标准化观察系统对终结性教师评价系统有何价值?

IF 2.6 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Studies in Educational Evaluation Pub Date : 2024-10-30 DOI:10.1016/j.stueduc.2024.101414
Mark White , Bridget Maher
{"title":"标准化观察系统对终结性教师评价系统有何价值?","authors":"Mark White ,&nbsp;Bridget Maher","doi":"10.1016/j.stueduc.2024.101414","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Teacher evaluation systems work to balance summative and formative goals. Instructional observations are an important part of such systems, allowing evaluation to directly impact instruction. Research shows that summative and formative goals can conflict with each other. This paper examines whether the summative usage of observation scores contributes to summative evaluation. We find that, after accounting for traditional principal ratings, observation scores provide little predictive validity for identifying high quality teachers. Given the reviewed negative impacts of summative uses of observation scores in teacher evaluation, teacher evaluation systems should reconsider the summative usage of observation scores.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47539,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Educational Evaluation","volume":"83 ","pages":"Article 101414"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What value do standardized observation systems add to summative teacher evaluation systems?\",\"authors\":\"Mark White ,&nbsp;Bridget Maher\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.stueduc.2024.101414\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Teacher evaluation systems work to balance summative and formative goals. Instructional observations are an important part of such systems, allowing evaluation to directly impact instruction. Research shows that summative and formative goals can conflict with each other. This paper examines whether the summative usage of observation scores contributes to summative evaluation. We find that, after accounting for traditional principal ratings, observation scores provide little predictive validity for identifying high quality teachers. Given the reviewed negative impacts of summative uses of observation scores in teacher evaluation, teacher evaluation systems should reconsider the summative usage of observation scores.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47539,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studies in Educational Evaluation\",\"volume\":\"83 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101414\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studies in Educational Evaluation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191491X24000932\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Educational Evaluation","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191491X24000932","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

教师评价体系努力平衡终结性目标和形成性目标。教学观察是此类系统的重要组成部分,可使评价直接影响教学。研究表明,终结性目标和形成性目标可能相互冲突。本文研究了观察评分的终结性使用是否有助于终结性评价。我们发现,在考虑了传统的校长评级后,观察评分对识别优质教师的预测效力很小。鉴于观察评分在教师评价中的终结性使用所产生的负面影响,教师评价体系应重新考虑观察评分的终结性使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
What value do standardized observation systems add to summative teacher evaluation systems?
Teacher evaluation systems work to balance summative and formative goals. Instructional observations are an important part of such systems, allowing evaluation to directly impact instruction. Research shows that summative and formative goals can conflict with each other. This paper examines whether the summative usage of observation scores contributes to summative evaluation. We find that, after accounting for traditional principal ratings, observation scores provide little predictive validity for identifying high quality teachers. Given the reviewed negative impacts of summative uses of observation scores in teacher evaluation, teacher evaluation systems should reconsider the summative usage of observation scores.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
6.50%
发文量
90
审稿时长
62 days
期刊介绍: Studies in Educational Evaluation publishes original reports of evaluation studies. Four types of articles are published by the journal: (a) Empirical evaluation studies representing evaluation practice in educational systems around the world; (b) Theoretical reflections and empirical studies related to issues involved in the evaluation of educational programs, educational institutions, educational personnel and student assessment; (c) Articles summarizing the state-of-the-art concerning specific topics in evaluation in general or in a particular country or group of countries; (d) Book reviews and brief abstracts of evaluation studies.
期刊最新文献
Teaching quality and student achievement inequalities in low- and middle-income countries: A hierarchical linear model analysis Do children speaking indigenous and regional languages benefit equally from updated curricula? A report on a longitudinal quasi-experimental pilot study in Central Asia Exploring the impact of student perceptions of Assessment for Learning on intrinsic motivation How are pre-service physical education teachers’ perceptions of educator-created (dis)empowering climates associated with their motivational processes and teaching intention? Online peer feedback training based on self-regulated learning in english as a foreign language writing: Perceived usefulness and students’ engagement
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1