Research indicates a critical link between effective teaching and students’ academic achievement. Mathers, Oliva & Laine (2008) state that the role of teacher evaluations has surfaced as a “tool to promote teacher professional growth and measure teacher effectiveness in the classroom” ( p. 1). Teacher evaluation serves two fundamental purposes: “quality assurance and professional learning” (Danielson 2007, p. 64). Glickman(2002) believes that teacher evaluation assists in providing a forum, structure and a plan for teachers and evaluators to reflect, change and assess professional practice. When used appropriately, teacher evaluations identify and measure the instructional strategies, professional behaviors and delivery of content knowledge that affect student learning (Danielson & McGreal, 2000).
One of the problems hindering teachers' classroom instruction has been the lack of frequent observations which can create bias results. Research suggests that when observations occur frequently, their reliability improves (Denner, Miller, Newsome & Birdsong (2002) and when observations are longer, their validity improves (Cronin & Capie, 1986).
In addition, there is an absence of systematic feedback for teachers to facilitate their professional growth and improve instruction. Donaldson (2010) concludes that evaluators tend not to provide detailed and concrete feedback after they have observed teachers. Frase (1992) states that feedback has often been “inaccurate, shallow and at times mean spirited, rather than helpful and uplifting” (p. 179). Feeney (2007) determines that “Constructive and meaningful feedback is needed to promote reflection and allow teachers to plan and achieve new goals, which will ultimately lead to an increased sense of efficacy in their teaching” (p. 193). According to Covey (1991), without objective feedback and regular reports on progress and performance, an individual is less likely to achieve his or her professional goals. Constructive and meaningful feedback is needed to promote reflection and allow teachers to plan and achieve new goals, which will ultimately lead to an increased sense of efficacy in their teaching. Quality feedback should support teachers in making decisions about what to teach and how to teach to better meet the needs of their students (Sergiovanni & Starrat, 2007). An evaluation has no meaning if it is not interpreted, questioned, discussed and reflected on, ultimately leading to making different and more effective decisions (Feeney, 2007).
Several studies have been conducted relating to teacher feedback. Turnbull, Haslam, Arcaira, Riley, Sinclair & Coleman (2009) found in their study that principals spend less time in providing feedback to teachers than on observations. The study also reported that teachers in several schools stated that their principals provided no individual feedback, choosing instead to focus on group feedback based on a checklist criteria. Also, Arlestig (2008) conducted a study of 24 principals in secondary schools and found that few classroom observations were conducted and rarely were teachers provided feedback. To add further, Kelley and Maslow (2005) concluded in their study that meaningful feedback for teacher learning beyond the probationary period did not occur for experienced teachers.
To provide quality focused feedback, a structure needs to occur to promote reflective inquiry and conversations for facilitating the learning of teachers. Conferencing facilitates a collaborative reflective dialogue after a lesson has been observed. According to Feeney (2007), “When a structure to promote reflective inquiry is provided, teachers are more likely to internalize the feedback and make adjustments to improve their teaching” (p. 195).
Issued by the South Carolina Department of Education and ratified by the state government in 2002 and updated in 2010, all school districts in South Carolina use the Assisting, Developing and Evaluating Professional Teaching (ADEPT) system. The ADEPT system addresses teacher performance through three primary processes: assisting, developing and evaluating. The Summative ADEPT Formal Evaluation of Classroom-Based Teachers (SAFE-T) is designed to promote quality teaching through performance standards identified in planning, instruction, environment and professionalism (Danielson, 2007).
ADEPT is encompassed by the idea of evaluating teachers directly throughout the first two years of teaching while moving them toward continuing status and yearly Goals Based Evaluation (GBE) after year two of teaching. Thereafter, the evaluation process becomes very different from that of an induction and annual contract teacher. An annual contract teacher is not required to be evaluated. Rather, the teacher writes personal and professional goals that he/she wants to accomplish within five years.
This study focused on one large school district in South Carolina who uses the ADEPT and SAFE-T system to address teacher performance, as well as Classroom Walk-Throughs (CWT). The CWT focuses on student learning and achievement through compilation of data that shows trends. The purpose is to identify areas of strengths and weaknesses in classroom instruction and work towards improvement. The CWT is non-evaluative. Its design is for the “big picture” in instruction not just one classroom. The idea is that once trends are determined identifying strengths and weaknesses, professional development can be arranged for teacher. The CWT model does not differentiate among teachers’ experience level and every school uses the same CWT instrument regardless of grade level or setting. Therefore, the assessment tools mostly commonly used in the school district are ones meant for annual assessment of teacher quality and data collection on groups of educators.
The use of the SAFE-T, GBE and CWT utilized by the school district in South Carolina is in place. While the teacher is required to submit a reflection based on each observation with SAFE-T, the teacher receives no feedback until the process is completed at the end of the year. Moreover, because the GBE lacks a required number of classroom observations for teachers on continuing contract, a teacher may not receive any formal observations for several years. Also, the CWT does not provide individual teacher feedback but rather trends occurring in a school. Lastly, the structure in place for conferencing with the teacher takes place in the Summative Year-End evaluation process.
Despite research on frequent observations, systematic feedback and a structure, (conferencing), necessary for teacher growth and ultimately, student learning, many teachers are not receiving such to promote reflective inquiry and self-directedness to foster improvements in teaching supported by evidence of student learning (Glickman, 2002). This article aims at providing insight into teacher’s subjective interpretations of their experiences with observations, conferencing and feedback. Understanding teacher’s perspectives can shed light in re-designing meaningful evaluation instruments and assist school leaders in future planning.
