منابع پایان نامه درمورد evaluation، tradition، teacher education

disposition indicators of the INTASC principles to assess teacher dispositions. The process used to develop the instruments was the five-step design model that was called: “Dispositions Assessments Aligned with Teacher Standards” or DAATS. A self-report 50-item form aligned with each of the INTASC Principles has been field tested at four different institutions with about 2000 examinees. This self-report requires the teacher to respond to eight questions aligned with various INTASC principles and is designed to elicit specific instances of behavior that reflect the targeted principles.
This form provides a record of the teacher’s demonstration of a negative disposition, sometimes correlated with the code of ethics, sometimes with a lack of valuing of skill-based attitudes. Institutions can discover that there are areas of the curriculum (e.g., parental involvement) that candidates are not convinced of the necessity or value and can redesign their programs to help candidates learn to value such dispositions. The large number of participants is really helpful to provide useful results; but, unfortunately the results are not presented in detail statistically. The results are also limited to teacher dispositions and two other components of INTASC principles, that is, teacher knowledge and performances are not discussed.
Zanganeh (2013) conducted a survey research that yielded descriptive information about 147English teachers’ dispositions in pre- service programs in Iran. The participants self- evaluated themselves positively and it showed that English teacher training programs in Iran train knowledgeable and disposed teachers.
2.8.4 Teacher Effectiveness
Many researchers emphasize determining teacher effectiveness and teacher quality based on teachers’ contributions to student achievement.
Goe and Holdheide (2011) express that a score on a principal’s observation checklist is no longer acceptable as evidence that a teacher is effective in the classroom. They link teachers’ effectiveness with student outcomes and believe that evaluating teachers by measuring student growth rather than attainment is fairer to teachers whose students are considerably behind their peers in proficiency. Teachers are evaluated with growth models based on standardized tests. Students’ previous test scores are used to create predicted test scores for a given year. The difference between the predicted and actual test scores are growth scores. Teachers’ contributions to student learning are determined by calculating the average of all of their students’ growth scores. The teachers are then ranked with other teachers within a district according to how much they contributed to student growth, and this ranking is their value-added score.
According to Goe and Holdheide, sixty nine percent of teachers whose contributions to student learning cannot be measured with test-based approaches (e.g., value-added models) because they teach subjects or grades that are not assessed with standardized tests. Measuring the performance of teachers of non-tested subjects such as teachers of art, music, physical education, foreign languages, English language learners, and students with disabilities is probably the most challenging aspect of including student achievement growth as a component of teacher evaluation. Teacher evaluation necessitates either a different approach or a system of multiple measures to be able to assess teacher’s performance comprehensively.
There are other different methods used in measuring teacher effectiveness. These methods include: classroom observations, principal evaluations, classroom artifacts, portfolios, self- reports of teacher practice, student ratings, and value-added models. They also discuss the relevance of different measures for different purposes.
Little, Goe, and Bell (2009) define each method used in measuring teacher effectiveness, discuss different research findings on each method, and take into consideration the advantages and disadvantages of each method. They actually prefer value-added models in which teacher’s effectiveness is determined by assessing students’ achievements through two standardized achievement tests before and after the educational year. Although some models take into account some of the students’ characteristics, such as their gender, race, and socioeconomic background and some models even include teacher’s experience, some other models just consider the student’s prior achievement scores which cannot determine teacher’s effectiveness logically at all.
Medley and Coker (1987) examine the accuracy of principals’ judgments of teacher performance as predictors of teacher effectiveness and reveal positive correlations in three teacher roles and students’ gains in arithmetic and reading.
Prince, Koppich and Associates, Azar, Bhatt, and Witham (2011)evaluate teachers’ effectiveness by measuring the academic achievement of the students whom they teach. If rewarding the teachers is based on the percentage of students who reach a certain level of attainment, teachers in the lowest performing schools will be less likely to earn performance awards, even if their students make significant progresses during the school year.
Value-added modeling rewards teachers according to the amount of academic growth that students make over the course of a school year. Although a value-added approach that measures growth is preferred to more traditional measures of proficiency, it has a certain degree of measurement error that reduces the validity of performance distinctions between teachers and schools.
Teacher-level value added may vary considerably from year to year and one year of value-added data may not be sufficiently reliable for making high-stakes decisions about individual teacher effectiveness. But, multiple years of value-added data are not available most of the times. When multiple years of value-added data are not available, an alternative would be to reward groups of teachers when student performance improves (e.g., all teachers in a school, all teachers in a grade, or all teachers by subject); but this alternative also does not seem to be a valid substitution. Research suggests that evaluations of classroom performance based on observations may be sufficiently valid measures of teacher effectiveness when value-added assessment cannot be used.
In any case, value-added measures of student achievement should not be the sole measures to evaluate teacher productivity. Multiple measures of student achievement and multiple assessments of teacher performance are recommended.
Guyton (1991) compares teaching attitudes, teacher efficacy, and teacher performance of first year teachers prepared by alternative and traditional teacher education programs .The findings from this study of Georgia teachers state that condensed pedagogical preparation and a supervised internship are a reasonable alternative to traditional teacher preparation programs for persons with degrees in the subject they will teach. Expand+
Kim and Leyva (2004) use five efficacy measures through data reduction of 25 question items and teachers’ background variables to explore eighty-seven inner city teachers’ sense of efficacy and their attitudes towards students of Latino, language minority, and low socioeconomic status backgrounds in three low performing schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District. The efficacy measures include: instructional practice, expectations, confidence level, external factors, and efficacy. The results show high confidence level in instructional practices but low expectations of student achievement.
Teachers’ level of confidence is significantly correlated with expectations and instructional practices. Data analysis shows the main source of high confidence for teachers is their positive previous teaching experiences. The results indicate that teachers view other teachers as having lower expectations of their students themselves and students other than their own would exhibit lower academic achievement. Teachers with a master degree tend to show higher means in all efficacy measures than those with a bachelors degree. In order to improve schools, teachers’ low sense of efficacy in low performing schools should be seriously reconsidered.
2.9Evaluation of English Language Teachers
Too few research studies have been conducted to measure teacher’s knowledge, especially in the field of English. According to Grossman and Shulman (2002), much of the research in teachers’ knowledge has concentrated on the areas of science and math, perhaps because of the nature of knowledge in English which cannot be easily unpacked. The published literature on the quality of pre-service teacher education is also sparse. Few studies have investigated teacher education within the field of English systematically. Studies on the preparation of English teachers also have mostly focused on teachers’ knowledge of English and on how to teach English rather than on whole teachers’ knowledge or teachers’ dispositions and performances, so this study investigates not only teachers’ integrated knowledge, but also teachers’ dispositions and performances.
Kargar (2012) evaluated English Language Teacher Education (ELTE) in Iran by using Peacocks'(2009) recent evaluation model in an Iranian university. The researcher believes that the program needs improvement in developing linguistic competence. In this sense, a need for establishing a criterion for teacher students’ language proficiency is felt. In fact, there was a consensus

مطلب مرتبط :   منابع مقاله با موضوعاسترس، کاهش اضطراب، کاهش استرس

دیدگاهتان را بنویسید