed.) COPIES:
OriginalCentral Office; Copy for Evaluatee and Copy for Evaluator.

6G
56 SUCCESSFUL TEACHER EVALUATION

Discuss Results. Most supervisors feel that talking with the teacher
about job performance is perhaps the most important part of the entire
process (Redfern, 1980, p. 34-39). Preparation for a conference is
absolutely necessary. It need not be difficult or time-consuming, provid-
ing the supervisor has done a good job throughout the year of collecting as
much performance data as possible, making sure adequate help was
provided, and keeping adequate records of all contacts. The conference
can include such things as:
Discussion of long- and short-range goals and objectives
Recognition of good work
Mutual exchanges of suggestions for improvement
Selection of top priority job tasks or targets
Clarification of the responsibilities "of both parties
Correction of misinformation and misunderstanding
A myriad of other topics that may seem important.
The final conference of the evaluation activity will likely yield some
ideas for further action, and some follow-up will be required. In jnany
cases this final discussion can serve as the pre-conference for the next
evaluation cycle in that needs are identified and performance objectives
and action plans are set. Thus the cycle and continuous nature of
evaluation become a regular part of the process.

Advantages and Disadvantages of POA

POA puts a much greater emphasis on instructional improvement and
the process of instruction than does MBO. Even though MBO disciples
argue that the improvement of instructja is their primary foCus, the
fundamental beliefs, activities, and procedures of POA seem much more
compatible with the concept of instructional improvement.
Still, there are some aspects of POA that detract from its complete
application in local settings. The insistence on the established perform-
ance objectives having to come from the list of responsibility criteria (job
description) prevents the teacher and the supervisor from having the full
flexibility that allows them to truly address unique teacher needs.
Anything -that creates a delimiting influence on the supervisor-teacher
relationship would seem to be noncomplementary to improved instruc-
tion. While it is obviously necessary to expect teachers to address
important concerns as they work on their performance within an evalua-
tion/supervision system, stating parameters for goal setting implies a
significant lack of trust in the ability and willingness of the supervisor and
teacher to set relevant and important goals. This lack of trust can
permeate a system and lead to poor attitudes toward the entire evaluation

6 "'
 GOAL SIATING AS THE MAJOR ACTIVITY 57

process. The importake of teacher and supervisor attitude in the

development of effective evaluation syStems has already been clearly
documeitted.
The form that Redfern recommends for the summative rating of
overall performance seems an unnecessary and noncomplementary re-
quirement (see Figure 10). The concept of a summative evaluation is not
the issue herezas much as how it is presented. This form, as well as similar
ones used in POA systems, is just a sophisticated version of a rating scale.
As discuss d under Commonality I, this seems like a totally unnecessary
requirement to force on supervisors. The task of building a supportive,
collegial relationship between teachers and supervisors is difficult enough
without forcing supervisors to make rating judgments on general criteria
that are virtually never used. The discussion of how supervisor and
administrator' behavior might be separated, which is presented under
Commonality 2, seems to offer a much more practical and realistic way of
dealing with overall performance assessment.
While there is less emphasis on the use of empirical or traditional
n4asurement techniques in assessing the attainment of the performance
objectives in POA systems than in MBO systems, there is still an implicit
ass mption that typical measurable objectives are required. The argu-
ts for and against the use of specific behavioral objectives in looking
at otlyteacher-apd-sttldentbehavior.are-welIdOcuinehted:-(See'POPhan,
1 71, and Millman, 1981, for supporting arguments for behavioral objec-
t ves; see Glass, 1974, for an example of tVarguments against reliance on
1:4 avioral objectives.) Regardless of which side of ,this argument one
acc s, experience suggests that in the\.realw6rld of teacher evaluation,
emp sis on specific and traditionally measurable objectives has/led to
the velopment of countless i rivrie-and irrelevant objectives by teachers.
In der to meet the standards of acceptability for, goals in most POA and
0 systems, teachers and supervisojs end up setting mundane, easily
countable, easily reached goals that hale virtually no impact on instruc-
tional improvement. Nothing has contributed more to the deterioration of
goal-setting systems than the setting of lowquality goats that ultimately
erode the credibility of the entire process.
It has long been a standing joke in many districts that use goal-setting
systems requiring "measurable" objectives that teachers are desperate
for their supervisors to move or resign so that they can recycle some of
their old goals. They feel so limited by the notion of setting measurable
goals that they literally run out goals they feel they can safely set. While'
this is clearly not the concept that Redfern, Iwanicki, or the other
proponents of POA have in mind, many of the publications dealing with
the explication of POA-type systems give very little attention to the form
58 SUCCESSPUI. TEACHER EVALUATION

or format of the objectives and the concept of "measurable" that might be

used. This is an issue districts must face if they are to expect teachers and
supervisors to deal with the full range of activities that occur under the
heading of classroom instruction.

The Practical Goal-Setting Approach

As suggested at the beginning of this chapter, all three approaches
share certain common elements. As in 'the other two approaches, in
PGSA there is a clear attempt to focus teacher-supervisor activities
through a goal-setting process. The PGSA would seem to be the next step
in viewing teacher evaluation in a More practical and less structured
manner. While the concept of the importance and the need for the
continuous assessment of teacher performance is still recognized in
PGSA, there is a definite effort to more effectively match realistic views
of what teacher evaluation can be and what it need not be. Many of the
concerns raised about MBO and POA are being addressed by those
districts moving toward adoption of this approach to goal setting.
A set of beliefs about supervisors, teachers, and teaching is basic to
the use of PGSA. First of all, the primary reason for developing or altering
a teacher supervision/evaluation system is to help people improve their
teaching skills. As such, the major reason for setting goals is to allow
supervisor and teacher the chance to establish a narrow, more workable
focus for their efforts. Viewing supervisors and teachers realistically, it is
unlikely' that either group is going to be able to commit significant
amounts of additional time to the supervision process. Redfern indicates
the use of the performance objectives approach should account for
approximately 40 percent of a supervisor's time (Redfern, 1980, p. 9). In
view of the data about how principals spend their time and are likely to
continue to spend their time (Krajewski, 1978), this estimate seems
impractical. Experience suggests that in moving to. new evaluation
procedures that require considerably more time and energy, supervisors
and teachers are seldom told what activities and responsibilities may be
dropped in order to provide the additional time. Rather, the additional
time is always viewed as an add-on to what they are already doing. Many
potentially effective systems have failed because they placed unrealistic
demands on the time and resources of the people involved in the system.
Consequently, PGSA attempts to focus on improving the quality of the
time spent between supervisor and teacher rather than the amount.
Those districts that have developed effective evaluation programs
have identified the major focus for their system and have carefully
constructed the policies, procedures, and processes to complement that
 GOAL SETTING AS THE MAJOR ACTIVITY 59

focus (see Commonalities and 2). Clearly, that focus has been on
1

formative evaluation rather than summative. These different perspectives

have a profound influence on the way goals are established and on the
relationship between the supervisor and the teacher. The clear identifica-
tion of an instructional improvement focus also has implications fOr a
number of important questions that are continuously raised by supervi-
sors and teachers with regard to the setting of goals. How many goals
should be set? What do goals look like? How do we measure them? Must
they always be remedial? The answers to these questions are extricably
tied to the focus of the system and to the type of evaluation model or
approach seleeVd.
Goal Setting in PGSA: What are appropriate goals? What kind of
goals are most important? What kind of goals are most worthwhile? These
questions are almost always among the first ones asked after supervisors
and teachers find out they are going to be required to set goals. MBO and
POA systems partially address these qUestions by putting limitations on
the kinds of goals that can be set. (In MBO they must be subsets of
supervisors and/or district goals; in POAsthey must come from (he.pre-
established' set of responsibility criteria). These delimiting requirements
do not really address the issue of worthwhileness. Basic to the adoption of
a practical goal-setting approach is a belief that the most effective
evaluation systems allow the supervisor and teacher maximum flexibility
in determining the most. appropriate goals for each "situation. While the
actual nature of the goals can be left open, districts'have found it valuable
to provide their people with some type of framework for prioritizing
among the most frequently established types of goals.
In general, there are four -categories of goals that teachers and
supervisors set in normal goal-setting situations. The categories are listed
from lowest to highest priority. Obviously, situational conditions could
allow a goal or gbals from even the lowest category to be the most
appropriate at'any given time.:Under "normal" circumstances, however,
'these priorities shbuld be considered as goals are set. The prioritization is
based on the idea of trying to produce the greatest dividends for the time
spent between supervisor and teacher. The key, as discussed previously,
is to produce a higher incidence of quality time between the two parties.
The types of goals and examples of each are as follows:
I. Organizational or Administrative Goals
A. Improve my professional image by dressing in a more
appropriate manner and by taking more care with my
personal hygiene.
B. Arrive at school at least 20 minutes before the first bell.
60 SUCCESSFUL TEACHER EVALUATION

C. Increase my involvement and interaction with other mem-

bers.of the staff.
D. Gainan increased awareness of board policy, particularly as
it applies to teaching the district's required curriculum.
E.N Increase mycontact and interaction with the parents of my
students at least 50 percent during the second semester.

Placing these types of goals as the lowest priority is not intended to ,

negate their importance, but more to reinforce their inappropriateness in a
supervisory process focused on classroom instruction. As indicated under
Commonality 3, these issues should be discussed from an administrative
posture, and problems in this area dealt with as they occur. As, much as
possible, administrative and organizational concerns should be kept
separate from situations where the admillistrator needs to be able to
develop a more cooperative, collegial relationship. Goals of this type
should be set only when a problem is so severe or of such a recurring
nature that classroom instruction is significantly affected, or serious
disciplinary measures against the teacher are imminent.
../
II. Program Goals
A. Review and make appropriate changes in the seventh-grade
language arts program.
B. 'Introduce the new reading series to the fast group in second
grade.
C. Revise the contemporary American writer's unit for my
advanced literature class.
D. Construct new thematic units for fifth-grade social studies.
E. Work on increasing articulation between the junior and
senior high science programs..

While the importance of program goals by teachers cannot be denied,

there would appear to be a variety of ways these kinds of goals can be
worked on separately by the supervision/evaluation system (for instance,
in curriculum committees, articulation groups, or department or grade-%
level meetings). Consequently, goals set by teachers that involve curricu-
lum or program matters would have a lower priority. Many teachers like
to set program goals. The feeling is that manipulation of materials,
program objectives, and curriculum guides and 'requirements are.some-
what remote from them and thus are much less threatening. Since the
major purpose of an evaluation is to help people improve their own
individual teaching skills, allowing teachers to rely on programtype goals
misses the point of instructional improvement.
 GOAL SETTING AS THE MAJOR ACTIVITY 61

III. Learner Goals

A. At least 80 percent of my students will be able to work
correctly at least-80 percent of the problems on the long-
division test.
B. The students will be able to demonstrate their ability to
write a descriptive essay.
C. The students will show an increased appreciation of the
American free enterprise system.
D. My fifth-grade students will be able to identify the Presi-
dents of the 'United States by October 15.
E. At least 80 percent of the students in my blue reading group
will be reading at grade level by May 15.
Certainly learner goals provide the opportunity to measure more
accurately how well the teacher met a pre-established goal. However, the
ends orientation of this type of goal setting has less to do with the means
or process of instruction. While learner goals are appropriate at times,
using the framework for prioritizing goals prevents them from receiving
the highest priority. Setting and trying to meet learner goals emphasizes
-time spent on specific situations and conditions that have a tendency to
change from year to year. Changes in textbooks, grouping practices,
building design, teacher,,transfers, curriculum guides, and so on, can alter
situations to such a deiree that learner gads worked on this year would
have no carryoveeValue at all. While these types of,goals would be fine
for certain situations, they potentially pay lower diiiidends" over time.
Thus,'they4nust be, given a slightly lower priority. This is clearly an
arguable point, and one that each district should face as local guidelines
are p(Ovided to teachers and supervisors regarding the expectations of the
goal-setting, activity.
IV. Teacher GOals
A. Work on techniques for increasing the amount and quality
of student - teacher interaction.
B. Work on altering my questioning style for the different
ability levels in my classroom.
C. Increase my enthusiasm by using more overt physical
actions (voice, gesture, facial expression, movement, etc.)
D. following the Hunter method, work on a more appropriate
sequence for my daily lessons, especially checking for
understanding and the use of guided practice.
E. Spend additional- time monitoring the success rate of my
students on both guided and independent practice seatwork;
work toward providing materials that allow students to
operate at an apprRximately 75 percent success rate.

0
62 SUCCESSFUL. TEACHER EVALUATION

These types of goals seem to offer the best chance for more personal
invONement on the part of the teacher since they focus specifically on the
teacher's behavior rather than on curriculum matters or on student
behavior. Teaching goals also allow supervisors and teachers to take
advantage of the considerable advances being made in research on
teaching. Goals built around common sense views of teachingas
encouraged by recent teacher .effectiveness research (Denham and Lie-
berman, 1980) and the work of Madeline Hunter (1.976)would seem to
provide an opportunity for supervisors and teachers to spend their time
working in areas where there is reasonable support for the goals having
direct impact on student learning. (See Commonality 5 for an expanded
discussion of this idea.)
Teaching goals attempt to deal with noncontent, specific teaching
skills that most often cross subject area lines, grade-level considerations,
and so forth. In this way, many of the situational variables that change so
rapidly for teachers (students, texts, curriculum guides, expectations) are
partially controlled by emphasizing general- teaching skills that are,
beginning to emerge from current research. The assumption is that an
improved skill level in a general teaching behavior will stay with a
teacher, just like skill in riding a bicycle. Every student ever taught by
that teacher can potentially benefit from a single supervisory experience.
Thus the potentially high dividends gained in relation to the time spent
setting and working on a teaching goal justifies giving the highest priority
to teaching goals.
One other point about goal setting using the PGSA is the need for
supervisors and teachers to accept the notion that not all goal setting must
be remedial. This is a problem that has existed since goal setting became a
common practice in education. In many respects, the attitude that all
goals must be directed at weaknesses or problem areas stems from strong
MBO orientations and,- to a consikPabltextent, from common practices
in evaluating administrators in which goal setting erodes into a problem-
solving .exercise. Goals in effect become lists of problems that must be
solved in order for the teacher to be satisfactorily evaluated. In order to
have the kind of flexibility that practical goal-setting approaches advo-
cate, supervisors and teachers should have the option of setting a goal
that may not be a problem or a weakness for a teacher. It may be a skill or
an area of interest that the teacher and the supervisor feel might be
interesting, challenging, or useful to other teachers or to the school.
Examples would include:
I. Learning more about the impact of the Exemplary Center for
Reading Instruction (ECRI) approach as developed by Edina Reid so that
I could train other teachers in the district in this proven method of

cI
 GOAL, SETTING AS THE MAJOR ACTIVITY 63

increasing reading achievement.

2. Studying the concept of curriculum mapping and its implications
for this district.
3. Gaining information about usefulness of programs dealing with
stress and burnout.
These examples bear some resemblance to the program goals that
were earlier given a lower priority. The major difference would be in the
intent of the goal. If a goal is being suggested because it is less personal
and thus less threatening to a teacher, then it should be given a lower
priority. But if it is being suggested from what the supervisor perceives as
a genuine interest or desire to gain knowledge or skills in order to benefit
students, other staff, or the district, then it Can assume a high priority.
As they probably should be, most goals are established around
classroomrelated problems and concerns. But having the ability, to set
other types of goals is an important way to illustrate to a staff that a
district is sincere in its commitment to foster growth in areas that are of
special concern or interest to the teacher.
The concept of offering some prioritization on goals directly address-
es how many goals should be set. If, for example, instructional improve-
ment is the primary purpose of evaluation, and a system has been
established' to complement that purpose, then the question of how many
goals is less important than is the quality of the goals that are set. If the
priorities are followed, a single goal is often satisfactory.
Measurability of Goals: The measurability question is of primary
concern to staff when they are first introduced to goal setting. Many
schools that have attempted to move to goal setting systems, particularly
after years of common law practices, find that teachers are very uncom-
fortable with developing "measurable" goals. Goal setting is most
frequently viewed in new situations as a procedure introduced by the
administration to obtain more "objective" data about teaching so that
retention and dismissal decisions can be more easily justified. It should be
understood by all involved in teacher evaluation that the concept of
"objective" judgments is not, really an issue. It is virtually impossible in
environments such as the classroom to collect data or make judgments
that are traditionally "objective." This is true from both a research and a
legal perspective. Again, if an appropriate attitude about evaluation has
guided the development of a system, then by such statements as "goals
should be measurable" or "all objectives must be observable and
measureable," districts should mean that the 'supervisor and teacher will
work out together methods for collecting data about each goal so that
together they can make informed judgments about progress toward the
goals.

A
&i SUCCIiSSFU . TEACHER EVALUATION

Districts, / supervisors, and teachers should accept the view that

judgments made by trained, experienced supervisors and teachers are
valid measures (Glass, 1974). By not specifying appropriate and realistic
definitionsi4f measurement, districts have left supervisors and teachers to
assume that traditional and empirical views .of measurement were re-
quired/This has fostered large numbers of rather mundane and low-
priority goals because, in one way or another, they are countable.
Fortunately or unfortunately, the nature of teaching and learning does not
always promote large numbers of traditionally measurable events, partic-
ularly outside of controlled research conditions. If the developers of
evaluation systems will accept the concept of reliable judgments from
subjective data being in fact valid measures (Kaplan, 1964), then the vista
of goals is opened up considerably.
Take; for example, a goal such as "I would like to work on increasing
the amount of academic praise I give the students in my classes." Even if
this original goal were broken down into action plans"I will increase
my use of student ideas during discussion" or "I will plan for situations
designed to offer all the students in the room opportunities for increased
success rates"measurability by traditional terms would still be difficult.
Certainly, these things could be observed during the periodic visits a
supervisor might make, but, these visits only give some data on what
occurred during those single instances. Actual measurement on progress
toward meeting these goals must be made by the subjective judgments of
the teacher and supervisor as .they discuss events and activities that
occurred most often when the supervisor was not present. This reliance
on subjective judgments arrived at by two involved, experienced educa-
tors is appropriate and acceptable. The goal was a high-priority teaching
goal that can have significant impact on student learning (Dunkin and
Biddle, 1974) and was clearly worthwhile. Inappropriate or unclear
measurement requirements or definitions cannot be allowed to eliminate
these types of broad, yet powerful goals.
Negotiating Goals. All of the goal-setting approaches share the'idea
of some form of pre-conference in which the supervisor and the teacher
work out the final form of the goals (McGreal, 1980). In some instances
there is an assumption that, based on some form of self-evaluation, the
teacher will write the goats before the conference, then bring them to the
session for discussion and approval. Other systems use the conference as
a type of working( session where the two parties work on the goals
together. Whatever the basic expectation for the pre-conference is, there
are bound to be times when the supervisor and teacher disagree as to the
fina) goals. MBO and POA type systems try to alleviate some disagree\
ment by setting certain parameters on acceptable goals (MBO goals must
 GOAL. SETTING AS T E MAJOR ACTIVITY 65

support pre-established district and supervisor goals; POA goals should

emerge from the predetermined job description). Practical goal setting
allows more flexibility between the supervisor and the teacher. This does
provide the potential for more disagreements simply because of the
increased encouragement for: equal participation that PGSA fosters. In
any cast:, all three approaches do ackribwledge, to one degree or another,
the importance bf goal setting being a nyitually developed, cooperative
venture. This seems to be particularly true when working with experi-
enced or tenured teachers.
It is the supervisor's responsibility to establish an atmosphere in the
conference that will allow the teacher to be an equal participant. On the
other hand, it is the teacher's responsibility to contribute to the discus-
sion. Suppose the supervisor asks the teacher what the two of them might
work on this year, and the teacher makes such comments as "nothing,"
or "I have been teaching for 20 years, this seems ridiculous for me to have
to do." The supervisor is literally forced to dictate something for the
teacher to doa situation that undermines the process for everyone. To
this extent, joint responsiblity should be continually reinforced to super-
visors and teachers. Since most districts that move to goal setting are
accustomed to traditional common law systems that promoted high-
supervisor, low-teacher involvement, supervisors are used to dominating
conferences while teachers are conditioned to listen attentively to lists of
their strengths and weaknesses, to nod politely, and to vow to work hard
until next year's conference. Both parties must learn to. alteytheir
standard conference behavior.
If conferences are to proceed constructively, it is important for
supervisors to establish ahead of time the strategy they will use to make
the conference as productive as possible. In most instances, supervisors
know their teachers well enough to have some sense of what they can
expect from the teacher with regard to the kinds of goals that they will be
offering. PGSA systems encourage supervisors to consider supervision as
a long-term process and that a major goal of the pre-conference is to get
teachers to see the usefulness of goal setting and to eliminate as much as
possible the threatening nature of any evaluation/supervision activity.
'Basic to PGSA is the idea that the 'supervisor must be willing to negotiate
' and possibly compromise on issues that will contribute in the long run to
the growth of the teacher.
For exarnple, Stiperyisor Jones knows that Teacher Smith is already
an extremely. well-organized person whose teaching is characterized by a
high degree of structure and formality. It is the supervisor's feeling that
the most appropriate kind Of goal for Teacher Smith would be to build and
improve the relationship between the teacher and the students, based on
66 SUCCESSFUL TEACHER EVALUATION

the notion that this form of climate setting would be extremely valuable to
the students and increase their learning. However, Jones knows that
Teacher Smith is. going to walk into that conference and suggest a goal
built around the strengths that Smith already possesses. Thus, the issue
for Jones becomes the following:
"Do I give in at this point, let Smith set a goal that is directed toward
a significant strength, and then try to bargain for a second goal that
addresses the problem I fe crisis in the classroom? Or;sbased on my
knowledge of this perso , shoo I literally give away this goal for this
year in the hopes that the posit attitude that my acceptance will
promote in Teacher Smith will all'ow me the opportunity to suggest a
different goal next year? On the other hand, do I feel strongly enough
about the tremendous impori,awe of improved climate in Smith's class-
room to overrule Smith'.i preferred goal?"
The supervisor must determine which of these strategies will offer the
greatest opportunity. for generating a commitment on the part of the
teacher. This commitment or sense of involvement on the part of the
teacher is the bottom line of the goal-setting process. Without the
willingness of the; teacher to be an active participant in the process,
everyone involved has a tendency to start walking through the activity
and merely meeting the requirements of the evaluation procedure. Under
normal conditions, the time has passed when supervisors can coerce
teachers, particularly tenured teachers, into changing their classroom
behavior. While, .ideally, there is joint responsibility for establishing a
positive environment during goal setting, realistically, the burden is
almost exclusively on the supervisor. At the same time, the supervisor's
boss must be Willing to give the supervisor the flexibility to follow any of
the above strategies and to trust that the final decision is the best one to
,promote growth in the teacher.
PGSA depends on the issues of goal setting being made clear to all
involved in the system. One of the things that characterizes the implemen-
tation of practical goal-setting approaches in local districts is the inclt.sion
of instructions and information about goal setting as a part of the
evaluation instruments. Following is an example of an appendix to the
materials that actually make up the evaluation system,

Part B. Goa.I Setting

Both the supervisor and the staff member have a responsibility to make the goal-
setting conference as productive as possible. The supervisor, while still maintain-
ing ultimate responsibility for the final product, must actively involve the staff
member in the conference. In most instances the final goals should be the
 'GOAL. SliTFING AS TI-IE MAJOR ACTIVITY 67

mitgrowth of a cooperative activity. I In working with nontenured staff, the

iupervis8r will normally lis,Aime a more directive role in goal setting. With
;enured staff the supervisorA-tnajor-functions would tend to be as a clarifier and a
racilitator.Obviously, in those few instances where agreement cannot be reached,
the supervisor does maintain final responsibility.] The staff member has the
responsibility of coming to the conference prepared to openly and positively
discuss those.areas that are of particular concern and interest to them. Both
parties share the responsibility of approaching the conference and the entire
activity with a positive attitude and a willingness to fully participate. By both
parties being willing to view the process as a growth oriented, cooperative
venture, the. success and usefulness of the system is significantly enhanced.

Number of GoalsThe number of goals established between the staff

member and the supervisor is less important than the form and substance of
the goals. In most cases, the number would range between one and four, with
the number being determined by the relevancy and the time and energy
required.

Goal PrioritiesUnder normal conditions, it is recommended that goals be

established in accordance with their potential impact on student learning. The
following priorities should be used as guidelines in determining the appropri-
ateness of goals. However, there are instances when any one of the four types
may he relevant and necessary depending on unique conditions.
I. Teaching Goalsgoals built around teacher behaviors or worker behav-
iors that are directly related to student outcomes. The outline of the
teacher effectiveness research in the Appendixpart A should serve as
the basis for setting teaching goals for the regular classroom teachers.
Other instructional support-personnel should consider direct job-related
activities as falling under this heading.
2. Learner Goalsgoals that relate directly to solving a specific learning
6roblem or improving some particular student deficit.
3. Program Goalsgoals that relate to curriculum areas, course outlines,
articulation activities, materials selection, etc. It is assumed here that
there are numerous ways for staff to get involved in programmatic
efforts other than using the supervision system.
4. Organizational or Administrative GoalSgoals that deal with specific
administrative criteria such as listed in the minimum standards descrip-
tion. It is assumed that only in the case of continuing problems in this
area would the goal setting procedure be used to help improve the
situation.

itleastirabilit,. of GoalsPart C in the appendix lists the preferred options for

measuring progress towards meeting the goal(s). The key to this 'activity
during the conference is a cooperative effort between the supervisor and the
staff member in arriving at a method that fits each goal. Certain goals may be
so unique that they force the supervisor and staff person to creatively designa
method for assessing progress. This is perfectly acceptable. It is to be
remembered, that subjective judgments made by the supervisor and the staff
person after''the method(s) have been applied are clearly acceptable forms of
measurement. This allows us not to have to confine our goals to only those
things that are measurable by traditional, empirical standards.

I lJ
68 SUCCESSFUL TEACHER EVALUATION

This typical attachment illustrates one of the basic tenets of PGSA:

Teachers change their behavior only when they want it to change, and
they are more likely to want change when they truly understand the
nature and purpose of a supervisionlevaluation system. In this way they
can see that the attitudes and the experiences within the system are
complementary to growth and development. There are no secrets, no
training, or no information that are not relevant to everyone. Attachments
such as this one serve as constant reinforcers to the purpose of the
system.
All three goal setting approaches share the advantages and disadvan-
tages of "contract" approaches (lwanicki, 1981, p. 226). The primary
differences revolve around the nature of the goals, the flexibility provided
the supervisor and the teacher, and the prioritization of goals built around
increasing the quality of time spent.
PGSA derived its name from the fact that it has emerged as a viable
alternative because it does seem to deal more honestly with the practicali-
ties and realities of local schools. The increased flexibility for supervisors
and teachers, the less restrictive nature of the goals, their measurability,
and their negotiability are both the strengths and weaknesses. of PGSA.
Decisions about which approach, or adaptations of any or all, should be
made on how well a district can match its expectations and attitudes to the
procedures and requirements that characterize each approach. If the
decision makers in a district feel that the supervisors, teachers, or the
community are not ready for the kind of individualization of evaluation
that emerges in PGSA, then they should look toward the "tighter".
approaches exemplified by MBO and POA.
I 3.-
References
Armstrong, H. R. "Performance Evaluation." National Elementary Principal 52
(1973): 51-55.
Bolton, L. Evaluating Administrative Personnel in School Systems. New York:
Teachers College Press, 1980.
Denham, C., and Lieberman, A., eds. Time to Learn. Sacramento, Calif.: Commission
for Teacher Preparation and Licensing, 1980.
Dunkin, M., and Biddle, B. The Study of Teaching. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston, 1974.
Glass, G. V.." eacher Effectiveness." In EvaluatingEducational Performance. Edit-
ed by H. J. Berkeley, Calif.: McCutchan, 1974.
Hunter, M. escription for Improved Instruction. El ,Segundo, Calif.: TIP Publica-
tions, 1976.
Iwanicki, E. F. "Contract Plans: A Professional Growth Oriented Approach to
Evaluating Teacher Performance." In Handbook of Teacher Evaluation. Edited by J.
Millman. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1981.
Kaplan, A. The Conduct of Inquiry. San Francisco: Chandler, 1964.
Killian, R. A. Managing by Design for Maximum Executive Effectiveness. New York:
American Management Association, 1968.
I

j
 GOAL SETTING AS THE MAJOR ACTIVITY 69

Krajewski, R. J. "Secondary Principals Want To Be Instructional Leaders." Phi Delta

Kappan 65 (1978): 245-250.
Lewis, J. Appraising Teacher Performance. West Nyack, N.Y.: Parker, 1973.
McGrew, J. "Management by Objectives: Accountability by Contract." Bulletin of the
Wisconsin Association of Secondary School Principals 10 (1971): 17-21.
Millman, Jason. "Student Achievement as a Measure of Teacher Competence." In
Handbook of Teacher Evaluation. Edited by J. Millman, everly Hills, Sage Publications,
1981.
Ordiorne, G. S. Management by Objectives. New York: Pitnian, 1965.
Popham, W. J. Designing Teacher Evaluation Systems: A Series of Suggestions for
Establishing Teacher Assessment Procedures as Required by the Stull Bill (AB293), /97/
California Legislature. Los Angeles: The Instructional Objectives Exchange, 1971.
Redfern, G. Evaluating Teachers and Administrators: A Performance Objectives
Approach. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1980.
Redfern, G. How to Appraise Teaching Performance. Columbus, Ohio: School
Management Institute, 1963.
Richie, D. "Management SystemMadison Public Schools." The Administrator 6
(1976): 33-36.

C.
U
 Narrowed Focus on
Teaching

egardless of what type of evaluation system a school ultimately

.11. decides to use, to be effective it must revolve around looking at and
talking about teaching. In this simple fact lies a problem continuously
confronted by teachers and supervisors. Basically, both groups learned
how to teach in exactly the same-wayby doing it! Out of this trial-and-
error approach to teaching grows a style, a way of teaching, that works
for each person. With this personal style comes a set of definitions and a
way of looking at teaching that is distinctly individual.
`This reliance on on-the-job training to learn how to teach is not
intended to be a condemnation of teacher education programs. Most
teacher preparation programs do the best they can, given their circum-
stances. During: an approximate four-year span,' a teacher education
program must offer a two-year dose of university requirements, enough
courses to provide a subject matter major, a series of foundation courses
and methods courses designed to meet state certification requirements,
and a series oG classroom involvements, including student teaching. By
any perspective, it is a broad coverage experience provided in a short
time, which tends to result in a person ready to learn how to teach rather
than a person ready to teach. It is not until after the first few years of
teaching that teachers truly begin to learn the basics of their profession.
Unfortunately, most of this on-the-job training takes place in isolation
from an ideal learning environment. Fortunately, the help proVided by
peers; supervisors, and common sense allows most teachers to develop a
\ functional style that is basically effective.
One of the unsatisfactory side effects of this self-developing style is
that individuals develop language and a way of teaching that serves them
but provides no common ground for discussion with others. Thus when
supervisoeSobserve teachers_teach,and when they begin,tt talk about
what they have seen and how- they feel about it, they use language and a
 A NARROWED FOCUS ON TEACHING 71

perception of teaching that grows out of their own experience. This tends
to promote teachers and supervisors literally talking right by each other
since each is operating from a framework of teaching that is personally
unique. Training supervisors and teachers in the processes involved in a
new evaluation system does not give them additional insight into the act
of teaching. The majority of administrative training programs do not
provide any type of systematic help in gaining knowledge of classroom
teaching skills. "What do I look for?" "What things make a difference in
the classroom?" "What kinds of goals should I encourage my staff to
set?" These are the questions supervisors are increasingly asking and that
traditionally have not been answered. It makes no sense to develop a new
evaluation/supervision system designed to improve instruction, and then
send the supervisors into classrboms armed with the same way of looking
at teaching that they have always relied on.
Those districts whose evaluation systems have been viewed effective
have, in mot cases, decided to adopt some type of narrowed focus On
rtteaching. I other words, some particular perspective on teaching,
complete with a set of definitions and language, is presented in a training
format to all teachers,and supervisors at the same time and in the same
manner. Everyone is provided with a starting place, a common ground for
looking at and talking about teaching, that is consistent throughout the
, staff. The concept of developing a consistent view of teaching is perhaps
the major innovation to occur in teacher evaluation. Only in the last 15
years has this idea been possible at all and only in the last seven or eight
years could districts provide training in teaching with some confidence.
The existence of this commonality is a credit to the tremendous increase
in the study of teaching that has occurred since the mid 1960s.
Many ways of looking at teaching could serve as the basis for a
narrowed focus. The important point is that the school district be able to
"sell" the selected teaching focus to all of the staff. To have the best
hance of doing this, the adopted focus needs to minimally meet the
r 'lowing criteria:
1. A strong empirical base .

.2. A close approximation to standard practice

3. A "common sense" orieru4t;on .

4. Perspectives and skills that are,potentially generalizable across

subject areas and grade levels
In terms of current teaching research, the focus on teaching that
seems to best meet the above critelia as well as the one that has been the
most successfully implemented in school districts is based on a combina-
tion of current teacher effectiveness research and portions of Madeline
i
Hunter's work. #
5

ti
72 SUCCESSFUL TEACHER -EVALUATION

Before reviewing these two views, it seems appropriate -to discuss

how and why this commona!ity becomes part of an evaluatilin system. To
this point in the hook, we ha seen an evaluationisupervision system that
places major on instructiopal improvement. The most effective
systems arc :nd a process that emphasizes individual teacher
goals that art. .iy focused on teaching (see Commonality 4). The
discussion, esti. ,,iment, and review of these goals demand an under-
standing of important elements of effective teaching and some common
and familiar language that addresses the various parts olinstruction. The
only way to ensure such an' understanding exists is to provide all members
of the staff with training as a part of the implementation of the new
system. In .many respects, the introduction of a narrowed focus On
teaching and the continuing education of the staff in instructional skills is
the single most important aspect of building a successful evaluation!
supervision system.
In case after case, the presence of this commonality has been the key
element in developing the awareness of teaching that is so necessary for
getting teachers involved in instructional improvement efforts: Many
districts have chosen to include reviews and outlines of current teaching
research as an appendix to the regular packet of materials in thedistrict's
evaluation procedures and instruments. This inclusion of the teaching
focus with the evaluation materialswhen combined with continuous
staff development directed at practical classroom instructional skills
providesa constant reminder to the staff of the emphasis the system puts
on improving personal teaching skills. Thek procedures also reaffirm the
intent of a district to provide an evaluation system designed to help staff
improve the quality of,instruction through cooperative and professional
methods. This activity is extraordinari:y valuable to school districts.

A Recommended Focus on Teaching

Current.teacher effectiveness research forms the basis for the recom-
mended focus on teaching. In most instances, the teacher effectiveness,
research is defined as those studies that have -tried tolink certain teacher
behaviors to student achievement. In recent years a number of general
reviews on teaching research have been very useful (Rosenshine and-
Furst, 1971; Rosenshine, 1971; Dunkin and Biddle, 1974; Good, Biddle,
and Brophy, 1975; Medley, 1'977; Peterson and Walberg, 1979)... These
reviews have done much in promoting the legitimacy of teacher effective-
ness studies. Most of these reviews were compiled and analyzed by
researchers writing for other researchers. Consequently, they have not
had as much impact on schools as they might had they been written more
 A NARROWED FOCUS ON TEACHING 73

practically. This situation seems to he more symptomatic of the natural

conservativeness of the researchers than it is of a lack of faith in the
potential usefulness of the data. Fortunately; over the last five years, a
nu .1.(e.r of successful training and inservice packages have been generat-
ed from the effectiveness research. (Examples would include such things.
as the TESA Program.; Evert Son and Emmer's work with elementary and
junior high tegchers: Fitzpatrick's training program for secondary school
teachers; the ECRI 'concept ; and various projects associated" with the
.
Direct Instruction 'Program at the University of Oregon.) The brief
summary of the effectiveness research Presented in this section shares the
same perspective as the examples given abovethe direct application of
current teaching research to improve practice.
EffectiN)eness research has been chosen as the major focus by most
schools because it seems to best conform to the criteria presented earlier:
I. At this point it seem, have a strong and growing research base.
2. Effectiveness studies share a strong surface validity in that most
findings parallel accepted practice. .

3. There is considerable common sense involved in the recommen-

dationc grow ;;;g from the research.
4. The growing number of studies being done in a variety of settings
have produced a consistency of findings that, especially for
certain kinds of learning, seem to cross subjects areas and grade
levels.
The effectiveness studies, however, are not, without controversy,
much of which was especially justifiable in the early stages of the
research. Initially, the findings were applicable only to low SES students
in elementary grades regard:ig basic skill acquisition in reading and math.
Even in the above .situations, the data were accused of being suspect
because they were almost all correlational and thus subject to all the
weaknesses inherent in correlational research.. While arguments
were. valid at the time, they are much lessvowerful now. now. Many of the
concerns- have been dimirlished in recent years due to the fact that an
increasing number of effectiveness studies have been conducted in junior
and senior high school's in various subject areas and in a variety of school
settings. Almost all of these recent studies show a continuing consistency
in the findings. Most importantly, current effectiveness research is
characterized by a significant number of experiMental studies that have
not in any visible way reversed any correlational findings (Rosenshine,
1982). While there is an obvious need' to continue research in this
important area, there is now sufficient evidence to support the view of an
emergent set of bask teaching skills that can legitimately be introduced to
teachers.
74 succEssFuLTEActIER EvALuATIoN
This is not to suggest, however, that there is a model for teaching
here that must be followed before effective teaching can occur. That
would be ridiculous! There is no one best way to teach. To a great extent,
teaching is the ability to reach into a bag of tools and pull out those things
that allow for the best match of method, content, and students. The more
techhiques, skills, modek, styles, attitudes, etc. that make up that bag of
tools, the more effective teacher decisions are likely to be. As Brophy
(1979) indicates, we will never have a set of .generic teaching skills.
However, it does appear that current research is giving us more and better ..
clues about certain behaviors that make up at least a part of effective
instruction. The teacher effectiveness research is identifying some basic
teaching tools that provide a set of technical fundamentals that need to be
considered regardless of the type.or level ,of teaching that is to occur.
While many of the findings of the effectiveness research are interre-
lated, for discussion purposes the data -fan be said to roughly fall under
three headings: clinzate, planning, and management behaviors. Since it is
not the purpose of this book to provide a complete training program, each
of the three areas will be discussed only briefly.

Climate
Unless otherwise noted, the following discussion is extrapolated
from the following sources:
Dunkin and Biddle (1974)
Good, Biddle, and Brophy (1975)
Bloom (1975)
Hunter (1976)
Peterson and Walberg (1979)
Kerman and Martin-TESA (198(0)
Denham and Lieberman (1980)
Cummings (1980)
Brophy and Evertson (1976)
Stevens and Rosenshine (1981)
Teachers have always been taught the importance of classroom
climate. Traditionally climate has been communicated as a warm, sup-
portive environment in a clas'Sroom in which students feel comfortable
and loveda sort of "womb in the room" notion. It is undeniable that it is
important to be nice, considerte, and caring. But these terms, like other
similar ones, are difficult to define or to translate-into some. identifiable
teabher practice. Recent studies have begun to produce a series of results
that offer a somewhat more tangible definition of climate, which, is
 A NARROWED FOCUS ON TEACHING 75

complete with recommended behaviors that appear linked in both correla-

tional and experimental studies with student gain. It is suggested that
classrooms where gain s consistently nigler are characterized by a
climate conducive to high levels of invork,..,.ment on the part of students.
They are classrooms in which all students fed free to take part,
comfortable to raise their hands, to take a chance, to get involved. With
the exseption of truly gifted or highly motivi-Ited students. thei.average
lc
stu Ilit does not learn much through osmosis. Te learn, a student must be
an a. ive part of the Class. Generally this only happens when the teacher
recognizes this fact and-plans for it to happen. This concept of planning
for it to happen is the essence of the teacher-centered, 'structured
-classroom.--Time- and time again an attitude emerges in-effective class-
rooms that says "these kids can learn, but they learn priinarily from me
110 because of me." If there are things that should be happening that help
students learn more effectively, then it is the teacher's responsibility to
not sit back and hope that an appropriate climate happens naturally. The
teacher must plan and structure events in such a way that important
outcomes have'the chance to occur. Views of classrooms as warm and
caring places are not compromised by this perception. Teacher-centered,
structured classrooms run by nice people are compatible, not conflicting:
places in which to learn.
It is imperative to note the spechil importance of a focus on climate
for junior and senior high school teachers. There is often a feeling among
upper grade teachers that climate is an elementary school concept that is .
not as relevant to secondary school settings. Many middle, junior, and
senior high teachersare comOed to their subject matter first and to the
concept of teaching secondly'. Actually there is growing support for the
notion that as students progress in g: i' 7:vel, the more important climate
becomes to achievement. It is not ap : ,oriate for subject matter teachers
at any grade level to rely only on the wonderfulness of their material.
Teachers must plan for climate with as much diligence as they plan for
the presentation of subject matter. _A
Two key terms emerge under this headinginvolvement and suc-
cessalthough in a slightly less prominent 'role, praise and reinforcemc\nt
are also ingredients in a contemporary definition of climate. All of theise
terms interact significantly, especially in relation to particular recom-
mended behaviors emerging from the research. Several of these inaportd t
behaviors include:
Extended Teacher -Pupil Contaci. Teachers are constantly' reminde ..,
of the importance of praise and reinforcement. In many classrooms,
however, teachers feel- they attend to this matter through' their usual
responses to students. "Okay," "Yeah,"
.
"Alright," "Correct," "Uh
 76 SUCCIit;SFUL TEACHER EVALUATION

huh," and "Terrific" are just a few of the typical teacher one-worders
that comprise the majority of praise students receive. It is essential for
teachers to expressly develop verbal habits that provide_ stronger, more
extended teacher praise if it is going to have maximum effect. TOo often'
teachers' short verbal cues become so commonplace that they lose all
impact. Evidence suggests that praise, to be effective, must be earned,
appropriate, and noticeable. Teachers should provide praise and rein-
forcement in situations where there can be an extended, mere involved
contact with the student. For example, during any type of teacher-student
verbal interaction (general discussions, .review sessions, questioning
activities), it is importatt for teachers, .to attempt various forms of what
Aspy (1973) calls "interchangeable responses," or what Rosenshine and
Furst (1971) call "use of student' ideas." Interchangeable responses are
teacher summations of student statements"Ohich are interchangeable with
what the student has said.. It isa way.of showing that the teacher has
_,INeriect pticiey5topsLyytiq the ,student ,has said and .,that it
important an() useful. Along the same,line, Rosenshlne and Furst, (1971)
indicate five (says of using student ideas during verbal interaction:
I. Acknowledging a student's response by literally repeating the
answer out loud to the rest of the class.
2. Modifying' student's response by putting it into differnt words
so that it is more understandable or more appropriate liut still
conveys the idea originated by the student.
3. Applying the student's response to some situation; using it as an
explanation for some event or occurrence.
4. Comparing the student's yesponse to something in the -text,
something already discussed, some concurrent similar event.
5. Summarizing the responses made by students and using them to
draw a conclusion or make a point.
Whether called interchangeable responses or use of student
the concept remain's the name: Direct teacher verbal action illustrtes to
students their importance in the occurrence of events in the classroo4L it
reinforces the students' understanding that they can get answers right and
that the teacher recognizes and values them. This simple act is sometitinf:
that many teachers already do. But, if all other things remain the same,
and a teacher increases the occurrence of this type of behavior in the
classroom, both correlational and experimental research suggests that it
makes a difference.
Directed Questions. Each succeeding year in school teachers experi-
ence larger percentages of. "emotional dropouts." These are students
who are physically present but emotionally nonparticipants. Since 1974
(Brophy and Good), data have identified dramatic differences in who
 A NARROWED FOCUS ON TEACHING 77,'

responds in class and in the behaviors of teachers toward students who

respond. With involvement being so important to learning, the teacher
must assume °responsibility for involving students in the class. One of the
few ways a teacher can raise involvement levels is by using more directed
questions. That is, the teacher calls directly on a student by name without
having first raised the question for a show of hands. This is not to suggest
that undirected questions are inappropriate; rather, there is an appropri-
ate perspective the teacher must maintain as to the level of participation
being achieved. The larger the group of nonrespondents. in a class, the
higher the proportion of directed questions that must he generated.
The use of directed questions is particularly appropriate early in the
scho' ol year. A teacher cannot make assumptions Sbout the kinds of
experiences students may or may not have had in previous years. A
tenter must behave in such a way as to say,
rdon't kno1v where these kids were last year, or where they are from, or who they
had as a teitchcf... I only know that when they walk into my room they are going to C\
have the ohance to be a real part of this room, to feel free to ask or, answer a
question, to 'se ,their hand, and to have a legitimate opportunity to succeed. I
know this is Ig'to happen because ram going to make it happen.

One IN' y to ''make it happen" is to specifically plan questioning activities

in thtffirst part of a school year (perhaps through the first nine weeks) that
reflect at least a two-thirds to one-third ratio of direct to indirect
questions. Depending on the make-up of a class or the type of learning
being sought, this ratio would not be inapprop'riate throughout the year.
Again, the recommendation is not intended. to discourage undirected
-questions. It is a reminder that all teachers have dues- to pay. Before
students can be expected to learn, they must first beCome a part of the
class. They must feel able to participate successfully. Some students have
the ability and'thp selfccolicept to participate and succeed regardless of
the teacher.' But the great majority of students at all levels have to have
help before they can feel comfortable in becoming involved. The teacher
must plan fur situations that provide-this help. This is a basic teaching
skill that crosses grade levels and subject areas. Evidence to support
other basic teaching skills is what the effeCtiveness research has the
potential to provide us.
Suc-cessfid Experiences. The importance of success to learning is a
well-researched area. Translating the-reseal-al into practical action must
be a high priority for.all teachers. Again the idea of a basic teaching skill
seems apparent. There is a clear relationship between achievement gains
in average and below-average ability level students and the number of
correct answers they give in the classroom. For academically gifted
stude 's, there appears to be a relationShii; between their achievement

3
 78 SUCCESSFUL TEACIIER EVALUATION '

-and the number of hiCorrect answers they give in'class. The harder bright
kids perceive the material to be (idcorrect answers), the more they are
motivated to learn it. The harder average and below average students
think the material is (by giving incorrect responses), the more they feel it
is too hard for them. Consequently, for the majority of students it is
important to provide the opportunity to get things right. A basic teaching
skill that often separates the good teacher from the great one is the
willingness to go beyond just providing praise and reinforcement when
students respond correctly. Situations and events must be planned 'and
.
carried out that are designed specifically for giving all the students in the
classroom a chance to get answers right and thus earn appropriate praise.
This does not mean tiEit,teachers have to suddenly teach so much better
that students will automatically get more answers right. It means that
nsto teachers nee,d to learn how to ask easier questions.
For example, in a directed question activity, it dOes not make much
---sense-oto-dskan-,aVerageorbelow-average ability student to respond to a
high-level question such as, "Bob, compare and contrast the different
points of view as to why the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor." The
student h:.:. been literally set up to give a wrong answer. He-could be
asked. "Bob, who attacked Pearl Harbor?" This is a low-level, recall
question that 'Bob has a chance to get right. Ralph, who is a bright-or
'highly motivated kid. could be ask,2,,1 the "why" question. He can handle
the higher cognitive processes required to--answdr the question more
easily. If Ralph gives an incorrect answer he does not think he is "dumb."
Like most bright kids, his first reaction is that there must be a typo in the
teacher's key, is this some form of teacher expectation at work? No! First
of all. Bob and ti-...: many students just like him already know they are not
as smart as the Ralphs in class. They have known it since the second week
of first grade when they could identify the difference between red group,
blue group, and white group. Fortunately, Bob's self-concept is not
measured in relationship to Ralph, only to- himself. When Bob correctly
identities who attacked Pearl Harbor, he feels good about it he does not
pass it off a:: inconsequential becausehe knew it was only a low-order
question! If there is a teacher expectation at work here, it is not one that
says, "These kids are too slow or too uncommitted to ever learn, so why
should I spend my time on them?" It is an expectation that all children
can learn, but first they have to be given an opportunity to 'prove to
themselves that they can learn. They must have the chance to get answers
right!
This form of recommended behavior must be viewed in the proper
perspective, Theft is a legitimate call for an increased emphasis on
teaching higher level thinking skills (Kamii, 1982). Contrary to the belief
of some critics, the above recommended behavior is not counter to
 A NARROWED FOCUS ON TEACHING 79

critical thinking, Higher level thinking skills cannot he taught to students

whi) are not a part of a class or who have not experienced enough success
to have confidence in their ability to learn. Too often teachers have been
asked to 'teach relatively complex ideas without having been given, the
'thin:, the training, or the encouragement to master those basic teaching
skill that must be attended to first.
It must be noted here that other recommended behaviors fall undvr
the general heading of "successful experiences." This section is intended
only, to provide. 'a flavor of the' common sense, basic teaching .skill
orieritation.that is possible by focusing on current effectiveness research.

liandlinsrincorrect:Re.s.ponseff:Thkis- anOtherexample'bfaljehiivibi'
falling under the general heading of climate.* In order to build a classroom
environment, that encourages participation and success, teachers need to
promote an attitude that it is no big deal to get answers wrong. This is not
---tcrsuggesrthat'incorrect answers should not be labeled as incorrectit is
extremely important to students whether an answer is right or Wrong. The
point is that there are effective ways to provide feedback (Brophy' and
Good, 1974), which should he a regular part of a teacher's basic skills.
In--general questioning situations, a number of important variables
must he considered regarding the form of teacher feedback. (For an
excellent discussion of questioning and teacher responses to student
answers, see.Carin, 197,1.) When climate considerations are particularly
important, a basic rule of questioning is When the teacher comes to a
student with a question, the-teacher should not leave the student-until a
correct answer has been presented by either the student or the teacher...
"Bob, who was the first President of the United States?" Bob'
replies, "Jimmy Carter?" U.sing a suggestion. from Madeline Hunter, the
teacher should indicate it is an incorrect answer and state a question the
student did answer. "Bob, Jimmy Carter was the thirty-ninth President,
and the first President elected from the South since the Civil War." In
other words, the student gave a wrong answer, but at least provided a
response that answered some qu..-stion., This is a nice technique if it fits
the situation, and is certainly worthy of inclusidg in El teacher's tepertoire.
Another technique would have the teacher identify a response as
incorrect and thek(1) rephrase the question, (2) provide some form of re-
teachin, (3) provide additional information for the student's use, or (4)
probe the student's resronse for a route to the correct answer. The key
here is extended. teacher-pupil contact that conveys the message th'at it
was not a crime to give a wrong answer and that the teacher has
confidence the right answer Can begiven. It is a basic teaching skill that
says, -"I want this student to succeed and I will do whitteVer I can to
provide the chance to do so." When it is clear that a correct answer is not
 SO SUCCESS1411. TEACHER EVALUATION

forthcoming or when the pacing of a lesson demands movement, then it is

appropriate for the teacher to supply the answer. (See Brophy and Good,
1974, for the differences in the amount of time teachers are willing to stay
with perceived high achievers as opposed to perceived low achievers.)
With the possible exception of classes made up of bright or highly
motivated students, the teacher should not move on from an incorrect
response from one student to another student who can supply the correct
answer. Average and below-average ability level students should not be
forced to sit there and be continuously reminded that there are always
other students who know the answers they miss. It is alright for the
teacher td give the answer because the students expect the teacher to
C-:- C
`16.-itiV.'1`6'-giW6ther'giiideiitYthd copportntiity'to- succeed.; .theleaelierY
should ask them different questions. Certainly there are other suggestions
for handling student 'responses (Carin, 1971; Belton, Belton, and Handler,
1977), but for building the type of climate that is relevant to, achievement,
these basic approaches for handling incorrect responses are useful.
pi MOre and more data suggest that classroom climate is conducive to
increased achievement. This climate does not grow naturally: it is the
result of direct teacher intervention applied in a series of planned teacher
behaviors. These behaviors seem consistent over different grade levels
and subject areas. They do' not represent a way of teaching that fits all
situations and all kinds of !earnings. But they do represent a common
language and view of the climate of teaching that can be the baseline from
__which other behaviors can be built and tested. This is the usefulness of the
effectiveness re,,?,arch.

Pla ning
The discussion in this section, unless otherwise noted, has been
extrapolated from the following sources:
Carroll (1963)
Denham and Lieberman (1980)
Russell and Hunter (1977)
Rosenshine (1980)
McGreal (1981)
Rosenshine (1981)
One of the most signficant outcomes of the effectiveness research has
been the increased emphasis placed on time as a variable in learning. The
use of time is a basic teaching skill that is appropriate in virtually all
teaching situations. Like climate, planning for teaching is not an unfamil-
iar concept. Unfortunately, planning is Often viewed in a context that is
too narrow. Planning is often equated with lesson plans, concentrating on
 A NARROWED FOCUS ON TEACHING 81

just the verbal aspects of teaching. More systematic study of time use is
encouraging a concept called bell-to-bell planning. Because time in
learning is so important, it is imperative that teachers at all grade levels
and in all subject areas begin to maximize the use of their allocated
instructional time..
Recent effectiveness studies have provided a much more accurate
view of life in American classrooms. The most striking findings of these
studies have been concerned with (1) the way time is used by teachers and
students, and (2) how much off-task and undirected student time there is
in classrooms. For example, it is now estimated that in K-5 classrooms in
this country over 70 percent of the dverage.:student's day is spent not
being-directlylaUght bylheteaCher.".Initinior and -senior high schbolS,
from 40 to 65 percent of the student's day is spent doing things other than
being taught by the teacher. For the purposes of this section, the point is
not to evaluate whether these conditions should or should not exist, but to
use the figures as partial .Support for the importance of a more comprehen-
sive view of ,planning.
These data suggest that viewing planning as the development of a
lesson plan for each class may be inappropriate, especially since a typical
lesson plan accounts for only about half of the student's time. The
average student .spends as much or more time in class dealing with
activities and events that fall outside normal planning procedures and
direct teaching. Most of this -student time in class is spent in one of two
Ways.
First, students are usually given work to do by the teacher when they
are not receiving direct instruction. lo looking at the percentage figures
about student time in classrooms, it seems likely .that many students
spend more of their time interacting with the teacher's artifacts than with
the teacher in person. (An artifact is defined as any of the materials, study
guides, question sheets, -problem sets, texts or workbooks, quizzes,
experiments, and tests that teachers build, copy. borrow, or steal for use
by the students.) While teachers spend hours putting together v9e11-
conceived lesson plans outlining the way they will present information,
they spend virtually no time selecting an artifact to accompany the
presentation. The use and develOpment of teacher artifacts is an impor-
tant basic teaching skill that demands more attentionperhaps through
the development of systematic procedures for encouraging and support-
ing a comprehensive, bell-to-bell concept of planning.
The second use of nondirected-time in class is labeled off-task time.
To understand off-task time, one needs to know what on-task time" is.
While a variety of terms abound, a working definition of on-task time can
be gleaned from the literature: Time on task is time during which students
are directly instructed' by the teacher, or are at work on seatwork or

7
8-2 SUCCESSFUL TEActiER EvALuATioN

priutice activities directly related to the desired outcomes of the class,

and are directly supervised by the teacher.
Being, directly instructed dos not mean just lecture. It is direct
nstruction in that the teacher is directly involved with techniques that are
appropriate to the kind of information being taught, the kind of learning
sought, and the type of students: It cat, involve lecture recitation, inquiry
methods, teacher-li:d discussions, or any other techniques that teachers
Use when wantingitO present information, ideas, and concepts, or give
directions.
The key phrase here is "directly related to the desired outcomes of
the class." This is clearly a strong suggestion for drill and practice,
-activities. Several studies have pointed Out slightly negative relationships
between achievement and motivational or recreational games and activi-
ties (Good, Biddle, and Brophy, 1975). Students seem to learn best when
they work directly on what they are to learn rather than being involved in
games that motivate them to want to learn it, This should not be construed
as promoting dull and boring activities. For years creative teachers have
been making drill :and practice interesting. This concept andthe studies
that support it offer strong justification for, teacher-centered, structured
,classes that are characterized by hell -to -bell planning that promotes
maximum amounts of directed time -on -task activities during allocated
instructional time. These are businesate Flassrooms run by ,teachers
who consciously provide opportunities for students to have work they can
handle, to have high success rates, and to receive noticeable amounts of
praise and reinforcement. The BTES study identified a variable labeled
academic learning time, which combines time-on-task with high success
rates (70 to 80 percent). Academic learning.time has proven to be highly
related to achievement (Denham and Lieberman, 1980). This sort of
success in a classroom will generally only happen when the teacher
deliberately plans for, all allocated time and consciously directs all class
activities as well as the. selection of all artifacts on the basis of their direct
application to the desired outcomes for the students.
The inclusion of the statement "and are directly supervised by the
teacher," is an important ingredient in the emerging definition of time-on-
task. Stallings and Kaskowitz (1974) and Stallings and others (1979) have
found higher achievement among work groups directly supervised by
teacherS as opposed to groups working independently. It seems that a
good pair of comfortable shoes is a necessary teaching tool. Direct
supervision means exactly that, direct. The teacher is up and moving
among the students providing additional help, checking for understand-
ing, giving individual help or re-teaching, and supplying extended forms
of praise and reinforcement. These are all activities that have proven to be
extraordinarily important to achievement. Soieral studies, in fact, have
 A NARROWED FOCUS ON TEACIUNG itO

pointed out a negative relationship between teachers sitting at their c sks

and student achievement: This direct involvement of the teach ith
students at all times is a necessary condition for maximizing on-task .1ftrte,
in classrooms.
How prevalent is the amount of time that does not meet the. above
definition of on- task'? In a study of randomly selected middle, junior, and
senior high schools in the Midwest, Mc(real (1981) found that the
'average length of a period (the time allocated for a class) was 42 minutes
in the middle schools, 45 minutes in the junior high schools, and 50
minutes in the high schools. Going into randomly SeleLted classrooms,
observers timed various activities that occurred from the beginning to the
end of a period. From the opening bell until an on-task activity began
averaged seven to nine minutes. The interval between the last on-task
activity to the closing bell ran from ,six to seventeen minutes. In these
typical secondary schools, the fewest off-task total minutes observed just
at the beginning and end of the period was 13 minutes. This number and
all the totals above 13 .were occurring' in nclasSrooms -where -the total
allocated time was from 35 minutes to 55 minutes. Admittedly, there are a
number of variables that need to be considered in analyzing these results,
and the study was not done under rigorous standatds. However, in
presenting and discussing these numbers with thousands of teachers and
supervisors, they are received with considerable agreement.
In light of these figures, teachers obviously need to plan 'for more
efficient use of classroom time, As more and more' demands have been
Made on the curriculum, especially at middle and junior high schools, the
length of school periods have been shortened to provide for more periods
in the day. If, in a period of 35 to 45 minutes, 13 to 20 minutes are wasted,
then classroom instruction is cut to an absurdly shortiime. And shortened
'periods force teachers to violate recommended sequences for effective
lesson design. These time problems are consistent and widespread and
demand systematic and continuous examination and discussion. Again,
the effectiveness research can provide the common language and the
focus for supervisors and teachers to cooperatively addre:;s this issue.
In elementary schools (K-5) the amount of on and off -task time has
been more accurately documented. Rosenshine (1980, and Good and
Beckerman (1978), among others, have accumulated data shOwing dra-
matic variances in the amount of engaged time in elementary classrooms.
(Engaged time is the percentage of allocated time spent en-task.) Off-task
time in elementary classrooms is almost always directly related to the
amount and quality of the teacher's planning. For example, teachers need
to make. plans for getting students more quickly back on task following
transitional time; efficiently moving students from large group;; to small
groups, and keeping students on task while the teacher works with other
84 Si.)C C MAWR EVALUATION

students. Regardless,of the kinds of students a teacher has or the type of

learning being sought, these time considerations arc basic to effective
teaching.
Certainly Some off-task time iis caused by decisions and lack of
planning at the building level. The continuous movement in and out of
elementary classrooms caused by organizational requirements (out-of-
class activities such as physical education, music, title and recess) eat
into regular allocated time and create transitional and wait time. Effective
instructional improvement programs address these problems by focusing
both the supervisor's and teacher's attention on classroom and building
use of time.
The point of thi,:brief 'review on time use in classrooms is toillustrate
again the usefulness of introducing all staff to the basic concepts emerging
from the effectiveness research. Teachers and supervisors armed with the
same set e(- :dnguage and definitions regarding such terms as bell-t6-bell
planning, artifacts, on-task time, engagement rates, transitional time, and
wait time have a way offocusing their interaction and goal setting on basic
fundamental teaching skills.

Hunter's Steps in Lesson Design

The most successful implementations of a narrowed focus on teach-
ing have utilizedin addition to the effectiveness researchsome of the
work of Madeline Hunter and her colleagues. The contributions of Hunter
to more effective teaching are significant. The recommendations for
lesson design discussed here are only part of Hunter's complete program,
but are the most widely accepted and the most practical. In many ways
these steps reflect characteristics that have made the effectiveness
research acceptable ?o practitioners. They have a strong research base, ..
especially from a learning theory perspective, and they have a great ideal
of surface validity because they make sense and they parallel accepted
practice in schools.
Admittedly, if Russell and Hunter (1977) were describing these ste.,
they might do it somewhat differently than I. The short description
following each of the steps is drawn from an effectiveness research
perspective and reflects current research findings. A more complete
introduction and discussion would be necessary as a part of the training
program when the teaching focus would be introduced to the members of
a school district. But tir the purposes of this book, the following short
perspectives must suffice.
While a successfiil esson can be developed and carried out without
explicitly following all he steps or the sequence, these steps are an
 . A NARROWED FOCUS ON TEACIIINO 85

appropriate framework For 1); .toning virtually any type of lesson at any
grade level and in an subject area. In this sense, these steps build it
teaching foeus around certain key teaching skills that are a; dlicable in
al most all situations.
The assumption, tere is that before teachers begin to plan for
particular lesson, they 411 already have determined the primary objec-
tives of the lesson. Once that has been done, the following steps should he
used to design the most effective lesson possible to meet those objectives.

Steps 1 and 2: Anticipatory Set and Statement of Objectives

It is important to get students "ready to learn," The first minutes of a
class are particularly valuable because students must be brought onto task
in a way that encourages mental readiness for i,v1iitt is to come. One
Particularly recommended practice is to gez students started as quickly as
possible on some form of review of the previous day's' work. Both Good
and Grouws (1979) and Emmer and Evertson (1979) have gathered data
showing this type of opening review to be effective. A second way is/
noteworthy because it combines steps one and two. It is .important ,for
students to know where they, are going in class, the relevance of what.they
arc learning; and to/liafe a sense of continuity. Very often, average and
below=average ability students view each school day and each new lesson
as an independent act. They do not always see the relationship betWe'en
today's work and what they did yesterday and certainly-not what they will
be doing in class tomorrow. They lack the ability to indepenentlY see the
big picture. Part of the concept of p. teacher centered classroom is that the
teacher takes responsibility for providing students' weith a sense.- of
continuity in their learning. An effective technique'that has emerged from
the literature involves the teacher's use of verbal moves that provide
important cues for the students. For example, the consistent use of
advanced organizers can inform students of what is coming as well as tie
events together. For example:
"What we are going to do today is.
"Yesterday, as you remember. we talked about . . . Now today I
intend to show' that. . . .
"The reason we want to look at this is because. . . ."
"I want to take a few minutes and review what we did yesterday,
because I think it will help give you a feeling about what the next
logical step should be."
At the same time it is necessary to build in verbal moves during the
presentation of a lesSon to provide berichma:ks or clues a to what is
.
 8( S ( TSSFUI.IFACIIER EVALUATION

particularly important. The use of structured comments as an automatic

part of teaching helps produce such dues. Examples of ..stiiictured-
comments would include:
_n
"'this is an important point, and I think you should write it.down."
"This iClea,is central to our understanding of The concept."
"That is an excellent point and one I think gives us the reason it is
important that we study this."
"I am not necessarily saying this is going to be on the 'test, but I.
would remember-it it' I. were you."
The use of summary nd review statements are other important
teacher moves that help stu ents'put information into perspective. Sonic
verbal statements that typify these techniques include:
"Let's review what we just talked about."
"The important things you need to keep in mind are.. ." . .

"Putting together all the things we have talked about, we can

conclude that. . . ."
"Let's take a few minutes and review what we have just talked
about.:Then I will. sh6w you how it relates to what we will he doing
tomorrow."
M .

These first two steps are reminders for the teacher to get the
*.I.

lessbn4
starta appropriately. The teacher is responsible for not only 'getting
students ready to learn, but for providing them with a reasonable sense of
continuity. Students have a right and a need to know where they
have .....
been, where they are going, and why. The. examples provided here
are
only a sample of what could be used.

Steps 3-..and 4: Instructional Input and Modeling .

Steps three and four are what Rosenshine (1911 I) would call the.
explanation-demonstration stage in teaching. Instructional /input_ is the
teacher's actual plans for the presentation that will be Made. Sitice
traditional lesson plans usually encompass the form of explanation to he
used and the type of examples (modeling) to be given; these steps in the
Hunter sequence are usually the ones most successfully handled by the
average teacher. Still, part of the training that teachers and supervisors
receive should,include a review of different styles-and Models of teaching.
The larger the set of alternatives provided teachers, the more likely they
will select techniques that match the desired objectives with the type and
level of the ,students. Some examples of general reviews of teaching
include Joyce and Weil (1972), Bellon, I3ellon, and Handler (1977). and
 NARROWFD,,I.1)li5 ON TEACHING 87

(1968). In addition, there are anumber of specialited models and

mothods,of teaching that have girtifiAl credibility with praetitioners.1,"hesc
include such things as the learning styles work of Dunn and Dunn l'1975).
the Cooptirative Learning approach as developed by Johnson and John-
.j19751, Fthna Reid's Ft:RI program, and Mork on hentisphericitv
such as used in the 4M AT s;'stem (McCarthy. 1981)).
There is also an interesting and growing set of research on the
concept of clarity. A 1982 Phi Delta Kappa review pointed out the,
importance.of the clarity of 'presentations to achievement. Rosenshine
119821 has developed a set of behavioral indicators For discriminating
betWeen clear and unclear'presentations. While this material is not yet
. for general use, it is another example of the growing body of
practical intimation emerging from current effectiveness research.

Step S. Checking For Understanding

In order to make appropriate instructional decisions, the leachert,
needs to continuously Tonitor students' level of understanding. Most
students learn best the.lirst time they are introduced to material. I'hus, if
students 71o. not understand what has- Been presented, it is best for the
teacher to )IOp and re-teach the material as soon as possible. Over-
reliance on stringirresson plans by the teacher or by the supervisor can
he counterproductive to this recommended Ilroc'edure. The need for a
teacher to progress from IA on agesson plan to 41) on the plan, regardless
of what is happening with the students, leads to ineffective teaching,
Bloom 1 1976) r-and Good-, Biddle, and Brophy (19751 suggest that an
approximate 71) to 80 percent correct answer rate on verbal responses and
seatwOrk assignment is a satisfactory level-of understanding. It is not
appropriate to continue with a lesson with a low success rate on the
assumption that what students did not understand can he picked up"during
review sessions. Review is a legitimate and valuable teaching tool, but it
is primarily a reinforcing ac's, which should bring students who are already
\ at a 71) to 81) pereentlevel Of understanding up to a-90to 100 percent level.
Review should not he eonsidereill a re- teaching activity. Re-teaching
should occur immediately following the original presentatipn once it has
been established that a satisfactory level of understanding has not been
reached.
There are a number of useful ways to assess understanding. The nest
pra"etical and immediate way is thr4ough. the questioning that generally
accompanies modeling: For this assessment to he legitimate, all the
students in a class need to he monitored. It is especially important that
nonrespondents he included. Teachers should rely on a number of.
 Sri SUCCESSFUL. TEACHER EVALUATION

directed questions during this part Of a lesson.. If only undirk-cled

questions are asked. the brighte-st, most verbal students in the room will
`dominate the discussion, which' will lead 'to a as-forted ,picture of the
overall level of understanding. Every teacher should have several bench-
mark students: when these students show an adequate level of under-
standing it can he assumed that everyone is ready to move to the next
step.

Step 6. Guided Practice

Once an adequate level of understanding has been reached or is at
least attainable, it is absolutely essential that students he giVen the
opportunity to practice the new skill or its application. Russell and Hunter
call this step guided practice. The effectiveness researchers call it__
prompted ,or controlled practice, (Stevens alid Rosenshine, 1981). Under
any name, data are accumulating regarding its extraordinary importance
to learning. No singreVeaching activity has more potential value than
guided practice. .

Basically, guided practice affords students the opportunity Ito prac-

tice a new skill in the classroom under the direct supervisiOn of the
teacher. The teacher . workl. among the students providing support,
encouragement, praise, individual assistance, or re-teaching as needed. It
is an opportunity for the teacher to use a number of teacher behaviors that
have proven to be directly related to achievement.
1 Many teachers argue that large class sizes prevent them from
)providing-guided prtictice to all students. To alleviate this problem, much
lof the guided practice should be done in groups of five to seven (Stallings
!and Kaskowitz, 1974), which can be form' ed heterogeneously by location
in the room. The peer tutoring that often exists in these kinds of groupings
; is also a positive activity. The teacher can move among the groups
-': keeping them all on-task. When the teacher talks to a student in a group
aII can hear the interaction By monitoring the efforts of the students in
their practice groups the teacher can get another measure of their
understanding. When the students have mastered the new material, they
arc ready to advance to the next step in the sequence)

Step 7. Independent Practice

The final step in effective lesson design provides students the
opportunity to practice the new skill independently. Traditionally, inde-
pendent practice has been in the form of homework. But the concept of
homework is frequently misinterpreted and often misused. Homework,
 A NARROWED FOCUS ON TEACHING s9
.

like review, should be a reinforcing activity. With the possible exception.,

iff academically talented or highly motivated pupils, students should
never he sent home
., with homework that 016. have not already demon-
straw(' in class that they know how tO do.
The average student learns best in a classroom with a teacher, rather
than at hornt.,?streiggling through long homeWork assignments that produce
high error rates. Most homework assignments should be short (approxi-,
mately 2t) minutes), drill-and-practice activities on materials ...tudents
hiave worked on in Vass to an adequate leVel of understanding..This is not
an argument traist homework, but against the inappropriate use of
homework. Research papers, novels, and reading assignments for the
'next day's class are ,perfectly acceptable; in fact, day-to-day reading
assignments are quite usefulnot becaw students, need homework hut
because such assignments serve as advanced organizers-for the next day.
The latter part of this sequence is especially important. Unfortunate-
ly, it is also one of the most violated of all recommended teaching
practices, becoming much more frequent as off-task times in classrooms'
increase and the length of periods in the school day decrease. In 35- to 45-,
minute periods; with 20 percent or more off -task' time, it is virtually
impossible for a teacher to get through a review of festerday's Work,
introduce new material, provide modeling or demonstration time, and run
a guided practice activity. What often happens is that teachers run out of
time during explanation and demonstration and then move automatically
to a homework assignment. They often send the student home with an
assignment that has not been adequately explained or practiced. This is
almost/certain to cause a high error rate and frustration for the average dr
below-average student. The teacher comes in the next day, finds the high
. error rate, and then tries to re-teach after considerable frustration has
already occurred. In another scenario, the teacher forges on through high
,.
or rates because of a lack of time, hoping t9 find time for re-teaching
during the review at the end of the unit. Both of these alternatives-are
/ usually inefficient and ineffective.
Hunter developed and labeled this lesson design sequence. but the
effectiveness research 4as more recently provided the hard 'data. The
sequence of events recommended here is.extreme.ly important to effective
.
teaching. Schools and teachers need to take this information and develop
procedures for making it a regular part of their instructional improvement
efforts.
This section on planning is illustrative of the growing set of practical
teaching skills that form a solid and basic framework'for training teachers
and supervisors in a focus for teaching. Teaching is planning,. whether it is
for climate or for the use of time in the classroom. The next section on
managementrfurthers the concept of the teacher-centered classroom.
 90 SUUCESSFUL TEACHER EVALUATION

Maniigement
The discussion in this section, unless otherwise noted, isyxtrapolat- z
ed from the following sources.
'<cumin (1970)
Emmer and Evertson (1979) ti
Brophy (19.79)
Anderson, EVertson, and Brophy (1979)
Fitzpatrick (1981)
In many respects the more popular term for classroom.discipline is
classroom management. There is no intent here to offer suggesti'ons on
improving disciplinary practice6ther than hot'' improvement will occu as
more gtrICTili* problems are addressed. No area in education has been so,
thoroughly covered by training p'ackages and dog 4tml-pony shows as
classroom discipline. Schools and teachers have available to them iuch
reputable cgricepts and packages as behavioral modification techniqueg
transactional analVsis,.the Glasser approach (1969), and .the,:,a,,ive
discipline materials of Canter (1976). They are. useful and helpful and
should be made a part of staff development prokrams. But for inclusion in
an overall instructional improvement rogram, the emphasis and the
training should initially be directed at the organization and management Of -
The classroom.
The most significant experimental studies in the teaching effective-
ness area over the last five years' have bCen directed at the orkiini-zation
and management o1 cla'ssrooms. The basic format of these studies has
involved one group of teachers with specific training in management or.
instructional skills, and a similar grolt who did not receive training.-In
every instance where the teacher had implemented the training, the
students had higher achievement or higher academic engaged time than
did students in the classrooms of the 'untrained, teachers., In these
experimental stutliesaand in the correlational studies that preceded them,
thu,relationship between manvement skills and student achievement Was
clear and positive. Thus, organization and management ,skills are an
essential part of the effective teacher's bag of tools. As Brophy (1979)
indicates, effective teachers are effective managers. The ability to orga-
nize and manage a classroom is 'basic teaching skill -That -crosses-grade
levels and subject areas.
This section is considerably ,shorter than the climate or planning:
areas for two reasons. First of all, there is a very dose relationship
between planning skills and management skills. Consequently, Mu51,1 of
the discussion related to the' use of time is clearly analogous to: good
management practices. Approximately 80 percent of all classroom man-
.
 9,

A NARROWED FOCUS ON TEACHING 91

agement problems occur during off -task times jt the classroont. There is a
certain logic in'assuming that before teachers pull out their disciplinary
bag Of.toolsz they should first plan class time so as to promote the highest
possible engagement rate. The more occupied and supervised students
are, the'leSs likely they are to participate in. unacceptable behavior.
The second reason this .section. can be so succinct is because there
arCalready,several useful trainpg programs -in organization and -Manage-
ment Allis. These programs are based, primarily. on the best of the
experimental studies, the most noteworthy of which inclUde The Texas
First Grade Reading group Study (Anderson, Evertson, and Brophy
'4979), Missouri Mathematics Effectiveness Study (good and Grouws,
1979), The Texas Elementary Shook4tNly (Emmer, Evertson, and
others, 19.79),
The Texas Junior High SchA Study (Emmer, Evertson,
and. others, 1981);, The Study of a . Training Program in Classroom
organiiation and Management A: Secondary School Teachers (Fitzpat-
rick, 1,982), and Exemplary Centers for Redding Instruction (Reid. 1981).
he training programs that have emerged from these studies are, or
,will y .shortly, available for use. The material is generally attainable
thro gh the addresses provided in the references or,' as is the case with
' the raining program-for elementary ticaehers,Ivailable (rom ASCD.
Part_of-the work done by Fitzpatrick (1981) is presented below to
illustrate the type of material contained in these programs. TM main
headings are abbreviated from,13 basic principles of classroomorganiza-
tion and management that have emerged "from experimental and correla-
tional studie. Below each of the main.headings Bre sample belhaviors in
which teachers can be trained.(Obviously, the actual training programs
are more complete. Also, they tend to be more elective when presented
by trained instructors. For our purposes, though, the following summary
of language and behavioral indicators car' provide the common ground. so
necessary to-orreffective evaluation /supervision system.
. An Adaptation of the
Organization and Manageme_nt'of the Secondary Classroom*
1. Rules and Procedures: .
9
-
11.
' a.' A clear and understandable set of classroom rules exist
f b. Student behavior during class activities is continuously monitored
2. Consequences: ..
a. Teacher does not ignore inappropriate student behavior
b. ConsequenceS tbr behavior are defined and the teacher consistently
enforces the.rules and procedures
c. Teacher addresses,criticism to specific behaviors which hav' e been defined
as inappropriate

By Kathleen Fitzpittlick. University of Illinois, 1981. Used with perniission.

 92 SUCCESSFUL TEACHER EVALUATION

3. Elimination of Constraints and Interruptioils:

--a. Use of, classroom space is efficient; necessary materials are readily
accessible to both the,teacher am! students
Teacher handles emergencies and unexpected problems with a minimal
amount of classroom disturbance
c. There do not exist any "trouble areas" in the seating arrangement. such as
talking or misbehaving centers
4. Emphasis Placed on Academic Goals:.
a. Teacber,is task-oriented, busipesslike
b. Teacher 'Makes choice of assignments
c. Teacher-student interactions are restricted to the content
1.7;'redominance.of Whole-Group Activities:
a. More class time is allocated to whole group activitiegrrather than to
individual work
b. Teacher presentation to whole group is both visibly and audibly clear
c:- Teacher stays in charge of all students and avoids long involvement With
individuals
d. Teacher commands attention of all students and does not talk over student
talk
e. Teacher gives direction and instruction only when students are 'ready and
listening
.
6. Clarity of Presentations
a. An overview of the lesson is provided
b. The development of the lesson takes place in a sequenced, step-by-step
design
c. Teacher emphasizes comprehension, not memorization
d. Teacher offers reasons for rules and procedures. and highlights any
patterns which may exist
e. Teacher provides a demonstration or application of the skills or concepts
contained in the lesson, such as using examples or comparisOns
f. Directions and instructions do not confuse the students, rather they are
given in a clear, concise manner
7. PractiCe of Skills or Concepts:
a. Students are given an opportunity to practice the skills or NkncePts
contained in the lesson during class time
b. Students are assigned homework.
8. Feedback and Evaluation:
a. Teacher is availablejo provide assistance to students and to spot system-
atic errors
b. Correct responses receive praise from the teacher
c. When the student initially responds to a question incorrectly rather than
immediately eaffing.on another. student the teacher rephrases thequestion______
by asking leading or probing questions-.
d. Teacher frequently quizzes the students to Assess understanding
e. Teacher emphasizes a 'high rate of questioning and asks short. direct
questions
9. Reviews:
Teacher conducts an adequate review of previoUsly learned material
 A NARROWED FOCUS ON TEACHING 93 .

10. Monitoring Behavior; .

a. Teacher supervises seatyvOrk and actively engages students in classwork
b. Teacher alerts students to the fact that they arc accountable for thtkir work
c, Teacher scans'the room to pinpoint any student behavior Which requires
attention
d. Teacherjs in control of the clas's at all times
I I. Transitions:
a. Class time is characterized by smooth-running activities
b. Teacher infrequently interrupts the students by giving further directions or
instructions
12. Accountability for Homework rind 'Classwork:'
a.- Students are 'required to turn in all assignments, both classwork and
homework
b. Teacher sets clear expectations and high standards emphasizing the
students' responsibility to coniplete all assignments
c. Teacher checks the students' assignments
d. Teacher returns the students' assignments after checking their work
13. Classroom Climate: .

.
Teacher ackhowledges student accomplishments with praise
b. Evaluation practices the teacher administers are fair and consistent
'c. Teacher conveys enthusiasm for the subject matter
d. Teacher strives to involve all the students in class activities and encour-
ages the participation of-each_student
.
e. Teacher recognizes and acknowledges the students by name'.

A narrowed foNs on teaching is the most important of all the

commonalities. It is the best possibleway .to move teacher evaluation
from its questionable :past to its rightful position as the major staff
eyelopment effort in a school. The difference that teachers and teaching
crake is maximized when teachers are given the encouragement, the
involvement, the support, and the training that they need to have in order
to be willing and able to change their behavior.. A practical and realistic
evaluation-system based on the focus of teaching presented here has the
potential to be the mechanism fqr meeting the needs of the teachers, the
supervisors, and the organization.

References
.Anderson, L.: Evertson, C.; and Brophy, J. "An Experimental Study offti
Teaching in First-Grade Reading Groups." Elementary School Journal 79 (1979); 193.
Aspy, D. "A Discussion of the Relationship Between Selected Studerkt Behavior and
the Teacher's-Use-of Interchangeable Responses." Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Educational Research AssOciation New Orleans, 1'973.
,Bellon, J.; Bellon. E.; aria Handler, J. Instructional Improvement: Principles and
Processes: Dubuque. Iowa: Kendal/Hunt Publishing Company, 1977.
Bloom, B. Human Characteristics and School Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill..
1976.,
Brophy. J.. and Good, T. Teacher-Student Relationships: Causes htrConsequences. tl
New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1974.

r
 9A1- SUCCESSFULTEAC.HER EVALUATION
tt
Brophy, J., and Evertson, C. 'Learning from,Teacking: A Developmental Perspective.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.,
Brophy.). "Advances in Teacher Effectiveness Research." Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education, ChicagJ,
1979..
Canter, L., with Canter, M, Assertive Discipline: A Take Charge Approach for Today's
Educator, LL Angeles: Canter and Associates, Inc., 1976.
Carin,"/C., and Sund, R. Developing Questioning Technlipi,-s: A Self-Concept Ap-
proach. Columbus; Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, 1971.
Carroll, J. "A Model for School Learning." Teachers College Record 64-(190): 723.
Cummings, C. Teaehing'Makes ti Difference. Snohomish, Wash.': Snohomish Publish-
ing CpMpany, 1980.
Denham; C., and Lieberman, A., ens. .Time to Learn. Washington, D.C- U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1980)
Dunkin, M., and Biddle, B. The Study of Teaching. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and
,Winston,'1974..
Dunn, R., and Dunn, K. Educator's Self-Teachieg Guide to Individualizing Instruction-
al Programs. West Nyack, N.Y.: Parker Publishing Company, Inc., 1975.
Emmer, E., and Evertson, C. Some Prescriptions and Activities for Organizing and
Managing the Elementary Classroom. Austin, Tex,: The Research and Developmimt Center
for Teacher Education, 1979.
Ernmer, E.; Evertson, C.; and others. Organizing and Managing the Junior High
School, Classroom. Austin, Tex.: The Research and Development Center for Teacher
Education, 1981.
Fisher, C., and others. "Teaching Behaviors, Academic Learning Time, and Student
Achievement! An Overview." In Time to Learn. Edited by C. Denham and A. Lieberman.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980.
Fitzpatrick, K. The Organization and Management of the Secondariy assroom.
Urbana: University of Illinois, 1.981.
Glasser, W, Schools Without Failure. New York: Harper and, Row, 1969.
Good, T.; Biddle, B.; and Brophy. J. Teachers Make a Difference. New York: Holt,
Rinehart. and Winston, Int., 1975.
Good, T., and Beckerman, T. "Time on Task: A Naturalistic Study in Sixth Grade
Classrooms." The Elementary School Journal 73 (1978): 193.
, Good. T., and Grouws, D. The Missouri Mathematics Effectiveness Project.
Columbia,
Mo.: University. of Missouri, 1979.
Hunter, M. Rx Improved Instruction. El Segundo, Calif.: TIP Publications, 1976:
Hyman, R. Teaching: Vantage Points fin Study. New York: J. B. Lippincott company,
1968:-
JohnsorLD.,, and Johnson, R. Learning Together and Alone. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, 1975.
Joyce, B., Weil, M. Models of Teaching. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,
1972.
Kamii, C. 7'Encour4ging Thinking in Mathematics." Phi Delta Kappan 64 (1982): 247.
. Kerman, S., and Martin, M. Teacher Expectations and Student Achieviw ntTESA.
Bloomington, Ind.: Phi Delta Kappa,' 1980.
Kounin, 1,, Discipline road "Group Management in Classrooms. New, York: Holt,
.

_______--Rinhark-and-Winston-F1 970.
Medley, O. Teacher Competence and Teacher Effectiveness: A Review of Process-
Product Research. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Colleges for Teacher
EdUcation.
McCarthy, B. The 4MAT System, Oak Brook, Ill.: EXCEL, Inc., 1980.
McGreal, T. "A Study of Allocated Time in Selected Junior and Senior High Schools."
Mimeograph, University of Illinois, 198r,
Peterson, P., and Walberg, H., Research on Teaching. Berkeley, Calif McCutchan
Publishing Company, 1979.
-\
 t
A NARROWED FOCUS Of TEACH1Nti 95
-
.. Phi Delta Kappa. Practical App :canons of Research. .
The newsletter of PDK's Center
on Evaluation, Developmpt, and Researeli,..1980. ..
Reid, E. ECRIExemi!lary Center for Reading
Instruction. ECRI: 3310 South 2700
East, Salt Lake City, Utah 94109. 1981. .
Rosenshine, B. Teaching Behaviors and Student Achievement.
Foundation for Educationat Research, 1971. London: National
.

Rosenshine, B., and Furst, N. "Research on Teacher Performance ,

Criteria." In
Research in Teacher Education: A Symposium. Edited by B. 0. Smith. Englewood
, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.. 1971. Cliffs,
.
Rosenshint, B. "How Time is Spent in Elementary Classrooms."
Edited by C: Denham and A. Lieberman. Washington, D.C.: U,S. Government In-Time tO Learn:. ,
Office, 1980. Printing
Rosenshine, B. Coding Academic Engaged .
.

---:-1981.
Minutes. Urbana: University of Illinois,'
t. iosenshine, B. Clear Presentations. Urbana: University of Illinois, ,

Rosenshine, B. Teaching Functions in SuccessfUl (982.

'
versity of Illinois, 1982. Teaching Programs. Urbana: Uni-
,
.
a,
Russell, D., and Hunt4, M. -Planning for Effective Instruction."
bel- 1977), I striation (Septein-
Stallings, J., and Kaskowitz, D. Follow Through Classroom Obse
'1972-73. Menlo Park, Calif.: Stanford Research vhtion Evaluation,
Institute, 1974.
,., and others. How to Change the Process of Teaching
Stallings41
in Secondary Schools. Menlo Park, Calif,: SRI International, L ask. Reading. Skills
Stevens, P., and Rosenshine, H. "Advances in Research1979. on Teaching." Exceptional
Education Quarterly 2 (May 1981): I.
 r

Improved Classroom
Observatior. Skills

lassroom observation is the most practical prodedure for collecting

formal data about teacher performance. Thi-CiatTity of f-Observations
and the ways StipervisorS collect and share data with teachers are major
factors in the success and effectiveness of teacher evaluation systems.
Recognizing this fact, districts with effective evaluation systems have, in
..Most instances,.systematically set out to improve the observation skills of
their supervisors..
Training to improve observation skills is most effective when super-
visors have already adopted.an appropriate attitude about observation.
As suggested in Commonality I, believing evaluation is a cooperative
effort of teacher and supervisor to improve instruction allows the.supenvi-
sor to put observation into a proper perspective. Too often supervisors
have had to live with common law evaluation procedures that force them
into a wide-angle lens approach to viewing classrooms. They develop a
"here are your strengths and weaknesses, so work on you weaknesses
until I see you again next year" style that is increasingly regarded by
researchers, teachers; and supervisors as-unreliable and` inadequate.
Contemporary views of observation, based on research and experi-
ence,.: strong0 suggest that the appropriate role for, a supervisor in
visiting classrooms is to.be a collector of descriptiKe_data ono predeter
hutted aspect of the leacher's performance. The notion of developing in
supervisors the ability to narrow their focus uring observations and skill
in collecting descriptive rather than evaluati e data is the essence of the
training programs that are most effective.
'In 'reviewing many of the excellent sources available 'regarding
classroom observation (for example, Medley and,Vitzel, 1963; kosen-
shine and Furst, 1973; Borich; 1977; Borich and Madden, 1977; *tailings,
1977), there appear to be foil!' pradtical ways for supervisors to improve

96
 INIBROVEUKLASSROOM OBSERVATION SKILLS 97

their observational skills and the way they use data once they are
collected.
1. The reliability and usefulness of classroom'observation IS dircctly
related to the amount and type of information'supervisors have priori()
the observation.
2. The narrower the focus supervisors use in observing classrooms,
the more likely they will be able to accurately describe the events related
to that focus.
3. The impact of,observationaFdatwon supervisor-teacher
ships and on the teacher's willingness to fully participate in an instruction:
al improvement activity is directly related to the way the data is recorded
during observation. t , ..
4. The impact of observational data-on supervisor-teacher relation-
)
ships and on t he teacher's willingness to fully participate in arrinstruction-
al improvement activity, is direiktr-rekated to 'the way feedback-7TV'
/
presented to the teacher. /
These general rules for training are all, imbedded in one way or
another in the concepts of clinical supervision, which is a model often
used by districts as the basis for their evaluation system. -Although
traditional. definitions of clinical supervision prevent it from being used as
a summatiVe 'evaluation model, 'many districts have found.-that the
supervisory techniques encouraged .within the concept have practical
implications:The most immediate effect can be generated by borrowing
from theclassie "cycle of superVision" recommendations regarding pre-
and post-conferencing and suggestionA.,as to how obServatiOns
are con-
ducted.
Much of the tinkering with th.e original Goldhammer (1969) and
Cogan (1973) "cycle of supervision" has occurred naturally as supeiv-
sors tace the reality of their situations. The majority of supervision
in
American schools is not carried out 'by classic supervisors in clinical
situations. Approximately 80 per-cent of, classroom supervision is con-
'ducted by line administrators -who are- in.classrooms because
the evalua-
tion system mandates it. Their typically infrequent visits are character-
ized by he need to generate some form of "stimmativee.Valuation.
The
nature of this forced relationship prevents the traditional view of clinical
supervision from being functional. (See Snyder, 1981, for an excellent
discussion of 'Clinical Supervision in the 1980's.") Cogan himself
began
to sense the need for alteration when he said
certain phases of the
cyclemaybe altered, or omitted, or new procedUres instituted, depending
upon the successfUl development of working relationships between the
supervisor and the teacher" (Cogan, 1973, p. 12).
Pulling out of certain clinical supervision techniques or altering them
 98 SUCCESSFUL TEACHER EVALUATION

to fit current conditions does not _deny the effort that went into their
development. But it is necessary to reshape the techniques into practices
that can Meet this demand's of the contemporary supervisor. (Garman,
1982, offers an excellent discussion of the "itinerant" and the clinical
supervisors) and presents a stimulating contemporary view of clinical
supervision.)

Four Tenets or Classroom Observation

Since this book is not designed as a training manual, only a portion of
whaf'might be included in a complete training program is provided. To get
a feeling for the kind of training efforts that schools with effective teacher
evaluation systems have used to address this commonality, each of the
-four tenets is discussed briefly.
I. The reliability and usefulness of classroom observation is directly
related to the amount and kind of information the supervisor obtains
beforehand.
Under normal circumstances, classroom observations. shbuld not
occur unless a conference has been held with the teacher before the
observation. Most supervisors are able to see the logic of pre-conferenc-
ing, especially when they conjure up visions of classrooms in which they
spent the majority of the time trying to figure out what teachers were
doing and where they were going. Entering the classroom cold for an' j
observation is an extraordinarily inefficient use of time as well as a P
basically unreliable act.
Acheson and Gall (1980) label the opening conference of the supervi-
sion cycle the planning conference. At this meeting, the supervisor and ,

the teacher identify a spdcific focus for their involvement. The techniques
recommended by Acheson and Gall sound very similar to. the discussion
of goal-setting conferences provided in Commonality 4. They suggest that
these seven techniqUes constitute an agenda,fdi' the conference, and
further recommend that.they be followed in the order presented (Acheson
and Gall, 1980, p. 43).
1. Identify the teacher's concerns about instruction..
2 Translate the teacher's concerns into observable behaviors.
3. Identify proCedures for improving the teacher's instruction.
4. Assist 'the .teacher in setting self-imprOvement goals.
5. Arrange a time for'classroom observation.
6. Select an observation instrument and behaviors to be recorded.
7. Clarify the instructional context in which data will be recorded..
 IMPROVED CLASS400M OBSERVATION SKILLS 99

1/4 The first four of these techniques are clearly applicable to the initial.
gol-setting conferences that are so integral-. to effective evaluatio
systems. As such, the discussion accompanying these four techniques
it
the Acheson and Gall book (pp. 44-51) can be a useful training
resource.
The last three techniques are moreClosely tied to the supervisor's
preparation before observing.
Anderson and Krajewski (1980) have a so .what different perspec-
tive of there-conference. Their notion is more in line with the way pre-
conferences are most frequently used in actual school settingsthat is, to
_gather informaLion about what specificalbi is going to happen during the
class that will be observed and to .set up ground rules between
the
supervisor and the teacher. Goldhammer, Anderson, and Krajewski
(1980, p. 55) offer the following format for a pre-observa.tion
conference,
1. Establish a "contract" or "a ,reement" between the supervisor i.afal
teacher to be observed, including: the
a. Objectives of the lesson..
b. elationship of the lesson objectives to the overall learning program being
in lemented.
c. Ac bvities to be observed.
d. Possible changing of activity format', delivery system, and other elements_
based on interactive agreement between supervisor and teacher.
c. Specific description of items or problems on which the teacher wants
feedback.

2. Establish the mechanics or ground rules of the observation including:

a. Time of observation
b. Length of observation.
c. Place of observation.
3. Establish specific plans for carrying out the observation.
a. Where shall the supervisor sit?
b. Should the supervisor talk to students about the lesson? If so, when? Before
or after the lesson?
c. Will the supervisor look for a specific action?
d. Should the supervisor interact with students?
c. Will any special materials or preparations he necessary?
f. HOw shall the supervisor leave the observation?

The nature of the items in the outline suggests more of an informa-

tional conference than a re-planning or goal-setting Conference. Recent
experience with practicing supervisors indicates that establishing ra-
tively nondirective, informational conference seems to be a mote,/ effec-
tive and satisfying d3perience. The amount of time available for supervi-
sion, the number of teachers to be evaluated, and the experience of the
teaching staff are necessitating a more 'efficient use of supervisor and
teacher time. What has emerged in effective evaluation systems is a clear
v
 100 SUCCESSFUL. liACI R EVAI,L4ATION
w

separation of the pre-planning or goal-setting conference from what would

truly he a pre- observation conference.
In the goal-setting conference, the supervisor and the teacher arrive
at a mutually agreeable focus for the remainder or the evaluation period.
7V*,
Once the focus is established they develop,i plan for working together to
aciileve the goals. If' observation is determined to he appropr'Oe for the
'goal. then any ohse tion will automatically include the pre-'yfonference,
observation, and N .,t- conference cycle, Also, once the focus has been
established, it shou d he understood that all observations will be 'built
around that focus and will he scheduled only at times wild) activities in
the classroom relate to the goal. At the same time the observation is
scheduled, a time for the post-conference should also be set. Both pre -
and pot- conferences can be held up to three days before or after the
observation and still retain their usefulness (Griffith, 1973). :There is an
implication here that the detailed format of And6rsoti.and Krajewski's
pre-conferences may he too complex and time- consuming. The mechan-
ics, ground rules, and plans for-carrying out the observations should be
discussed at the goal-setting conference. Specific scheduling for.individ-
ual visits could then he handled in a more informal manrier. Conferences
can he productive and satisfying by following an alnfost exclusive
informational format built around several key questions put to thL teacher
by the supervisor.

Why don't _von catch me up about where you are now and what you have
been doing?'"
It is extremely useful to know if a teacher is at the beginning, middle,
or end of a unit. Supervisors' perceptions of classroom activities and
occurrences can he significantly affected by the location of a. class in
relation to the amount of material lo he covered. Often all the information
a supervisor needs can be acquired through this question since many
teachers are delighted to have an opportunity to share with their supervi-
sor the things they are or have been doing in class.

"What will you be doing during my visit?"

This que4tion helps supervisors know what to expect during the visit.
They can organize their thoughts about the most efficient use of. their
time; the relationship of the lesson to the pre-established goal; and the
most appropriate way to collect data considering the predicted events in
the class.

"What do you hope the students will learn?"'

This question determines whether the teacher has a definite purpose
 IMPROVED CLASSROOM OBSERVATION SKILLS 101

for the lesson and if the activities that are to occur are appropriate for
these purposes, This allows supervisors to have a clearer perception of
events as they 'actually occur inkhe room. Along with question 2, it also
provides important information for use ip the post-conference. This type
of pre-established information makes it Inuch easierfo the supervisor
and-the teacher to talk technically and professionally abOut the degree of
congrffence between what was supposed to happen and what actually
happened.
The pre-conference also gives the supervisor sand teacher time to
review and discuss the data collection proceddres that will be used. This
should already have been discussed during the original goal-setting
conference. The clinical supervision literature suggests that it is appropri-
ate-to ask the teacher if there.is anything additional the supervisor should
observe or record2The teacher can then receive feedback or help on any
problem or situation that may have developed since the goal-setting
conference.
The conduct of supervisors during this type of informational pre-
conference is not the conduct recommended in \clinical- supervision.
Clinical supervision was originally developed for (use in training pre-
service teachers. Consequently, there is a recommendation that the pre-
inference serve as a training activity:As teachers present what they will
doing in class, supervisors are encouraged iternake changes or
alterations in the lesson plan. Working out a new' or, altered lesson is a
valuable training activity for the teacher, especially for pre-service or
beginning teachers (Boyan and Copeland, 1974). However, under current
conditions in schools, most supervisors find themselves working with
teaching staffs in which 90 percent or more are experienced, tenured
teachers. These"teachers do not seem to find the same value in having a
supervisor suggest alterations in their lesson before it has even been
taught. Since ter her attitude is so important to successful supervision, it
is recommended-11;;Dpre-observational conferences held with experi-
enced teachers be conducted as nonevaluative, informational sessions.
Certainly the more inexperienced or more incompetent a teacher is, the
more comfortable a supervisor should feel in using the pre-cQnference as
a directed training activity.
Most administrators who have become accustomed to holding short
pre-observational conferences indicate that it is among their finest times
in supervision. It provides them with the opport r to meet privately
and talk professionally with their staff in a non-e luative manner.
The idea of increasing the amount of information prior to an
observation bus both strong research support and positive response from
practitioners. Consequently, it deserves serious attention in any attempt
to develop more reliable and successful classroom observations.
 102 SUCCESSFUL TEACHER EVALUATION

2. The accuracy of the classroom observation is directly related to the

supervisor's use of a narrow focus of observation.
Hyman (1975) offers, the following statement about observation:
Observing is much more than seeing. Observing involves the intentional :and
methodical viewing of the teacher and students. Observing involves =planned,
careful, focused, and active attention by the observer.
It is critical to successful observation for the observer to be selective.
The typical classroom is an extraordinarily complex arena that prohibits
wide-angle reporting with any degree of reliability. This simple concept
has long-been one of the major arguments against the use of common law
evaluation systems. For years adivntnistrators have been required to
evaluate teachers on the basis of infrquent, unfocused observations that
supposedly provided the observer with the "objective" data needed to
determine a rating on a get of broad criteria. There is no justification at. all
for these practices to continue. The first move.away from ineffective and
inefficient observations iS the supervisor's realization that a narrowed
focus on classrooM observation must be adopted. -
At this point, howevA it Must bei,emphasized that in successful
evaluation systems the decisions about focusing on specific aspects of
classroom instruction should be made4ointly by the supervisor and the
teacher. There are no secrets in effective systems; and that includes
decisions about what will be ldoked -at during observations. The only
exceptions tckthis Would' be with beginning teachers or teachers who have
some serious- defieiehcies and are being provided direct remedial atten-
tion. Even in these cases the teachers should still be informed of the focus
even though they may not have fully, participated in the decision.
The first way that a classroom focus is determined occurs naturally
when observation isart of a goal-setting system. The act of setting goals
is by ddsign a focusing event. The recommended format for goal setting
requires the development of a plan 'of action for meeting the goal. For
instance, the supervisor and teacher might schedule an observation or a
series of observations so that the supervisor can view, record, and
analyze the teacher's interventions or actions that address the desired
goal. Consequently, the observation is'an activity that is already a part of
a focusing decision. .The focus is established by the fact that observations
only occur during classrZiom activities that are relevant to the goal. -

While the goal-setting system encourages selective observation, it

puts certain pressures on supervisors that must be understood and
accepted. In a sense, the setting of goals is a form of criteria establish-
ment. The goals form the basis for theelationship between the teacher
and the supervisor since the two of then) -will be working on the goals
together. Both supervisor and teacher, must adopt an attitude that says
 IMPROVED CLASSROOM OBSERVATION SKILLS 103

thiOs:whitt. we will look at during evaluation. Supervisors -must learn to

avaid..extfercous, critiques on "criteria" otherthiln those established by
the goals. (Obviously there would be certain exptions to this, particu-
larly in regard to teak7bing behaviors that could be physically or_emotion-
ally damaging to students.) This attitude is often difficult.. to accept.
Traditionally,.evaluation has been viewed as synonymous with observa-
tionrwherc observation is an unplanned visit during which the supervi-
sor attempts to tak,e in everything that is happening -inthe classroom and
selects only a few it4.:.ms to use as the basis for evalution. In tigoal-setting
situation,, the goal must serve as the parameters for focusing the
attention of the supervisor With the teacher.. Any attempts to throw in
additional feedback on items falling ouNide the agreed-Upon focus can
only lead to an erwkion of the very things that make goal set fig andThe
resulting selective 'observations useful and effective.
A second type of atural 'focusing occurs in school'districts that have
adopted a particular vie of teaching. According to Evertson and Holley
(1981, p. 107), "a picture of what effective teaching look like in the
classroom is beginning to emerge, and the assessment of teachers by
means of observation can now be regarded as.a meaningful activity."
Borich (1977) makes the case for usingAi frarhework to look at teaching:
"Observation involves systematically ?ecording a variety of specific,
discrete teacher behaviors that are assumed; acriling to a theoretical
framework, to he related to pupil growth." As suggested in Commonality
5. it is important, if' not necessary, for
a district to assume some
framework, some narrowed focus for looking at teaching. In relationship
to the idea of improving observational skills, the adopted view of teaching
provides an automatic, set of guidelines.for observation.
As discussed in Commonality 5, the teacher effectiveness research
should serve as the frameworkf9rAewing teaching. The logical first step
in applying the effeciivenes10.F.niCh in observation into look separately
at climat?, planning, and. management. Even though these areas overlap_
separating them allows for additional specifying of focus. For example,
unde6the climate heading, observers would focus attention on the major
behaviors of involvement and succtss. and specifically on behavioral
indices..To illustrate, in observing involvement levels in thc classroom it
would be valuable for the supervisor to record such things as who
responds and who does not: what kinds of questions the teacher asks; the
number of-correct and incorrect responses; amount and quality of-the
time tlit teacher spends with each responding student; and the environ-
mental contexts that could he affecting involvement levels (seat arrange-
ments, visibility, sound levels, availability of materials, and so forth).
If a planning focus is appropriate, either because of a pre-established
goal in that area or because the teacher or the supervisor has requested it

N
 1Q4 SUCCESSFUL TEACHER EVALUATION

as a focus, then other beOviors can be given special attention. The

Supervisor can record the time it takes to get class started, how muc ff-
task time occurs during transition, and the time and effort giverilto each
tra,
--- of the steps in the Hunter lesson esign Sequende:
The management heading, alsd offers a number of ways lo focus
attention during. observation. The set of trianageririerft principles described ,
by Fitzpatrick (1981) and presented in Commonality Five could be used
easily as an observation guide.,
The key element to the use of a pfedetermined teaching framework
for promoting selective observation is that the view of teaching has a
respectable research base. The use of a research-based teaching focus,
especially for observations, helps ensure that the time supervisors and
teachers spend in this activity is built around behaviors .that make a
difference. There is no greater waste of energy or resources than
supervisory or instructional ithprovement'activities for which thiire is no
evidence- that change will make any difference. The most successful
evaluation systiqns are designed tolincrea.ve 'the quality of supervisor-
teacher time, not the quantity. .
_

The third way to effectively focus clasAm observption is less

natural than the other two in that it requires decisions,that are best made
after some training. Hyman (1975, p./ 25) makes the following point:

Being selective involves "taking afpOint of view," and the easiest way to take
one is to choose an observational instratnent from among the many our research-
ers have developed. An instrument haS a built-in framework, a point of .view or
vantage point, as well as a set, of rules for systematically observing and organizing
data. In addition to guiding the observer in selecting what to observe, an
observational instrument yields reliable and specific data which forms the basis
for helpful feedback.
,
There is an obvious 19gic about the use of some forp of observation
instrument, and as Hyman implies, there is no lack of instrumen . (See,
for example, Simon and Boyer, 1967; Borich and Madden, 1977; riffith,.
1973,. Acheson and Gall, 1980.) While the logic is sound and instru ents
are readily available, the decision to use observation instruments mist be
viewed realistically. The great majority of instruments are not really
designed for prctical use; to be used effectively, Most require consider-
able amounts of 'training. And, as Evertson and Holley (1981) suggest,
elaborate training in the use of some complex observation guide is \not
really practical for school administrators. \
Nor should the tail be allowed to wag the dog. An instrument should
not be selected because it is kopUlar or available or because someone
suggests that it has high reliability and validity. Many districts wanting to
display their sophistication haveodopted certain 'visible observational
instruments and require all super iNors and teachers- to use there regard-
.

5
 IMPROVED CLASSROOM OBSERVATION SKILLS 105

less pf whether their particular focus is applicable to individual supervi-

sor-teacher goals. Observation instruments should be used if they are
appropriate to the direction the supervisor and the teacher are taking. The
consideration of focus. whether in the goal setting conference or in a pre -..
observation.Conference, must come before any consideration of observa -,
tiOninstruments*. , Si

When a particular focus or goal has been determined, and if observa

tion is a part of the plan to look at the teacher's work and growth, then a
decision about an appropriate instrument' to aid data collection can be
made. Fortunately, much of the recent effectiveness research depends
heavily on obsc,ryation as a form of data collection. Out of this research
some relatively simple, descriptive instruments and techniques have been
developed:Many, of them match up almost perfectly with the emerging
effectiveness -categories of climate, planning, and management. In dis-
cussing the impOrtance of a research based focus and thedeliberate use of
Observation/.instruments that match the research, Goldhamrner, Ander
Son, and Krajewski (1980) make the following point:
In recent years, however, because scliutars have been able to identify
"Zstructional variables that correlate with I6arning outcomes or to specific
teaching models, we are now able to guide the ervations and data collection
) focus toward those practices that appear to matte (i.e., time on task, instructional
cues and directives, reinforcement, student pa cipation, and correctives and
feedback). Research-based observatidnunakes sense because it not only gives
teachers important messages about what makes a difference but also tends to
maximize the effectiveness of supervisory obserVations and to result in behavior
reinforcements, modifications, and alterations that may have significant impact on
the learning process itself.

The best use of many of these recently developed instruments and

the knowledge necessary to use them can be learned in relatively short
training per,iods (two hours or less in many cases). However, since the
field Of instrument dev6lopment is so dynamic, and the teaching research
is growing .o drat tically it is safe to assume that better and better
instruments re consta being designed. Observation instruments can
greatly inuel se titz.eff ti eness of supervisors, especially those instru-
ments that ar emerging from the teaching research.
3. The way dai arc recorded directly affects the supervisor-teacher
relationship rrd the teachers willingness to participate in instructional
improvement.
(T
When selecting an observation instrument there are several different
formats from which to choose, each partially defined by the way the data
are recorded. Becalse the way data are recorded can affect the success of
a supervisory activity, consideration of different types of observation
instruments is mandatory.
I\
 zz z
5. 4. 3. 2. 1,
Clarity
Selection Selection of
Organization
of of
of aims.
Appropriateness

the of
content:
materials',

aims,
lesson,

The the The tion The The The

'lesson Figure
pupils, pupilt,
sources
level
struction. aims
and each'other 10,
used
specific
of content
They are
in purposes
is facilitates individual
the an are of
are
what parts the
neither
class, Stanford
complement clearly
is of too
instructional to
and appropriate the lesson
the be appropriate appropriate,
the for easy
related
are Teacher

the way. lesson and nor

to materials
selected learned, clear,
The are are too
teaching aims
the and
of total
method clearly
the difficult Competence
content
human accepted
method.
for
of of
in. re
related
by
' the lesson, organiia- the
.
to the/
Appraisal

m m m 0 CO o -I m IT Zc 0 0
, -,
Guide
7 ri 1 30%
..

in 0 X, m <> rn ED 2 15%
,
rn 0 < ) 3
. 15%
,....
17)
6, -0I 4 15%
' t.
2
7) 0 r;' C0 5
. 15%

0 - 0 z (11 C 0 6 .
- 10%
) r > 2 0 -1 rn 0k rn < r il. 7
 4

6. Beginning the le'sson,

.1

7. Clarity of presentation,
Pupils come quicOto attention. They direct tho.

selves to the tasks to be accomplished.

The content of the lesson is preSented so that it is un

I IIII
\

_
derstandable to the p4ils. Different points of view and

specific illustrations are used when appropriate.

8, Pacing of the lesson, The lovement from one part of the lessOn to the next '
is overned by the pupils' a6ievement, The teacher

''stays with the class" and adjusts the'lbpo accord- .

ingiy,
0.

d
9 Pupil participation iaricl,at

tention, A
,
The class is attentive, When appropriate, the' pupils

actively participate in the lessOn.

11111
0
11
L Ending the lesson.
1D, Ending The lesson is ended when the pupils have achieved the

ai'hils of instruction. There is a deliberate attempt

together the planned and chance events of the lesson

to tie I1 q 1
n'

and relate them to the immediate and long-range aims 0

I III I I
of instruction, 0
4
11, Teacherpupil rapport. The personal relationships between pupils and the 0
17J
teacher are harmonious.,
0
12, Variety of evaluative proce- The teacher devises and uses an adeq e variety of
lures, procedures, both formal and'informal, to e aluate pro.
.
gress in all of the aims of instruction,

J °0

II I
13, Use of evaluation to im. The results of evaluation are 'carefully wiewed by
<
> prove teaching and learn: teacher and pupils for the purpose of improving teach-
w
nig, ,
ing and learning. .

r.
Ct

o,

1
108 SUCCESSFUL TEACHER EVALUATION

Rating Scales. Rating cales requirejhe observer to make high

inference judgments 'regarding the teacher\ behaviors or traits. The
particular.items to be rated are indicative orithe instrument's specific
focus'. The typical rating scale is usually a three -' o seven-point scale on
which the observer marks the word or phrase or space on a line that .best
represents, in his or her judgment, the degree to which a certain variable
or behavior was present. In early effectiveness studies,iigh inference
rating scales were used successfully, and thus.gainenegitimacy (Rosen
shine and Furst, 1971).
There are many kinds of .rating scales, but only those specifically
designed to be classroom observation instruments should be considered.
Figure 10 on pages 106-107 contains a series of criteria that are exclusive-
ly teaching behaviors. They can,only be rated by direct observation, and
are presented in a logical pattern, as they would likely occur'in a regular
classroom. The items pertain to planning skillk that are related to effectiv. e
teaching. Appropriate and understandable daninens of the terms arC:,.\
also prdvided.
On the other hand, many' instruMents that are, by definition, rating
scales are inappropriate as guides for classroom observation. One of the
characteristics of common law evaluation models is the use of a dis-,
trictwide rating scale for summative evaluations of teachers."The summa--
tive evaluation is the concluding act in the evaluation procedure, designed
to tell the teacher, the 4dministr'ation, and the school board just how the
teacher rates in comparison to other teachers: While this practice,is bad .
enough, it gets even worse. Very often, supervisors with no training, and
very little incentive to seek it, end up using the summative evaluation
rating scale as a classroom observation instrument. The sample in Figure
11 is a typical district rating scale that is completed by administrators at
the conclusion of an observation. Thus, it serves as both an observation
guide and as the final overall evaluation of the teacher.
Many of the items on this scale could be completed without an
observation. Those criteria that are directly related to are so
broad that -any kind of high inference rating provides such
such generalized
feedback that it is vEtually useless.. 4-1
, Rating scales that have been designed specifically for observation
and fliaf have some particular focus can be, very helpful. The more
specific and well- defined the items on the instrument, the more useful it
can be. A concept labeledBARS, Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales,
has considerable potential for adding reliability and usefulness to the high
inference act of rating. Basically it involves a sample set of characteristics
or behaviors that should be present before a rating can beigiven. In other
words, not only would the item to be rated be clearly defined, but so
 Figure 11. Observation and Evaluation Report

teacher name school building grade/subjecj school year date of visit ,

First Year Teacher Non-tenure Teacher-- Tenure-Teacher
This instrument is designed to help define, measure, and improve the quality of instruction in
our system. It is also to serve as a basis for conferences between the teacher, department grade
level chairman, and principal. Pleak'use "x" marks. Items not marked indicate
evaluator made no judgment in that. that the
area.

Commend- Satis- Mar- Unsatis-

.
able faCtory ginal factory
I. PERSONAL QUALITIES
ALITIES , t
1. Meets obliations
' 2. Staff relationships
3. Enthusiasni
4. Attitude toward constructive criticism -.
COMMENTS:
.
.

II. TEACHING QUALITIES

1. Organization and planning of instruction
2. Provisions for individual differences and
needs of pupils
3. Knowledge of subject and skills of field
4. Maintenance of effective social behavior of
- pupils
5/ Presentation and teaching techniques
6. Evaluation of pupil progress
7. faipport With pupils
0.. Parent relationships
COMMENTS: - _

W. PROFESSIONAL QUALITIES . ,

1. Performs duties in accordance with Eloarcl'of

Educatidn, Administration and School Poli-
cies
2. Professional growth
3, Attitude toward teaching profession
4. Discusses problems and personalities only
with those concerned
COMMENTS:
47i

Teacher confefencFornments: (Optional)

Teachers signature below indicates that the conference has been-lie-1d, and-that the
as seen this report. teasher
4 do do not concur with this evaluation.
_

-Evaluator's signature, title Teacher's signature

Copy to: Assistant Superintendent
Date of conference
Principal
Dept./Grade Level Chairman
Teacher Evaluated
0
1/4.,
 110 SUCCESSFUL TEACHER EVALUATION

would the points on the rating scale. The use of BARS would allow the
observer.to_have.some criteria in mind when contemplating what kind of
rating to give. (See Bleatty. and Schneier, 19771 for a more detailed
discussion of this interesting concept, along with some examples.)
Category systems. Evertson and Holley (1981) define these systemS
as follows:
Those designed to record a behavior, event, or interactional sequence each time it
occurs are category systems. The object of a category system is to classify each
behavioral item of interest into one and only one category, where the ntegories
are defined as independent and mutually exclusive. Categories are designed in
advance, limited in number, anditrepresent classifications on a given dimension,
such as teacher-pupil interactionior the nature of teacher questioning.
Undoubtedly the most jfften cited example of a category system is
the Flanders system of interaction anaysis (Amidon and Hough, 1967). It
is easy to learn and provides usqul information on the quantity and type
of teacher-student verbal interaction that occurs while the observer is
sp. doing the categorization. Like all well-accepted category instruments, it is
helpful and informative about the teaching behaviors it is designed to
identify. The limitations of each category syStem must be clearly under-
stood by the supervisor and the teacher. Beyond the more objective
description of the number of times focused behaviors occurred, the
greatest benefit of category systems is that they promote high levels of
technical talk as the supervisor and teacher review the data. A number of
sources are available for identifying specific category systems (Simon and
Boyer, 1967; Griffith, 1973; Rosenshine and Furst, 1973; and Borich and
Madden, 1977).
Acgeneral group of category type systems are proving to be especially
useful in light of current teaching effectiveness reedrch. Acheson and
Gall (1980) label this group SCORESeating Chart Observation Records,
As might be guessed, these instruments use student seating charts. or
student names as a starting point;
One example of a SCORE type category system was developed by
Rosenshine and Berliner (1981), based on original work by Marliave and
others (1980) in the Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study (BTES). An
adaptation of this system, shown in Figure 12, provides data on engaged
time and success rates of the students during the class being observed.
Definitions and directions are provided and it is simply up to the observer
to mark the appropriate category that reflects what is happening by the
name of the particular student being observed: Like most category
systems that have been designed for use in a live situation (as opposed to
systems that require video or audio taping to correctly identify more
complex categories), this procedure is relatively simple to learn. It is best
 IMPROVED CLASSROOM. 013SEAVATION SKILLS III

learned, hoWever, from a person specifically trained and experienced in,

the use of the instrument.
Category systems demand the strict attention of the observer. There
is little oppo unity to observe every event or occurrence that falls outside
the specified categories. This fact is both the strength and weakness of
categories. The specific focus that has been identified as important and
for which the instrument was designed can be accurately recorded. But if
a more general view of the class is in order, then" categories can be
counterproductive to that goal.
This is a useful illustration of a SCORE type category system. Other
similar instruments designed to measure engaged time include Stallings
Student Off-Task Seating Chart (1982), Stallings Teacher Interactions

Figure 12. Observing Academic Engaged Minutes and Success Rate

Teacher. Subject,

Allocated- time: start stop

Transition times:

Student E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

The "E Column: Coding Engagement.

+ Student is.engaged in academic activity.
T Student is in transition between activities. This might include sharpening pencil, going to
bathroom, passing out or in papers, or putting heading on a paper. Transitions
frequently occur at the beginning of the day, period or activity; when students exchange
papers-to be graded; when students are getting ready for the day's lesson; when students
are moving from lesson to seatwork; when students are moving from one activity center to
another.
W Student is waiting for the teacher. This can occur when a student is "stuck" and is
waiting for the teacher's help, or when..a student has finished an assignment and needs to
be checked before going on to other Work.
Student is off task. The student is expected to be working at his or her seat or listening to
the teacher or class, and is not doing so.
(For genefal purposes, T, W, and are all coded as "nor engaged." But in studying a
classroom; it is important to note the amount of time that is spent in T and W.) ,

Using the Instrument

Complete the first column by coding the engagement of each student. This task will take up
to three minutes. Then complete the second column, third, and so on, coding each student's
engagement, until the class or activity being observed ends. An alternative to using every
student would be to select six to 10 students to serve as representative of the entire class.
 )
112 SUCCESSFUL TEACHER EVALUATION

Form (1982), and Acheson and Gall's System for Measuring Verbal Flow
(1980). These few examples represent a number of recently developed
category systems that match up perfectly with the basic teaching skills
-- identified -in Commonality 5. Virtually all of-the-teacher behaviors that are
related to student achievement are measurable through some fOrm of
category system. As districts seek to improve the quality of observations
conducted in the schools they should provide supervisors and teachers
with information and training about category systems that are directed at
.the 'teaching behaviors most frequently addressed in.goal-Setting confer-
dices.
Narra,tivest While rating scales and category systems can be useful,
the narrative form of data recording seems to best -fit the realities of
teacher evaluation.
With the high pressure atmosphere of teacher evalttation, teachers
are less accepting of data that is totally, as in in rating scales, or
partially, as with category systems, dependent on inferential observer
judgments or_ evaluations. Consequently-, whenever possible (and its_
should be Possible most of the time) supervisors should rely on recordings
of events fiat factually describe what occurred. Evertson and Holley
(1981) introduce narratives in this way:
The narrative method depicts classroom phenomena in the manner in which they
occurred; it describes the phenomena in the natural terms of the classroom itself.
When employing thc aarrztive method, although the use of some technical terms
may be useful and desirable, the observer for the most part simply describes
more or less ordinary terms what happens in the classroom. ,
The first skill that should be developed in classroom observers is the
ability to write descriptively rather than judgmentally ,(Clements and
-Evertson, 1980). A number of successful training activities can be used in
local settings, similar to those outlined in Figure 14, whith are adapted
from materials used by the Miamisburg, Ohio, public schools.
Typically, the supervisor would prepare a narrative description of
events in the classroom from notesreferred to as raw datataken
during the observation. In the conference 'following the observation, the
supervisor and the teacher would use the written narrative as the focus of
their discussion.
In training programs, supervisors practice writing raw data using
videotapes of actual teaching episodes, and then transfer these data into a
running narrative of the events depicted on the videotape. Through a
process of peer review, discussion, and rewriting, fairly high reliability
levels can be obtained. This is a very useful training activity that requires
a short initial training session of approximately three hours. In periodic
review sessions supervisors bring in samples of raw data and narratives of
their actual observations of teachers.
°u
r,
 IMPROVED CLASSROOM OBSERVATION SKILLS 113

The material in Figure 43 is based heavily on the work of Madeline

Hunter (1976). It encourages supervisors to write descriptive narratives
and produce categories that reflect important considerations in effective
teaching. This report (narrative and_categories with examples) -is- shared
with the teacher and serves as the basis for the post-observation confer-
ence. In Miamisburg, the supervisory act consists of a pre-observation
conference, the observation frOm which the narrative emerges, and the
post-observation conference. No goal occurs before this process. While
perhaps not as effective as if it were tied to a goal-setting, model, the
decriptive narrative can be very beneficial even within the structure of a
common law evaluation systeht Districts that are reluctant to make the
difficult break from, their traditional common law model would do well to
borrow these procedures for conducting those classroom observations.

Figure 13. Preparing For and Writing-Narrative

i. PREPARING
A. Arrive in classroom before bell rings.
B. _Sit in back of room or on side.--
C. Bring with you from pre-observation conference:
--
Objectives of son
Current le-gning activities
Materials used during the class

COLLECTING RAW DATA

A. Write everything that trappens.
B. Develop your own approach.
C. Develop your own form of abbreviations:
T. T. = Teacher Talk
S. T. = Student Talk
D. Write teacher statements, teacher questions, student statements, and student
questions.
-E-.--More experienced data-collectors may have a checklist.
What is the teacher doing?
Talking, Movement
What is the teacher saying?
Questions, Praise, Lecture, Criticism
What are the students doing?
Listening, Eye Contact, Behavior, On Task
What are the students saying?
Questioning, Participating
Presence of components of a good lesson?
Anticipatory Set
Statement of Objective
Providing Input
Modeling .

Checking For Comprehension

Providing Guided Practice
Providing Independent Practice

III. TRANSFERRING FROM RAW DATA TO NARRATIVE

Narrative is short review of class process.
It is general rather than specific.

if2,;
I14" SUCCESSFUL TEACHER EVALUATION

It shows progress of lesson and points of emphasis.

It is factual and avoids cohclkions.
CONCLUSION = Students had a tendency to speak out during lesson; talking to
themselves and not following procedure or waiting to_be_recognized ---
--b-efore responding.
FACT = During each segment of the Lesson, more than half the students spoke
without being called on by the teacher. During the discussion on
definitions several students responded at one time.
CONCLUSION = While teacher talked to students, many were turned around-.
talking to others, showing little interest.
FACT = While the-teacher was giving an announcement about a fashion show
and asking about assignments, ten students were turned around talking
to their nearest seatmates.

IV. DEVELOPING CATEGORIES FROM THE NARRATIVE

In reviewing the narrative, categories of teaching behaviors or contexts should be
identified. The .categories should be presented after the-narrative and should list
specific behaviors, events or conditions that represented the category., Examples of
important teaching categories include:
A. Teacher Performance (Management)
Was the previous lesson reviewed ? (Continuity) .
Can the objective of the lesson be identified? (Objective)
Was the lesson introduced? (Introduction)
-Were-directions-clear-and concise?- (Directions)
Did the teacher change activities? (Variety of Activities)
Was there smooth change from one activity to another? (Transition)
Did class begin and endon time? (Use of Class Time)
B. Student Involvement
During the period, what percentage of students were directly involved in the lesson
and how? (Class Participation)
What types of questions did the students ask? (Student Understanding,
Comprehension)
Did students remain on task, throughout the period? If notwhen, why and how
many did not? (On Task)
Was there effective study time? (Guided Practice)
Were there student initiated questions? (Knowledge,of _Results/Comprehension)
C. Classroom Environment 4
Were chairs arranged so that all students could see the board, teacher, etc.? (Room
Arranged for Instruction):
Was the audio visual equipment used in the lesson accessible, visible and
appropriate for the lesson? (Use of Audio Visual Aids)
An example of a written narrative and the development of specific categories from both the
raw data and the narrative itself is as follows:

NAME OF TEACHER Kathy Myers DATE OF OBSERVATION February 12, 1983

SCHOOL Snowhill TIME OR PERIOD 2:15-3:00
GRADE LEVEL OR SUBJECT AREA Math-6th Grade
Ms. Myers' objectives for today's lesson were (1) to review the multiplication-of frac-
tions; and (2) to introduce the multiplication of one mixed number and a fraction, and the
multiplication of two mixed numbers.
Teacher began lessor, by asking students to trade homework (multiplication of fractions)
to be graded. She directed their attention to the boaid where she had numbered the 14
homework problems prior to the lesson. She randomly called 14 students to the board. Each
student was directed to do 1 of the 14 problems from the textbook. As the students worked
the problems the teacher questioned, "Why did you cancel 5 into 10?" "What was really
 IMPROVED CLASSROOM OBSERVATION SKILLS 115
easy about number 12?" When the students finished, all 14 homework problems were
cor-
rectly worked on the board. Class was then directed to grade the papers, put the number
.
correct at the top of the page, and hand the paper back to the proper student. After the stu-
dents looked at the problems they missed, Scott collected the papers to give to the teacher.
She then directed their attention to two teacher-made charts showing how to change
mixed numbers to fractions. She wrote a problem (73/4 x 1/2) on the board and questioned,
"What do I have to do to 73/4 before I can multiply?" As students responded she wrote (31/4
x 1/2) and explained, "Now, I' an multiply." Students were instructed to turn to
page 175
in their textbook and start doing the problems at the top of the page. Teacher continuously
moved about the room encouraging and helping students. She qUestioned and reminded,
"You must change themixed number first." "You must make it top heavy." She continued
to praise with "Excellent. Exactly right."
During seat work, all students kept their eyes on their papers, did not talk to their
neighbors, and held up their hands whenever they needed the assistance of the teacher.
The problems that were not completed at the end of the period were assigned as homework.
Teacher reminded, "You can come in at 8:30 in the morning for mini-math if you need
ex-
tra help." "I'll give you a pass to come in early."

Specific Areas That Stood Out In Ms. Myer's Class Included:

I. Planned carefully for the day's lesson.
A. Had definite objectives for lesson.
a. Review the multiplication of fractions.
b. Introduce the multiplication of one mixed number and a fraction and the multi-
plication of two mixed numbers.
B. Asked questions that helped students to understand the objectives.'
a. ."Why did you cancel 5 into 10?"
b. "What was really easy about number 12?"
c. "What do I have to do to 73/4 before I can multiply?"
II. Used positive reinforcement by responding.
A. "Good."
B. "Exactly right."
C. "Way to go." .

D. "Excellent."
III. Students remained on task throughout the lesson.
A. Involved all students in grading homework and chalkboard exercise.
B. Asked students to volunteer conclusions.
C. All were sitting erect and maintained eye contact with teacher.
IV. Made effective use of a variety of teaching materials.,
A. Homework (graded by students)
B. Chalkboard
C. Teacher-made charts
0. Textbook
V. Related positively to students.
A. Called all students by their first names.
B. Constantly moved around room creating close awareness between teacher and stu-
dent..
VI. Comprehension and understanding of students was increased by the following teacher
statements.
A. "Now, I can multiply."
B. "You must change the mixed numGkfirst,"
C. "You must make it top heavy."

SIGNATURE OF OBSERVER DATE

SIGNATURE OF TEACHER DATE

(Teacher's signature does not indicate agreement with statements above.)

12(3
116 SUCCESSFUL TEACHER EVALUATION

While descriptive writeups can take different forms (see for example
Acheson and Gall's, 1980, discussion of the use of selective verbatim and
wide-lens techniques), the important point is that this skill is absolutely
crucial to classroom observation. As Evertson and Holley (1981, p. 104)
explain the advantages of narrative methods and their importance in
effective teacher evaluation:
The narrative methods have several advantages over the other methods of
recording. First, there is the value of its natural approach, which allows an
understanding of the classroom in terms that are easily communicated to
participants. Second is its holistic perspective. Category systems, for example,
generally yield only the amounts of designated teacher behavior and usually
abstract it from the particular contexts in which this behavior is embedded.
However, the contexts in which particular kinds of teacher behavior occur are
very important. For example, it is important to know not simply 'how much
teacher probing occurs andsin what situations. If teacher behavior is abstracted
from the context in which it occurs, understanding of teacher behavior may be
limited. Category systems, in recording only the frequency of designated types of
behavior, thus leave an important gap that must be filled. Narrative systems, on
the other hand, are able to preserve the original sequencing of behavior and the
contexts in which it occurs, offering a much less selective and .more holistic
perspective on classroom phenomena. The importance of this perspective for the
evaluation of teaching cannot be emphasized too much. Teachers and students do
not simply behave in tht classroom; they behave in response to the classroom
environment, and any evaluation that fails to take account of this will be
somewhat inadequate.

4. The way feedback is presented to the teacher directly affects the

supervisor-teacher relationship and the teacher's willingness to
participate: in instructional improvement.
In successful teacher evaludtion systems, formal feedback from the
supervisor. to the teacher occurs in two separate, but related types of
conferences the post-observation conference and the final conference at
the conclusion of the evaluation period. There are two basic differences in
these conferences. In the post=observation conference, the data used'are
based on the single observation that just occurred. The final conference is
built on all the data collected over the full evaluation period. Another
difference is that the -post- observation conference has a formative evalua-
tion emphasis and can be .conducted with a colleagial orientation. On the
other hand, the final conference is surinmative, and a judgment must be
rendered by' a supervisor. The threatening nature of summative judgments
often makes it difficult fora final conference to be as productive as it
might. In spite of the differences between the two types of conferences,
there is a set of concepts, principles, and techniques applicable to either
type of feedback situation.
 1

IMPROVED CLASSROOM OBSERVATION SKILLS 117

It is important for supervisors to have an overall perspective on the

purposes of conferences. In effective evaluation systems, supervisors
believe evaluation is primarily a cooperative activity. Providing feedback
is no different: As Hunter (1980) suggests, "The same principles of
learning apply to teachers as apply to students." Teapers must be
involved, encouraged, reinforced, and made to feel successful. Hyman
(1975, p. 146-149) lists characteristics of helpful and meaningful feed-
back, especially as it should,cwsur during supervisory conferences.
I. Focus feedback on the actual performance of the teacher rather than on his
personality. Here, you should utilize your written and mental notes gathered
during your observations. Use words which refer to the teacher's actions
rather than his qualities as a person. .
2. Focus feedback on, obServations rather than assumptions, inferences, or
expla5ations. It is important to focus on what you heardror saw rather than on
what you assumed went on or what you inferred was the meaning or
explanation behind the performance. If you do make some interpretations
based on your observations, then clearly identify them and ask the teacher to
offer his own interpretations and comments. Preferably the observations you
cite should be your own, rather than what someone else observed and passed
on to you for transmission to the teacher. This focus will keep you on what
you have observed rather than on motives, and thus the teacher will not be as
defensive or threatened.

3. Focus feedback on description rather than evaluation. Since the purpose of

feedback is to alert the teachee to what effect his performance is having, it is
necessary to be descriptive rather than judgmental. In giving feedback, your
task is to report on:what is going on rather than on how well things are going.
Description'within a particular framework is non-evaluative.
4. Focus feedback on the specific and concrete rather than the general and
abstract. Feedback which is specific and concrete is helpful because the
teacher can handle it himself. He can 'place the information in a time and place
context and .examine it there. He can make his own generalizations if he
wishes. .This situation is not nearly as threatening to the leacher as a
generalization mafle by you, conveying the message of a trend over time,
which may appear to be irreversible.
5. Focus feedback on the present rather than the past. Feedback, which is-
related to remembered teaching situations; is meaningful. If the teacher no
longer remembers the events described in your observation, then he cannot
use the feedback well. Your feedback should come soon after you observe
and can report to the teacher. Then the teacher will still remember the events
and be able to tie the feedback into a time and place context, thus enhancing
the meaning of your remarks.
6. Focus feedback on sharing of information rather than on giving advice. If you
create an atmosphere of sharing, that you wish to offer what you have to the
teacher for mutual consideration, then you create a non-threatening situation.
If the feedback is shared information, then the teacher is free to use it as he
sees fit in light of your overall conference comments. If you give advice, you
 118 SUCCESSFUL TEACHER EVALUATION

are telling the teacher what to do. This sets up a threatening situation, since
you show yourself to be better than he is by removing his freedom of action.
7. Focus feedback on alternatives rather than "the" best path. When you focus
on alternatives, you offer freedom of action to the teacher. You do not restrict
him to your chosen path. The teacher is then free to choose from the
alternatives explored which will best suit him and the situations he has in his
classroom. He maintains his professional dignity and can accept the feedback
without much threat.
8. Focus feedback on information and ideas phrased in
terms of more or less"
rather than "either-or." More or less terminology shows that there is a
con um along which the teacher's actions fall. Either-or terminology' .
con tes an absolute situation of two extremes without any middle ground.
M e or less terminology is more appropriate to education where there
f are
, if any, situations with absolute positions. The many complex variables in
teaching require us to keep a sliding continuum in mind without a predeter-
mined extreme position.
9. Focus feedback on what the teacher, the receiver, needs
rather than on what
you, the sender. need to get off your chest. Since the purpose of feedback is to
alert the teacher about his performance, you must keep him in mind. Even
though you may have several things on your mind which will impart a sense of
release to you, your first consideration must be the meaningfulness of the
feedback to the teacher. If you must get a few things off your chest, perhaps a
separate conference or casual meeting 'would be better so as to differentiate
the feedback session from your release session.
10. Focus feedback on what the teacher can use and manage rather than on all the
information you have gathered. Though you have much data, you must resist
the temptation to overwhelm the teacher with your observations. The purpose
of feedback will be destroyed if you overload the teacher and he feels helpless
in the face of too much feedback. Keep the amount of feedback to a
manageable level, the level which the teacher, not you, can handle.
11. Focus feedback on modifiable items rather than on what the teacher cannot
do anything about. This point is obvious yet necessary and important. There
is no value to the teacher in focusing on behavior which he-cannot change. He
will only feel that there is no hope. By focusing on what he can modify you
offer him the opportunity to change and feel successful. This will create a
positive atmosphere about feedback.
12. Focus feedback on what the teacher requests from you rather than on what
you could impose upon him. If at all possible, concentrate on the information
which the teacher requests from you. His request is a sign,of interest and
care.
This information and any subsequent change in action can serve as a
springboard into other meaningful aspects.
13. Check the feedback you give by asking the teacher to summarize the points
for both of you. An excellent technique during a feedback session is to ask the
teacher to summarize the main ideas raised between you. You will be able to
check on what has been said. You will have a good way of gaining insight.
labout the 12 suggestions listed above.

12j
 et'

IMPROVED CLASSROOM OBSERVATION SKILLS 119

In the sams, vein, Griffith (1973) maintains that a good conference

resembles a good lessor. The roles of a teacher in the classroom and the
super9isor in a conference are similar. Nowhere is this more evident than
in the need for some form of planning prior to the'conference. Borrowing
from Maier (1958), Griffith lists three types of supervisory conferences.
In the Tell and Persuade type of conference, supervisors'act as judge
and salesperson. They communicate their evaluation of-a lesson (or the
whole year's activities) and then try to persuade the teacher that they are
right. This style is most effective with beginning teachers who are more
likely to want direct feedback that will tell them exactly, how they are
doing and specifically on what things they need to work. This method is
not particularly effective with experienced teachers. Unfortunately, this
style is the one most often associated common law evaluation
systems and, as such, tends to be used
usedin completely inappropriate
situations.
A-second-type-of-conference is called the Tell-attd Listen-approach,
which consists of two parts. First the supervisor repoiis judgments of the
teacher's strengths and weaknesses: This is done without interruption
from the teacher. Then the teacher has time to report her or his reactions
to the supervisor's remarks. The supervisor should listen without inter-
ruption except to make summarizing comments from what the teacher has
said or to ask questions that will help the teachecclarify his or her
feelings. Assumed here is a cathartic value in the 4pression of emo-
tionsthe teacher is more likely to improve after gettag rid of defensive
reactions.
The third type of conference deals with the concept of Problem-,
Solving. The purpose of a problem-solving conference is to solve a
teaching-learning problem. The discussionois directed at the job or
problem to be solved, not at the teacher. The supervisor acts as a helper
rather than as an evaluator. In this type of format, teachers are made to
feel free to describe their concerns and problems because they recognize
that the supervisor's function is to help, not pass judgment. This style is
certainly most amenable to many of the concepts discussed in this book.
But as emphasized throughout, while certain supervisory practices and
behaviors seem to dominate in effective evaluation systems, there are
always situations where other procedures may be more appropriate. This
fact reinforces the notion that just like a teacher, a supervisor has a bag of
tools containing the practice, procedure, or style that best fits the
-situation. As an aid to the supervisor's bag of tools, these three types of
supervisory conferences are compared in Figure 14, which is from Griffith
(1973, p. 103-104) and adapted from original work done by Norman Maier
(1958).
 Figure 14. Three Types of Supervisory Conferences
1 2 3
Method Tell and Persuade Tell and Listen Problam-Solving
Role of
Interviewer: Judge Judge Helper

Objective To communicate To communicate To stimulate

evaluation evaluation growth and
To persuade a teacher to development in a
improve. teacher

Assumptions Teacher desires to People will chan Growthcan occur

correct weaknesses if he defensive feelings re without correcting
knows them removed fablts
Any person can if he Discussing job
chooses problems leads to

erformance
rproved
Reactions Defense behavior Defensive behavior Problem-solving
suppressed expressed behavior
Attempts to cover Teacher feels
hostility _accepted_
Skills Salesmanship Listening and Listening and
Patience reflecting feelings reflecting feelings
Summarizing Reflecting ideas
Using exploratory -.
questions
Summarizing

Attitude People profit from One can respect the Discussion

criticism and appreciate feelings.of others if develops new ideas
it one understands V: and mutual
interests

Motivation Use Of positive or Resistany to change Increased freedom '

negative incentives or ' reduced Increased respon-
both Positive incentive sibility
(Extrinsic in Tat? (Extrinsic and some (Intrinsic
motivation is added to intrinsic rhotivation) motivation in that ';
the job itself), interest is inherent
in the task)

Gains Success Most probable Develops favorable ,Almost assured of

11 when teacher respects attitude to superior improvement in
iterviewer which Increases some respects
probability of success

Risks Loss orloyalty Need for change may Teacher may lack
Inhibition of not be developed ideps
independent judgment Change may be
Face-saving problems other than what
created supervisor had in
mind

Values 'Perpetuates existing Permits interviewer to Both learn since

practiceS and values change his views in experience and
the light of teacher's views are pooled
responses Change is
Some upward facilitated
communication

131
 IMPROVED CLASSROOM OBSERVATION SKILLS 121

There are a number of relatively simple concepts that can significant-

ly increase the effect of feedback on teachers. For instance:
O How to open and close conferences
(Kindsvatter and Wilin, 1981) '.°)
o Where and when conferences should be conducted
(Goldhammer, Anderson, and Krajewski, 1980)
o The physical arrangements most conducive to effective comm uni-
eating
an, 1975)
o Usds of direct and indirect supervisory approaches
(Blumberg and Amidon, 1965; Acheson and Gall, 1980)
O How to handle negative feedback
(Goldhammer, Anderson, Krajewski, 1980),
o Different types of supervisory conferenees and when they are most
appropriate
(Hunter, 1980) ,

With respect to the final conference, the highlight of.the evaluation

activity should not be the final writeup. No written evaluation should ever
be composed by the supervisor until after the final conference. Most of us
talk better than we write. Supervisors should enter final conferences
armed with all thekzlata that have been accumulated throughout the
evaluation period. Hopefully there are no surprise's here for the teacher,,
since he or she has been. involved ,in the process all along. These data
would include the. original goals, all records .of contacts intween the
,

teacher, and supervisor that grew out of these goals, and any other data
that accumulated ashe teacher and the supervisor interacted. At this
point the concepts and principles of effective conferencing should' be
functionOl. As Acheson and Gall (1980) indicate, "having important
information to discusris the essential ingredient of a successful feedback
conference." During the analyzing, Interpreting, and joint decision:
making as to what willhappen until next time, the supervisor can verbally
elaborate points, use examples, provide ,nonve,rbal cues, and generally
address issues in a fuller, more expressive and understandable manner
than time ce, and ability allov most of us when we write. At the
con, ion of the erence, the supervisor andteacher can joiptly sym
up hat has occurred so that both are clear as to what just happened and
at was just said. The supervisor can then write up what they have
is ssed in a final evaluation report and put it in the teacher's mailbox
for review and approval. There should-be no surprises for the teacher in
the final write-up in that everything should have been fully discussed in
the conference. Too often write-ups donF before the conference are read
by the. teacher prior to the beginning of discussion. Since written

13,
 1

122 SUCCESSFUL. TEACHER EVALUATION

statements can so easily be misunderstoo , the teacher is forced into a

defensive posture before the conference i. eu1 under way. Writing the
evaluation alto- the conference also mp asizes instructional improve-
ment rather than the summative eva uation.
A second suggestion for final evt uations deals with the way they are
written. Griffith (1973) offers a leng 11,y, discussion and some useful
examples, although overall very little of value is available. Certainly the
ability to,construct useful narratives based on classroom observation is a
skill that would undoubtedly carry over to evaluation reports, But there is
an important difference between descriptive narratives used in formative
evaluation situations and the use of value terms as required for suminative
evaluatibn write-ups. .

By definition, an evaluation contains valuing (Meux, 1974). The

worth of an evaluation can be determined in part by the weight given to
the v al u i ng term or p re s s ion-as-sh o wn-in-Figu re-I 5.

Figure 15. The Simple Model

(Value Judgment)
Value Object Value Term
Fact Criterion.

Balically, the model indicates that a ,value term applied to a value

object results in a value judgment. The vertical line represents the logical
support given to the value judgment by the fact and the criterion together.
In other words, for a value judgment to be acceptable, it must be
supported by some fact and the criterion, that makes the fact relevant.
Consider this typical,statement from a.written evaluation report: "John
did a good job of maintaining classroom control." Basically, it tells us,
nothing. What does a "good job" mean? What it means to the writer
could mean something completely different to the reader. Written evalua-
tions that have impact and credibility must provide support for all value
statements. Using the model in Figure 15, the statement should have been
written as- follows:

Figu're 16. The Expanded Model

Classroom. Control Good Job.
fALUE OBJECTOBJECT)`
(VALUE TERM)

(FACT) (CRITERION)
John established a clear set of There is a relationship
classroom rules, a clear set of between classroom
consequences for violations of management and student
those rules, and consistently achievemelit.
applied those rules and
consequencesi .

133 tia
 1 ..c7
IMPROVED CLASSROOM OBSERVATION SKILLS 123

in the actual written rep rt it could look like this: John did a good job
, of maintaining classroom control. For example, he developed a clear set
of classroom.rules' and an accompanying set of consequences for the
violation `of those rules. Throughout the evaluation period he consistently
enforced these, rules with the appropriate punishment.
As would be the case in most valuing situations dealing with
classroom teaching:the criterion against which the fact is judged does not
need to be explicitly stated: In most instances the criterion is so obvious
that it ,does not re4uieeoxplication.
Value judgments whenever possible should be supported by exam-
ple, anecdote, or .description. The simple model is exactly that, simple.
But it provides a framework for supervisors in providing summative
evaluation reports to teachers.
Traditionally, observation has been_the_dominantmethod_forcollect---------
ing data about teaching. Because of this tradition and the fact that it is
practical and usually reliable, it will likely continue to dominate data
collection. However, schools are increasingly looking at other methods of
data collection. A discussion of these alternative methods grows out of
the next commonality.

References
Acheson, K., and Gall, M. Techniques in the Clinical Supervision of Teachers. New
York: Longman, 1980.
Amidon, E., and Hough, J., eds. Interaction Analysis: Theory, Research, and Applica-
tion. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1967. .
Beatty, R., and Schneier, C. Personnel Adnzinfi tration: Erperiential Skill-Building
Approach. Reading, Mass:: Addison-Wesley, 1977.
Blumbbrg, A., and Amidon, E. "Teacher Perceptions of Supervisor-Teacher Interac-
tion." Administrator's Notebook 14 1September 1965): I.
Borich, G. The Appraisal of Teaching. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1977.
Boridli, G., and Madden, S. Evaluating Classroom Instruction: A Sourcehopk of
Instruments. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley0977.
Boyan, N.,and Copeland, W. "A Training Program for Supervisors: Anatomy of an
Educational Development." Journal of Educational Research 68 (1974): 100-116.
Clements, B., and Evertson, C. Developing an Effective Research Team for Classroom
Observation (R D Report No. 6103). Austin, Tex.: University of Texas, R&D Center for
,Teacher Edtfeat It, 1980.
Cogan, M. finical Supervision. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1973.
Evertson C., and Holley, F. "ClassrooM Observation." In Handbook of Teacher
Evaluation. diced by J. Millman. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1981.
Fitzpatrick, K, "A Study of the Effect of a Secondary Classibom Management Training
Prograth on Teacher and Student Behavior," Paper presented at the annual conference of
th American Educational Research Association, New York, 1982.
Gorman, N. "The Clinical Approach to Supervision." In Supervision of Teaching-
Edited.by T. Sergiovanni. Alexandria, Va.:"Association for Supervision arid Curriculum
Development, 1982.
Goidhammer, R. Clinical Supervision. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1969.
Goidhammer, R.; Anderson, R.; and Krajewski, R. Clinical Supervision. 2nd ed. New
York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1980.

13.1
 124 SUCCESSFUL. TEACHER EVALUATION

Griffith, F. A Handbook for the Observation of Teaching and Learning. Midland,

Mich.: Pendell, 1973.
Hunter, M. Rx Improved Instruction. El Segundo, Calif.: TIP Publications, 1976.
Hunter, M. "Six Types of Supervisory Conferences." Educational Leadership 37
(February 1980): 404-412.
Hyman, R. School Administratof's Handbook of Teacher Supervision and Evaluation
Methods. EnglewCA1 Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1975.
Kindsvatter, R., and Wilen, W. "A Systematic Approach to Improving Conference
Skills." Educational Leadership 38 (April 1981): 525.
McGraw, F. The Use of 35min Time-Lapse Photography as a Feedback and Observa-
tion Instrument in Teacher Education. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, No. 66-
2516, 1966.
Maier, N. The Appraisal Interview. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1958.
Marliave, R., and others. Technical Report 1-5: The Development of an Instrumentation
for a Field Study of Teaching. San Francisco: Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study, Far
West Laboratory, 1980.
Medley, D., and Mitzel, H. "Measuring Classroom Behavior by Systematic Observa-
tion." In Handbook of Research on Teaching. Edited_by 'N. Gage. Skokie, III.: Rand-
C-Wail y, 1963. _
Meux, M. "Teaching the Art of Evaluating." Journal of Aesthetic Education 8 (January
1974): 85.
Rosenshine, B., and Berliner, D. "Observing Acadeinic Engaged Minutes and Success
Rate." Mimeograph. Champaign; University of Illinois, 1981.
Rosenshine, B., and Furst, N. 'Research. on Teacher Performance Criteria." In
Research in Teacher Education: A Symposium. Edited by B. Smith. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, 1971.
Rosenshine, B., and Furst, N. Vhe Use of Direct Observation to Study Teaching." In
Second Handbook of Research on Teaching. Edited tby R. Travers. Skokie, Ill.: Rand -
McNally 1973.
Simon, A., and Boyer, E.,,Mirrors far Behavior--6 Volumes, Philadelphia: Research for
BetterSchootS, 1967.
Snyder, K. "Clinical Supervision in the 1980s." Educational Leadership 38 (April
1981): 521-524.
Stallings, J. Learning to Look. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1977.
Stallingg, J..Rudent Of Sean's' Chart..Palo Alto, Calif.: Stallings Teaching and
Learning Institute, 1982.
Stallings, J. Teacher Interaction * items. Pala Alto, Calif.; Stallings Teaching and
Learning Institute, 1982.
Stanford Teacher Competence Appraisal Guide. Palo Alto, Calif.: Stanford Center for
the Study of Teaching, 1966.

135
 A

e Use of ditional
Sources of Data

Most districts with evaluation systems have made a conscious effort

to use additional sources of data in collecting information about
classroom performance-. While observation has been the dominant meth-
od of collecting formal data about teaching, there are other data gathering
methods that can be helpful, if not essential, to the establishment of an
effective instructional improvement effort. Teaching and learning are
complex acts that occur in many forms and contexts. To be studied in as
full a manner as possible, teaching needs to be looked at in a variety of
ways.
There are seven broad techniques for collecting- data in teacher,
evaluation. All have some logic and value, but not all of them are practical
as a regular part of a teacher evaluation system. Obviously, observation is
one of the - seven. Since observation is discussed at length in Commonality
6, it is not included in this section. The other six options can be used id
addition to observation.
.

c' Parent Evaluation

Principals evaluate teachers, teachers evaluate _teachers,.. students
evaluate teachers, so why not parents? It seems only fair that taxpayers,
particularly parents of students attending schools, should. have the
opportunity to formally evaluate the performance of teachers. Logically
this seems legitimate, but there is often a difference between logic and
practicality. A number of attempts have been made to include parent
- evaluation as a part of .an overall appraisal system. In most 'cases it has
produced slight and indifferent involvement and' feedback that has not
differed in any significant way from more conventional procedures.
One of the more visible attempts at parent evaluation was conducted
c's in the Berkeley, California, school district. Parents had the opportunity to
o

125
i36
 126 SUCCESSFUL TEACH ER 'EVALUATION

complete a questionnaire asking for evaluative judgments on a number of

teacher behaviors, such as: Has the teacher made you aware of his or her
objectives for the semeste r?,Did. the. teachenrespond in a. reasonable
- to- a note or -.phone call-from-you?' Then iihe .parents--were invited lo
observe their child's teacher in the classroom, but they could do so only
after completing a course in how to observe teaching. Only 64 out of
approximately 15,000 parents actually did observe teachers in action. The
parents' feedback offered nothing that wasn't already knoki, and it
appeared that the inost significant benefit of the program was its public
relations value (Abramson, 1976).
It would seem that the potential outcomes front parent involvement
in teacher evaluation are not, significant enough to outweigh the loggtical
and political implications. If school districts want to encourage parent
input, then they should hold general meetings or send out questionnaires.
Also, while it-seems reasonable to encourage parents to visit classrooms,
it should be done within-a public_relations structure and not within 'a
-framework-of-anything so Trolitically-giffSitive as teacher evaluation.

Peer Evaluation
There is a paucity of information on the state of peer evaluation.
While this concept is not new in education, few researchers have chosen
to study it. The information that does exist is somewhat confusing
because of the interchangeable use of the terms -peer evaluation" and
"peer supervision." By definition, these terms represent different activi-
ti6S,altholigh-they occur basically in the same form.
Therp is an almost unanimous objection to the concept of observation
and evaluation of a teacher's classroom performance by peers. The
problem of user acceptance is one of the most frequently _mentioned
arguments. Cederbioni and Lounsbury-(1980), however, defend peer
evaluation.. --

Peers would seem in a natural position to provide reliable, valid evaluation of each
other. Fitst, they constitute several raters; second, because of their frequent,
close contacts with each othPr, they sec a large number of criterion-relevant
behaviors; and third, they see ehavior which the traditional evaluator (supervi-
sor) may not see.
Logic aside, they then go on to indicate that most faculty see peer
evaluation as a popularity contest based on friendship or general populari-
ty. They cited the negative effect on morale caused by growing distrust
among _co- workers. Lieberman (1972) quotes teachers who resist peer
evaluation: "That's what, the administrators get paid for. I'm not going to

3
 USE OF ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF DATA 127

do their job." "I refuse to get involved in evaluating people I have to

work and interact with everyday."
The.reliabilityof -per ratings'is also'queStiOned: Cohen'a'nd MCKea-
chie (1980)-indicate that "any type of peer evaluation can provide only a -
partially valid assessment of teaching effectiveness since faculty are not in
a position to evaluate all the aspects of their colleague's teaching."
Bergman (1980) similarly questions the reliability of peer evaluation.
"There is obviously considerable opposition to peer review, primarily
because judgments all too often are based on personal, irrelevant fac-
tors."
4*- If a school district implements some form of peer evaluation, the cost
of training and release time to conference, observe, analyze, and report
must be considered. "Members . . . must be properly trained in methods
of observing, recording, and analyzing teacher behaviors" (McGee and
Eaker, 1977).
Also necessary to consider is the problem of professional association_
confticts. "A ha-SI-Cpurpose or the teacher organization is to 'protect
teachers from unfair or incompetent evaluation" (Lieberman, 1974). If a
teacher receives an unfair evaluation froni a peer, who does the teachers
organization represent?
Taking all of these problems into account, the concept of peer
evaluation seems undesirable and unrealistic. Yet when peer evaluation is
defined differently, a more practical and usable additional source of data
emerges. The term "peer supervision" seems to fit more closely the
recommended use of peers in instructional improvement effortsobser-
vation and input by one or more teachcrs_to_another_teacher for the
specific purpose of assisting that teacher in improving instruction. Reimer
(1980) suggests changing the term "peer evaluation" to "peer consulta-
tion" with the goal of the act being exclusively improvement. Goldsberry
(1980) uses the term "colleague consultation" in much the same manner.
In-both cases the act of summative evaluation would be completely
excluded.
Peer supervision can 'occur naturally as part of a planned system. It
may be informal where tWo teachers have agreed to observe one another
in their classrooms and provide input on an "as needed -or asked for"
basis. Informal peer supervision has almost always been a natural
outcome in team-teaching situations. Teachers in both formal and infor-
mal teams who share students, materials, arid space very naturally
interact and share _in ways that often exemplify much of what peer
supervision can be.
In goal-setting systems that have been functioning for several years,
supervisors have reported joint goal- setting ventures that occur freely
 128 SUCCESSFUL TEACHER EVALUATION

within the evaluation system. For example, sey.eral grade level teachers
or high school_depailitient-memberssettogether and decide to set the
same goal, which is perfectly acceptable.The.process of interaction and
sharing that occurs as-the supervisor and teacher work together on the
joint goal. is an excellent .example of natural and- unforced -Peer supervi-
sion.
Peer supervision has also bee established through more formal and
structured activities. Readling and Barone (1967) developed a peer
supervision model based on a teaching team whose members conferenced
and observed each other. This particular model was designed primarily to
_ support beginning teachers; but the concept could be used with experi-
enced teachers as well. Simon (1979) and Goldsberry (1980) both estab-
' fished peer -supervision models built around clinical sup8rvision tech-
niques and processes and successfully implemented their models in real
school settings. School districts interested in formal procedures for
encouraging or requiring peer supervision should use IkeSimon_or______
COTE6eryercamples, which are excellent sources.
Alfonso. (1977), however, indicates that current school organization
is not conducive to peer supervision. Most schools are .by nature
"cellular." This artificial separation causes a considerable amount of
physical and emotional space that hinders colleagues from interacting
professionally.. Another limitation is the unwillingness of teachers to
evaluate their peers, even if the evaluation is entirely formatiye in nature.
Peer .supervision requires a great deal of open-mindedness and trust
among colleagues. These commodities are often lacking in schools,
4pecially- now when-declining enrollments- and resources bring out
c mpetitive and survival behavior in teachers.
Alfonso suggests that districts -must view their peer supervision 1.

rograms in the proper perspective. "The key to effective peer supervi-

ion is to perceive and utilize this resource as one element in a system- -
wide effort, and as one component-of a multilevel instructional superviso-
ry team_" (p. 601)
Goldsberry (1980) offers the most cogent and supportable view of
peer supervision. Following a lengthy discussion of the value of on-site
instructional improvement activities, the importance of professional
interaction among teachers, and the need for colleague rather than
administrator involvement in clinical supervision activities; he makes the
following summary statement about the value of peer supervision, which
he calls colleague consultation. _

.,------ Beyond facilitating the collegial interaction requisite for clinical supervision,
colleawe consultation offers the corollary and related advantages of (1) increasing
professional interaction among teachers and (2) providing the structure and
opportunity for intervisitation.. . . The problem is that few teachers are routinely
given the time and encouragement to discuss teachingproblems, concerns,

13 ,)
 USE OF ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF DATA 129

successes or philosophieswith other teachers. The benefits f being observed

by othdr teachers and of receiving feedback on one's performa ce notwithstand-
ing, the provision for professional dialogue among teachers may be the most
telling contribution of colleague consultation. Also, the value of observing the
teaching methods, techniques, and styles of other teachers (iptervisitation) has
long been recommended as a professional development pot for in-service
teachers (Barr, 1926; Wiles, 1955). That two teachers may/profit professionally
from one observation and related conferences is a unique ,
benefit of colleague
consultation. /
Using Alfonso (1977) and Goldsberry (1980) as examples, a review of
the literature, on peer supervision suggests that it has great potential.
Practically there are some clear limitations .1.4 its implementation that
must be carefully viewed within the contexyof what each local district
wants from its evaluation or instructional improvement system.,Certainly
peer evaluation defined and implemented as peer supervision or consulta-
tion can be a valuable additional source of data. In keeping with the
practical orientation, of this book, it would seem best to allow peer
supervision-to-oCTeifittually within the structure of an effeetiVe evalua-
tion system. The, increased technical talk and professional interest in
teaching that seems to occur as a result of the narrowed focus, on teaching
(Commonality 5) and the collaborative and nonthreatening nature of the
practical goal-setting approach (Commonality 4) is a clear forerunner of
the increased -use of colleague feedback. Districts that have developed
evaluation systems around the commonalities report significant increases
in teacher professional interaction and peer consultation.. This sort of
infornial encouragement seems to offer the best chance for peer supervi-
sion to be nurtured. Perh tps later in the life of an evaluation system more
formal attempts to develo eer supervision could be developed.
.11
-."---
--....,s.,

Student Performance
There is no question that data about student learning are an important
source of information about the effect of teaching. But, like so many other
issues concerned with teaching and learning, the logic of the idea is often
overvitOwd by the practical and political implications.
Glds,(1)X14) presents a powerful and.logical argument against student
performance data being used for teacher evaluation. His article is one of
the few that discusses both standardized testing and teacher performance
tests. School district officials should read this material before considering
any systematic collection of student _data as part of an evaluation process.
. Most of the criticism directed against using student performance data.
focus on how the data are collected and used. There appears to be general
consensus as to the need and value of collecting student performance
t
 130 SUCCESSFUL TEACHER' EVALUATION

information, but the problem is how best to incorporate such a controver

stal source of data into the system. To maintain emphasis on instructional
improvement that characterizes effective evaluation systems, an0forma.1----"
. approach to Monitoring and using student performance
data seems most
useful. The use of current teaching research aiiiithe cooperative develop-
ment of goals will, in many instances, stimulate a need for student
performance: data. The teacher effectiveness research and the Hunter
recommendations for lesson design also emphasize checking for under-
standing as a necessary ingredient in effective teaching.
In daily teaching, very natural and continuous collections of student
performance are routine. They include such things as the monitoring Of
student response during questioning activities and guided practice and the
grading of student homework assignments, quizzes, and tests. Certainly,
these methods are much less formal than standardized tests and less
precise than specifically constructed teacher performance test's. Never-
theless, they still provide immediate feedback on student learning that
teachers-can use regularly to make instructional decisions. Supervisors
need to show teachers in a very practical way how valuable and
nonthreatening such student performance feedback can be.
This natural use of student performance data helps instill in teachers
a respect for the value of monitoring student learning as well as trust in
supervisors and systems that encourage the use of such data in a
formative manner. This approach is especially important in the first two
years of a new evaluation system. Again, just as with peer supervision,
the best way to gain acceptance for the use of an additional or alternative
source of data that has some controversy attached to it is to encourage its
natural use within the system. Then later, as more sophisticated and
reliable forms of measuring student performance are __available, the
groundwork will have been set for their acceptance.

Self-Evaluation
Brighton (1965, p. 25) summarizes the major reasons for emphasizing
self-evaluation:
I. When self-evaluation is utilized, the teacher shares with his professidnal
colleagues the responsibility for improving his performance. Academic free-
dom and professional recognition require that the teacher himself assume this
responsibility.
2. Teachers, particularly those aspiring to enhance professional status, regard
self-evaluation as the most acceptable type of evaluation.
3. Self-evaluation is the ultimate goal of any teacher evaluation program that
seeks to promote `better- performance and to enhance professional status.
 USE OF ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF DATA 131

Teachers are like othei professional people. The best and only effective motive
for change is one that comes from within (p. 25).
Brighton (1965) also lists some of the, major p`toblems of self-evalua-
tion:
1. Many teachers, particularly those who are marginal or insecure, tend to
overrate themselves. Each tends to think that he is doing as well as he can
under the circumstances.
2. Emotionally secure teachers tend to underrate themselves.
Few are able to be objective in assessing their own performance, with the
result that self-evaluation is both inaccurate and unreliable.
Most of the inadequacies attached to self-evaluation are not weaknesses
in the concept. Rather they result from the misunderstanding or misuse of
the concept in school settings.
It is difficult to ascertain the success of systematic attempts to foster
self-evaluation, primarily because so few exist. (See Bodine, 1973, or
Carroll, '1981, for discussions of systematic self-assessment models.)
Unfortunately, in looking at self-assessment efforts in schools, more
cautions than recommendations emerge.
One of the Most obvious misuses of self-evaluation occurs in districts
that have .made it a requirement. The usual format is for each teacher to
complete some form of self-rating (taking the district's common law rating
scale and completing it on themselves), self-report (an open-ended written
statement" in which teachers rate their own strengths and weaknesses), or
develop goals based on the teacher's perception of. needed areas of
improvement. The form is then collected and put in the teacher's file
where it remains untouched. There is no follow-up, no discussion, no
attention given to the completed document. This bogus activity remains in
effect in many districts year after year. In true self-evaluation, teachers
collect their own data and make their own judgments about their own
leaching. Like all sources of data, self-evaluation data are most effective
when they are shared and discussed with someone else.
In another form of self-evaluation, teachers compare their self-
assessment rating with the rating made of them by their supervisor. This
is an extremely debilitating act which should be abandoned. Supposedly,
the rationale is that if a teacher does a self-rating on some instrument and
then compares it with the rating made by the supervisor, any discrepan-
cies will have a motivating influence on the teacher. (See Hyman, 1975,
Chapter 4, for a discussion of the Tuckman Teacher Feedback Form,
which encourages the use of compared ratings.).
This use of self-evaluation is counterproductive. It puts supervisors
in an untenable position and promotes an atmosphere of conflict that is
almost impciSsible to overcome. In order to prevent conflict, supervisors
end up spending a great deal of time trying to guess how the teachers will
ti
 132 SUCCESSFUL TEACHER EVALUATION

rate themselves so they can make_ptheir ratings as similar. as possible.

After all hiSW fair can it be for a teacher to perform an honest self-
evaluation, only to be informed subsequently that the_s_ypervisor's,
evaluation is the only valid one? The pressure on both the teacher and the .

supervisor as they approach the comparative conference puts an enor-

mous burden on what may be an already fragile relationship.. This use of
sglf-evaluation should be avoided at all costs.
One successful use of self-evaluatiokoycurs prior to the initial goal-
setting conference' between the supervisor and the teacher. Even after
kinitial training, teachers sometimes have :fficulty finding an area of
concern or interest that might serve as a basis or creating a goal. Using a
form of ipsative or forced choice scaling, it is possible to focus a teacher's
attention on specific :aSpects of teaching. (See Thompson, 1977, for a
discussion of the ipsative measurement technique in teacher evaluation
systems.) A number of districts have adapted an instrument that forces
teachers to rank themselves on seven teaching variables (McGreal, 1975).
Figure 17 illustrates an .ipsative instrument that requires the teacher to
make choices among a series of similar but distinct teaching behaviors.

Figure 17. Teacher Appraisal Instrument.

Based on your perspective, rank yourself on the seven criteria. Your view of your strongest point
should be designated 1, the next strongest 2, and so forth. Each number, 1 through 7, must be
used and no number may be repeated.
-;- CLARITY: The ability td clearly, logically, rationally present material to the students. Tiie
instructional materials are compatible with desired outcomes and the cognitive level of
instruction is appropriate for the students.
VARIABILITY: The ability to match method with content and with the students. A,variety of
materials is available for use. The teacher is able to display a variety of. techniques, and they
are matched to the learning ability of the students.
ENTHUSIASM: The teacher exhibits a clear, dynamic physical presence in the room. 'The
teacher is vigorous and animated during classtime and displays involvement,- exbitement,
and interest in the subject matter.
CLIMATE The teacher promotes an atmosptierein the room that encourages all students to
feel free to be a part of thectass. There is an obyious concern for involvement levels and high
success rates. Praise and reinforcement are given appropriately. All students are provided
opportunities to succeed,
TASK ORIENTATION: The teacher's room is characterized by a focus on cognitive tasks.
There is a business-like environment where students are continuously engaged in activities
directly related to the desired outcomes.
METHODS OF EVALUATION: The teacher constantly monitors student understanding and
student progress. A variety of both formal and informal techniques is used and the data are
collected to help pfovide input into making instructional decisions.
CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT: Rules and procedures are clear and understandable. Class
time is planned from bell-to-bell in order to maximize engagementrates. Student activities
and work are continuously monitored and high behavioral expectations are establiShed.

4
 USE OF ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF DATA 133

Using the completed instrument at the goal-setting conference, the

,
teacher and supervisor can look at behaviors ranked lowest by the teacher
as possible are s for goals. This is a much more appropriate use of self-
assessment data. t is a follow-up to an activity that encourages teachers
to _make their own judgments about their teaching, and it is very
nonthreatening. One of the several advantages to the ipsative technique is
that it is ranking only by the teacher. There is no attempt by the
supervisor to rank the teacher. It has no administrative,value since no two
people can be compared on it. Both this use of self-evaldalion and this
form of instrumentation are particularly promising because they have
been successfully implemented in local teacher evaluation systems..
Increasing the teacher's ability to be self-reflective is a desired
outcome of any effective teacher evaluation system. Self-evaluation will
become automatic if the district develops an evaluation system that
encourages technical teaching talk and cooperative, professional interac-
tion between supervisors and teachers. Out of these activities will emerge
teachers who have learned and practiced the skills necessary to be self-
reflective. Self-evaluation is and can be a naturally occurring event,
especially if the evaluation/supervision experience and the training pro-
vided by the system allow it to happen spontaneously.

Student Evaluation
The use of student evaluations of teachers has ,long been a recom-
mended source of data about teaching. Like most of the other sources
discussed in this commonality, there would seem to be considerable logic
in asking students to provide evaluative judgments about their teachers.
Unfortunately, as Aleamoni (1981) notes, "most of the research and use
of student rating forms has occurred at the college and university leyel, so
generalizations to other educational levels must be left to the discretion of
the reader." In the judgment of many, collecting information from
students is an exceptionally powerful source of data about classrooms
(Walberg, 1969; Dalton, 1971.; McNeil and Popham; 1973; Farley, 1981).
Walberg (1974) offers the following justification.
First, the student is the intended recipient of instruction and other cues in the
classrom, particularly social stimuli; and he may be the best judge of the learning
context: Compared with a short-term observer, he weighs in his judgment not only
the class as it presently is but how it has been since the beginning of the year. He
is able to compare from the child-client point of view his class with those of other
small groups of which he is a member. He and his classmates form a group of
twenty or thirty sensitive, well-informed judges of the class; an outside observer is
a single judge who has far less data and; though highly trained and systematic,
may be insensitive to what is important in a. particular class.
134 SUCCESSFUL TEACHER EVALUATION

While attitudes regarding the, value of student ratings vary, the

average elementary and secondary teacher is uncomfortable with the
concept. Teachers generally lack faith in the student's ability to accurate-
ly rate their performance. In many respects, their fears are justified.
There is not a great deal of support for the accuracy-8f student ratings,
and the support that does exist is not strong enough to justify 'using
student ratings in any summative evaluation sense.
Once again, the kind of data collected and how they are used are the
key elements in the acceptability and usefulness of student input. The
major ingredient for the succe.ssfid use of student evaluations is the
acceptance of the idea that students are much more reliable M. describing
life in the4 classroom than they are in making evaluative judgments of the
teacher:, This view is reinforced by Walbert (1974): "Since 1966, a series
of studies have demonstrated that student perceptions of the classroom
learning environment can be measured reliably and that environmental
measures are valid predictors of learning." The key phrase is "student
perceptions of the learning environment"not "student perceptions or
judgments of the teacher's performance." It is important to collect
students' judgments about what they are most able to assess, the
environment and climate of the room in which they are present every day.
This_type of data is much less threatening to teachers since if does not ask
studekits to evaluate them. Also, the discussion of the results of this forml
of data collection- must be almost eXclusively formative rather than
summative since the learning environment in a room, which can be
Manipulated by the teacher, can also be determined by factors other than
the teacher's performance (Walberg, 1974, p. 74).
Unfortunately, teacher rating forms are typically characterized by
questions that refer specifically to the teacher:

strongly strongly
agree agree' disagree disagree
I. The teacher knows the subject
matter.
2. The teacher has favorites.
3. The teacher is not very
interesting.
4. The teacher emphasizes a lot
of memorization.

The wording of the statements always emphasizes ".the teacher."

This forces students tO personalize their judgment of the teacher rather
than the situation in general. Their attitudes toward the teacher are much
more likely to be based on emotional responses that may fluctuate greatly
from day to day. On the other hand, statements that do not specifically
 I -
USE OF ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF DATA 135

mention the teacher but allow students to relate perceptions of conditions

in the room offer_a_better_chance for moro.accurate and consistent
resptinses. For instance:
..a
strongly strongly
agree itgree disagree- disagree
I. I feel my ideas are important.
2. ELvt ?ypne gets a chance to
answer questions.
3: I get help when I need it.
4. 1 am afraid to answer C,
questions.

These statements come from a homemade instrument created by a,

teacher and a supervisor to provide student .perceptions on areas that
w,ere relevant to a particular goal. (Specifically, the teacher wanted to
increase students' level.Of involvement.) While homemade instruments
lack the proven reliability and validity that can be fourid in research-based
- or some commercial student evaluation forms, they still can 1)6:wide
helpfuLdata. And they can be tailored to focus on a particular aspect of
teaching or on a condition that may be unique to a specific claSsroom.
A number of established instruments for measuring student pe;oep-
tions of the learning environment.offer excellent examples of descriptive
statements: The .Learning Environment Inventory (LEI) (Anderson,
1973); the My Class Inventory (Anderson, 1973; Maguire, doetz, and
Manos, 1972),- and the Class Activities Questionnaire (Walberg, House,
and Steele, 1973) are perhaps the best and most useful. School districts
would do well to make these instruments available to their teache'r's and
supervisors.
Most procedures for collecting student input rely on a Paper-and-
.. pencil format. All of the examples provided in this,section ask the student
,to read a statement and then mark their perception on sortie pre-
' established scale. If the reading level of the Statements,is adjuSted to the
students, completing the form, there is no reason that evaluations cannot
be collected even from piimary grade students. Nonreaders can be
involved as well, if the instrument and procedure are, adapted to them.
Most student evaluation instruments use scales that call for high
inference ratings rather than IO' inferZince counts or frequencies. (See
Rosenshine and Furst, 1971, for a discussion of loW and high inference
measures.) Walberg (1974) argues in favor of high inference ratings:
The LEI scales are "high inference" measures in that they'require subjective
ratings of perceived behavior, unlike "low inference" measures which are
objective counts of observed behavior. . . . Low-inference scales "have the
advantage that, if valid, they directly suggest changes in specific teacher behavior.

VA

I A cl
.t.)
136 SUCCESSFUL EVALUATION

However, low-inference measures arc generally substantially less alid in predict-

ing learning outcomes than our high inference measures. . . . Why? Perhaps
because.counts of praise,orAuestions-measure quantity-rather-than quality, and
may have limited reliance to student abilities, interests, and needs.
\ Farley (1981) offers the use of student interviews as an aliernapve to
paper-pencil methods. In this procedure, randomly selected students are
interviewed about programs in the school or their perceptions of why and
how they do various things in school. Again, students are not asked to
evaluate teachers. This method is most Useful .in getting reactions to
broader questions about the schoolwide environment, but it is an interest-
ing idea that deserves consideration.
Collection of student input is increasingly regarded as a valuable
source of data in successful teacher evaluation systems. It would seem
especially important for beginning Or.nontenured teachers to be required
to complete this activity with at least one of their classes each semester.
This experience can provide beginners with information about areas of
teaching in 'Which they have received little training it can
build in them a respect for the usefulness of stude.. especially
when collected in a nonthreatening environment. Hopefully it will also
encourage them to make it a regular part of their own self-monitoring-as
their teaching careers advance:
Because of the nature of tenured, experienced teachers and because
they are at a-different stage of development, student evaluations should
not be required of them. Student feedback should be an alternative or
additional source Of data that is recommended or used only as appropriate
to the goals established by the teacher and the supervisor. This "by joint
agreement and as needed" approach to the use of student evaluation is
another illustration to teachers that their supervisor and their evaluation
system complement the instructional improvement attitude that charac-
terizes effective practice.

Artifact Collection
_ As time as a variable in learning has become more visible concept,
the way teachers and students spend their insy ctional time in class-
rooms has been studied in a more systematic nd accurate fashion
(Rosenshine, 1980). Current data suggest that K-12 students
students spend as
much classroom instructional time interacting with t cher materials as
they do being directly taught by the teacher. In K-5 clan ooms students
spend over 70 percent of their day interacting with teacher-developed or
selected materials. In grades 6-12, students can spend betweth 40 and 60
percent of allocated instructional time with teacher materials. Efforts
must be made to develop instructional improvement strategies and

'4
 USE OF ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF DATA 137

classroom supervisory practices that more adequately reflect these reali-

ties Of classroom- lifer
Typically during pre-service and inservice trai ng and during super-
visory encounters, teachers arc encouraged o t of teaching only as a
Verbal -act.- Planning skills for teacher re7eated 0
.. ,5.%
to their ability to
construct and follow a well- conceived lesson. '? -/ It is not uncommon to
see a teacher spend 30 to 45 minutes develdpi g a daily lesson plan that
contains the objectives of the lesson; an outline f the content, sequence,
and form of instructional input to bit presented; a d a series of examples,
demonstrattions, or other forms of modeling behavior that will be used.
This type of planning is then often followed by a cursory review of the
seatwork or independent ractice.activity that will follow the "teacher
talk." Too often assign ents are given- automaticallyeither because
they are recommended by the curriculum package or they are given out of
habit by the teacher. ("I always use this ditto the third day of my Alaska
Unit.") Not that all materials currently used by teachers are inappropriate
or ineffectiye. Rather, we need to recognize the importance of learning
activities that rely heavily on teacher selected materials (Cummings,
1 0.? Rosenshine, 1981). It is imperative that teacher evaluation systems
reg larly, include a systematic analysiswfd discussion of classroom
mater. ts.
As discussed earlier observation is an important supervisory tech-
nique that should continue to dominate our data collection 'regarding
classrooms. However, observation reinforces the emphasis on the verbal,
aspect of teaching since most observations are conducted while the
teacher is involved in direct forms of instruction. 'In order to obtain
inforinatiftn that reflects this more comprehensive view of teaching,
artifact &)-11Caiiin,can be an alternative or additional source of data.
4
Artifacts are fficed as simple objects, usually tools or ornaments,
that show human, orkmanship or modification as distinguished from a
natural object. ThtY\ term "artifact" connotes utility. Broadly, artifacts are
the tools of teaching.; additional means to an end. The term is important
because it promotes sense of building,' selecting or modifying, for direct
use with or for pdople. Teaching artifacts include all instructional
materials 'teachers use to facilitate student learningeverything from
commercial textbooks, workbooks, and supplementary texts to learning
kits; maps, audiovisual aids, films, dittoed material, study guides, ques-
tion sheets, worksheets, problem Sets, quizzes, and tests. While all of
these artifacts arc and should be an.essential part of teaching, artifact
collection as discussed here deals almost exclusively with those materials
in the latter part of the lisl:. The "largerl'-the artifact, the. more time and
effort is spent in evaluating and selecting it Textbooks, workbooks,

0
14
138 SUCCESSFUL TEACHER EVALUATION

supplementary books, and the like traditionally are reviewed carefully at

the' building or district level before being officially selected and pur-
chased. Our concern here is not for the quality of those initial selections
but for the day-to-day use of those materials in student work. For
example, artifact collection would include a review and discussion of such
things as whether numbers 1-15 on page 68 of the text or workbook is an
appropriate seatwork activity. This is the type of question that confronts
teachers daily. These decisions must be reviewed in a more systematic
fashion.
Generally, teachers assume responsibility for collecting artifacts for
an entire teaching unit or for a three-week time block in a single class.
They would include such ,things as dittoed or mimeographed teacher-
developed materials; notes of in-class seatwork or homework assign-
ments taken frOm commercially published works (page 65, sentences 1-9,
Warriner's handbook; -in -class assignment, November 15, 1982); copies.of
quizzes or exams given during the collection period; and lists of;materials
stored in interest centers, laboratories, or computers that were used by
the students as seatwork or practiCe activities. Random samples of the
students' efforts on these artifacts, would also be collected.
Following the collection of 4rtifacts, the teacher and supervisor
should meet to review, analyze, and discuss the materials. Up to this
point, it is not difficult to sell the a:incept,. to get the teachers to collect,
artifacts, or to get supervisors and teachers to see the usefulness of a joint
review and discussion about the 'artifacts. It is the next step that is often
difficult: how to tell a "good"Partifact from a "bad" one. What perspec-
tive or framework can be used to 'review these materials? Unfortunately,
research or even general discussion of artifacts is virtually nonexistent.
Artifact collection and analysis emerged as a concept in educational
settings through the arguments _of program evaluators who advocated
naturalistic alternatives in CUrriculum evaluation (Stake, 1972). One of the
few references to the idea as associated with supervisor situations was
made by Sergiovanni in 1977. Unfortunately, no. one has offered any
practical suggestions as tb how artifacts might be analyzed.
Yet all is not lost. Suter and Waddell (1981), dealing, with a similar
concept developed for health professionals, provide guidelines that can be
used by supervisors and teachers in analyzing classroom artifacts. The
guidelines are organized under three key aspects related to quality:
content, design, and presentation. They are necessarily general in order
to include criteria for the broad spectrum of artifacts teachers use. They
can be applied to consideration of commercially produced items on to
teacher-developed products. Because the guidelines are intended to be
comprehensive, not every criterion can or should be applied to every
artifact.
 USE OF ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF. DATA 139

Figure 18. A Framework For Analyzing the Artifacts of Teaching

Content .
Quality of artifacts can be considered from the point of view of content or essential meaning.
Some considerations related to quality of content are:
1. Validity. Is the artifact materially accurate and authoritative?
2. Appropriateness. Is the content appropriate to the level of the intended learner?
3. Revelvance. Is the content relevant to the purpose of the lesson?
4. Motivation. Does the artifact stimulate interest to learn more about the subject? Does
it encourage ideas for using the material?
5. Application. Does the artifact serve as a model for applying learning outside the
instructional situation?
.6. Clarity. Is the content free of words, expressions, and graphics that would limit its
understandability?
7. Conciseness. Is the artifact free of superfluous material? Does it stick to the point?

Design
,
Design of artifacts should proceed from an analysis of the content of the lesson or instructional
unit. High quality artifacts conform to instructional objectives. The quality of an artifact is the
product of its design characteristics, its revelance to instructional objectives, and its
apbhcation to content.
.
'1. Medium Selection.. Is the most appropriate medium used for meeting each objective
and ;Presenting each item of content (e.g. films, textbook, teach:
er-prepared handout)?
2.. \Meaningfulness. Does the artifact clearly support learning objectives? If so, is this
apparent to the learner?
3. Appropriateness. Is the design appropriate to the needs and skill levels bf the
intended learner?,Are time constraints considered in the artifact's
design? . .

4.. Sequencing. Is the artifact sequenced logically? Is-it employed at the appropriate
\\ point in the presentation? .
5. Instructional Strategies. Is the artifact format appropriate to the teaching approach?
Does its construction incorporate sound learning principles?
6. Engagement. Does the artifact actively engage the learner? Does it reinforce the
content with appropriate practide and feedback questions?
7. Evaluation: Is there a plan for evaluating the effectiveness of the artifact when used
by the intended learner? Can the success rate for the artifact be easily
determined?

Presentation
Presentation considerations include physical and aesthetic aspects of an artifact as well as
directions for its use.
1. Effective Use of Time. Is the artifact suitable for the time allotted? Is learner time
wasted by wordiness or extraneous information unrelated to
reaming objectives?
2. Pc4a,e. Is the pace appropriate to the level.of the learners, neither too fast nor too slow?
Does the pace vary inversely with difficulty of content?
3. Aids to Understanding. Are directions clearly explained? Are unfamiliar terms de-
fined? Are important concepts emphasized?
4. Visual Quality. Do tr.r visuals show all educationally significant details? Is composi-
tion uncluttered? Does the composition help the !earner recognize
important content? Are essential details identified through appropri-
ate use of-highlighting, color, tone, contrasts, position, motion, or
other devices? Is the type size of any.text legible from the anticipated
maximum viewing distance? .

5. Audio Quality. Can the audio component be clearly heard?

6. Physical Quality. Is the artifact durable, attractive, and simple? Are size'and shape
convenient for hands-on use and storage?

150
 140 SUCCESSFUL TEACHER EVALUATION

These guidelines should only be used as a general framework during

the discussion of artifacts. Certainly each individual artifact cannot relate
to every question in the guidelines. This would make the process too
tedious. It seems best to categorize the different types of artifacts and to
deal just with random samples.
Much research is needed to learn more about the effect of teachers'
artifacts on the teaching-learning act. At the early stages of the introduc-
tion of this concept in schools, the most positive benefit has been the high
level technical-professional talk it generates between teachers and super-
visors. Those who have involved themselves in this type of activity report
it to be among the most rewarding supervisory experiences they have
had.
As with the student evaluation process, beginners and nontenured
teachers should be required to collect artifacts at least. once each
semester. Tenured or experienced teachers might use artifact collection
as an additional source of data, as their interest or goals dictate. Goals
that deal with success rates, guided practice, independent practice, or
engaged time are appropriate for using artifacts as a source of informa-
tion.
of .alternative or additional sources- of data is an
important part of effective evaluation systems. Of the methods discussed
here, parent evaluation seems the least useful, while peer supervision, .
student performance, and self-evaluation can provide important input. All
'of these methods have somewhat checkered pasts, and thus' demnd
appropriate use. The most appropriate use is when they are applied
naturally within the goal-setting model,
The use of student evaluation and artifact collection also has consid-
erable potential. The areas they address and the discussion the data
gained from these methods generates are especially useful for inexperi-
enced teachers. Knowledge of these alternatives and an understanding-of
how they can best be used is animpOrtant part of the supervisdr's bag of
tools. SuFcessful evaluation systems provide opportunities for these
methods to become a regular feature of supervisor-teacher relationships.

References
Abramson, P. "Ednews." Scholasti-Teacher's Edition (February 10, 1976): 14.
.
Aleamoni, L.iStudent Ratings of Instruction." In fhindbook of Teacher Evaluation.
Edited by I. Millman. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1981. -
Alfonso, R., "Will Peer Supervision Work?" Educational Leadership . (May 1977):
593. -
Anderson, G. The Assessment of Learning Environments: A Manual for the Learning
Environment Inventory and the My Clas inventory. 2nd ed. Halifax, Nova Scotia: Atlantic
Institute for Education, 1973.
 USE OF ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF DATA 141

Bergman, J. "Peer Evaluation of University Faculty." College Student Journal 14 (Fall

1980).
Bodine, R. "Teacher's Self-Assessment." In School Lvoloation: The Politics and
Process. Edited by E. House. Berkeley, Calif.: McCutchan, 1973.
Brighton, S. Increasing Your Accuracy in Teacher Evaluation. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, 1965. ,

Carroll, J. G. "Faculty Self-Evaluation." In Handbook of Teacher Evaluation. Edited

by J. Millman. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1981.
Cederblom, D. and Lounsbury, J. "An Investigation of User-Acceptance of Peer
Evaluations." Personnel Psychology 33 (1980): 567.
,, Cohen, P., and McKeachie, W. "The Role of Colleagues in the Evaluation of College
Teachipg." Improving College and University Teaching 28 (Fall 1980): 147. .
Cummings. C. Teaching Makes a Difference. Snohomish, Wash.: Snohomish, 1980.
Dalton, E. "Pupil Selection of Teachers." Educational Leadership 28 (February 1971):
476.
Farley, J. "Student Interviews as an Evaluation Tool." Educational Leadership 39
(December 1981): 185
Glass, G. "Teacher Effectiveness." In Evaluating alucational Performance. Edited by
H. Walberg. Berkeley. Calif.: McCutchan, 1974.
Goldsberry, L. "Colleague Consultation." Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois,
1980.
- .
,Hyman, R. School Administrator's Handbook of Teacher Supervision and Evaluation
Methods. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1975.
Lieberman, M. "Should Teachers Evaluate Other Teachers'?" School Management 16
(June 1972): 4.
Maguire. T....._Goetz-E,; and ManosEcraluation-Activities-of the-IPI-PrOiett Year 2:
The Evaluation of Two Instruments for Assessing Classroom Climate for Primary Grades."
Alberta, Canada: Alberta Human Resources Research Council, 1972.
McGee, .1., and Eaker, R. "Clinical Supervision and Teacher Anxiety: A Collegial
Approach to the Problem." Contemporary Education 49 (Fall 1977): 24.
McGreal, T. "The Teacher Appraisal Instrument." Mimeograph, University of Illinois,
1977.
McGreal,T.; Broderick. E.; and Jones, J. "Teacher Artifacts: An Alternative Source of
Data for Instructional Supervision." Educational Leadership (in press).
McNeil. J., and Popham. W. J. "The Assessment sic leacher Co etence." In Second
Handbook of Research on Teaching. Edited by R. Travers. Chicag . and McNally. 1973.
Readling, J., and Barone, V. "The Oswego Plan for Team S pervision of Beginning
Teachers." Oswego, N.Y. State University College, 1967."
Reimer, R. "Peer Consultation: Procedures and Problems." Change in School Admin-
istration. Monograph No. 4, January 1980.
Rosenshine, B. "How Time is Spent in Elementary Classrooms." In Time to Learn.
Edited by C. Denhain and A. Lieberman. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1980. -
Rosenshine, B., and Furst, N. "Research on Teacher- Performance Criteria." In
Research in Teacher Edtication: A Symposium. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1971.
Sergiovanni. et-. "Reforming Teacher Evaluation: Naturalistic Alternatives."
Edam-
tional Leadership 34 (May 1977): 602 -607.
,-
Simon.. A. "Peer Supervision: An Alternative." Paper presented at the annual
conference of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Detroit. March
1979.
ake, R. "An Approach to the Evaluation of Instructional Programs." Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, April
1972:'
, .
Stevens, R and ,Rosenshine, B. "Advances in Research on Teaching." Exceptional
Education Quarterly 2 (May 1981).
Suter, E., and Waddell, W. "Attributes of Quality in Audiovisual Materials for Health
Professions." Journal of Biocommunications 8 (1981),

l 4.,)-
142 SUCCESSFUL TEACIIER EVALUATION
Thompson. 1'. "Teachers' and Supervisors' Perceptions of the Usehilness of an
Ipsative Ranking Instrument as Compared to it Rating ,Scale in the Teacher Evaluation
Process." Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois. 1977,
Wit 'berg, 11. "Predicting Class Learning: A Multivariate Approach to the Class as a
Social System." American Educational Research Journal 4 (1969): 529.
Wa !berg. II. "Nlodels for. Optilnizing and Individualizing School Leaning." Inter-
rhange 3 ( 71): :C
Walber , II., ed. Evaluating Educational PedOrmance, Berkeley. Calif.: McCutchan,
1974.
Walberg, !louse, and Steele, J. "Grade Level, Cognition, and Affect.. A Cross
Section of Classroom Perceptions." Journal of Educational PsychaloKy 64 (1973): 250.
Training the
Staff and
Starting the
System A

143
151
r

A Training Program
Coinplementary to
the Evaluation System

mi very commonality has, in one way or another, led to this point.

Ed Throughout the book, reference is made to the importance of training
for all the participants in the system. There are no secrets in effective
evaluation systems. With the exception of additional time spent with
supervisors on their responsibilities in the goal-setting conference, on
observation techniqUes, and on conferencing and feedback skills, admin-
istrators and teachers should initially receive approximately the same
training.
The sequence of events at this point is important. -The evaluation
system must first be built and the training program then designed to
address the specific understandings and skills that will make the system
functional. Focusing the training adds credibility to the idea that the
district wants the system to work and is willing to develop the skills to
make it succeed. Also, providing training before the system is actually
implemented helps participants understand and become familiar with the
various parts of the system and their own responsibilities.
The sample evaluation system presented in the Appendix at pages
151-161 reflects the commonalities of effective evaluation systems and is
currently being tested in a number of school districts around the country.
The remainder of this section Outlines a training program that would be
appropriate for implementing just such an evaluation system. It is,
however, merely an illustration of what might be included. Each district
must make its own decisions regarding the nature and extent of its training
program. These decisions must necessarily be influenced by the complex-
ity of the evaluation system,. the knowledge and skills -of the Staff, the

155 144
 TRAINING COMPLEMENTARY TO THE SYSTEM 145

strength of attitudes, about teacher evaluation (the more negative the

feelings, the more training that should be provided), and the financial and
human resources available to support and conduct the training.

The'Tiaining-Program
The following outline 'addresses the knowledge and skills necessary
to implement an evaluation system that reflects the commonalities of
successful teacher evaluation systems.

I; Entire Staff (8 hours. total)

(Whole-group presentations done by person from outside the district
who has-worked with the evaluation 'committee.)
A. Introduction to. the'System (I hour)
.
Distribtrte.the evaluation pack; the staff sees the system for the
first time.
2. Explain the purpose of the syst..!m:
'3. Present and discuss each part of the system and the require-
ments for each.
B.- Teaching Focus (31/2 hours)
I. Provide initial introduction to teaching research.
2. Give examples of the use of teaching research in setting goals.
3. Stress the importance of focusing attention on instruction and
on the high level of teacher involvement that the new system
encourages.
C. .Goal Setting (11/2. hours)
I. Discuss the responsibilities of the supervisor and teacher in
goal setting.
2. Discuss the approximate time requirements inherent in the new
system.
3. Introduce the various types of goals than can he set and how
they should be prioritized.
4. Discuss the strategies of goal setting that the supervisors will
be taught.
. Provide a series of sample goals.
D. DM. Collection Methods (11/2 hours)
I. Dis'Aiss the appropriate use of observations and how. they will
be cc nducted.
2. Intro uce artifaet collection and how it is best used.
3. Discus appropriate uses of student evaluation, and include
several ifferent samples.

15G
146 SUCCESSFUL TEACHER EVALUATION

4. ExtcOurage staff to use other alternatives and provide examples

of when they might be appropriate (self-evaluation, peer super-
vision, student performance).
5. Provide sample goals and examples of plans supervisors and
teachers might develop to meet goals.
E. Closing Discussion (1/2 hour)
1. Discuss how the system will be monitored the first ydar.
Indicate that staff will have an opportunity to provide feedback
on the system.
2. Note that training will be continuous. Each year a porlibn of
staff development will be directed at upgrading and enhanci g
the skills necessary for continued effectiveness.
3. Ask the staff for their full participation so that thg system will
have a chance to work.
II. Supervisors (1 day total)
(Whole-group presentations, again done by the outsider retained by
the evaluation committee.)

A. Remind supervisors of the importance of their 'attitude to the

success of the new system. They must be willing to allow teachers
to have equal involvement. They must continually work to
a lr.lping attitude rather than an evaluative one.
B. Review supervisors' specific responsibilities within the system
and discuss their approximate time involvements.
C. Specific Skill Training
1. Review goal setting conference strategies.
2. Practice session: supervisors turn general teacher statements
into goals that are focused and manageable.
3.' Practice session: supervisors devise appropriate action plans to
carry out typical goals.
4. Introduce classroom observation skills.
a. Supervisors practice their descriptive writing skills.
b. Iptroduce and practice using a series of observation instru-
ments.
5. Introduce conferencing skills.
a. Review clinical supervision techniques, including sugges-
tions for conducting pre- and post-observatidn conferences.
b. Discuss techniques for providing positive and negative
feedback.
c. Supervisors practice writing summative evaluations.

157
 TRAINING COMPLEMENTARY TO THE SYSTEM 147

This is a general outline of training that would be more than adequate

to get the new system started. Whenever possible, this initial training
should be conducted by someone from outside the district. An outsider
often carries more legitimacy than a local person and is better able to
transmit information in a nonthreatening way. As the system is imple-
mented and additional needs emerge, additional training should be
provided. The added training each year should also reflect new informa-
tion coming from the literature. This subsequent training need not be
presented by the original trainer; in fact, specialists in the various areas
identified as being important would be preferable in this next stage of the
system.
Clearly, it does not take significant amounts of time to adequately
prepare participants. Certainly the time spent in these training activities
has implications far beyond the preparation for successful implementation
of the evaluation system. Almost all the recommended training focuses =-
directly on the teaching-learning process and on the enhancement of
teacher-superviior relationships. These are areas of concern and interest
that touch almost every facet of effective schools.
The lesson of this commonality is that there is little chance a teacher
evaluation system can be effective without a directly relgted training
program.

158
 A Short Discussion
About Developing and
Implementing a New
Evaluation System

n most instances, it is best to streamline the procedures for developing'

a new evaluation system. Rather than naming large numbers of people
to serve on a districtwide evaluation committee, Organizing a' small,
workable-group of influentials is more effective. These committee mem-
bers should be selected from teachers and administrators who, by virtue
of their competence, teacher association inVolvement, or charisma, are
respected and listened to by their colleagues. In addition, there is often
value in including at least one board member in this group. This individual
,Would be able to gain an understanding of the rationale behind whatever is
developed and would be likely to serve as an advocate if the procedure
goes to the board for approval.
This group should hire and then meet with an outside consultant as
soon as possible. The consultant can suggest alternatives and options, and
su marize emerging research and current practices that would be perti-
ne t to the committee's efforts. This consultant should stay with the
oup throughout the development period and serve as a reactor and
larifier during the various stages of development of the new or revised
ern. The use of an outside expert helps focus the committee's efforts
and can significantly hasten the work of the group.
If the new model reflects many of.the commonalities presented here,
then the most efficient way to start up the system is to put it totally in
place from the very beginning. Where the training program has been
properly planned and conducted and when the system has been intro-
duced and openly discussed with the entire staff, as suggested in the
'training program, the teachers and administrators are adequately pre-

148

15j
 DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING A NEW SYSTEM 149
pared to start the new system. A one- or two-year startup, where the
system is piloted with a few individuals or in a single school, drags the
process out too long and does not provide any significant advantge in
gaining acceptance of the new program.
The entire processfrom establishing the committee, to developing
the system, to providing trainingcan be accomplished in a relatively
short time. Ideally, the first two steps would occur during a school year.
The introdurction and the trained would then be provided at the beginning
of the next school year. At that point, the system shbuld be fully
operational. As indicated in the training suggestions, the staff needs to
understand that the system will be monitored' and feedback collected
throughout the year. Suggestions for modifying procedures or for prckid-
ing additional training can then be addressed before the following
school
year. The outside consultant can be of assistance throughout the monitor-
,- ing period and should be asked to provide' assistance in the analysis of
feedback.
Programs based on current teaching research and accepted supervi--
sory'practices make sense to most teachers. If the program is properly
introduced and if the influentials on the committee give visible support,
then almost any staff can be brought to at least a state of neutrality toward
the new system. This agreement to be neutral allows teachers to feel free
-to participate in the process and to be cooperative. Given the historically
,poor attitudes toward evaluation, this is all that can be asked. A staff that
is willing to carry out individual responsibilities for at least the first full
cycle of the system can generally be convinced that teacher
evaluation .
can be a useful and productive experience.

Concluding Remarks
There is no area in education that has more potential impact on the
improvement of instruction and hence on the improvement of schools
than a successful -teacher supervision/evaluation system. In
many re-
spects it is an idea whose time has come. The procedures discussed and
de'scribed in this.book can provide-local school districts with
a relatively
inexpensive way to work toward the improvenierif of their schools.
This is
especially important, given the fact that most districts have been forced
into defensive, survivalist postures because of economic conditions.
Even in times of declining resources, schools must continue to work
toward improving their product. By building _..p!siision/evaluation
system that capitalizes on existing staff, that takes advantage of Contem-
porary research on teaching and learning, the quality of instruction can be.
enhanced.
150 SUCCESSFUL TEACHER EVALUATION

There is no reason for districts to continue traditional evaluation

practices that haVe Promoted disdain and dissatisfaction among teachers
and supervisors. There are better ways to develop and conduct teacher
evaluation. Systems based on the commonalities presented here can
make a difference!

nO
 A 00

An Example of an Evaluation
System that Reflects the .
Commonalities of Successful
Systems
PHILOSOPHY
The parents, school board members, and staff of are committed to
the continuation of the district's strong educational prog An effective teacher
evaluation system that focuses on the improvement of instru tion is an important
component of this i---Actional program:
While the pri'f focus of evaluation is to improve in ruction, teacher
evaluation require: :ers to meet the established perfo mane expectations.
This process must he ontinuous and constructive, and ust ake place in an
atmosphere of mutual trust and respect. The process is a coop tive effort on the .
part of the evaluator and teacher. It is designed to encourage productive dialogue
between staff and supervisors and to promote professional growth and develop-
ment.

I. MINIMUM PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS

An integral part of both tenured and nontenured staffs' employment in the
school district is continuous appraisal by their supervisors of their ability to meet
minimum performance expectations. As appropriate to the various jobs per-
formed by staff members, the minimum performance expectations include, but are
not necessarily limited tothe following:
1. Meets and instructs students at designated locations and times,
2. Develops and maintains a classroom environment commensurate with
the teacher's style, norms of the building program, appropriate to the classroom
activity, and within the limits of the resources provided by the district.
3. Prepares for assigned classes, and shows written evidence of preparation
and implementation on request of the immediate supervisor.
4. Encourages students to set and maintain acceptable standards.of class-
room behavior.

Special thanks is extended to the Penn-Harris-Madison School Corporation in Misha-

waka, 'Indiana; Pikeland School District, Pittsfield, Illinois; Monticello Public Schools,
Monticello, Illinois; West Aurora Public Schools, Aurora, Illinois; and Palos District #118,
, Palos Park, Illinois,--for permission to reproduce parts of their teacher evaluation proce-
dures.

151
152 APPENDIX
5. Provides an effective program of instruction based on the needs and
capabilities of the individuals or student groups involved. This should include, but
not be limited to:
a. Review of previously taught material, as needed.
b. Presentation of new material.
c. Use of a variety of teaching materials and techniques.
d. Evaluation of student progress on a regular basis:
6. Correlates individual instructional objectives with the philosophy, goals,
and objectives stated for the district.
7. Takes all necessary and reasonable precautions to protect students,
equipment, materials, and facilities.
8. Maintains records as required by law, district policy, and administrative
regulations.
9. Assists in upholding and enforcing school rules, administrative regula-
tions.
10. Makes provision for being available to students and parents for education
related purposes outside the instructional day wherktecessa and under reason-
able terms.
11. Attends and participates in faculty, department, a d district meetings.
12. Cooperates with other members of the ,staff in planning instructional
goals, objectives, and methods;
13. Assists in the selection of books, equipment, and other instructional
materials.
14. Works to establish and maintain open lines of communication with
students, parents, and colleagues concerning both the academic and behavioral
progress of all students.
15. Establishes and maintains 'cooperative professional relations with others.
16. Performs related duties as assigned by the administration in accordance
with district policies and practices.
The appraisal of these minimum expectations will typically be made through a
supervisor's daily`contact and interaction with the staff member. When problems
occur in these areas, the staff member will be contacted by the supervisor to
remind the staff member of minimum expectations in the problem area and to
provide whatever assistance might be helpful. If the problem continues or
reoccurs, the supervisor, in his or her, discretion, may prepare and issue to the
staff member a written notice setting forth the specific deficiency with a copy to
the teacher's file. In the unlikely event that serious, intentional, or flagrant
violations of the minimum performance expectations occur, the supervisor, at his
or her discretion, may put aside the recommended procedure and make a direct
recommendation for more formal and immediate action.

II. IMPROVEMENT OF INSTRUCTION

This part of the appraisal program uses a positive approach to stimulate self-
improvement as well as creating a continuous focus on improved instruction and/
or the delivery of instructional support. The supervisor and the staff member
share the responsibility for this procedure. The fundamental supervisory activity
of this program is the development of specific teaching or direct job related goals
between the staff member and the supervisor. Part A in the Attachmeent [beginning
at page 154] discusses ctirrent teacher effectiveness research that should serve as

163
 APPENDIX 153

the basis for most teacher goal setting. This appraisal plan is formative (data
gathered for the purpose of improving job performance) and bilateral in nature. Its
purpose is to focus on the delivery systeni of instruction, with the staff menther
and supervisor working together to increase teaching effrctiveness and student
learning.

Required and Recommended Procedures for Part H

I. All nontenured staff will be involved in the goal-setting process each year.
2. All tenured staff will be involved in the goal - setting process every second
year. Participation the first year will be determined by alphabetical order in each
building. A tenured person may participate in the goal-setting process in succes-
sive years if deemed necessary or useful by the supervisor or staff member..
3. This part of the appraisal program will be conducted by the immediate
supervisor of the staff member or by a designated representative. Itinerant staff
will be appraised by a designated "home" supervisor.
4. The goal-setting conference should be held as early in the year as possible,
preferably by October 15. (Each year for nontenured, every other year for
tenured.)
5. There are three basic parts to the goal-setting conference:
a. Establishing goals:
Nontenured staff During the conference the supervisor should take the
lead in establishing goals. The recommended guidelines for goal setting
as described in the Attachment, Part B, should be used.
Tenured staff. Tenured staff are expected to play an active role in
establishing goals. The recommended guidelines for goal setting as
described in the Attachment, Part B, should be used. If agreement
cannot be reached on the goal(s), the supervisor will have final
responsibility.
b. Determining methods for collecting data relative to the goals: As each
goal is established, the means for collecting data to determine progress
should be determined by the supervisor and the staff member. The
three most recommended methods for collecting data are discussed in
the Attachment, Part C.
Nontenured staff. Each nontenured staff member must be involved in
the use of all three of the recommended methods. Those staff members
not involved in direct instruction would be excused from this require-
ment.
® Observationeach .nontenured teacher must be observed in the
classroom throughout the year.
Artifact collectiononce during the school year, all artifacts
used or produced during the teaching of one unit will be collected and
reviewed with the supervisor.
Student descriptive dataonce during the school year, informa-
tion will be gathered from at least one class of students regarding their
perceptions of life and work in the classroom.
Tenured staff The means for collecting data regarding progress should
be discussed and agreed upon by the staff member and the supervisor.
The method selected should be appropriate to the goal. There are no
specific requirements as to the type or frequency of methods. In thOse
instances where agreement cannot be. reached, the supervisor has the
final responsibility.
154 APPENDIX

c. A written description of the goal-setting conference:

Part D in the Attachment provides a standard form to be used by the
supervisor for writing a description of the goal-setting conference. It
should be written during or immediately after the conference and
shared. with '`-le teacher. It should be submitted at the end of the
appraisal per: as part of the final appraisal write-up.
6. During the actual appraisal period (following the goal-setting conference to
the time of completion of the final appraisal report) records of the interactions,
contacts, activities,' and so forth between the supervisor and the staff member
should be kept. These would include such things as dates and summaries of
observations; records of student evaluations; findings from artifact reviews; and
summaries of other training contacts with the staff member. It is generally the
recording of any and all contacts or data that arc appropriate to the methods
agreed upon by the supervisor and the staff member during the goal-setting -

conference.
The Final Appraisal Conference should be held at the end of the appraisal
period (the first week in March for nontenured staff; by the third week in May for
tenured staff). It is the concluding activity in the appraisal process. The form
provided in the Attachment, Part Pi, shpuld be used to provide a summary of the
conference. The highlight of the conference should be the joint discussion of the
year's activities, the implications for future goal setting, and continued self-
growth. The summarizing write-up should be done during the conference or
immediately afterward. The summary should be a clear reflection of the discus-
sion during the conference and be shared with the staff member for his or her
signature and optional comments.

ATTACHMENT

Part A,
Criteria for Teacher Effectiveness
The basic criteria to be used in setting goals during the initial supervisor-
teacher conference is based on current teacher effectiveness research (teacher
behaviors related to student achievement). The concepts presented below repre-
sent a summary of current research (1981) and should be used as guidelines
whenever possible. These statemets are presented as a framework for looking at
classroom practices and are not presented as a checklist of required practices. In
those instances where the yer.cia being evaluated is not involved in the direct
instruction of students, it is that other direct job-related criteria would be
more appropriate.

A. Classroom Climate
I. Positive motivation is evidenced.
2. A focus on student behavior rather than personality is reflected.
3. Classrooms are characterized by an environment in which all the students
feel free to be a part of the class.
4. There is a high degree of appropriate academic praise for all students.
5. Concern for increasing the percentage of correct answers given by students
in class and on assignments while at the same time holding expectations
realistically high is apparent.
 APPENDIX 155

6. The teacher demonstrates active involvement and visible leadership.

7. The teacher gives the impression of enjoying working with students and-
reflects respect for them as individuals.
B. Planning %
1. All pupil contact time is planned.
2. Teaching unit plans generally include the following:
a. Clearly identified long-range goals and short-term objectives.
b. Materials and methods to be used, showing a variety of ways to
illustrate information.
c. Special supplementary resources when appropriate (such as a library,
field trips, resource people).
d. Provisions for students to have guided and/or independent practice.
e. Methods to be used in checking for student understanding, getting
sufficient feedback.
3. Daily written leso,on plans are detailed enough for teachers' and/or substi-
tutes' use.
4. Objectives of instructional plans relate directly to the objectives of the
District's adopted curriculum, using adopted program materials (manuals,
course descriptions, student texts, recommended supplementary materi-
als).
5. Instructional plan demonstrates an understanding of the content and an
awareness of the variety of ways in which skills can be learned..
6. Pupils' subject matter strengths and weaknesses and academic, social,
emotional and physical needs are identified and planning takes these into
account.
C. The Teaching Act
1. Explanations, demonstrations, practice and feedback are presented so that
the students can comprehend and retain what is being taught. Includes the
following steps:
a. Establishing mental set at the onset of the lesson, e.g., providing
students cues that arouse interest.
b. Teacher clearly stating to the students the objectives of the lesson.
c. Teacher presenting information to be learned.
d. Teacher or students illustrating what is to be learned.
aosil e. Checking for student understanding.
f. Providing students with guided practice.
g. Providing students with independent practice. ..
2. Varied groupings, methods and materials used are based on the needs of
the students and objectives of the lesson.
3. Emphasis is placed on providing high percentages of academic engaged
time.
4. Recognition is given to the importance of the appropriate use of a direct
instruction teaching model: Keeping students on task; direct supervision
skills; quality n seat work.
5. All non-direct teaching activities are monitored for their usefulness and
appropriateness (i.e.. seat work assignments, homework, tests and quiz-
zes, use of interest center, independent study, activitieskjndividualized
instruction actin :ties). fr

D. Management Skills
L Teacher planning maximizes student on-task time.
 156 APPENDIX

Limits of student behavior are clearly defined, communicated to students

and consistently monitored.
3. Teacher monitors rest of class while working with small groups, and
individuals.
4. Teacher organizes and arranges classroom so as to facilitate learning and to
minimize student disruption.
5. Transitions from one area of teaching to another are made smoothly and
demonstrate pre-planning.
. 6. All students are treated in a fair and consistent manner, taking individual
needs into account.

Supplement to Criterion for Teacher Effectiveness

The following definitions and examples are intended to clarify terms and
indicate the intent of concepts. Examples should not bd.:considered the limits of
the expectations. No attempt is made to provide a rationale for the criterion. The
numbers and letters are keyed to the above "Criteria for Teacher Effectiveness."
A. I. "Positive motivation":
-Provides opportunities for right answers.
-Responds to wrong answers with supporting techniques, such as clarifying
question.
.-Chooses and phrases questions that facilitate correct answers.
A.2. "Focus on behavior":
-Encourages students to volunteer answers.
-Uses students' responses and ideas.
A.3. "Environment in which students reel free":
-Uses varied questions so that all students have a chance to be successful in
their responses even though some questions may well be beyond some
students.
A.4. "Appropriate academic praise":
-Plans situations so that all students have the opportunity to earn praise for
academic effort and accomplishment.
-Plans assignments to promote a high degree of success yet maintain a
moderate challenge.
-Emphasizes what is correct about students' work rather than only noting
errors.
A.5. "Percentage of correct answer's":
-In daily work and class participation, average and below average-students
have at least 80 percent correct answers; more able students at least 70
percent correct.
-Wrong answers are probed to success, especially with average and below
average students.
A.6. "Active involvement and visible leadership":
-Responsive and involved verbally and nonverbally.
-Regardless of activity, is involvedexplaining, leading, or-participating in ,
discussions, observing individuals' work, interacting with individuals or
small groups.
-Is not grading papers, reading, planning for another class, talking to other
than a class member in the classroom or hall.
-Recognizes and reinforces appropriate behavior and clearly sets the tone
for the class.
 APPENDIX 157

B. I. "Contact time":
-The period during which the teacher is responsible for the instruction of
pupils.
B.2.N._"Teaching unit plans":
-Plans for a major topic or section of student work extending over several
days or weeks; usually relatively short at lower elementary to extended at
the secondary level. :
B.6. "Planning takes these needs into account":
-Formal or informal pretesting used to assess pupils' competence.
-Uses supportive personnel for identification, diagnosis, planning, and
identification as appropriate.
C. I. These seven elements of a lesson may not all occur in a given period, but the
sequence is generally applicable when dealing with a new or extended skill
or concept. Omission of a step should be conscious for an educationally
sound purpose.
a. "Mental set";
-Focusing attention on the concept or skill to be studied; in this sense,
more than just getting the attention of the class.
c. "Presenting information":
-Teacher or student explanation or demonstration.
-Assigned readingk.
-Audiovisual material.
-Resource persons.
e. ''Checking for student understanding":
-Questions asked of a sampling of the class.
-Sample exercises on the chalkboard or overhead projector are done by
students.
-Typically, ''Any questions?" or "Do you understand ?" are not suffi-
cient.
f. "Guided practice":
-A few examples are done independeritly by students in class with ithe
teacher checking each to ensure individual understanding; explaining
and clarifying when necessary before assigning independent practice.
g. "Independent practice":
-Application of skills or concepts by individuals after teacher has ensured
their understanding through guided practice; may be long-9r short-term,
in school or homework: .
C.3. "Academic engaged time";
-Time when pupil is actively involved in academically appropriate activity;
listening mayor may not be academic engaged time.
C.4. "Student on-task time":
-Time when the student is directly involved in academic work related to the
lesson or other specified objective; similar to academic engaged time, but
.could include nonacademic activities; student works on what he or she
should be working on.

Part B.
Goal Setting
Both the supervisor and the staff member have a responsibility to make the
goal-setting conference as productive as possible. The,upervisor, while maintain-.
158 APPENDIX

ing ultimate responsibility for the final product, must actively involve the staff
member in the conference. In most instances, the final goals should he the
outgrowth of a cooperative activity. (In working with nontenured .staff, the
supervisor will -normally assume a more directive role in goal setting. With
tenured staff, the supervisor's major functions would tend to be as .a clarifier and
facilitator. When agreement cannot be reached, the supervisor maintains
m final
responsibility.) The staff member is responsible .for.coming to the conference
prepared to openly and positively discuss areas that are of particular concern or
interest. Both parties share the responsibility of approaching the conference and
the entire activity with a positive attitude and a.willingnesS to participate fully.

Number of Goals
The number of goals established between the staff member and the supervisor
is less important than the form and substance of the goals. In most cases, the
number would range between one and four, with the number being determined by
the relevancy and the time and energy required.

Coal Priorities
Under normal conditions. it is recommended th t goals b established in
accordance with their potential impact on i t learning. The following
priorities should be used as guidelines in determining the appropriateness of goals.
Hbwever, there are instances when apy one of the four types may be relevant and
necessary depending on unique conditions.
I. Teaching Goals-z-goals built around teacher behaviors or worker behav-
iors that are directly related to student outcomes. The outline of the teacher
effectiveness research in the Appendix-Part A should serve asjhe basis for setting
teaching goal's for the regular classroom teachers. Other instructional support
personnel should consider direct job-related activities as falling under this
heading.
2. Learner Goalsgoals that relate directly to solving a specific learn)
activity or improving somesparticular student deficit,
3. Program Goalsgoals, that relate to curriculum areas, course outlines,
articulation activities, materials selection, etc. It is assumed here that there are
numerous ways for staff to get involved in programmatic efforts other than using
the supervision system.
4. Organizational or Administrative Goalsgoals that deal with specific
administrative criteria such as listed in the minimum standards description. It is
assumed that only in the case of continuing problems in this area would the goal
setting procedure be used to help improve the situation.

Measurability of Goals
Part ,C in the Appendix lists the preferred options for measuring progress
towards Meeting 'the goal(s). The key to this activity during the conference is a
cooperative effort between the supervisor and the staff member in arrivingInt a
method that fits each goal. Certain goals may be so unique thOthey force the
supervisor and staff person to creatively desigrf a method-for assessing progress.
This. is perfectly acceptable. It k to be remembered that subjeCtive judgments
made by, the supervisor and the staff person after the method(s) have been applied
are clearly acceptable forms f measurement. This allows us not to .have to
confine our goals to only those ings that are measurable by tradit'onal, empirical
standards.
 APPENDIX 159

Part C.
Techniques for Determining Teacher Effectiveness
Several techniques can be employed to formatively collect data about
classroom instruction.

Formal Observation
Observing the teacher in the classroom is a basic and important way. of
determining teacher effectiveness. Formal observation will be made throughout
the school year witii-either the teacher or supervisor. initiating the formal
observation process. To increase the reliability of the information gained through
the formal, observation, the following procedures will be required 'of all formal
-observations.
I. A pre-observation conference is required for each formal classroom
observation to help the teacher and supervisor determine the primary
focus of the observation. In the pre-observation conftFrence the following
.information is to be discussed.
a. Specific area of Teacher Effectiveness Criteria that will receive primary
emphasis during the observation.
b. Stiident outcomes to be achieved by the lessons.
c. Methods teachers will use to help the students achieve the lesson
objective.
d. Behavior students will display that will indicate their successful
achievement of the lesson objective.
2:-. The pre-observation conference may be held at any time prior to the
observation. The formal observation form is to be used to record informa-
tion collected during the formal observation process-.
3.- A descriptiON the observation will be giVen to the teacher within a
reasonable timi/prior to the post-conference.
4: A- post-obseryation conference will be held following each classroom
observatioiAvitbsuch conferences being conducted within a reasonable
time follieing observationusually not more than two school days.
Informafion determined in the observation and pre-observation confer-
ence will form the basis of discussion in the post - conference.

Artifact Collection
An important appraisal alternative to the' formal observation proces's is
artifact collection. Artifacts would include' such things as lesson plans; unit
planning materials, tests, qu zes, study guides, worksheets, homewoyk assign-
ments and other materials that affect or relate 10 instruction. The Teacher
Effectiveness Criteria will serve as a basis for determining the quality and
appropriateness of classroom artifacts. A conference may be scheduled for4he
purpose. of mutually appraising instructional artifacts with requested data being
presented to the supervisor at least one day-prior to an arranged conference. An
artifacts reviewed in the conference will be returned except those that have been
mutually determined to be used for the preparation of the final appraisal report.

Student Evaluation
Great insight can be gained related to instructional effectiveness and effective
classroom procedures by asking students for their reactions and perceptions to
questions aimed at producing descriptive informiition about the classroom and the
 160 APPENDIX

instruction in that classroom. The purpose of any such appraisal is to obtain

descriptive data about instruction and not to rate the teacher. Such information
will be mutually reviewed by the teacher and the supervisor to determine the level
of instructional effectiveness in the classroom. Any written information, forms or
notes used or made in employing this technique as a data source shall be shared-
solely between the teacher and the supervisor. The results of this appraisal
technique would not be included as part of the teacher's Annual Appraisal Report
unless both the teacher and the supervisor mutually agree to do so. (Various
student evaluation instruments will be made available through the Office of the
Assistant Superintendent.)

Part D.
Staff member, Supervisor
School Date

PRE - APPRAISAL CONFERENCE

A. Establishment and Monitoring of Performance Goal((;?ach addition-

al material as needed).

Performance Goals for Means for Mea,pring the Degree to

Appraisal Period Which the Goal was Reached
1'

B. Additional Comments Relevant to the Conference

 APPENDIX 161

Pah,g.

FINAL APPRAISAL",REPORT

Staff member Supervisor

School Date

A. A Summary of the Appraisal Process

B. General Follow-up Recommendations

C. Remarks by the Staff Member (optional)

Signatures indicate completion of the process, but not necessarily agree-

ment.
Teacher Date
Supervisor Date

17
 Also of interest .

For further exploration of teacher evaluation, readers

may find the
following ASCIYmedia useful:

PUBLICATIONS
Effective Schools and Classrooms: A Research-Based Perspective. David A.
Squires, William G: Huitt, and John K. Segars. Includes a questionnaire
to assess the effectiveness Olyour own school. 1983. 142 pp. $7.50.
Staff Development/Organization Development. Betty Dillon-Peterson, ed.
Discusses characteristics of the adult learner, a five-stage model for
inservice, and the evaluation process. 1981 Yearbook. 149 pp. $9.75.

AUDIOTAPE CASSETTES
Accountability Teacher Evaluation Model. Michael Patton. Analyzes
who
is accountable to whom for what, the need to identify the
purpose of the
model and specify how information will be used. 1980. 82 min.
Stock no-.
612-20220. $9.00.

Educational Connoisseurship and Educational Criticism: A New Evaluation

Approach. Elliot Eisner. Suggests new ways -to evaluate teaching and
learning. 1978..55 min. $6.50.
Stimulating Professional Growth Through Systematic Personnel Appraisar.
Don Holste and Richard J. Bodine. Describes the Urbana, Illinois,
program for integrating personnel evaluation with staff development.
1979. $6.50.

Alternative Models for Use in Designing Local Teacher Evaluation

Thomas McGreal. Clarifies the purpose of teacher evaluation Systems.
and pro-
poses alternatives to common law evaluation models. 1980. 92 min. $9.00.

.-71 3
 VIDEOTAPES/FILMS
Evaluating Teacher Performance: Part I. The Process. Richard Manatt'.''
Describes a legal way to assess teacher performance using generic
instruments and performance analysis: Includes evaluation of four real
teaching episodes. Format: 3/4" cassette, 1/2" reel, 1/2" Beta, or 1/2" VHS.
Purchase price: $195, ASCD members; $230, nonmembers. Rental (5
days): $50. Unscheduled preview (2 days): $30.
Evaluating Teacher Performance: Part II. Teaching Episodes. Richard
Manatt. Presents three more teaching episodes plus longer versions of
twosegments in Part I. Format: 3/4" cassette, 1/2" reel, 1/2" Beta, or 1/2" VHS.
Purchase price: $195. ASC451-members; $230, nonmembers. Rental (5
days): $50. UnscheduleePri-View (2 days): $30.
Supervising the Marginal Teacher. Richard Manatt. Describes the use of
intensive assistance, progressive discipline, and teacher dismissal. Pack-
aged with Comprehe sive leader's guide and instructional materials
booklet. Forinat: 3/ casette, 1/2" reel, '/2" Beta, oly/2" VHS. Purchase
price.$225, ASCD embers, 0, nonmembers. Rental (5 days): $50.
Unscheduled previe (2 days): $30.

ORDERING AND PAYMENT INFORMATION (Turn page for order form.)

1. Indicate the quantity and price of each item you wish to order. (For
videotapes, also indicate the -format and preferred rental date, if
applicable.)
2. Please be sure your name and address appear below.
3. Orders totaling $20 or less Must be
accompanied by payment. ASCD
absorbs the cost of postage and handling on prepaid orders. Make
check or money order payable to ASCD.
4. If order is to be billed, postage and handling will be added.
5. Orders from institutions and businesses
must be on.official purchase
order form.

I '7
 Please send me:
Quantity Price Title
Effective Schools and Classrooms: A Research-Based
Perspective (611-83298)
Staff Development/Organization Development (610-
81232)
Accountability Teacher Evaluatiop-Model (612-20220)
Educational Connoisseu ip and Educational Criti-
cism (612-20183)
Stimulating Pr ssional Growth Through Systematic
Personnel A raisal (612-20202)
Alternative Models for Use in Designing Local Teach-
er Evaluation Systems (612-20218)
Evaluating Teacher Performance: Part I. The Process
Circle one: 3/4" cassette ,1/2" reel
1/2" Beta '4" VHS
Evaluating Teacher Performance: Part II: Teaching
Episodes
Circle one: 3/4" cassette ' /2" reel
1/2" Beta ' /2" VHS

Supervising the Marginal Teacher

Circle one: 3/4" cassette ' /2' reel
' /2" Beta ' /2" VHS

Your name
Address.
City: State: Zip.
Enclosed is my check or money order in the amount of $
Please bill me (postage and handling extra)

1-.Mail to: ASCD

225 N. Washington St.
Alexandria, VA 22314

175
.9