nach oben

Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability

Erschienen in:

25.01.2016

Chinese middle school teachers’ preferences regarding performance evaluation measures

verfasst von: Shujie Liu, Xianxuan Xu, James H. Stronge

Erschienen in: Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability | Ausgabe 2/2016

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Teacher performance evaluation currently is receiving unprecedented attention from policy makers, scholars, and practitioners worldwide. This study is one of the few studies of teacher perceptions regarding teacher performance measures that focus on China. We employed a quantitative dominant mixed research design to investigate Chinese teachers’ preferences for teacher performance measures and the possible reasons for their preferences. Considering the quantitative results, the surveyed Chinese teachers identified fulfillment of additional roles, collaboration with faculty and staff, and students’ test scores as the most important measures for performance evaluation. Qualitatively, the most important measures that the surveyed teachers reported were the teacher’s morality, workload, and students’ test scores.

Vorheriger Artikel Validating “value added” in the primary grades: one district’s attempts to increase fairness and inclusivity in its teacher evaluation system

Nächster Artikel Teachers’ perceptions of effective teaching: a comparative study of elementary school teachers from China and the USA

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Baker, E., et al. (2010). Problems with the Use of Student Test Scores to Evaluate Teachers. EPI (Economic Policy Institute) Briefing Paper # 278. Retrieved on May 22, 2013 from http://www.epi.org/publications/category/education

Burns, S. F., Gardner, C. D., & Meeuwsen, J. L. (2009). An interim evaluation of teacher and principal experiences during the pilot phase of AISD Reach. AISD REACH – Executive Summary. Nashville, TN:

Cantrell, S. M. (2012). The measures of effective teaching project: An experiment to build evidence and trust. Education Finance and Policy, 7(2), 203–218.CrossRef

Danielson, C. (2001). New trends in teacher evaluation. Educational Leadership, 58(5), 12–15.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2009). Recognizing and enhancing teacher effectiveness. The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment, 3(1), 1–24.

Eckert, J. M., & Dabrowski, J. (2010). Should value-added measures be used for performance pay? Phi Delta Kappan, 91(8), 88–92.CrossRef

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Goe, L. (2008). Approaches to evaluating teacher effectiveness. Executive summary of database on state teacher evaluation policies. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.

Goe, L., Holdhelde, L., & Miller, T. (2011). A practical guide to designing comprehensive teacher evaluation systems. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.

Haertel, E. H. (2013). Reliability and validity of inferences about teachers based on student test scores. The 14th William H. Angoff Memorial Lecture was presented at The National Press Club, Washington, D.C., on March 22, 2013. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service

Hess, F., & Castle, J. (2008). Teacher pay and 21st-Century School Reform. In T. Good (Ed.), 21st Century Education: A Reference Handbook (pp. 68–75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hinchey, P. H. (2010). Getting teacher assessment right: What policymakers can learn from research. Retrieved on May 26, 2013 from http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/getting-teacher-assessment-right

Hopkins, P. (2013). Teacher perspectives of the use of student performance data in teacher evaluation. College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA: Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

Lasagna, M. (2010). Executive Summary: Lessons Learned from the Center for Educator Compensation Reform’s First 10 Case Summaries. Washington, D.C.: Center for Educator Compensation Reform. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.

Lavy, V. (2009). Performance pay and teachers’ effort, productivity, and grading ethics. American Economic Review, 99(5), 1979–2011.CrossRef

Liang, F. (2012). Survey report of teacher performance evaluation in Fujian Province. In Y. Wang & S. Lin (Eds.), Research of teacher performance evaluation (pp. 40–54). Shanghai: Shanghai People’s Publishing House.

Liu, S. (2014, February). Chinese teachers’ attitudes toward performance pay. Paper presented at the 2014 Annual Conference of the Comparative Education Society of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

Liu, S., & Teddlie, C. (2005). A follow-up study on teacher evaluation in China: Historical analysis and latest trends. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 18, 253–272.CrossRef

Liu, S., & Teddlie, C. (2003). The ongoing development of teacher evaluation and curriculum reform in the People’s Republic of China. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 17, 243–261.CrossRef

Liu, S., & Zhao, D. (2013). Teacher evaluation in China: latest trends and future directions. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 25(3), 231–250.CrossRef

Lockwood, J. R., McCaffrey, D. F., Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B., Le, V., & Martinez, J. F. (2007). The sensitivity of value-added teacher effect estimates to different mathematics achievement measures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 44(1), 47–67.CrossRef

Milanowski, A. T. (2011). Strategic measures of teacher performance. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(7), 19–25.CrossRef

Ministry of Education (2008). Guidelines to Teacher Performance Evaluation in Compulsory Schools. Retrieved on May 22, 2013 from http://www.moe.gov.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/moe_670/201001/xxgk_81469.html (in Chinese)

Ministry of Education. (2001). Curriculum Reform Guidelines for Basic Education. Retrieved on May 12, 2013, from http://www.moe.edu.cn/base/jckecheng/

Ministry of Education. (2002). Notification on Advancing Reform of Evaluation and Exam System for Elementary and Secondary Schools. Retrieved on May 12, 2013, from http://www.moe.edu.cn/wreports/20030003/09.htm

O’Pry, S. C., & Schumacher, G. (2012). New teachers’ perceptions of a standards-based performance appraisal system. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 24(4), 325–350.CrossRef

Papay, J. P. (2012). Refocusing the debate: Assessing the purposes and tools of teacher evaluation. Harvard Educational Review, 82(1), 123–141.CrossRef

Podgursky, M. J., & Springer, M. G. (2007). Teacher performance pay: a review. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 26, 909–949.CrossRef

Popham, W. J. (2010). (Mis)measuring teachers. American School Board Journal, 197(9), 36–38.

Qi, D. (2012). Survey of the state of teacher evaluation in the context of the new curriculum reform. Shandong Normal University, Jinan, Shangdong: Unpublished thesis.

Rothstein, J. (2009). Teacher quality in educational production: Tracking, decay, and student achievement. Retrieved from http://www.princeton.edu/~jrothst/published/rothstein_vam_may152009.pdf.

Rothstein, J. (2010). Teacher quality in educational production: Tracking, decay, and student achievement. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125(1), 175–214.

Sanders, W. L. (2000). Value-added assessment from student achievement data: opportunities and hurdles. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 14(4), 329–339.CrossRef

Sclafani, S., & Tucker, M. S. (2006). Teacher and principal compensation: An international review. Washington, D. C.: National Center on Education and the Economy.

Stronge, J. H. (2010). Effective teachers = student achievement. Larchmont, NY: Eye On Education.

Stronge, H. J. (2012). Stronge teacher effectiveness performance evaluation system. Williamsburg, VA: Stronge and Associates Educational Consulting, in Association with New Jersey Principals and Supervisors Association

Stronge, J. H., Muñoz, M. A., Grant, L. W., & Liu, S. (2013). Special issue: Teacher effectiveness and teacher evaluation: An international perspective. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 25(3).

Stronge, H. J., Ward, T. J., & Grant, L. W. (2011). What makes good teachers good? A cross-case analysis of the connection between teacher effectiveness and student achievement. Journal of Teacher Education, 62, 339–355. doi:10.1177/0022487111404241.CrossRef

Stronge, J. H., & Tucker, P. D. (2003). Handbook on teacher evaluation: Assessing and improving performance. Larchmont, NY: Eye On Education.

Tan, J., & Zhang, L. (2010). On evaluation of compulsory teachers’ performance. Journal of Xuzhou Normal University (Educational Sciences Edition), 1, 21–23 (in Chinese).

U.S. Department of Education. (2014). ESEA flexibility. Retrieved on February 12, 2014, from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/index.html.

Walker, A., & Dimmock, C. (2000). One size fits all? Teacher appraisal in a Chinese culture. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 14(2), 155–178.CrossRef

Wang, C. (2012). On reflection of teacher self-evaluation. Education Exploration, 247, 114–116 (in Chinese).

Wells, J. (2011). Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA). New Orleans: LA. Teacher responses to pay-for-performance policies: Survey results from four high-poverty, urban school districts.

Welsh, M. E. (2011). Measuring teacher effectiveness in gifted education: Some challenges and suggestions. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22, 750–770.CrossRef

West, K. L., & Mykerezi, E. (2011). Teachers’ unions and compensation: the impact of collective bargaining on salary schedules and performance pay schemes. Economics of Education Review, 30, 99–108. EX.CrossRef

Westberg, D., Sexton, S., Mulhern, J., & Keeling, D. (2009). The widget effect: Our national failure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher effectiveness. Retrieved on May 26, 2013 from www.widgeteffect.org

Woessmann, L. (2010). Program on Education Policy and Governance Working Paper PEPG 10–11. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Cross-Country Evidence on Teacher Performance Pay.

Xie, A., Hou, D., Wang, J., & Gu, L. (2007). Toward to multiple and comprehensive trend: review on the current researches of Chinese teacher evaluation. College Study & Evaluation, 2, 33–38 (in Chinese).

Xu, H., & Hu, Z. (2010). Reflection and construction of teacher evaluation system in the context of the new curriculum reform. Educational Measurement and Evaluation, 9, 15–19 (in Chinese).

Zhang, H., & Liu, X. (2010). Reflections on teacher evaluation research. Modern Education Science, 1, 125–128 (in Chinese).

Zhang, N., & Shen, J. (2012). Trends of teacher assessment. Journal of Heibing Normal University (Educational Science Edition), 14(8), 15–19 (in Chinese).

Zeng, P. (2005). Teacher evaluation in Chinese elementary schools: An historical account. Brigham Young University: Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

Titel: Chinese middle school teachers’ preferences regarding performance evaluation measures
verfasst von: Shujie Liu
Xianxuan Xu
James H. Stronge
Publikationsdatum: 25.01.2016
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability / Ausgabe 2/2016
Print ISSN: 1874-8597
Elektronische ISSN: 1874-8600
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-016-9237-x

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2016

Unpacking the data: an analysis of the use of Danielson’s (2007) Framework for Professional Practice in a teaching residency program

Teacher evaluation—accountability and improving teaching practices

Validating “value added” in the primary grades: one district’s attempts to increase fairness and inclusivity in its teacher evaluation system

Teachers’ perceptions of effective teaching: a comparative study of elementary school teachers from China and the USA