Advertisement

Validation of Student, Principal, and Self-Ratings in 360° Feedback® for Teacher Evaluation

  • David J. Wilkerson
  • Richard P. Manatt
  • Mary Ann Rogers
  • Ron Maughan
Article

Abstract

The primary purpose of this study was to examine the performance of K–12 students on criterion-referenced reading, language arts, and mathematics tests, and the relationship of those measures of student achievement to teacher performance measures by principals, students, and self-ratings by the teachers, with the intent of improving student performance through improved teaching. A total of 988 students, thirty-five teachers, and four principals participated in this project. The teacher performance questionnaires were preexisting instruments that had been used in previous studies and had proven to have validity, reliability, and discriminating power. The questionnaires consisted of twenty items each that represent positive descriptors of teacher behavior. There were four groupings of questionnaires for all three rater groups: lower elementary (K–2), upper elementary (3–5), middle school (6–8) and high school (9–12). The criterion-referenced tests were district developed in conjunction with an extensive curriculum renewal process conducted through the Iowa State University School Improvement Model (SIM). All three rater groups completed the questionnaires rating the teacher using a five-point, Likert-type scale. The data then were analyzed to determine what relationships, if any, existed between the ratings and student achievement as measured by the criterion-referenced examinations. The paramount finding was that student ratings of teachers were the best predictor of student achievement on district-developed, criterion-referenced tests and showed the strongest positive relationship to student achievement when compared with those of principals and teachers.

Keywords

Middle School Student Achievement Student Performance Renewal Process Teacher Evaluation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adey, P.S. (1995). The effects of a staff development program: The relationship between the level of use of innovative science curriculum activities and student achievement. London, England: King's College London Center for Educational Studies. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 383 567).Google Scholar
  2. Cashin, W.E. (1988). Student ratings of teaching: A summary of the research. IDEA Paper No. 20. Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University Division of Continuing Education.Google Scholar
  3. Cashin, W.E. (1995). Student ratings of teaching: The research revisited. IDEA Paper No. 32. Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University Division of Continuing Education.Google Scholar
  4. Emans, R.L., & Millburn, M.C. (1989). The knowledge base of teaching: A review and commentary of process-product research. St. Paul, MN: Bush Foundation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 309 137).Google Scholar
  5. Gage, N.L., & Needels, M.C. (1989). Process-product research on teaching: A review of criticisms. The Elementary School Journal, 89(3), 253-300.Google Scholar
  6. Gage, N.L. (1994). The scientific status of research on teaching. Educational Theory, 44(4), 371-383.Google Scholar
  7. Garrison, J.W., & Macmillan, C.J.B. (1994). “Process-product research on teaching: Ten years later”. Educational Theory, 44(4), 385-397.Google Scholar
  8. Gastel, B. (1991). “A menu of approaches for evaluating your teaching”. BioScience, 41(5), 342-345.Google Scholar
  9. Good, T.L., & Mulryan, C. (1990). Teacher ratings: A call for teacher control and self-evaluation. In J. Millman & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), The new handbook of teacher evaluation (pp. 191-215). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Harris, B.M. (1987). Resolving old dilemmas in diagnostic evaluation. Educational Leadership, 44(7), 46-49.Google Scholar
  11. Manatt, R.P. (1988). Teacher performance evaluation: A total systems approach. In Sarah J. Stanley & W. James Popham (Eds.), Teacher evaluation: Six prescriptions for success. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  12. McConney, A. (1998). Introduction: the issue in perspective. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12(3), 239-241.Google Scholar
  13. McLaughlin, M.W. (1990). Embracing contraries: Implementing and sustaining teacher evaluation. In J. Millman & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), The new handbook of teacher evaluation (pp. 403-415). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Omotani, L.M. (1992). Refining valid, reliable, and discriminating student feedback items for use as one component of a total teacher performance evaluation system. Doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.Google Scholar
  15. Quality counts 2000, executive summary. (2000). Education Week, 19(18) January 13, 8, 9.Google Scholar
  16. Smith, L. (1993). The executive's new coach. Fortune, 128(16), 126-134.Google Scholar
  17. Weber, B.J. (1992). Reliability and discrimination power of performance criteria for students' ratings of teachers: A comparison of K-5 and 6-12. Doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.Google Scholar
  18. Wilcox, J.M.B. (1995). A comparison of teachers', students' and administrators' perceptions of teaching performance quality in selected K-12 schools. Doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.Google Scholar
  19. Wilkerson, D.J. (1997). The association of performance ratings of teachers and achievement of students in the classroom. Doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • David J. Wilkerson
    • 1
  • Richard P. Manatt
    • 2
  • Mary Ann Rogers
    • Ron Maughan
      • 3
    1. 1.Waukee Community SchoolsWaukee
    2. 2.Educational Leadership and Policy StudiesIowa State UniversityUSA
    3. 3.Round Valley Unified School District, Springerville

    Personalised recommendations