DDFDFSDSDSFDSDSFFD

Table of Contents

Section Page Abbreviations..............................................................................iii

Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................
..........iv Executive
Summary ............................................................................................................. v
Background..................................................................................................................
........1 The Classroom Observations of Grade 3 Reading
Instruction .......................................... 1 The Sub-set of Sample Schools with
Classroom Observations ........................................ 1 Findings of the Interviews
with School Personnel................................................................. 2 Availability of
EGRP Learning Resources in MOE Schools .............................................. 2 EGRP
Training Received ................................................................................................. 3
Current Understandings of the
EGRP............................................................................... 4 “What do you like about
the Reading Program?” .............................................................. 5 Technical
Support to Teachers......................................................................................... 6
Challenges to Implementing the
EGRP ............................................................................ 8 Findings of the Classroom
Observations of Reading Instruction........................................... 9

The Observed Classrooms and Teachers........................................................... 9

The Learning Resources Used and Lessons Taught

.......................................... 11 The Teaching Procedures and Instructional Methods

Observed..................................... 11 Student Practice of Letter Sounds and
Linguistic Aspects .............................................. 12 Student Practice of Vocabulary
Learning Strategies....................................................... 13 Student Practice of
Reading Comprehension Strategies ................................................ 14 Students
Practice Reading ............................................................................................. 14 ii
EdData II: 2nd National Egypt Grade 3 EGRA – The Classroom Observations List
of Tables Table 1: The National Sample of Observed Grade 3
Classes................................................. 2 Table 2: Grade 3 Teacher Experience of
EGRP Training ....................................................... 3 Table 3: Current
Understandings of the EGRP....................................................................... 4 Table
4: “What do you like about the Reading
Program?”....................................................... 5 Table 5: “Who provides you
support for reading?”.................................................................. 6 Table 6:
Challenges to Implementing the EGRP.....................................................................
9 Table 7: Teaching Procedures and Methods
Used ................................................................12 Table 8: Vocabulary Learning
Strategies Observed...............................................................14 Table 9: Students
Practice Reading in Class.........................................................................15 EdData
II: 2nd National Egypt Grade 3 EGRA – The Classroom Observations iii
Abbreviations COP Chief of Party DCOP Deputy Chief of Party EGRA Early
Grade Reading Assessment EGRP Early Grade Reading Program, Ministry of
Education GILO Girls’ Improved Learning Outcomes Project, USAID project
idara district-level ministry administration, GOE MOE Ministry of Education
muderiya governorate-level ministry administration, GOE RTI Research Triangle
Institute, a trademark of RTI International USAID Unted States Agency for
International Development iv EdData II: 2nd National Egypt Grade 3 EGRA – The
Classroom Observations Acknowledgments The authors wish to acknowledge with
appreciation and respect the contributions and support of education staff from
USAID/Egypt and Egypt’s Ministry of Education (MOE) in the implementation of
this Classroom Observations component of the 2nd national Early Grade Reading
Assessment (EGRA) for Grade 3. At USAID/Egypt we thank Lisa Franchette,
Education Program Director, and Hala ElSerafy, Senior Education Specialist, for
their strategic design and leadership of this second national assessment to include
these Classroom Observations, and Mitch Kirby of USAID/Washington for his
direction under the Data for Education Programming in Asia and the Middle East
(DEP-AME) contract. Hanaa Qassem Hassanein, Head of MOE’s Early Learning
Unit, was instrumental to the successful implementation and mobilizing of ministry
support at all levels for this 2nd national assessment of Grade 3 reading skills,
including the Classroom Observations. The Classroom Observations instrument
was developed by RTI International with technical assistance from Medina Korda
and Drs. Amy D. MulcahyDunn, Joseph DeStefano and Margaret (Peggy) Dubeck.
Dr. Samir Shafik Habib and Ahmed Ismail of RTI International, and formerly COP
and DCOP respectively of the GILO Project, liaised directly with the MOE in
planning the Classroom Observations, prepared and tested the Arabic version of
the instrument, mobilized a cadre of 10 MOE professionals with significant
experience and training in early reading assessment, and then trained that cadre to
conduct the Classroom Observations alongside the EGRA Teams during school
visits. Dr. Robert J. LaTowsky, Managing Director of Infonex and former Director
for M&E, Communications and Reporting at the Girls’ Improved Learning
Outcomes Project (GILO), was again Field Director for this national EGRA and
lead author of this Classroom Observations report. Infonex consultants Nahla
Aboul Safa, Ayman Badr, Nancy Abdel Fadl, Tony Tony Mohamed, and Riham
Ibrahim Iskandar provided management oversight of the Classroom Observations
as EGRA Field Coordinators responsible for all field implementation in the five
regions. At RTI International, Medina Korda expertly served as the overall task
leader, supported by Roxanne Zerbonia, and David Harbin who provided financial
and contractual management. Dr. Luis Crouch, Vice President and Chief Technical
Officer of the International Development Group at RTI International, contributed
valued peer review of the draft report. We sincerely thank them all for their
contributions to the success of this Classroom Observations component of the 2nd
national EGRA assessment for Grade 3 in Egypt. EdData II: 2nd National Egypt
Grade 3 EGRA – The Classroom Observations v Executive Summary This report
presents key findings of a national, stratified random sample of classroom
observations of Grade 3 reading instruction in Ministry of Education (MOE)
schools. Classroom observation was a component activity of the 2nd national Early
Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) for Grade 3 implemented in April 2014. The
classroom observations were completed in a random sub-set of 39 schools from the
larger EGRA sample of 200 schools: 40 primary schools from each of five sub-
national regions encompassing 25 of Egypt’s 27 governorates. 1 One Grade 3
class, randomly selected, was observed in each school. Each classroom observation
applied a formal instrument to the observation of a full class period of Grade 3
Arabic reading plus separate interviews with the observed teacher, school principal
and librarian. All observations were conducted by trained MOE staff with
significant experience of both the ministry’s Early Grade Reading Program and
reading assessment. Schools were not informed in advance of the classroom
observation. These observations provide current, empirical information on: i) the
teaching methods, instructional activities and learning resources applied by Grade
3 teachers in their reading instruction; ii) the training experience and
understandings of early grade reading of key school personnel; iii) specific
challenges to implementing the early grade reading program in schools; iv) the
availability and use of Early Grade Reading learning resources in school classes
and libraries; and v) the technical support available to Grade 3 teachers for
improved reading instruction. The general finding is significantly positive. The
MOE Early Grade Reading Program has established a capable foundation of Grade
3 teachers trained, knowledgeable and technically supported to provide enhanced
reading instruction in Arabic. Key findings include: 1. All primary schools have
EGRP resources: All observed schools (100%) received EGRP teaching guides and
learning resources. With over 16,000 MOE primary schools, this is an outstanding
achievement. Not every observed school held a full set of instructional materials
developed for Grades 1 to 3, or the correct number of copies. But deficiencies of
the most critical EGRP guides were very few. 2. Early grade teachers trained in
EGRP: Nearly every observed teacher received some EGRP training. Only 3
teachers (8%), including one new teacher, had not attended EGRP Grade 3
training. And more than 75% of teachers trained in Mastery Monitoring were
applying their training to assess student performance during the observed class.
This too is a very positive finding. 1 For reasons of security and comparability of
findings with the EGRA Grade 3 baselines in 2013, the two governorates of North
Sinai and South Sinai were again excluded. vi EdData II: 2nd National Egypt
Grade 3 EGRA – The Classroom Observations 3. Knowledge of the EGRP: Just 2
school principals and 6 librarians in this sub-set of 39 schools had no knowledge of
the Reading Program. MOE engagement in improved early reading is now widely
known. 4. Ongoing technical support to teachers: Nearly all Grade 3 teachers enjoy
multiple sources of technical and material support for reading instruction. The
quality and frequency of technical support varies, but a broad network of technical
support for EGRP is active across Egypt. 5. EGRP learning resources are actively
used: The large majority of observed teachers (87%) had the EGRP Lesson Plan (
‫ الدليل‬R‫( اإلرشادي‬for Grade 3 reading with them in the classroom. And 71% used the
Lesson Plan in that class. This is a strongly positive observation and clear indicator
of teacher commitment to implementing the MOE curriculum for reading
instruction. 6. Teaching procedures and instructional methods: Most teachers are
applying the 4 procedures for effective reading instruction: i) they begin the lesson
with a summary description of the lesson and its objectives, ii) they “model” or
demonstrate the reading skills of that lesson, iii) they provide guided practice of
the skills, with the teacher and students practicing together, and iv) they provide
opportunity for independent practice by students on their own. This is a
significantly positive finding. 7. Classroom practice of reading skills: The large
majority (82%) of observed classes practiced vocabulary learning. Reading
comprehension strategies were just as often observed – in 80% of classes. Most
classes (82%) provided opportunity for students to read individually aloud. This
popular practice demands that every student read and offers teachers the
opportunity to observe and appraise individual reading proficiency. Challenges and
findings that merit attention: o Priority challenges to implementing the EGRP:
Teachers and principals agree that implementing the EGRP faces 4 key challenges:
i) the Grade 3 textbook does not align with the Reading Program, ii) classroom
overcrowding (half of observed classes had more than 47 enrolled students, with 6
classes having 60-80 students); iii) the wide divergence in student reading abilities.
Most Grade 3 classes exhibit the full range of student reading performance, from
illiterates to strong readers – a huge challenge to teachers; and iv) insufficient
training. Significant numbers of teachers and principals call for more EGRP
training. o Excessive practice of pre-reading skills in Grade 3: Observations and
anecdotal accounts may suggest that many Grade 3 teachers give excessive time to
instruction and student practice of letter sounds knowledge. These are Grade1 and
Grade 2 pre-reading skills. Yet at the end of Grade 3 (April 2014), half of observed
classes practiced one of more exercises in letters sounds and syllable EdData II:
2nd National Egypt Grade 3 EGRA – The Classroom Observations vii
constructions. This leaves less time for oral reading fluency and reading and
listening comprehension. The results of the 2nd national EGRA for Grade 3 are
consistent with this observation: strong performance of Grade 3 students in letter
sounds identification but weaker oral reading fluency and comprehension skills. o
Completing EGRP training to early grade teachers: While nearly all observed
teachers received some EGRP training, 40% of observed teachers had not been
trained in Mastery Monitoring; 64% had no training in Active Learning and 85%
of teachers were not trained in Classroom Management. o Narrow understanding
of the EGRP: Many teachers and school principals understand the EGRP to be a
focus on letter sounds, syllables and phonics. This narrow understanding may
foster excessive attention to these skills in Grade 3. A broader understanding of
EGRP and appreciation that its priority goal is improved reading comprehension is
recommended. o Additional copies of EGRP resources: A number of schools
reported receiving only a single copy of the Grade 3 Teacher’s Guide. In some
schools, teachers photocopied the Guide at their own expense. In other schools,
that single copy has been underused. Additional copies of EGRP resources to all
schools may promote greater familiarity and use of the Teacher’s Guide.
Recommendations: The following recommendations were discussed with and
endorsed by the EGRP Coordinators from all 27 MOE muderiyas at the
dissemination workshop of EGRA 2014 results held in Cairo on September 15-16,
2014: a. Provide intermediate-level EGRP training to Grade 3 teachers, senior
teachers and supervisors. Nearly all Grade 3 teachers received basic Grade 3
training for EGRP. They now need intermediate-level training to: i) refresh basic
skills, ii) redirect Grade 3 teaching priorities and instruction to fluency and
comprehension skills, and iii) strengthen professional capacities for better reading
instruction. Intermediate-level Grade 3 training should emphasize and provide
ample time for teacher practice, reflection and exchange of experience on specific
skills and strategies during training. Teachers should be provided scripted lessons
for the reading strategies now included in the new Grade 3 textbook. Intermediate-
level training should not be conceptual. Finally, abridged intermediate-level
training in Grade 3 EGRP should also be provided to senior teachers in schools and
early grade supervisors to better support reading instruction by Grade 3 teachers. b.
Develop and test an advanced-level EGRP training for Grade 3 teachers to deliver
in summer 2015. The Mastery Monitoring training that Grade 3 teachers received
is an introduction to continuous in-class assessment. It is basic and not sufficient.
Teachers need additional training and support to use continuous assessment in their
classrooms and apply the information that assessment provides to adjust their
reading instruction – take instructional decisions – to viii EdData II: 2nd National
Egypt Grade 3 EGRA – The Classroom Observations better meet students’ needs.
These are advanced, not intermediate, teaching skills. Advanced Grade 3 training
would also: i) address gaps in the intermediate Grade 3 training recommended for
2014/2015, and ii) promote effective use of library resources and in-class reading
practice. c. Provide targeted reading instruction to nonreaders and struggling
readers for 20 minutes every day. Powerful techniques have been effectively
applied in other countries: organize separate reading groups for these priority
students grouped by level of reading proficiency, not by grade. Provide 20 minutes
of directed reading instruction every day, separately to each group: in-school or
after-school. If teachers are unavailable, mobilize and train local volunteers
(parents, unemployed graduates, NGOs supporting education). d. Develop a new
training course on effective Grade 3 reading strategies for overcrowded classrooms
and the wide divergence of reading proficiencies in such classes. 15% of classes
randomly selected for classroom observation had 60 or more students. In a very
few years, 20% or more of MOE classes will be similarly overcrowded. Already,
most Grade 3 teachers must teach reading to classes with the full range of student
reading proficiency: illiterates, strong readers, struggling readers, intermediate
readers. Teachers need strategies for such overcrowded classes of students with
widely-divergent reading skills. e. Repeat this Classroom Observation in March
2015. The classroom observations provide valuable insights on the implementation
challenges and progress of the MOE Reading Program. The next classroom
observation would best: i) comprise a national random sample of 40 Grade 3
classes in MOE schools, ii) use 2- person observer teams and a more refined and
detailed instrument to rigorously observe, time and videotape classroom instruction
for systematic analysis, iii) assess class proficiency in comprehension skills, iv)
include interviews with observed teacher, senior teacher and idara supervisor to
appraise their understanding, EGRP training and technical support needs, and v)
identify gaps in the intermediate-level Grade 3 training and teacher priorities so as
to inform the design and content of an advanced course of Grade 3 training
recommended for summer 2015. EdData II: 2nd National Egypt Grade 3 EGRA –
The Classroom Observations 1 Background The Classroom Observations of Grade
3 Reading Instruction A major addition to the 2nd national assessment of Early
Grade Reading skills in Grade 3 in Egypt was the classroom observation of reading
instruction conducted in a sub-set of the 200 Ministry of Education schools
randomly selected for this EGRA. These observations of reading instruction and
interviews with key school personnel provide current, empirical information on: i)
the teaching methods, instructional activities and learning resources applied by
Grade 3 teachers in their reading instruction; ii) the training experience and
understandings of early grade reading of key school personnel; iii) specific
challenges to implementing the early grade reading program in schools; iv) the
availability and use of Early Grade Reading learning resources in school classes
and libraries; and v) the technical support available to Grade 3 teachers for
improved reading instruction. The classroom observation included separate
interviews with the school principal, school librarian or responsible library
supervisor, and observed Grade 3 teacher; and observation of a full class period
(35-45 minutes) of reading instruction conducted by the sample teacher. The
instrument used for the classroom observations (Annex A) was first developed for
this EGRA. This first use yielded useful insights for future iterations of the data
collection instrument. All observations were conducted concurrent with the EGRA
assessments in each sample school during the period April 14-23, 2014. For
economy and convenience, observers traveled to sample schools with the EGRA
assessors. This period was the last 2 weeks of classroom instruction in MOE
primary schools, owing to social and political tensions that significantly delayed
and shortened the spring term of this 2013/2014 school year. This was a final
period of instructional review conducted between implementation of the delayed
mid-term exams in all grades (April 7-14) and the final exams that began May 2 in
many schools. Student absenteeism in some sample schools was very high in this
period. Altogether, these contextual factors may have impacted teachers’ choices
of learning activities and pedagogical strategies observed in these classes. But the
context would not have altered responses to specific interview questions. The Sub-
set of Sample Schools with Classroom Observations Forty classes – one Grade 3
class in each of 40 schools, randomly identified during implementation of this 2nd
national EGRA in 200 MOE schools – were targeted to provide a statistically
valid, national sample of classroom observations. Ten observations were conducted
each day for 4 days: 2 classes from among the 8 schools assessed each day from
each of the 5 regions of Egypt. The observed classes were randomly selected 2
EdData II: 2nd National Egypt Grade 3 EGRA – The Classroom Observations by
the EGRA Field Director from the implementation schedule of all sample schools
visited each day. Only one Grade 3 class was selected and observed in each school.
Each observation was conducted by one of 10 trained and experienced Observers.
All observers were MOE Arabic language supervisors or master teachers with
extensive early grade reading experience and professional development. A total of
39 classroom observations were completed successfully.2 Each observation
required 1.5 to 2 hours in the sample school. The 39 observed classes were selected
from 18 muderiyas. Table 1 provides basic information on this random sample of
observed classes: Table 1: The National Sample of Observed Grade 3 Classes
Location # Classes Observed % of All Observed Classes # Full-day Schools # 2-
period Schools Average # G3 classes per school Average G3 enrollment Urban 11
28% 5 6 3.8 208 Rural 28 72% 16 12 2.6 121 Total 39 100% 21 18 2.9 146
Findings of the Interviews with School Personnel Availability of EGRP Learning
Resources in MOE Schools All school principals and operating school libraries
(100%) in the 39 schools confirmed receiving EGRP teaching guides and learning
resources. With over 16,000 MOE primary schools, this is an outstanding
achievement. EGRP instructional materials were delivered to school libraries for
teacher use. Not every observed school held a full set of instructional materials
developed for Grades 1 to 3. But deficiencies of the most critical EGRP guides
were very few and nearly all libraries hold multiple copies for teacher use. 3
Deficiencies of supplemental supporting resources are, however, more common.
Twenty (20%) percent of sample schools did not receive the Student Worksheets
(Grade 2); eleven schools (28%) did not receive the Mastery Monitoring guides;
eleven schools did not receive the EGRA CD with digital copies of most manuals.
Most of the schools that 2 The 40th observation could not be completed when
teachers and students were absent on the appointed day of the EGRA visit and the
observer was unavailable on the rescheduled date. 3 Two of 39 schools did not
receive the Grade 1 - Term 2 – EGRP Teacher’s Guide (Lesson Plan) in hard copy.
But both schools received the Grade 1, Term 1 guide. Likewise for the Grade 2 and
Grade 3 manuals: only 1-2 schools did not receive one or both Term guides for
these two grades. All schools that did not receive hard copy guides did, however,
receive the EGRP Compact Disk (CD) that included these teacher guides in digital
format. EdData II: 2nd National Egypt Grade 3 EGRA – The Classroom
Observations 3 did not receive specific resources were in Lower Egypt or al-Giza.
4 By contrast, nearly all schools in Upper Egypt reported receiving all EGRP
resources. Teachers typically (61% of sample schools) checked out the EGRP
resources that they needed from their school library for the entire school term.5
Over one-third (38%) of school principals and librarians, however, commented that
the number of copies was insufficient for their school. Half of the sample schools
reporting insufficient copies made additional copies at the school’s (or teachers’)
expense. The other half of schools reporting insufficient copies did not make
additional copies. EGRP Training Received Teachers: Nearly every observed
teacher received some EGRP training. Only 3 teachers (8%), including one
assistant teacher appointed just one month before the observations, had not
attended EGRP training.6 Except for these 3 teachers, all observed Grade 3
teachers had attended the EGRP Grade 3 training. This too is a noteworthy
achievement. Table 2 presents both the distribution of observed Grade 3 teachers
by the number of different EGRP training workshops they received and the
percentage of teachers completing specific workshops. Most teachers have
attended multiple EGRP training Table 2: Grade 3 Teacher Experience of EGRP
Training Number of EGRP Training Workshops Attended % of Observed Teachers
Subject of EGRP Training Workshop % of Observed Teachers Attending 0 8%
Grade 1 Reading 31% 1 15% Grade 2 Reading 38% 2 26% Grade 3 Reading 92%
3 13% Active Learning 36% 4 13% Classroom Management 15% 5+ 26% Mastery
Monitoring 59% Total 100% Using the Library 13% Total exceeds 100% due to
rounding. Classroom Observation 8% Effective Supervision 3% 4 Sample schools
in Sharqiya, Daqahliya and Beheira were typically lacking one or more of these
supplemental EGRP resources. 5 All but 3 sample schools (8%) had a functioning
library with librarian or responsible supervisor. 6 One of these 3 teachers had,
however, attended training in remedial reading for Grades 4-9. 4 EdData II: 2nd
National Egypt Grade 3 EGRA – The Classroom Observations workshops: an
average of 3.2 different workshops per teacher.7 This is significant teacher
professional training and development in support of early grade reading. This
achievement does not, however, obviate the need for targeted and EGRP refresher
training for teachers. The majority of observed Grade 3 teachers had not been
trained in Active Learning, Classroom Management or Using the Library. Over
40% of teachers were not yet trained in Mastery Monitoring. School Principals and
Librarians: In sharp contrast to the training experience of observed teachers, less
than half (41%) of school principals and just 31% of responsible school librarians /
supervisors had received EGRP training. Their being trained in effective reading
instruction may be a lower priority than teacher professional development. But
broad-based and sustained improvement in the reading outcomes of students needs
the informed commitment and professional education of key supporting staff.
Current Understandings of the EGRP Just 2 school principals and 6 librarians in
this sub-set of 39 schools had no knowledge of the Reading Program. MOE
engagement in improved early reading is now widely known. To better discern
what they knew, all observed teachers, school principals and librarians were
separately asked, “What do you know about the Reading Program?” Observers
appraised their responses for mention of any of 5 key understandings of the EGRP.
Table 3 presents these 5 understandings and the shares of respondents8 who
identified a specific understanding in their response: Table 3: Current
Understandings of the EGRP # Key Understanding of the EGRP % of Teachers
who mention % of Principals who mention % of Librarians who mention 1 Focuses
on 5 components of reading 54% 14% 0% 2 Applies direct, systematic teaching of
reading skills 36% 8% 15% 3 Uses a variety of learning resources 39% 19% 33% 4
Tracks student mastery of target skills 28% 11% 0% 5 Provides supportive
instruction informed by evaluation 18% 24% 9% 6 Other 46% 41% 67% Not
surprisingly, higher shares of teachers mentioned one or more key understandings.
Observed teachers attended significantly more EGRP training than school
principals or 7 Average is for the 36 teachers who attended at least one EGRP
training, i.e. not including the 3 teachers who received no training. 8 Percentages
are of respondents (e.g. principals / librarians) who did have knowledge of the
Reading Program. EdData II: 2nd National Egypt Grade 3 EGRA – The Classroom
Observations 5 librarians. But it is also useful to consider the large number of
“Other” responses. The large majority of these “Other” responses understood the
EGRP to be a focus on letter sounds, syllables and phonics: “A wonderful program
[that] focuses on letters, sounds and breaking down words into syllables and
teaches students many things” – Qena teacher. “[The Reading Program is] an
approach to assist students to learn to read through phonics and vocabulary
strategies” – Alexandria principal. This is a narrow understanding of the Program,
but one that accurately recalls the principal content of EGRP instruction in Grades
1 to 3 – the grades currently supported by the Program. Collectively, the replies of
respondents to this question on knowledge of EGRP were informed and accurate to
the scope and content of the Program. Trainers and policy-makers should,
however, continue to emphasize key messages that broaden understanding of the
EGRP to include a priority for reading comprehension. “What do you like about
the Reading Program?” Observers also asked teachers and school principals the
question: “What do you like about the Reading Program?” Individual responses
were again appraised for mention of specific messages. Several messages mirror
key understandings of the EGRP. Others point to specific strategies of reading
instruction and Program approaches. The results presented in Table 4 further reveal
both current understandings and perceived positives of the EGRP by those
knowledgeable of the Program (see footnote 6): Table 4: “What do you like about
the Reading Program?” # What I like about the EGRP % of Teachers who mention
% of Principals who mention 1 Provides greater understanding of reading 15%
19% 2 Depends on direct teaching of target skills 8% 8% 3 Helps students towards
good reading and writing 62% 78% 4 Aids students to connect sounds with letters
39% 51% 5 Assists students to use skills in vocabulary building 23% 14% 6
Develops skills in reading comprehension 39% 14% 7 Raises teacher performance
in teaching 41% 32% 8 Uses varied learning resources, e.g. school library 13%
11% 9 Makes learning fun 39% 32% 10 Other reason 23% 27% 6 EdData II: 2nd
National Egypt Grade 3 EGRA – The Classroom Observations Three important
conclusions are suggested by the results in Table 4. First, there is strong agreement
on the positive attributes of EGRP between school principals and teachers. Both
teachers and principals agree closely on the key positive attributes of the Reading
Program (#3,4,7,9). Second, significant – and nearly equal – shares of both groups
point to EGRP’s impact on teacher performance (#7) and making learning fun (#9)
as priority, positive attributes of the program. Third, many teachers (but not
principals) readily credit the EGRP with positive contributions to reading
comprehension (#6). And what are the “other” reasons for teacher and principal
satisfaction with EGRP? Teachers cite: “increases instruction time,” “it is well
organized,” “it gives students the chance to participate [in their learning],” “the
interaction between students and teachers,” and “it makes reading easier for
students to focus, follow and learn.” Principals add: “the program was established
on scientific and educational grounds,” “it has provided really good training to
teachers and at the best time – in summer,” “a targeted approach of the highest
quality,” “seeing students love to read,” “the significant improvement seen in
reading [mentioned by 3 principals],” and “the ease with which information is
presented.” Each reason is a compelling testimonial to the positive impacts of the
EGRP. Technical Support to Teachers Nearly every teacher (95%) confirmed that
they received ongoing technical support for reading. Only two teachers said that
they received “none.” A major focus of the Teacher interview was the availability
of technical support to teachers for improved reading instruction. From whom, and
how often, do teachers receive technical support for EGRP? Table 5 identifies each
of these providers of technical support for reading and how often the observed
teachers received that support. Table 5: “Who provides you support for reading?”
Percentages of observed teachers by their providers of EGRP support # Provider of
EGRP Support to Teacher Do You Receive Support from…? Percentages of All
Teachers Receiving EGRP Support by its Frequency No Yes Daily 1x per week 1x
per month 1x per term 1x per year 1 Senior Teacher 24% 76% 11% 46% 19% 0%
0% 2 School Principal 27% 73% 5% 51% 8% 0% 0% 3 School Training Unit 46%
54% 0% 22% 27% 3% 0% 4 Idara Supervisor 19% 81% 0% 60% 22% 0% 0% 5
Idara Reading Unit 11% 89% 0% 14% 27% 49% 0% 6 Muderiya Reading Unit
57% 43% 0% 0% 16% 19% 8% EdData II: 2nd National Egypt Grade 3 EGRA –
The Classroom Observations 7 The information reported in Table 5 is useful, but
should be interpreted cautiously. This is a normative question. Respondents will
often answer a normative question “politely” with the answer that they think the
interviewer wants to hear. Many respondents are also reluctant to give truthful
answers that might “injure” or “insult” a specific provider of support. This is
common where the provider (a principal or idara supervisor) also appraises their
work performance. Finally, normative questions typically elicit ideal responses –
what should be the frequency of support from this source – and not the actual
frequency of support. There are few empirical records of actual support provided
and none were inspected for the observations. The priority observations or
conclusions to be drawn from Table 5 include: 1. Nearly all teachers receive their
EGRP training9 and other technical support from their Idara Reading Unit. And the
expected frequency of Idara support to most teachers is 1-3 times per year. Idara
Reading Units are key providers of occasional Program training to MOE staff:
teachers, supervisors, principals. Monthly (or weekly) support to teachers from
Idara Reading Units is exceptional or fanciful. But the high percentage (89%) of
teachers reporting some support from their Idara Unit is an excellent level of
national coverage and strong indication of extensive outreach and activity by
Idaras. 2. Muderiya Reading Units are generally not significant providers of
technical support to teachers. The staffing of Muderiya Units varies from one
muderiya to another, with 1 to 4 staff.10 In large governorates with many idaras
(Cairo governorate, for example, has 34 idaras; other large governorates have 9-12
daras), the Muderiya Units solely support and supervise Idara Units. But in small
governorates (e.g. Suez, Ismailiya, Port Said) with only a few idaras, Muderiya
Units may supplement Idara Units and provide services and support directly to
schools. 3. All school principals (100%) affirmed that their school has a School
Training & Quality Unit. But not all Units – just 77% – support reading.11
According to principals: 69% of their School Training Units provided teacher
training in reading, 46% provided technical follow-up meetings, 20% provided
model lesson plans for teachers, and 20% of Units arranged for teachers to observe
reading instruction in other classes, typically within their own school. In addition,
the majority of principals (60%) whose School Units supported training also
reported that their Unit provided 2 or more of these support functions to teachers.
These too are normative responses. Just half (54%) of teachers said that their
School Training Unit supported reading. No principals attended School Unit
training in 9 Interviews with Observed Teachers, Question #10. 10 All MOE
muderiyas have a single EGRP Coordinator who is responsible to liaise with the
EGRP Early Learning Unit Head (Hanaa Qassem Hassanein) at the Central
Ministry. 11 Interviews with School Principal, Questions #25-27. 8 EdData II: 2nd
National Egypt Grade 3 EGRA – The Classroom Observations reading. The
conclusion suggested by these results is that School Units in some primary schools
effectively support the Reading Program. If the actual percentage was half of all
primary schools, this would be positive and significant. But that estimate may be
high. 4. Idara Supervisors and Senior Teachers are both identified by teachers as
frequent providers of technical support for reading. Indeed, more than half of
teachers reported receiving weekly support from both their senior teacher and their
idara supervisor. Frequency is not, of course, a measure of quality.12 And these
“separate” sources of support may actually be jointly supporting and meeting with
teachers when the idara supervisor visits the school. But even twice monthly
support from one or both of these sources would be active support and attention to
reading. 5. Nearly three-quarters of teachers credit their School Principals with
support for reading. Yet many of these school principals never attended EGRP
training. Ancillary comments by some teachers suggest that school principals
chiefly support teachers by providing them classroom supplies and learning
resources, and possibly encouragement in reading instruction. The chief conclusion
here is that nearly all Grade 3 teachers enjoy multiple sources of technical and
material support for reading instruction. The quality and frequency of technical
support varies, but a broad network of technical support for EGRP is active across
Egypt. Challenges to Implementing the EGRP Finally, teachers and school
principals were separately asked to identify challenges to implementing the
Reading Program in their schools. Table 6 below reveals general agreement
between teachers and principals on the principal challenges. What are the 4 most-
cited challenges? “The [Grade 3] textbook does not align with the Reading
Program” was most often mentioned by teachers and principals. The next most-
cited challenge: overcrowded classrooms. Half of teachers and school principals
point to very large classes. Indeed, average enrollment for the 39 observed Grade 3
classes was 47 students per class, with 6 observed classrooms each having 60+
students enrolled. Compounding the acute problem of overcrowding in many
classes is the wide divergence in student reading abilities. Many Grade 3 classes
exhibit the full range of student reading performance, from illiterates to strong
readers. This is a huge challenge cited by half (49%) of teachers and 38% of
principals. Insufficient training completes the Top 4 challenges. Significant
numbers of teachers and principals call for more EGRP training. 12 Teachers were
not asked to rate the value or judge the quality of reading support that they
received from the different sources. EdData II: 2nd National Egypt Grade 3 EGRA
– The Classroom Observations 9 Table 6: Challenges to Implementing the EGRP #
Challenges to Implementing the Reading Program % of Teachers who mention %
of Principals who mention 1 Overcrowded classrooms 46% 45% 2 School textbook
does not align with Reading Program 74% 45% 3 Wide divergence in student
reading abilities 49% 37% 4 EGRP Teacher’s Guide not available 33% 16% 5
Insufficient training 39% 42% 6 Insufficient technical follow-up from the Reading
Unit 27% 18% 7 Insufficient learning resources in the school library 18% 18% 8
Available learning resources are not grade-appropriate 13% 3% 9 Limited school
resources to provide students’ needs 31% 32% 10 Resistance to change 21% 32%
11 Other 36% 32% Far smaller numbers of teachers and principals highlighted the
other proposed challenges. And lastly, what “Other” challenges did teachers and
principals themselves identify? Multiple respondents – both principals and teachers
– pointed to lack of family support for or follow-up of student reading; several
others mentioned student absenteeism. 13 Two principals identified having
unqualified, non-specialized teachers of Arabic as a challenge. A small number of
respondents mentioned significant delays in receiving the Grade 3 textbooks and
EGRP resources. Findings of the Classroom Observations of Reading Instruction
The Observed Classrooms and Teachers The Background section provides an
initial overview of the 35-45 minute observation of reading instruction conducted
in a randomly-selected Grade 3 class in each of 39 randomly-selected MOE
schools across Egypt. Of particular significance is the late April schedule of these
observations, during a final period of lessons review before end-of-year exams in a
spring term that was markedly shortened and disrupted owing to social and
political circumstances. 13 One principal added teacher absenteeism as a
challenge: “Because of the distances traveled [by some] teachers, often only the
teachers who live in the village are present [at the school].” 10 EdData II: 2nd
National Egypt Grade 3 EGRA – The Classroom Observations Nearly every
observed teacher (92%) received some EGRP training and ongoing, followup
support (95%) for reading instruction.14 Enrollment in the 39 observed classes
ranged from 21 to 78 Grade 3 students with an average enrollment of 47 students.
But attendance in the final weeks of any school year is typically reduced; markedly
so this year in the week immediately following the delayed mid-term exams.
Average attendance across the 39 classes on their respective day of observation
was 35 students per class, or 74% of enrolled students. This average rate varied
widely, however, across the 39 schools, yet boys’ attendance (average 72%) was
routinely lower than girls’ (average 79%). Nearly all Grade 3 students (96%) –
boys and girls equally – had their Arabic language textbooks with them in class on
the day of observation. Another positive finding. Three-quarters (77%) of the
observed teachers were women. Average teaching experience for all 39 teachers
was 4.7 years “in their current position”.15 More than half (56%) of teachers had a
Teacher’s Diploma as their highest educational qualification, 26% had university
degrees in education, and 13% had a General Diploma. Only one teacher held just
a secondary school degree. It is not known if the observed teachers reside locally in
the same community as the school or commute daily. The large majority (85%) of
observed classes were held in the morning before noon. For the “active learning”
of students in classroom instruction, the arrangement of student desks into groups
is preferred over the traditional classroom arrangement in rows. In the majority
(56%) of observed classes, however, student desks remained in rows. In two
classes the desks were arranged in a U-shape. In 38% of observed classes the desks
were arranged in groups. 16 Lastly, no schools were informed in advance of the
Grade 3 class selected randomly for observation. The class was identified at the
arrival of the Observer and EGRA Team at the school on the scheduled day of
assessment. 14 For details, see EGRP Training Received (Table 2) and Technical
Support to Teachers (Table 5) above. 15 This average figure is ambiguous. It is not
clear that this is the average lifetime teaching experience of observed teachers. The
wording of this question may have generated different responses from teachers.
Some teachers may have answered with the number of years of experience at the
particular teacher grade (cadre level) that they were asked to identify in the
preceding question. Other teachers may have given their total years of teaching
experience. Importantly, this average number of years teaching experience is not
specific or limited to teaching Grade 3 Arabic. 16 It is noteworthy to add that only
3 of the 15 teachers who arranged student desks into groups had attended the
EGRP training in Active Learning in which classroom arrangement is a specific
point of training. Nor there is there any correlation between the arrangement of
desks and class size: average class enrollment in classes arranged into rows was 46
students; 49 students in classes arranged into groups. EdData II: 2nd National
Egypt Grade 3 EGRA – The Classroom Observations 11 The Learning Resources
Used and Lessons Taught One-third (34%) of teachers had the EGRP Teachers’
Guide for Grade 3 in their class but only 5% of teachers actually used it. 17 Most
observed teachers (84%) used the school textbook with several teachers writing
passages from the textbook on the blackboard for oral reading by students. But the
large majority of teachers (87%) had the EGRP Lesson Plan for Grade 3 reading
and 71% used the Lesson Plan in their class. This is a strongly positive observation
and clear indicator of teacher commitment to implementing the MOE curriculum
for reading instruction. Nearly half of observed teachers used the EGRP Mastery
Monitoring materials to assess student knowledge and practice of the reading
skill(s). Yet just 59% of observed teachers received training in Mastery Monitoring
(see Table 2). This means that more than 75% of teachers trained in Mastery
Monitoring were applying their training to assess student performance during the
observed class. This too is a very positive finding. EGRP posters (‫( لوحات‬were
observed in 68% of observed classes. But other EGRP resources were used only
exceptionally: word lists (16% of classes), letter cards (11%) and story books for
student reading (18%). In only two classes were other learning resources used.
Again, the end-of-year timing of this classroom observation may not reflect typical
resource use in prior months. What textbook lessons were taught by the observed
teachers? Nearly two-thirds (64%) of teachers taught one of two lessons from Unit
3 in the Grade 3 Arabic textbook: either ‫ )الثالثة النجأل‬p.71) observed in 16 classes or
‫ )أم زكاء‬p.64) observed in 9 classes. Another one-quarter (26%) of teachers
reviewed one of the Unit 2 lessons: al-Watani, Alexandria, Aswan, or the
Pyramids. And two teachers reviewed the Unit 1 (p.2) lesson on al-haatif (‫ الهاتف‬.
(Many teachers conducted review lessons during the observation week. But one
might question the purpose and appropriateness of reviewing Unit 2 and,
especially, Unit 1 lessons at the end of the school year. Did these teachers reach
Unit 3 in Arabic reading instruction to Grade 3 this year? The observation did not
ask teachers or students to identify the last lesson taught this year, or whether the
observed lesson was solely review. The Teaching Procedures and Instructional
Methods Observed Table 7 reports the different teaching procedures and
instructional methods for reading instruction observed. Percentages include all
teachers demonstrating a specific method or instructional procedure at least once
during the class.17F 18 17 Many schools apparently received only a single copy of
the Grade 3 Teachers’ Guide, placed in the library. But most schools received
multiple copies of the Grade 3 Lesson Plan. Might this explain the marked
difference in their use by teachers? The Teacher’s Guide and Lesson Plan are
complementary resources for Grade 3 teacher use. 18 Few teachers consistently
applied any method to each of the multiple (2-4) activities of their lesson. 12
EdData II: 2nd National Egypt Grade 3 EGRA – The Classroom Observations
Table 7: Teaching Procedures and Methods Used # Teaching Procedure or Method
% of Teachers 1 Teacher begins lesson with summary description of lesson and
objectives. 62% 2 Teachers provides example of or “models” the skills of this
reading lesson. 59% 3 Teacher provides guided practice of skills (teacher and
students practice together). 67% 4 Teacher provides opportunity for independent
practice (students practice on their own). 64% 5 Teacher properly uses methods of
direct teaching. 33% 6 Teacher uses discussion method in reading instruction. 90%
7 Teacher uses role play method in reading instruction. 5% 8 Teacher uses
cooperative learning methods in reading instruction. 3% 9 Teacher uses group
work methods in reading instruction. 10% 10 Teacher uses other methods in
reading instruction. 5% What general observations are indicated by these findings?
a. Most teachers – nearly two-thirds – are applying the 4 procedures for effective
reading instruction: i) they begin the lesson with a summary description of the
lesson and its objectives, ii) they “model” or demonstrate the reading skills of that
lesson, iii) they provide guided practice of the skills, with the teacher and students
practicing together, and iv) they provide opportunity for independent practice by
students on their own. This is a significantly positive result. b. Nearly all teachers
(90%) use the discussion method in their reading instruction. c. Few teachers use
any other method of reading instruction: not role play, not cooperative learning,
not group work. d. Only one-third of teachers properly practice direct teaching of
the targeted reading skill. Again, it is uncertain whether observations “c” and “d”
reflect the end-of-year timing and review objective of the observed lesson. Are
these low percentages of practiced methods typical? The results might, however,
recommend: i) development and dissemination of model lesson plans for specific
instructional methods, and ii) additional teacher and supervisor training and
coaching follow-up in the direct teaching of reading skills. Student Practice of
Letter Sounds and Linguistic Aspects Students practiced letter sounds learning in
half (49%) of the observed classes. There was no student practice of letter sounds
in the other 51% of classes. Breaking words down into their syllables (letter
sounds) was a common practice. Other observed practices of letter sound learning
included: EdData II: 2nd National Egypt Grade 3 EGRA – The Classroom
Observations 13 a. Combining letter sounds to form
words.......................................... 21% of classes. b. Deleting sounds from words to
form new words:..............................5% of classes. c. Adding one or more sounds to
make a new word:...........................13% of classes. d. Substituting one or more
sounds in a word to form a new word: ... 11% of classes. Moreover, one-quarter of
all observed classes – i.e. half of the 49% of classes that practiced letter sounds –
gave extra attention to letter sounds practice, implementing 2 or more of these
different exercises. Several classes also focused on the pronunciation of specific
pairs of letters – e.g. ‫ ذ‬and ‫ – ز‬in different words. What is the significance of these
findings? Letter sounds knowledge is a priority skill and objective of EGRP
instruction in Grades 1 and 2. But these classes were observed at the end of Grade
3. The observed incidence of classes practicing letter sounds at end of Grade 3 –
half of all classes – appears high. The EGRP Grade 3 Lesson Plan (Sept. 2013) for
first semester (Term 1) directs one-quarter of class instruction to letter sounds. But
this observation finding, together with anecdotal remarks that many Grade 3
teachers feel most comfortable teaching phonics and observation interviews with
Grade 3 students, suggests that Grade 3 instruction in letter sounds may be
excessive in many classes. This is important. Excessive repetition of syllable
exercises would reduce instruction and student practice of oral reading fluency and
reading and listening comprehension. This conclusion is consistent with the 2014
results of the 2nd national EGRA for Grade 3 that showed strong pre-reading skills
in letter sounds identification but weaker comprehension and oral reading fluency.
Nearly all classes (90%) included instruction in one or more linguistic aspects of
Arabic, such as: tanween, “t” marbuuta, verbal and non-verbal sentences.
Linguistic instruction was a key learning activity in many classes. In a number of
classes, however, teachers were observed reviewing linguistic aspects from the
Unit 1 lessons of the EGRP Grade 3 Lesson Plan, i.e. from the start of Grade 3.
This finding might suggest that overall progress in EGRP Grade 3 instruction in
2013/2014 was stunted and/or some teachers are needlessly drilling students on
skills that they have already mastered. Student Practice of Vocabulary Learning
Strategies The large majority (82%) of observed classes practiced vocabulary
learning. This is a strongly positive finding: building vocabulary is a reading
priority in Grade 3. Teacher training in Grade 3 EGRA introduced 6 strategies for
vocabulary learning. Table 8 reveals how often a specific strategy was observed.
Two strategies – word mapping and vocabulary matrix – are clearly the most
popular. 14 EdData II: 2nd National Egypt Grade 3 EGRA – The Classroom
Observations Table 8: Vocabulary Learning Strategies Observed Student Practice
of Reading Comprehension Strategies Reading comprehension strategies were just
as often observed – in 80% of classes. Comprehension is the principal objective of
reading and building student skills in comprehension is a lead priority of Grade 3
EGRA. Like vocabulary learning, teachers learned 6 strategies for direct teaching
of reading comprehension in EGRA Grade 3 training. But only one strategy –
asking direct questions – is currently popular with teachers. The observed
frequency of each strategy in the 39 classes is: a. Expectation /
anticipation................................................................ 26% of classes. b. Asking
direct questions................................................................... 62% of classes. c.
Asking indirect questions.................................................................18% of classes.
d. Summarizing ................................................................................... 5% of classes.
e. Retelling stories............................................................................... 5% of classes.
f. Using story map .............................................................................. 10% of
classes. g. Other................................................................................................ 0% of
classes. Not all students learn similarly. And repetitively using the same teaching
strategy risks diminishing student interest and attention. Additional teacher training
and model lesson plans and exerecise designs using other comprehension strategies
may be recommended. Students Practice Reading How often do students practice
reading connected text in class? Student practice of reading skills in class is
essential to their mastery. In observation interviews, teachers and principals often
despaired of the lack of family support for student reading at home. Many families
expect their children to be educated by schools. Student practice of reading in
schools is thus paramount to their mastering reading. # Vocabulary Learning
Strategy % of Classes 1 Word mapping – 2 %51 ‫ الكلمات خريطة‬Word family – ‫الكلمات‬
3 %8 ‫ عائلة‬Vocabulary matrix – 4 %44 ‫ المفردات شبكة‬Multiple meanings - ‫المتعددة‬
5 %26 ‫ المعاني‬Using contextual clues – 6 %0 ‫ السياق مفاتيح‬Word adding to sentence –
7 %5 ‫ المضافة الصفة‬Other 8% EdData II: 2nd National Egypt Grade 3 EGRA – The
Classroom Observations 15 Observers looked for 4 different practices of student
reading in class: students reading altogether and aloud, students reading aloud
individually, students reading their textbook, and students reading silently. Table 9:
Students Practice Reading in Class More than half of classes included students
reading altogether aloud. This is a welcome practice for struggling readers who can
mimic their classmates without individual scrutiny. But the pedagogical utility and
skills-building of students reading altogether aloud is not high. Most classes (82%)
provided opportunity for students to read individually aloud. This popular practice
demands that every student read and offers teachers the opportunity to observe and
appraise individual reading proficiency. The challenge is that MOE classes are
typically large. The 39 observed classes had an average enrollment of 47 students.
That is, nearly half of the classes had 50-80 students. In a class of 50 students, if
every student is given just 15 seconds to read individually aloud, at least 12
minutes of the 45 minute class would be needed to give every student a chance to
read. Moreover, reading individually aloud is not welcomed by the weakest readers
and illiterate students in the classroom. And most every class has weak and
illiterate students. Reading individually aloud before the entire class is effective
practice for intermediate to strong readers. Reading individually aloud in small,
homogeneous skill groups of struggling or intermediate readers may be a more
effective strategy for these readers. Meanwhile, strong readers can practice silent
reading and peer reading in their own small group in class. Virtually no classes
(3% -- just one class) provided opportunity for students to read silently. Yet nearly
every student had their textbook with them in class.

Teaching Resources
Classroom Observations

Observation reports provide instructors with a summary of teaching practices

observed by a teaching consultant during multiple class sessions and feedback to
be used to improve teaching and learning. Data is collected using an adaptable,
Teaching Center-developed tool  based on research-proven teaching best practices
discussed in How Learning Works (Ambrose, 2010) and Teaching at Its
Best (Nilson, 2016). (NOTE: To access these articles, you must be logged in or log
into the University Library System.)
Observation reports should not be considered evidence of overall teaching
effectiveness. The purpose of teaching consultants conducting observations is to
provide feedback to inform improvements to teaching.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why might you want classroom observations performed by teaching
consultants?
 You are experiencing a teaching and learning challenge (like student
disengagement, for example), and you want a teaching consultant to come to
your class to see if they can help you pinpoint the cause and help you work on
a solution.
  You want to continuously improve your teaching and schedule observations
at regular intervals as a teaching “check up”.
 You have specific long-term teaching goals (like implementing problem
based learning in your courses) that you would like to work toward with a
teaching consultant. Observations are one way that you check progress
towards successfully achieving those goals.
 You want to try an innovative new teaching strategy or tool and would like a
teaching consultant to observe to let you know how it went and how you might
improve things for next time.
What does the observation process typically entail?
Your discussions, communications, and reports with and from teaching
consultants are confidential.
Initial Consultation: If you would like to request an observation, you would
contact the Teaching Commons at teaching@pitt.edu. A teaching consultant
assigned as a liaison to your department will respond to your email within a week
to arrange an initial consultation. During the initial consultation, the consultant will
talk to you about your course and your teaching and learning challenges and goals.
The consultant will likely ask you to bring copies of your course syllabus or other
course materials to review prior to the observation. You can request that the
consultant pay attention to particular things during observations (student
engagement or inclusive teaching methods, for instance) if you would like. At the
end of the initial consultation, you will schedule observations on mutually agreed
upon dates.
Observations: We typically recommend scheduling two or three observations over
the course of the semester so that we can observe you teach multiple times,
minimizing the likelihood that what we observe is a one-time occurrence or fluke,
and allowing us to document your improvement over time. The teaching consultant
will attend your class on the agreed upon dates and use the Teaching Center’s
internally developed observation tool to document what they observe.Within 24
hours of each observation, the consultant will send you one page of feedback
summarizing strengths and areas for improvement. The consultant will also meet
with you after each observation to debrief and discuss the summary, their
recommendations, and to offer specific strategies to work on.
Final Observation Report: Within two weeks of the last observation, the
consultant will send you a formal observation report synthesizing information from
all observations. The purposes of this report are to document teaching trends
observed and to make recommendations to improve your teaching. Like other
 communication with your consultant, the final observation report is confidential.
You may share it, but your consultant may not share it with anyone but you.
How much time will it take for me to be observed?
Although the observations occur during your regularly scheduled class times, you
should plan to meet with your teaching consultant before the observations and after
each one and to devote additional planning time to using feedback to improve your
teaching. The amount of time will vary, but plan for at least four hours of meeting
time, an hour to review your consultant’s summaries and final report, plus planning
to determine how to use the teaching consultant’s feedback.
Will a teaching consultant be able to give me meaningful feedback even if they
do not have content knowledge of my discipline?
All teaching consultants are expert teachers with years of experience assisting
faculty in developing courses and curriculum and in teaching their own higher
education courses in various disciplines. They may not teach in your discipline,
which means that they are not qualified to comment on the content of your course,
however, they have the pedagogical expertise to assist you with course and
learning activity design, improving student interaction and engagement,
implementing equitable teaching methodologies in your classroom, and a variety of
different pedagogical techniques to improve your teaching experience and your
students’ learning experiences.
 Teaching Center’s Classroom Observation Form
Developed using:

 Ambrose, S. A. (2010). How learning works: Seven research-based

principles for smart teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. (NOTE: To
access this content, you must be logged in or log into the University Library
System.)
 Nilson, L.B. (2016). Teaching at its best: A research-based resource for
college instructors (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. (NOTE: To
access this content, you must be logged in or log into the University Library
System.)


 Report on Classroom Observation
 Subject: Arts, Social Science Topic: Report
 1.0 Introduction:
 Teaching is the centre of all education related topics. So as a student of the
Institute of Education & Research, we had to teach in real classroom
 environment. Before starting teaching in a real classroom environment it
helps a practice teacher to acquaint them with the process, method, of
teaching if they observe a class of a certain level before entering a class as a
teacher.
 2.0 Description:
 At the first day in the school I had to collect my routine. Then I introduced
with those teachers who used to take those classes before me. I asked them
politely if they could give me the permission to observe their classes. Both
of them cordially invited me to observe their classes.
 I have observed 3 Social science lessons; among those I am analyzing the
one below:
 Day: Sunday (11/3/2007)
 Time: 01.05 pm – 01.45 pm
 At the 2nd day in my school morning I waited for him (Mr. Kamruzzaman;
social science teacher of class Seven – B) to come to the class in front of the
class. When he came and asked the class captain to clean the bench at the
behind of the class to let me sit there. The class captain cleaned up and I sat
there to observe the class.
 When the teacher entered the class all the students stood up and when she
told them to sit, they took their sits. At first he asked the students to give
their homework copies. At this time he inquired about some students.
 After seeing the homework copies, he stood up from her chair and started
lesson. At first he showed a photograph of “Sangsad Bhabon” of Bangladesh
and asked: Have you ever been their? Defining its significance to students he
declared the lesson (evsjv‡`‡ki RvZxq I ¯’vbxq ch©v‡q wbev©Pb) of the
class today. Then he started to explain the issues one by one. At first he
started with the fact what is Election (wbev©Pb). Then he Drew the
classification of Election on the board and asked students to copy it. By this
time he also came to me and assured his best possible help to me. Then he
started to discuss the issues one by one. After discussing the classification of
election he clarified the board.

 Then he started to discuss the eligibility to be voter. After that he wrote

down the homework in the right side of the black board (short-answer
question no: 2 of exercise. While writing the Homework he reminded the
class captain to write down the information about the class at the right top of
the board.
 Having finished his lesson, then he told the students about I.E.R. He
described I.E.R as a famous institute to his class and made me acquainted
myself to his class as their teacher from next class. He also made the
students aware of the fact that if any student behaves anything wrong to me
then, he would take action towards that student.

 Then she let me talk to the class for five minutes and left the class. I, then
introduce myself to the class and talked to them till the class ended.

 3.0 Main Features of the Observed Class:

 A) Physical Facilities:

 I. Location of the class: The class is in the right corner of the 3rd floor
(Room No: 404) of the ‘L’ shaped main building.

 II. Shape of the class: The shape of the classroom is almost squire.
III. Doors and Windows: Windows (glass) are in the both right and left side
of the class and the only door is in the right side of the class. The door is not
very much spacious.

 IV. Students’ Sitting System: Each one sits in a handled-chair. Chairs have a
sufficient distance with writing tables. There are 6 columns and 10 rows
makes sitting accommodation for 60 in the classroom.

 V. Blackboard: The blackboard is put in the wall of the class. It is not

portable but fixed. It is in the middle of the front wall to the students. The
color of the black board is all right and it is smooth to write with chocks.
The duster can easily wipe out the writings in the board.

 VI. Lighting and Ventilation: The natural lighting is adequate for the class.

 VII. Provision of Artificial lighting and ventilation: There are 6 electric fans
and lights in the class. The arrangement is quite adequate for the class.

 VIII. Teacher’s Table and chair: The wooden chair and a table are in the
front side of the class. The chair is quite ok, as we should use in not for a
long time to sit there while teaching, but the table was too heavy to move.
 IX. Color of the class: The color of the walls in the class is white and
brighter.

 X. Other Furniture’s: There is a lecture table took place left corner of the
classroom, so that teacher can use it while teaching. It is also fruitful to
students to practice their speech.

 B) Evaluation of the Teacher’s Proficiency:

 i. Teaching Method: His teaching method is average. Sometimes he feels the

need for recalling.

 ii. Student Involvement and Participation: Student involvement and

participation is not very high. More over most of the participants are the
conventional good students and most of them are sitting in the 1st bench.

 iii. Motivation: He created motivation for the class by showing the

Photograph of ‘Sangsad Bhoban’.

 iv. Classroom Questioning: After finishing the lesson, she didn’t ask any
question to the students.

 v. Dress up: The school has no specific dress for teachers. His dress up was
suitable for the class.

 vi. Use of Blackboard: He used the blackboard neatly. His writings are
legible and can be seen from even the last bench. He also does not stand
parallel to the board making the students facing his back. So the students
take the advantage for side talking. Before going out of the class, he wiped
the board.

 vii. Punishment and reward: He didn’t use any Punishment and reward to
absent student.

 viii. Classroom control: His classroom controlling power is really strong. No

student disturbed in the class while he gave his lesson. Only few students
(about 7 out of 51) talked in the class while she was using the blackboard.
 ix. Learning environment: The environment was calm and quiet which is an
obvious condition for a math lesson. But the environment was not fear free
because of his way of punishment.

 x. Teacher student Relationship: Teacher student relationship is not friendly,

but grim. he maintains a big distance with them. Students are afraid of him
and they also respect him. The teacher is caring but not frank to the students.

 xi. Way of expressing: He explained the issues clearly to the students with
agile expression.

 xii. Expertise in his particular lesson: He has a good expertise on his subject.
He has other knowledge related to his subject beyond the textbook.

 xiii. Beginning of the lesson: He made specific motivation for the lesson. So
his starting is quite good and inspiring.

 xiv. Punctuality: He was on time for the class. He started his class at the
right time and closed up his lesson before 5 minutes for me to introduce
myself to the class.

 xv. Class work observation: When he instructed to the students to write the
classification of election, he observed the class work by walking and
watching the activities of the students entering the passages between the
columns.

 xvi. Voice and Tone: His voice is suitable for the class. It can be heard from
the last bench. The changing tone of her voice creates some special
situations or attention in the class, which is sometimes urgent.

 xvii. Confidence: His face, attitude, behavior, talking shows that he is

confident, confident about his expertise and controlling power.

 4.0 Assessment:

 a) Strength of the Teacher:

 1) Good controlling power over the class.

2) He got the expertise lesson delivery.
3) Punctual
 4) Appropriate voice and flexible tone.
5) Tries to relate the lesson to everyday life.
6) He can clarify an issue clearly.
7) A specific and effective motivation towards a specific lesson.
8) Depth of knowledge.

 b) Weakness of the Teacher:

 1) He finished the whole chapter in a period.

2) Does not give much attention to classroom participation and student
involvement.
3) Does not give much emphasis to back-bencher.
4) Cannot crate a friendly, fear free classroom situation.
5) No emphasizes on reinforcement.
6) Does not use any other teaching material but blackboard and constitution.
7) He checks the class work copies during the class period that kills time.
8) Doesn’t use activity based method.

 5.0 Possible ways of improving the Lesson:

 1. He could use a poster writing on it the classifications of constitution and

characteristics of a good constitution.
2. There should be formative assessment.
3. If he would check the class work copies of all the students after the class
period it would help the students to do his class works more sincerely.
4. He needs to learn the use of board.
5. He should use activity based teaching method.
6. Should give emphasis to back-benchers.
7. Homework should be given in assignment method.
8. Sometimes he should create a suitable funny situation in the class making
the students laugh. But obviously it is related to the lesson.

 Considering all those things my judgment is that, he got the talent to be in

teaching profession. To me his performance is very good but not excellent.
Though he is experienced enough and acquit the art of teaching, she should
in tough of workshop.

Advantages of using classroom observation as another measure of teacher

performance
The strengths of this type of measurement are that:

1. It is applicable to jobs where performance measures based on outcomes are hard

to develop or where outcomes cannot be assigned to an individual person;

2. It ensures that important aspects of performance that go beyond measured

outcomes, such as how the outcomes are achieved, are taken into account;

3. It focuses on aspects of performance most likely to be in employees’ control —

their own behavior — which helps teachers understand the connection between
their performance and their pay;

4. It gives employees credit for their e"orts when circumstances outside their
control prevent achieving success, as de#ned by student test scores or other
outcome measures; and

5. It can provide formative feedback to employees on what they can do to achieve

important outcomes (e.g., behaviors, task strategies). Because of these strengths,
most organizations, including educational organizations, will want to use both
outcome-based performance measures and classroom observations in their e"orts to
improve educator performance and hold educators accountable. Most organizations
already have a formal performance evaluation system, and therefore this module
does not cover the basics of setting up these systems — books by Danielson and
McGreal and by Stronge and Tucker provide basic information on system design.1
Rather, this article is a guide for using observations of educator performance as a
basis for educator compensation.

Typical state and district measures of the e"ectiveness of teachers’ classroom

performance:
Advantages and disadvantages of these approaches Educational organizations are
likely to take two approaches toward non-test score evaluations for educator pay
systems: 1. Build on the existing performance evaluation system; or 2. Develop a
special-purpose measure - ment process. Each approach has its advantages and
disadvantages. If they use existing systems, districts avoid additional measurement
overhead and keep the focus on one set of performance measures. Educators and
administrators are already familiar with these systems, and using them also avoids
the perception of adding a lot of extra work. One problem, however, is that
performance evaluation for pay and for educator development may have some
con$icting requirements. !e former makes reliability and validity paramount, but
the latter prioritizes feedback and assistance.i It may be hard to #nd the time and
resources to do both. Another problem is that many performance evaluation
systems are not designed to do much more than weed out the poorest performers,
and many school districts do not implement the systems in a way that reliably and
validly di"erentiates between di"erent levels of performance. Since performance
assessment for compensation will likely subject the assessment system to close
scrutiny, program designers need to examine the quality of their assessment
systems critically. Is the performance measurement good enough to help district o
%cials determine pay? !e material presented below will help you decide how to
answer that question.

If examination of the current educator performance evaluation system suggests

de#ciencies, program designers will need to decide whether the existing system
should be modi#ed or whether they will need to develop a completely new system
for pay purposes. !e advantage of a new, separate system is that it can be designed
to be rigorous and reliable and to focus on measuring the most important aspects of
performance. !e National Board for Professional Teaching Standards uses a special
purpose performance measurement system that involves a teacher portfolio, videos
of teaching practice, and a series of written exercises. It concentrates on assessing
just the competencies that the National Board has identi#ed as important and does
so with good reliability and e%ciency. In the private sector, companies often use
special purpose performance measurement for employee selection, in the form of
assessment centers, where employees must complete a variety of exercises to
demonstrate speci#c competencies. Again, the advantage is focus and e%ciency of
measurement. Potential disadvantages, of course, are the costs required to develop
a completely new system for pay purposes and to train evaluators to use it to assess
teachers’ classroom performance.

Basic requirements for a system that links observations of teachers’ classroom

performance to pay

Whichever direction the district takes, the basic requirements for a system that
links non-test score evaluations to pay are the same. !at is, the system:

1. Measures the right things;

2. Produces valid and reliable measurements;

3. Provides tools to help educators improve performance in response to the

measurement; and

4. Is accepted by those whose performance is being measured and by those doing

the measuring. Guide to Implementation: Observations of Teachers’ Classroom
Performance 3

Key questions for program designers:

Does the system measure the correct things?

1. Are the dimensions of performance that the system measures the drivers of
important outcomes such as student learning, attendance, or graduation rates?

2. Are important drivers missing?

3. Does the system have so many dimensions that the key drivers get lost?

4. Does the system include what truly distinguishes an outstanding performer from
an average performer?

5. Does the system provide a clear distinction between satisfactory and

outstanding performance?

Is the system measuring the right things?

This question is important because, if the assumptions of pay-for-performance are

correct, incentives will direct educators’ e"orts toward the measured and rewarded
performance. One challenge in education is that because there are so many
conceptions of good performance, it is often hard to decide which should be
emphasized. Additionally, using performance evaluation for tenure decisions and
to hold tenured teachers accountable tends to encourage systems to aspire to
comprehensive coverage of all job responsibilities. For example, systems based on
Charlotte Danielson’s Framework for Teaching de#ne about 68 performance
dimensions within four broad domains of planning and preparation, creating an
environment for learning, teaching for learning, and professionalism.2 But in order
to maintain focus and reduce measurement overhead, it may not be desirable for
the system to measure and reward all possible aspects of performance. Instead, the
system should measure and reward only the aspects of performance that are to be
the key drivers of important outcomes such as student learning. !e performances
that the system measures and rewards should directly re$ect what educators need
to do to carry out the organization’s strategies for achieving its goals. !e system
also needs to measure those aspects of performance that distinguish outstanding
performers from those who are just acceptable. Many performance evaluation
systems, by design or in practice, serve simply to distinguish unsatisfactory from
minimally acceptable behavior. !is type of system will not likely be useful in
motivating substantially improved performance because outstanding performance
is not defined and distinguished for reward.

If the answer to any of the following key questions is no, a redesign will be
needed. The key step is to identify what aspects of educator performance really
drive organizational performance. One approach would be for the school system to
review the programs or strategies that the organization is deploying to meet its key
goals and then make inferences about what teachers and principals have to do well
in order to carry out the programs or strategies. Another approach is to go back to
the research on teaching and learning to identify the most important contributors to
student achievement and then decide which ones are most in need of improvement.
!ese will become the dimensions of performance that the system will assess. For
example, di"erentiation of instruction may be a key part of a district’s strategy to
close achievement gaps and is identi#ed in research as a likely contributor to
student learning.

Do the system’s procedures support valid and reliable measurement?

Reliability and validity are important not only because linking pay to performance
may motivate increased scrutiny of the measurement process, but also because they
a"ect the motivational impact of rewards linked to performance. If educators
believe that favoritism or measurement error determines how well they do on the
assessment, rather than their true performance level, they will be less likely to
expend e"ort to perform as desired. If an evaluation system cannot validly measure,
rewards will be less contingent on performance, and when educators realize this,
they will be less motivated to perform.

Program designers need to build reliability and validity into performance

assessment systems. The recommendations that follow discuss some basic design
features that program designers should consider. Many of these recommendations
also address the concerns that teachers often have about principals being biased or
not knowledgeable enough to do fair evaluations. While these concerns may not be
born out by research (which tends to suggest that principals are lenient in their
evaluations and that few teachers are ever rated as unsatisfactory), it is important
for teacher acceptance that the evaluation system’s processes and procedures
minimize bias and are perceived as fair.

Key questions for program designers: Does the system support valid and reliable
measurement? 1. Are the system’s procedures uniform or standardized with respect
to the educator groups with which they are used? 2. Are types and sources of
evidence, and methods of gathering evidence, speci!ed so that educators and
evaluators know what to look for? 3. Are evaluators trained to apply the system
consistently? 4. Is there any evidence that evaluators can — or do — apply the
system consistently? 5. Is there any evidence that evaluators’ judgments are related
to other measures of educator performance? Guide to Implementation:
Observations of Teachers’ Classroom Performance 5 The use of an assessment
process that separates observation, interpretation, and judgment can reduce an
evaluator’s tendency to follow his or her “gut feelings” about what good
performance looks like. Recommendation 1 Use relatively detailed rating scales
(“rubrics”) that de#ne a set of levels for each performance dimension. Rating
scales, or rubrics, provide guidance to evaluators in making decisions about
performance. While they cannot completely de#ne each performance level (to do
so often requires too many words to be practical), rubrics can provide the structure
needed to develop consistency among evaluators and reduce the impact of
idiosyncratic evaluator beliefs and attitudes on evaluation results. District o%cials
should share these rating scales with those being evaluated so that educators know
what the performance expectations are, rather than wondering what the evaluator
thinks is good performance. !e descriptions or examples of performance in the
rating scales need to be good exemplars of the performance dimension the scale is
attempting to capture. Developers should write the rating scale descriptions and
examples clearly, minimize the use of vague quanti#ers like “consistently” or
“frequently,” and make clear distinctions between performance levels. Generally,
educator performance rating scales de#ne between three and #ve levels of
performance. It is quite di%cult to develop rating scales that divide the
performance range into more than #ve levels, and fewer than three do not allow the
de#nition of a truly high or advanced level of performance. !e use of four levels
seems common in practice. Recommendation 2 Specify what counts as evidence
for performance, and how it is to be collected, in a performance measurement
handbook or manual. Specifying the evidence up front helps to structure the
evaluators’ decision process, discourage consideration of irrelevant factors, and
reassure those being evaluated that they are being measured on observable
evidence rather than on evaluators’ biases. Program developers should also
consider and specify the amount of evidence or the timing of collection. Because
of the complexity and variability of most educators’ jobs, observation of a single
lesson or a single sta" meeting is not likely to be a reliable basis to make a
judgment. Instead, evaluators should conduct multiple observations and collect
evidence at multiple points in time. Evaluators should also supplement their
observations with other kinds of “artifacts,” such as unit and lesson plans, tests and
assignments, examples of student work, parent contact logs, or classroom
procedures. Danielson discusses the use of such artifacts in teacher evaluation.4
Districts can substitute videos for live observations, but should establish
procedures for videotaping to promote consistency and ensure that evaluators
collect artifacts to round out the evidence. Recommendation 3 Use an analytic
assessment process that separates observation, interpretation, and judgment. Often,
evaluators begin the evaluation process with preconceived notions of who is and
who is not a good performer and with their own idiosyncratic “gut feelings” about
what good performance looks like. Evaluators also tend to form judgments about
whether the educator being evaluated is a good performer or a poor one based on
evidence collected early in the evaluation process, then notice only con#rming
evidence and disregard contrary evidence. !ey may also fail to distinguish
di"erences in the level of performance on di"erent dimensions because they are
concentrating on what they believe is most important or because they are
overloaded by trying to observe and evaluate at the same time. !ese tendencies can
produce inaccurate ratings that may also lack credibility to those being evaluated. !
e use of an assessment process that separates observation, interpretation, and
judgment can reduce these tendencies. Districts should start by de#ning what
counts as evidence of performance and train evaluators to collect it — both
positive and negative. Evaluators should then collect the evidence by observation
or review of materials (e.g., lesson plans, student work), but withhold judgment
about the level of performance represented. When they have #nished collecting
relevant evidence (for example, after an observation session has been completed),
the evaluators should review and interpret the evidence collected, decide which
evidence is relevant to the pre-de#ned dimensions of performance, and compare
the relevant evidence to the rating scale or rubric. Only then should the evaluator
make a judgment, one dimension at a time, about which rating scale level is
supported by the preponderance of the relevant evidence. Evaluators should stick
to the recorded evidence and compare each educator’s performance to the rating
scale, not to other educators. !ese steps maximize evaluator accuracy and are used
in highquality assessment systems such as those that have been developed for
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards certi#cation. Guide to
Implementation: Observations of Teachers’ Classroom Performance 6 Districts
should start by de!ning what counts as evidence of performance and train
evaluators to collect it — both positive and negative. Recommendation 4 Use
multiple evaluators. Research suggests that many principals have a di%- cult time
evaluating teachers, for reasons ranging from lack of knowledge of the subject
being taught to disinclination to upset working relationships.5 !us, principal
evaluations are frequently lenient, and most teachers end up with “satisfactory”
ratings or higher. A 2007 audit of Wake County, North Carolina, teacher
evaluations, for example, found that only one of 363 teachers whose evaluations
were examined had received an unsatisfactory rating from his or her principal.6
Another recent study of teacher evaluations conducted in Chicago between 2003
and 2006 found that the majority of veteran principals in the district admitted to
in$ating performance ratings for some of their teachers.7 Over the four-year
period, 93 percent of Chicago teachers earned the two highest ratings (“superior”
or “excellent”), and only 3 in 1,000 received “unsatisfactory” ratings. Even in 87
schools that had been identi#ed as failing, 79 percent did not award a single
unsatisfactory rating to teachers between 2003 and 2005. Using multiple evaluators
can help di"use the “blame” for a less-than-glowing evaluation and reduce
tendencies to be lenient. It can also reassure teachers that their evaluations are not
based on the principal’s biases or subjective opinions. Some schools and school
systems use peer evaluators or evaluators from outside the building (e.g., a central
o%ce program specialist) for this purpose. Examples include Columbus, Toledo,
Cincinnati, Rochester, San Francisco, Minneapolis, Montgomery County Public
Schools in Maryland, Poway Uni#ed School District in San Diego County, and
most recently, some low-performing schools in Chicago.8 Examples of teacher
observation instruments developed in two of these districts are included as exhibits
1–3; the links to these forms can be found in the exhibits, pages 12–14. In
Montgomery County, Maryland, evaluators complete a narrative description of
teacher performance based on seven performance standards (e.g., teachers know
the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students).9 !e narrative
description includes multiple sources of evidence, such as “classroom
observations, analysis and review of student results as described in the shared
accountability system, Guide to Implementation: Observations of Teachers’
Classroom Performance 7 Key principles of an alternative compensation plan 1.
Awards are based on objective criteria. 2. A clear, transparent system is created. 3.
Rewards are attainable. 4. Implementation is feasible. 5. Plan is affordable for the
district. 6. System is sustainable in the long term. contributions to overall school
mission and environment, review of student and parent surveys, review of
professional growth plans and implementation results, and any other documents
collected by the evaluator and/or the teacher during the full length of the cycle.” As
another example, teacher performance in Poway, California, is assessed by
“re$ection, observation, documentation, and conference,” and peer evaluators are a
key source of evidence. Evaluators assess teachers’ performance on 18 dimensions
within #ve broad domains of professional responsibility, such as using appropriate
learning materials, e"ectively managing instructional time, and monitoring student
performance.10 Districts might also consider the use of “360 degree” or multi-
source evaluation, in which supervisors, peers, and parents, as well as the teacher,
contribute evidence and/or assessment judgments.11 A special purpose assessment
system, separate from routine performance evaluation, could use a panel of
assessors drawn from both inside and outside the organization. !is approach would
minimize tendencies toward lenience and maximize the ability to recognize
technically good performance since districts would choose these assessors for their
subject expertise and their probable lack of contact with those being assessed.
Recommendation 5 Train evaluators for consistency. An e"ective training program
for performance evaluators should follow 10 steps: 1. Start with an overview of the
process — give evaluators the big picture. 2. Familiarize evaluators with the
performance dimensions and rating scales. 3. Help evaluators recognize their own
biases (e.g., for certain teaching styles). 4. Describe common judgment errors to be
aware of and avoided. 5. Describe how to recognize and record evidence of
performance. 6. Practice collecting evidence and observing. 7. Practice connecting
evidence to performance dimensions. 8. Practice interpreting evidence relative to
the rating scale. 9. Discuss rating conventions (e.g., What do you do if you do not
have any evidence for a performance dimension? How do you interpret words like
“consistently” or “frequently” when used in the rating scale?). 10. Practice rating
samples of performance (e.g., videos, written scenarios, or cases). Consider
following the training with a “certi#cation exercise” in which evaluators must
match the ratings of an expert jury in order to “graduate.” Set a threshold, such as
75 percent absolute agreement with the “experts.” Districts could then provide
additional training to those who do not meet this standard. Guide to
Implementation: Observations of Teachers’ Classroom Performance 8 Key
questions for program designers: 1. Does the system provide tools to the educators
who are evaluated to improve their performance? 2. Does the system make clear, in
speci!c terms, what performances or behaviors are needed to be rated a good
performer and receive the incentive? 3. Does the system provide educators with
speci!c feedback that tells them why they were rated as they were? 4. Are
evaluators knowledgeable enough about good performance to give quality
feedback? 5. Is some form of coaching or assistance available to help those who
are not doing well? 6. Are professional development opportunities available that
directly address performance de!ciencies, so that those who want to improve can
get help? Recommendation 6 Monitor evaluators’ performance, and hold
evaluators accountable for doing a good job. One way to monitor evaluator quality
is to review a sample of the written evaluations that they complete and the
supporting evidence that they use to make their judgments. Another way to
monitor evaluators’ performance is to assign two evaluators to work independently
on the same sample of evaluations and then compare the quality of their work.
Districts should articulate clear standards for following the assessment process and
evaluate the evaluators themselves on their adherence to them. It may be useful to
conduct analyses of inter-rater agreement (reliability) and validity to help assure all
stakeholders that evaluation scores are sound measures of teacher performance.
One way to do this is to ask two evaluators to rate performance independently and
then compare the results for agreement. Where multiple evaluators are used, this
kind of analysis can also reassure teachers that the evaluation is based on
observable evidence about which di"erent evaluators can agree. Validity evidence
could include the degree to which the performance ratings match measures such as
valueadded student achievement scores or even consistency with parent or student
satisfaction surveys. Your program evaluator or sta" at the Center for Educator
Compensation Reform can help you design these studies. Guide to
Implementation: Observations of Teachers’ Classroom Performance 9 $e
evaluation system provides tools that the educators being evaluated can use to
improve their performance It is critical that the evaluation system provide tools and
feedback to the educators being evaluated that can be used to improve their
performance. Because a primary purpose of incentives is to motivate people to
improve performance, teachers must be able to use the results from evaluation as a
stepping stone. In many cases, improving performance is a matter of skill and
focus, not just will and e"ort. Behavioral science research suggests that performers
need to know what the speci#c performance expectations are, how well they are
doing, and how to get better.12 Research on teacher evaluation also suggests that
receiving high-quality feedback and coaching improves the acceptance of the
evaluation process by those being evaluated.13 To help maximize motivation and
acceptance, those who do not measure up need to perceive a clear path for
improvement. Performance feedback is the #rst step. Current thinking on
performance feedback suggests that feedback of results alone, without suggestions
for how to improve, does not lead to improved performance.14 Support and
coaching are needed to turn the information provided by feedback — especially
negative feedback — into improved performance, rather than rejection, resentment,
or lower self-e%cacy. Principals and mentor teachers should provide speci#c,
concrete feedback that tells an educator not only his or her rating, but also exactly
what prevented him or her from getting a higher score and what speci#c behaviors
or results would raise the score. !is could be followed by information about
relevant training, suggestions about techniques to try, whom to observe to see good
performance exempli#ed, and even modeling aspects of desired performance. !is,
in turn, requires that districts train evaluators to provide feedback, that there is a
coach or mentor to go to for help, and that training and development programs are
available to provide the skills needed to do well on the next performance
assessment. Guide to Implementation: Observations of Teachers’ Classroom
Performance 10 Key questions for program designers: 1. Have we developed a
system that will be accepted and perceived as fair and workable? 2. Are the system
procedures fully worked out? 3. Does the system have streamlined procedures to
minimize additional workload? 4. Are those procedures clearly communicated to
those involved? 5. Has a communications plan been put in place to make sure that
those involved understand how the system works? 6. Have the performance
expectations been clearly outlined beforehand to those being evaluated? 7. Are the
procedures designed to make sure that educators and evaluators have the time to do
a good job? 8. Are safeguards in place to assure con!dentiality where appropriate?
9. Is there an appeals process in place? Helping those whose performance is being
measured and those doing the measuring accept the system Acceptance of the
system is a key to its long-term survival. Research shows that understanding how
the system works, perceptions of procedural fairness, and workload are all
in$uences on acceptance by both those administering the system and those covered
by it.15 One way to maximize the possibility of acceptance and get a feeling for
whether the system will be perceived as fair and workable is to involve those who
will be evaluated in the design or re-design of the assessment process. Many
consultants working with private sector #rms routinely advise the companies to
seek employee input and involvement in program design. In a collective bargaining
state, involving teachers in the design of the assessment process is not simply a
good idea; it is a statutory requirement and therefore must be bargained. Whether
you are considering using your current performance evaluation system as a basis
for performance pay or designing a new system, you should answer most of the
questions above in the a%rmative. !is will optimize the chance for long-term
success. But the questions also illustrate the complexity of using classroom
observations to assess teacher performance, and so organizations need to ensure
that they have the resources and the will to make a commitment to operate a
quality system. One consideration that may make the e"ort worthwhile is that the
performance dimensions underlying the performance assessment system can be
used in other parts of the human resource manageGuide to Implementation:
Observations of Teachers’ Classroom Performance 11 Aligning the human
resource management system to the performance assessment system reinforces the
latter’s importance and helps create a shared conception of good performance.
ment system. For example, providing teacher candidates with information about
the performance requirements allows those who do not think they can meet them to
screen themselves out of the hiring process. Another example is teacher selection.
If interview questions or other selection measures are based on the same
performance dimensions, it is more likely that new hires will have the competence
to become good performers and will not need to be dismissed at the end of the
probationary period or require remedial training. Aligning the human resource
management system (recruitment, selection, induction, mentoring, professional
development, performance management, compensation, and school leadership) to
the performance assessment system reinforces the latter’s importance and helps
create a shared conception of good performance.16 Finally, we recommend that
districts conduct some sort of pilot test or dry run when implementing a new
performance measurement system to identify and correct problems that will
inevitably occur. Previous research on standards-based teacher evaluation systems
found that implementation problems reduced teacher acceptance of the new
systems and that at least one pilot year was needed to work out the glitches.