实施观察评级系统的权衡。

Journal of applied measurement Pub Date : 2020-01-01
Stephen M Ponisciak, Rob Meyer, Anna Brown, Tracy Schatzberg
{"title":"实施观察评级系统的权衡。","authors":"Stephen M Ponisciak,&nbsp;Rob Meyer,&nbsp;Anna Brown,&nbsp;Tracy Schatzberg","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A consensus has developed that high-quality teacher evaluation systems require multiple measures. We examine multiple measures from a large urban school district, which has included observational ratings and value-added ratings in its system since 2010. Evaluation systems that do not account for observer severity, classroom context, and other factors may yield different results from systems that do account for these factors. Choosing a simpler system involves a trade-off regarding a system's robustness or defensibility. Using a many-faceted Rasch model, we explore rating components like observer, time of year, and subdomain. We find high reliability of the resulting teacher ratings, some impact of adjusting for observer differences and differences between subdomains, and positive correlation with value-added measures. A comprehensive analysis like MFRM should be part of a district's evaluation system, even if only as a robustness check, and districts should examine how observational scores and classroom context are related.</p>","PeriodicalId":73608,"journal":{"name":"Journal of applied measurement","volume":"21 1","pages":"50-67"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Trade-Offs in the Implementation of Observational Ratings Systems.\",\"authors\":\"Stephen M Ponisciak,&nbsp;Rob Meyer,&nbsp;Anna Brown,&nbsp;Tracy Schatzberg\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>A consensus has developed that high-quality teacher evaluation systems require multiple measures. We examine multiple measures from a large urban school district, which has included observational ratings and value-added ratings in its system since 2010. Evaluation systems that do not account for observer severity, classroom context, and other factors may yield different results from systems that do account for these factors. Choosing a simpler system involves a trade-off regarding a system's robustness or defensibility. Using a many-faceted Rasch model, we explore rating components like observer, time of year, and subdomain. We find high reliability of the resulting teacher ratings, some impact of adjusting for observer differences and differences between subdomains, and positive correlation with value-added measures. A comprehensive analysis like MFRM should be part of a district's evaluation system, even if only as a robustness check, and districts should examine how observational scores and classroom context are related.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73608,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of applied measurement\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"50-67\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of applied measurement\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of applied measurement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

一个共识是,高质量的教师评价体系需要多种措施。我们研究了一个大型城市学区的多项指标,该学区自2010年以来在其系统中包括观察评级和增值评级。不考虑观察者严重程度、课堂环境和其他因素的评估系统可能会产生与考虑这些因素的系统不同的结果。选择一个更简单的系统需要权衡系统的健壮性或可防御性。使用多面Rasch模型,我们探索了像观察者、一年中的时间和子域这样的评级组件。我们发现得出的教师评分具有很高的可靠性,对观察者差异和子域之间的差异进行调整有一定的影响,并且与增值措施呈正相关。像MFRM这样的综合分析应该成为学区评估系统的一部分,即使只是作为稳健性检查,学区也应该检查观察分数和课堂环境之间的关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Trade-Offs in the Implementation of Observational Ratings Systems.

A consensus has developed that high-quality teacher evaluation systems require multiple measures. We examine multiple measures from a large urban school district, which has included observational ratings and value-added ratings in its system since 2010. Evaluation systems that do not account for observer severity, classroom context, and other factors may yield different results from systems that do account for these factors. Choosing a simpler system involves a trade-off regarding a system's robustness or defensibility. Using a many-faceted Rasch model, we explore rating components like observer, time of year, and subdomain. We find high reliability of the resulting teacher ratings, some impact of adjusting for observer differences and differences between subdomains, and positive correlation with value-added measures. A comprehensive analysis like MFRM should be part of a district's evaluation system, even if only as a robustness check, and districts should examine how observational scores and classroom context are related.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Validation of Egalitarian Education Questionnaire using Rasch Measurement Model. Bootstrap Estimate of Bias for Intraclass Correlation. Rasch's Logistic Model Applied to Growth. Psychometric Properties of the General Movement Optimality Score using Rasch Measurement. Rasch Analysis of the Burn-Specific Pain Anxiety Scale: Evidence for the Abbreviated Version.
×
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