This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Running Head: Metaevaluation Study
A Metaevaluation Study on the Assessment of Teacher Performance in an Assessment Center in the Philippines
Carlo Magno De La Salle Universoty-Manila Nicole Tangco Center for Learning and Performance Assessment De La Salle-College of Saint Benilde
Abstract The present study conducted a metaevaluation of the teacher performance system used in the Performance Assessment Services Unit (PASU) of De La Salle-College of Saint Benilde. To determine whether the evaluation system on teacher performance adheres to quality evaluation, the standards of feasibility, utility, propriety, and accuracy are used as standards. The system of teacher performance evaluation in PASU includes the use of students rating called the Student Instructional Report (PEF) and a rating scale used by peers called the Peer Evaluation Form (PEF). A series of guided discussions was conducted among the different stakeholders of the evaluation system in the college such as the deans and program chairs, teaching faculty, and students to determine their appraisal of the evaluation system in terms of the four standards. A metaevaluation checklist was also used by experts in measurement and evaluation in the Center for Learning and Performance Assessment (CLPA). The results of the guided discussion showed that most of the stakeholders were satisfied with the conduct of teacher performance assessment. Although in using the standards by the Joint Committee on evaluation, the results are very low. The ratings of utility, propriety, and feasibility were fair and the standard on accuracy is poor. The areas for improvement are discussed in the paper.
A Metaevaluation Study on the Assessment of Teacher Performance in an Assessment Center in the Philippines
It is a primary concern among educational institutions to assess the teaching performance of teachers. Assessing teaching performance enables one to gage the quality of instruction represented by an institution and facilitate better learning among students. The Philippine Accrediting Association of Schools, Colleges and Universities (PAASCU) judges a school not by the number of hectares of property or buildings it owns but rather by the caliber of classroom teaching and learning it can maintain (O’Donnell, 1996). Judging the quality of teacher performance actually depends on the quality of assessing the components of teaching. When PAASCU representatives visit schools, they place a high priority on firsthand observation of actual faculty performance in the classroom. This implies the value of the teaching happening in an educational institution as a measure of the quality of that institution. Different institutions have a variety of ways of assessing teacher performance. These commonly include classroom observation by and feedback from supervisors, assessment from peers, and students’ assessment, all of which should be firmly anchored on the school’s mission and vision statements.
The De La Salle-College of Saint Benilde (DLS-CSB) uses a variety of assessment techniques to come up with a valid evaluation of a teacher’s performance. As an institution that has adopted the learner-centered psychological principles, any assessment technique it uses, as mentioned in the school’s mission, “recognizes diversity by addressing various needs, interests, and cultures. As a community of students, faculty, staff, and administrators, we strengthen our relationships through transformational experiences guided by appreciation of individual worth, creativity, professional competence, social responsibility, a sense of nationhood, and our faith. We actively anticipate and respond to individual, industry, and societal needs by offering innovative and relevant programs that foster holistic human development.” The processes in teacher performance evaluation of instructors, professors and professionals of the college is highly critical since it is used to decide on matters such as hiring, rehiring, and promotion. There should be careful calibration and continuous study of the instruments used to assess teachers. The process of evaluation in the college was established since the start of the institution in 1988. Since that time, different assessment techniques have been used to evaluate instructors, professors, and professionals. The assessment of teachers is handled by the Center for Learning Performance and Assessment (CLPA), which is primarily responsible for instrument development, administration, scoring and the communication of assessment results to its stakeholders. Currently, the instructors and professors are assessed by students using the Student Instructional Report (SIR), the Peer Evaluation Form (PEF), and academic advising. The current forms of these instruments have been in use in the last three years.
At the present period, there is a need to evaluate the process of evaluating teacher performance in DLS-CSB. Through a metaevaluation study, it may be determined whether the processes meets the Joint Committee Standards for Evaluation. The Joint Committee Standards set a “common language to facilitate communication and collaboration in evaluation.” It is very helpful in a metaevaluation process since it provides a set of general rules for dealing with a variety of specific evaluation problems. The processes and practices of the CLPA in assessing teaching performance needs to be studied whether it meets the standards of utility, feasibility, propriety, and accuracy. The metaevaluation technique involves the process of delineating, obtaining, and applying descriptive information and judgmental information about the standards of utility, feasibility, propriety, and accuracy of an evaluation in order to guide the evaluation and to publicly report its strength and weaknesses (Stufflebeam, 2000). This study on metaevaluation addresses the issue of whether the process used by the CLPA on evaluating teaching performance in DLS-CSB meets the standards and requirements of a sound evaluation. Specifically, the study will provide information on the adequacy of the SIR, peer assessment and student advising on following areas: (1) items and instructions of responding; (2) process of administering the instruments; (3) procedures practiced in assessment; (4) utility value from stakeholders; (4) accuracy and validity of responses. Models and Methods of Teacher Evaluation Generally, teacher evaluations may be summative or formative. The instruments used for summative evaluation are typically checklist-type forms that provide little room for narrative, and take note of observable traits and methods that serve as criteria for continued employment, promotions, and the like (Searfoss & Enz, 1996 in Isaacs, 2003). On the other hand, formative evaluations are geared toward professional development. In this form of evaluation, teachers and
their administrators meet to try to trace the teacher’s further development as a professional. (Bradshaw, 1996 in Isaacs, 2003). Another model is differentiated supervision which is a flexible model of evaluation that works from the premises that teaching is a profession, and as such, teachers should have a certain level of control over their development as professionals (Glatthorn, 1997 in Isaacs, 2003). This model allows “for the clinical model of evaluation, cooperative options that allow teachers to work with peers, and self-directed options guided by the individual teacher” (Isaacs, 2003). The model allows professional staff and supervisors/administrators options in the process applied for supervision and evaluation. The supervision program is designed to be developmentally appropriate to meet the needs of each member of the professional team. The three processes in the Differentiated Supervision Model are: (1) Focused Supervision, (2) Clinical Supervision, and (3) Self-Directed Supervision. The method of collaborative evaluation was developed (Berliner, 1982; Brandt, 1996; Wolf, 1996 in Isaacs, 2003) with the core of the mentor/administrator-teacher collaboration. Whether new or experienced, a teacher is aided by a mentor.It “requires a more intensive administrative involvement that may include multiple observations, journal writing, or artifact collections, plus a strong mentoring program” (Isaacs, 2003). At the end of a prescribed period, the mentor and mentee sit down to compare notes on the data gathered over the observation period. Together, they identify strengths, weaknesses, areas for improvement, and other such points. In this model, there are no ratings, no evaluative commentaries and no summative writeups (Isaacs, 2003).
Another is the multiple evaluation checklist which uses several instruments other than administrator observations. Here, the peer evaluation, the self-evaluation, and the student evaluation meet in varying combinations to form a teacher’s evaluation (Isaacs, 2003). Self-evaluation also plays an important role in the evaluation process. It causes the teacher to think about his or her methods more deeply, and causes him or her to consider the long-term. It is also said to promote a sense of responsibility and the development of higher standards (Lengeling, 1996 in Isaacs, 2003). Then there is the most commonly-used evaluation, the student evaluation (Bonfadini, 1998; Lengeling, 1996; Strobbe, 1993; Williams & Ceci, 1997 in Isaacs, 2003). They are the easiest to administer and they provide a lot of insights about rapport-building skills, teacher communication, and effectiveness. However, as Williams and Ceci (1997), according to Isaacs (2003) have found that a change in a content-free variable in teaching (they conducted a study in which the only variable modified was the teaching style—teachers were told to be more enthusiastic and attended a seminar on presentation methods) was enough to cause a great magnitude of increase in teacher ratings, student evaluations have to be viewed with caution. Another reason is one of the findings of the study by Bonfadini (1998), cited by Isaacs (1993). He found that, upon asking students to rate their teachers according to four determinant areas, (a) personal traits, (b) professional competence, (c) student-teacher relationships, and (d) classroom management, the least used determinant was professional competence. Conclusion: students may tend to look more at the packaging (content-free variables) rather than that which empirically makes a good teacher—so viewing student-based information, says Isaacs (2003), should be done with care.
In the field of teacher evaluation, the growing use of the portfolio is slowly softening the otherwise sharp edges of the standardized instrument (Engelson, 1994; Glatthorn, 1997; Shulman, 1988; Seldin, 1991 in Isaacs, 2003). National standards are also used as method for teacher evaluation. It is based on the instigation of a screening board other than the standard licensure committee, something that has no counterpart in the Philippines. The creation of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (1998) was prompted by the report A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the 21st Century generated by the 1986 Carnegie Task Force on Teaching as a Profession, which in turn was prompted by the 1983 A Nation at Risk report (Isaacs, 2003). It is the mission of the NBPTS to: …establish high and rigorous standards for what experienced teachers should know and be able to do, to develop and operate a national, voluntary system of assessment and certification for teachers, and to advance educational reforms for the purpose of improving student learning in America's schools” (Isaacs, 2003). The National Board Certification was meant as a complement to, but not a replacement for, state licensure exams. While this latter represents the minimum standards required to teach, the former stands as a test for more advanced standards in teaching as a profession. Unlike the licensure examinations, it may or may not be taken; it is voluntary. As such, some schools offer monetary rewards for the completion of the test, as well as opportunities for better positions (i.e. certified teaching leadership and mentor roles) (Isaacs, 2003). Criteria for Assessing Teacher Performance What makes a good teacher? Offhand, one might say, good communication and rapportbuilding skills, a sense of empathy for the students, and, of course, knowledge of the lessons to be taught. These, however, are not easily measurable, and even if one should manage to grasp the
key to quantifying them, the degree of importance each one of those variables might bear might change over time, due to the changing demands of the profession. Paradigm Shifting Through the Years As the paradigm of how teaching should be done shifts through the years, so should what is considered as criteria of good teaching change. And it has, through the decades. In the 1970s, for instance, the predominant philosophy was based on Madeline Hunter’s model, which was in turn, based on student achievement—“norm-referenced, machine-scorable, multiple-choice tests of fairly low level knowledge” (Danielson and McGreal, 2000). Today, however, things are different. A good student is not only one who can perfect tests. Rather, he is capable of complex learning, of problem solving and applying knowledge to unfamiliar situations (Danielson and McGreal, 2000). This change did not happen overnight. Like most good changes, it was a gradual process, with some small shift occurring at as each decade turned the pages of time. From the behaviorist 70s came an increase in the need to help students attain more complex goals, which soon, in the 80s and 90s, highlighted the need for critical thinking, problem solving, lifelong learning, collaborative learning and a shift to a more constructivist perspective. Danielson and McGreal (2000) described the shift of focus in teaching across history. In the 1970, emphasis was given on learning styles (encouraged emphasis on teacher-centered, structured classrooms), anticipatory set, statement of objectives, instructional input, modeling, and checking for understanding guided practice and independent practice. In the 1980’s teacher effectiveness was given attention that includes: expectancy studies, discipline models, Hunter derivatives, effective school research, cooperative learning, and brain research. In the 1990’s numerous studies on critical thinking was present in literature. Teaching emphasized on content
knowledge, content pedagogy, alternative assessment, multiple intelligence, collaborative learning, cognitive learning theory, constructivist classrooms, authentic pedagogy, engaged teaching and learning, and teaching for understanding. For the 21st century, teaching effectiveness and critical thinking are refocused on authentic pedagogy. Authentic pedagogy includes engaged teaching and learning and teaching for understanding. While the trend in teaching is certainly a good factor to consider when thinking about how to evaluate, it doesn’t end there. When evaluating, the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards makes it clear that there is more than just teaching per se: The fundamental requirements for proficient teaching are relatively clear: a broad grounding in the liberal arts and sciences; knowledge of the subjects to be taught, of the skills to be developed, and of the curricular arrangements and materials that organize and embody that content; knowledge of general and subject-specific methods for teaching and for evaluating student learning; knowledge of students and human development; skills in effectively teaching students from racially, ethnically, and socioeconomically diverse backgrounds; and the skills, capacities, and dispositions to employ such knowledge wisely in the interest of students. (The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, 1998, p.4, as quoted by Isaacs, 2003) If one reads through the paragraph, one will notice that from talking about the academic requirements, it moves to basic psychological knowledge and sociological understanding. Danielson’s Components of Professional Practice Danielson & McGreal (2000) proposed a model containing four domains embodying the components of professional practice. Domain 1, Planning and Preparation, covers everything that
happens before contact with the students: knowing the topic, knowing what one has at one’s disposal and being able to use it (Demonstrating knowledge of content and pedagogy, demonstrating knowledge of students, selecting instructional goals, demonstrating knowledge of resources, designing coherent instruction, and assessing student learning). Domain 2, The Classroom Environment, speaks of setting the mood for learning and classroom management (Creating an environment of respect and rapport, establishing a culture for learning, managing classroom procedures, managing student behavior, and organizing physical space). The third domain, Instruction, tackles the raison d’ etre of teaching, from being able to communicate effectively to actually helping the students learn to giving feedback (Communicating clearly and accurately, using questioning and discussion techniques, engaging students in learning, providing feedback to students, and demonstrating flexibility and responsiveness). The last domain, Professional Responsibilities, contains miscellaneous components of being a professional teacher: being able to maintain accurate records, to talk to parents, and to reflect on one’s teaching processes to be able to self-critique them (Reflecting on teaching, maintaining accurate records, communicating with families, contributing to the school and district, growing and developing professionally, showing professionalism). Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) The student evaluation of teaching or SET is probably the most widely used form of evaluation, favored for its simplicity and economy in administration, scoring, and interpretation. Since it was first put into modern use by pioneers like Herman Remmers, it has been applied in at least three different ways, as identified by McKeachie (1996). These are student guidance in choice of course, improvement of teaching, and evaluating teaching for use in personnel decisions (i.e. tunure or merit salary increases).
What Students Look At If Wright’s (2006) source Olshavsky and Spreng (1995) is right, then what “level of knowledge” do students possess and use upon evaluating their instructors? For starters, Wright (2006) says that the “entertainment” level of classroom experience (Costin, Greenough, & Menges, 1971 in Wright, 2006) is a big determinant. The “Dr. Fox” study by Naftulin, Ware, and Donnelly (1973, in Wright, 2006) pointed to this. The researchers hired a highly enthusiastic actor to give a lecture that was intentionally devoid of any educational value —yet his teaching was rated quite highly. Definitely, most students want their classes to be more fun and entertaining (Trout, 1997 in Wright, 2006). Another thing that seems important to students is their teacher’s communication skills. In a study by Williams and Ceci (1997, in Wright, 2006), it was found that, though course material, the lecture format, and student performance were held constant, an improvement of communication skills led to a significant improvement in the SETs in all areas. Then, there are the findings of Wright (2000) himself. According to him, two factors that affect SETs are perceived fairness in grading and instructor appearance. It is very possible for students to even favor a factor that is detrimental to their experiencing effective learning. Wright (2006) cites Strom, Hocevar, and Zimmer (1990) who found that students who preferred easy courses preferred teachers with high student orientation but did so much better in the classes of teachers with low student orientation. What Students Look At: Steiner et al.’s (2006) Study on Student Biases Steiner et al. (2006) also did a study looking into what students consider when they evaluate. They broke down student criteria into four variables: student perceptions, instructor attributes, instructional formats, and course attributes. Each of these had several variables under
them, studied individually in relation to predicted SET scores. The findings are of interest in that they show that students, at least those of the data set, for the researchers did admit that their sample provided very little generalizability, consider how much they perceive they learned from the teacher, and that they tend to consider things that are very well beyond the teacher’s control. Under student perceptions, the predicted value of SET increased with every unit increase of a student’s perception of how much they learned and decreased with every unit decrease of the grade students expect to get (i.e. from an A to a B). In addition to this, though not statistically significant, the researchers noted as important that how challenging a course is perceived to be by the students has a positive relationship with SETs. Under instructor attributes, only one subvariable registered as significant—instructor’s gender. Generally, student ratings were worse for female professors than for the males. Under instructional formats, the significant subvariables were using videos and guest speakers, offering extra credit opportunities, the percent of course time spent lecturing and the percent of course time spent in active learning activities. All of these, except for the percent of course time spent lecturing had a positive relationship with SETs. No significant subvariable surfaced under the course attributes variable, but the authors noted that it seems teaching electives and graduate level classes as against teaching required courses slightly improves SETs. There was also an interaction effect noted, one between the instructor’s gender and percent of course time spent lecturing. It appears that the negative effect of lecturing is particularly pronounced if the professor is male. The trouble with these findings is that they reveal that sometimes, students include in their judgment things that are beyond the teachers’ control. For instance, simply being a female
instructor for the sample of Steiner et al.’s (2006) already greatly diminishes one’s chance for merits, which is unfair when compared to the male professors. This may not be the case for the sample in the mind of the reader, but it should still be impressed in the reader’s mind that any sample might have some biases that teachers cannot control, so it is important to find out. Student Performance and Teacher Evaluation Studies are ambivalent about the relationship of grades, both actual and expected, to SETs. Landrum and Dillinger (2004) say that instructor evaluation is weakly but significantly correlated with actual grade but not with expected grade. Moore (2006) says that neither actual nor expected grade (referred to as anticipated grade in his study) were indicators of SETs. And finally, Steiner et al.’s (2006) study says that expected grade is strongly correlated with SETs. It is important to be able to establish how the grading system affects SETs because one major issue that may invalidate the SETs is that “dumbing down” course work making it easier to get better grades would generate better evaluations. Are SETs Really Helpful? To settle this question, one must first determine what use evaluation results are put to, for the utility attached to them, whether for administrative decisions or for professional improvement purposes, changes the answer. Conducting a metaevaluation (which contains standards for utility) would be able to determine if the evaluation generated helps in making administrative decisions. On the other hand, if it is the improvement of teaching quality that one is after, then one must be guided by Remmers’ finding that evaluations do help bring about improvement, but not much (McKeachie, 1996) and by the idea that discussing the evaluation results with another teacher produces substantial improvement (McKeachie et al., 1980 in McKeachie, 1996). This latter, however is a
voluntary act, and this is where the dedication of the instructor, teacher, or professor to his or her professional development comes in. Aultman (2006) suggests the use of formative evaluation as she has found through personal experience that it brings about unexpected benefits. She conducted her own formative evaluation, separate from the official summative evaluation conducted at the end of the semester. This she did at the third week of the semester, giving her a lot of time to reinforce her strengths and improve on her weaknesses as identified by the students. Her “mini-evaluation” was composed of three sections. The first section allowed students to write down any questions regarding the course content up to that point of the term. The second part asked students to rate her in four sections: pace of the course, clarity of her lectures, the quality of the activities the class did to enhance their understanding, and her preparedness for class. Finally, the third section asked for student comments on how she could improve the class. In the next meeting, she tackled the evaluations with her students. She answered all the content-related questions about the course and the questions raised in the evaluation about future projects that they had not asked in class. The results were quite astonishing. The students, seeing that their input was given importance, soon began to raise more questions in class. Sometimes, they would come to class early or stay behind to ask questions not only about the subject matter but occasionally also about her dissertation progress or her family. The mini-evaluation had “served as a catalyst for improved communication between my students and me. Students saw as a real person as well as their instructor” (Aultman, 2006). What Aultman (2006) did requires a certain amount of dedication and a certain comfort level with criticism. Students may just be the learners, but sometimes, since they get to see things
that teachers can’t see merely by virtue of their vantage point. If teachers accept that and manage to learn from their students, they may find that SETs as a method of improving themselves are effective. Metaevaluaton: “Evaluation of an evaluation” In 1969, Michael Scriven used the term metaevaluation to describe the evaluation of any evaluation, evaluative tool, device or measure. Seeing how so many decisions are based on evaluation tools (which is typically their main purpose for existence in the first place—to help people make informed decisions), it is no wonder that the need to do metaevaluative work on these evaluation tools is as great as it is (Stufflebeam, 2000). In the teaching profession, student evaluation of teachers stands as one of the main tools of evaluating. However, as earlier stated, while it is but fair that students be included in the evaluative process, depending on the evaluation process and content, it may not be very fair to teaching professionals to have their very careers at the mercy of a potentially flawed tool. The Process of Metaevaluation (Hummel, 2003) How does one go about performing a metaevaluation? Stufflebeam (2000, in Hummel, 2003) identified certain steps: 1. Determine and Arrange to Interact with the Evaluation's Stakeholders. Stakeholders can refer to anyone whose interests might be affected by the evaluation under the microscope. These may include teachers, students, and administrators. 2. Staff the Metaevaluation with One or More Qualified Metaevaluators. Preferably, these should be people with technical knowledge in psychometrics and people who are familiar with the Joint Committee Personnel Evaluation Standards. It is sound to have more than one metaevaluator on the job, so that more aspects may be covered objectively.
3. Define the Metaevaluation Questions. While this might differ on a case-to-case basis, the four main criteria ought to be present: propriety, utility, feasibility, and accuracy. 4. As Appropriate, agree on Standards, Principles, and/or Criteria to Judge the Evaluation System or Particular Evaluation 5. Issue a Memo of Understanding or Negotiate a Formal Metaevaluation Contract
This will serve as a guiding tool. It contains the standards and principles contained in the previous step and will help both the metaevaluators and their clients understand the direction the metaevaluation will take. 6. Collect and Review Pertinent Available Information 7. Collect New Information as Needed, Including, for Example, On-Site Interviews, Observations and Surveys 8. Analyze the Findings. Put together all the qualitative and quantitative data in such a way that it will be easy to do the following step. 9. Judge the Evaluation's Adherence to the Selected Evaluation Standards, Principles, and/or other criteria. This is the truly metaevaluative step. Here, one takes the analyzed data and judges the evaluation based on the standards that were agreed upon and put down in the formal contract. In another source, this step is lumped with the previous one to form a single step (Stufflebeam, 2000). 10. Prepare and Submit the Needed Reports. This entails the finalization of the data into a coherent report. 11. As Appropriate, Help the Client and Other Stakeholders Interpret and Apply the Findings. This is important for helping evaluation system under scrutiny improve by ensuring that the clients know how to use the metaevaluative data properly.
The Standards of Metaevaluation There are four standards of metaevaluation: propriety, utility, feasibility, and accuracy. Propriety standards were set to ensure that the evaluation in question is done in an ethical and legal manner (P1 Service Orientation, P2 Formal Written Agreements, P3 Rights of Human Subjects, P4 Human Interactions, P5 Compete and Fair Assessment, P6 Disclosure of Findings, P7 Conflict of Interest, P8 Fiscal Responsibility). They also check to see that all welfare of all stakeholders in considered (Widmer, 2003 in Hummel, 2003). Utility standards stand as a check for how much the evaluation in question caters to the information needs of its users (Widmer, 2003 in Hummel, 2003). They include: (U1) Stakeholder Identification, (U2) Evaluator Credibility, (U3) Information Scope and Selection, (U4) Values Identification, (U5) Report Clarity, (U6) Report Timeliness and Dissemination, and (U7) Evaluation Impact. Feasibility standards make sure that the evaluation “is conducted in a realistic, wellconsidered, diplomatic, and cost-conscious manner” (Widmer, 2003 in Hummel, 2003). They include: (F1) Practical Procedures, (F2) Political Viability, and (F3) Cost Effectiveness. Finally, accuracy standards make sure that the evaluation in question produces and disseminates information that is both valid and useable (Widmer, 2003 in Hummel, 2003). They include: (A1) Program Documentation, (A2) Context Analysis, (A3) Described Purposes and Procedures, (A4) Defensible Information Sources, (A5) Valid Information, (A6) Reliable Information, (A7) Systematic Information, (A8) Analysis of Quantitative Information, (A9) Analysis of Qualitative Information, (A10) Justified Conclusion, (A11) Impartial Reporting, and (A12) Metaevaluation.
It should be noted that the aforementioned standards were developed primarily for the metaevaluation of the evaluation of education, training programs and educational personnel. The Student Instructional Report The Student Instructional Report (SIR) currently used by the College of Saint Benilde originated from the SET form used by De La Salle University. It has been revised over the years —instructions have been changes, certain things were omitted from the manual. The items used to day are pretty much what they were in 2000, and the instructions more or less the same as those written in 2003. The SIR is administered in the eighth week of every term, the week directly after the midterms week. The evaluands of the form are teachers; the evaluators, are their students, and other stakeholders are the chairs and deans, who use the data generated by the SIR for administrative decisions. The results are presented to the teachers after the course cards are given. By definition then, it is a form of summative evaluation. There is currently no data that speaks of its value as a method of formative evaluation. Peer Evaluation Form The Peer Evaluation Form (PEF) is used by faculty members in observing the performance of their colleagues. The PEF is designed to determine the extent to which the CSB faculty has been exhibiting teaching behaviors along the areas of: teacher’s procedures, teacher’s performance, and students’ actions as observed by their peers. The PEF is used by a peer observer if the teacher is new in the college and due for promotion. The peer discuss with the faculty evaluated the observation and rating given. The faculty signs the form after the conference proper.
Method Guided Discussion The Guided Discussion is the primary method of data-gathering for all groups concerned. As stated above, the represented groups include the teachers, the chairs and/or deans, the CLPAPASU staff directly involved in the evaluation process, the evaluation measurement expert team and the students. As suggested by Galves (1988), there are five to seven (5-7) participants for every guided discussion (GD) session. The participants for the GD were chosen by the deans of the respective schools involved. The groups included are teachers, chairs and/pr deans, the CLPA-PASU staff, a team of evaluation measurement experts from CLPA and students. Separate GD sessions for each of the schools of the college were conducted they have different needs. The scope of this study is to “assess and evaluate" the current practices undertaken in the SIR and PEF system of administration, scoring, and interpretation. In the GT sessions that were conducted, the participants are co-evaluators considering that they all employ the same PEF and the same SIR items and standards of practice. Each of the former four of the aforementioned list discuss and evaluate along the lines of one of the four criteria set by the Joint Committee Standards for Evaluation. The Teachers group is set to discuss and evaluate the propriety aspect; the Chairs/Deans group, the utility aspect; the CLPA-PASU Staff group, the feasibility aspect; the team of experts, the accuracy aspect. Before any of the GD sessions, the list of guide questions for each group was sent to the chosen participants for a pre-screening of the topics to be discussed at least ten days before the scheduled GT session for that group. The participants are given the liberty to request that other topics be added to the discussion or that certain topics be scratched out.
The modified guide containing the set of questions to be covered is presented to the participants. Three researchers play specific roles as prescribed by Galves (1988): the guide shall ask the questions and guide the discussion, the recorder records of the points raised per question and any questions the participants may care to ask (using a medium visible to the whole group), and the observer of the process is tasked to keep the discussion on track, regulate the time per topic, and prevent anyone from monopolizing the discussion. The guide initiated the discussion by presenting the new set of questions, at which point the participants were given another opportunity to add or subtract topics for discussion. Once the final set of questions has been decided upon and recorded by the recorder, responses were gathered and discussed by the group. One key feature of the GD method is that a consensus on the issues under a topic must be reached. When all the points were raised, the group was given the chance to look over their responses to validate or invalidate them. Whatever the group decides to keep will be kept; what it chooses to strike out gets stricken out. The side-along evaluation done by the observer may be done at regular points throughout the discussions as decided by the group (i.e. after each topic) and/or when he or she deems it fit to interrupt (i.e. at points when the discussion goes astray, or the participant spend too much time on one point) A similar procedure was followed for the Student group. The purpose the students’ discussion is to get information of their perspectives of the evaluation process and their perception of their role as evaluators. At the end of each discussion, the participants were asked to give their opinion about the usefulness and feasibility of having this sort of discussion every year to process their questions,
comments, doubts, and suggestions. This provides data for streamlining the metaevaluative process for future use. Extant Data, Reliability, and Validity Testing The average ratings of the professors within the last three school years (AY 2003-2004 and 2004-2005) were used to generate findings on how well the results could discriminate the levels of good teaching and needs improvement teaching. The Cronbach’s alpha was used to determine the internal consistency of the old teacher performance instrument. The average of the scores for the three terms was computed for each school year, generating three average scores. These scores were compared to each other to check the reliability across time.
Metaevaluation Checklist A checklist was used to determine whether the evaluation meets the standard of utility, feasibility, propriety, and accuracy. There were seven experts in line with measurement and evaluation who were invited to evaluate the system used by the CLPA in assessing teachers performance on both Student Instructional Report (SIR) and Peer Evaluation Report (PEF). The metaevaluators first used a 30-item checklist adopted from the Joint Committee Standards for Evaluation. The metaevaluators were guided by information from the ginabayang talakayan session notes (as transcribed by the taga-tala) and other extant data. Instrumentation For the GD sessions, a guide lists was used. The guide is composed of a set of questions under each standard that is meant to evaluate the evaluation system (see appendix A). The
questions in the GT are the pre-written. In the data-gathering method, these are still subject to change, both in the fielding of the questions prior to the GT sessions and on the day of the GT session itself. The Metaevaluation Checklist by Stufflebeam (2000) was used to rate the SIR and PEF as an evaluation system. It is composed of ten items for each of the subvariables under each of the four standards (see appendix B). The task is to check the items in each list that are applicable in the current teacher performance evaluation system done by the center. Nine to ten (9-10) items generates a rating of excellent for that particular subvariables; 0.7-0.8), a very good; 0.5-0.6, good; 0.3-0.4, fair; and 0-0.2, poor. Data Analysis The data obtained from the Ginabayang Talakayan (GT) was analyzed using the qualitative approach. The important themes from the notes produced in the Ginabayang Talakayan were extracted based on the appraisal components for each area of metaevaluation standard. For utility appraisal themes referring to stakeholder identification (persons affected by the evaluation should be identified), evaluator credibility (trustworthiness and competence of the evaluator), information scope and selection (broad selection of information/data for evaluation), values identification (description of procedures and rationale of the evaluation), report clarity (description of the evaluation being evaluated), report timeliness (findings and reports distributed to users), and Evaluation impact (the evaluation should encourage follow-through by stakeholders) were extracted. For propriety the appraisal themes extracted are on Service orientation (designed to assist and address effectively the needs of the organization), formal agreement (Obligation of formal parties are agreed to in writing), rights of human subjects (evaluation is conducted to respect and protect the rights of human subjects), and human
interaction (respect human dignity and worth). For feasibility the themes extracted are on practical procedures, political viability, fiscal viability, and legal viability. The qualitative data were used as basis in accomplishing the metaevaluation checklist for utility, feasibility, and propriety. For the standards on accuracy on accuracy, the existing documents of processes, procedures, programs, policies, documentations, and reports were made available to the metaevaluators in order to accomplish the metaevaluation checklist in this area. In the checklist, every item of the metaevaluation standard that was checked were divided into 10 and averaged according to the number of metaevaluators who accomplished the checklist. Each component is then interpreted whether the system reached the typical stands of evaluation. The scores are interpreted as 0.9 to 1.0, Excellent; 0.7 to 0.8, Very Good; 0.5 to 0.6, Good; 0.3 to 0.4, Fair; 0.1 to 0.2, Poor. Results Utility Under utility there are four standards evaluated: stakeholder identification, information scope and selection, values identification, functional reporting, follow-up and impact, and information scope and selection. Table 1 shows the themes and clusters formed in evaluating the utility of the teacher performance evaluation system. Table 1 Themes and Clusters for the Utility Standard
Standard Cluster Theme
26 • One on one basis • Informal • Post conference [document] • Meetings • A note is given if the feedback is urgent • Developmental – suggestions to further improve the teaching skills • Evaluative – Standing of the faculty • Students (SIR) • Student Advising • E-mail from students and parents • Peers (senior faculty, chairs, deans) • If the rating is high (3.75 and above), no feedback is given • When the results of the SIR are low • If the faculty is new to the college • Those who have been teaching for a long time and getting low ratings • Results (that)are (not) too cumbersome for deans to read • A print out of the results should be given • The time taken to access the results turns off some teachers from accessing them • Students having difficulty answering the SIR • Students don’t see how teaching effectiveness is measured • Create a particular form for laboratory classes in SHRIM classes. • Removing items that are valid and another computation is done. • Other evaluation criteria is done • There should be indicators for each score • There should be factors of teaching effectiveness with clear labels • Identify what the instrument measures • There needs to be a lump score on learnercenteredness • There are other success indicators that are not reflected in the SIR • Promotion • Loading with course • Retaining PTF • Deloading a faculty • Permanency • Training enhancement • Use for improvement of the faculty • The VPA comes up with a list of faculty that will be given teaching load based on SIR reports • The PEF constricts what needs to be evaluated more.
Mode of feedback
Approaches to feedback
Sources of feedback
Time of giving feedback
27 • Give headings/labels for the different parts • Come up with dimensions and subdimensions • Devise a way to reach the faculty (yahoo, emails etc.) • The teachers and students should see what aspects to improve on. • There should be narrative explanations for the figures • Faculty doesn’t understand the spreading index • Conduct a seminar explaining the statistics • Come up with a general global score. • Each area should be represented with a number • Verbal list of strengths and weaknesses of the faculty
Follow-up and Impact
For the standard on stakeholder identification, the strands were clustered into four themes: Mode of feedback, approaches to feedback, sources of feedback, and time of giving feedback. For the deans and chairs the mode of feedback took the form of “one on one basis, approach is informal, post conferences, meetings, and when urgent a note is given.” The approaches in giving feedback were both developmental (suggestions to further improve the teaching skills) and evaluative (Standing of the faculty). The sources of feedback come from the students through the SIR, student advising, e-mail from students and parents, and peers (senior faculty, chairs, deans). Feedback is given “if the rating is high (3.75 and above); sometimes no feedback is given; when the results of the SIR are low; if the faculty is new to the college; and those who have been teaching for a long time and getting low ratings.” For values identification, the strands were clustered into three themes: Needs, action taken, and value of the instrument. According to the participants, the needs included “Results (that) are (not) too cumbersome for deans to read; A print out of the results should be given; the time taken to access the results turns off some teachers from accessing them; students having difficulty answering the SIR; students don’t see how teaching effectiveness is measured and; create a particular form for laboratory classes in SHRIM classes.” The action taken theme included “removing items that are valid and another computation is done and; other evaluation
criteria is done.” The instrument value theme showed that for the instrument to be valuable, “there should be indicators for each score; there should be factors of teaching effectiveness with clear labels; identify what the instrument measures; there needs to be a lump score on learnercenteredness and; there are other success indicators that are not reflected in the SIR.” For Functional reporting, two clusters emerged: decisions and functions. The decisions made by the teacher evaluation include promotion, loading with course, retaining PTF, deloading a faculty, permanency, and training enhancement. The functions of the teacher evaluation are “used for improvement the faculty; the VPA comes up with a list of faculty that will be given teaching load based on SIR reports and; the PEF constricts what needs to be evaluated more.” The follow-up and impact included both qualitative and quantitative. The qualitative aspect of the instruments included suggestions to “give headings/labels for the different parts; come up with dimensions and subdimensions; devise a way to reach the faculty (yahoo, emails etc.); the teachers and students should see what aspects to improve on; and there should be narrative explanations for the figures.” The quantitative aspect of the report included “faculty doesn’t understand the spreading index; conduct a seminar explaining the statistics; come up with a general global score; each area should be represented with a number; and a verbal list of strengths and weaknesses of the faculty.” Two clusters were identified for information scope and selection: perception and action. In the perception the faculty “looks at evaluation as something negative because the school uses the results.” For the suggested actions “come up with CLPA kit explaining the PEF and SIR; check on the credibility on the answers of students; and SIR needs to be simplified for the SDEAS.” Table 2
Rating for Utility Utility Mean Rating Stakeholder Identification 0.59 Evaluation Credibility 0.65 Information Scope and selection 0.78 Values Identification 0.66 Report Clarity 0.52 Report Timeliness and dissemination 0.29 Evaluation Impact 0.35 Note. Excellent (.9-1), Very Good (.7-.8), Good (.5-.6), Fair (.3-.4), Poor (0-.2) Interpretation Good Good Very Good Good Good Poor Fair
The ratings for utility using the metaevaluation checklist showed that in most of the item areas, the performance of the teacher evaluation processes are good. In particular, the area on information scope and selection is very good. However, report timeliness is poor and evaluation impact is fair and should thus be improved. Propriety The standards on propriety include service orientation, formal evaluation guidelines, conflict of interest, confidentiality, and helpfulness. Table 3 shows the clusters and themes formed from the ginabayang talakayan. Table 3 Themes and Clusters for the Propriety Standard
Standard Cluster Theme
30 • Not satisfied because the results come very late • Prepare hard copies of the results • Most faculty members could not access the results • PEF qualitative results are not seen online • Friendly • Sometimes late • New staff have difficulty administering the form because they could not handle deaf students • They are not able to answer the questions of students • There should be orientation to students • They get tired of answering many SIR within the day • No guidelines for modular classes and team teaching • No SIR for OJT classes-teacher cannot be promoted • Make clear who will call the teacher when the SIR is finish • The observer can’t make other visits • The PEF guidelines does not give instructions what the observer will do • Not practical for the observer to go through the whole process of preobservation, observation and post observation. • CLPA do not give in to requests • Not too many queries about the SIR • Because the LC is adopted by the college, more value is given to the SIR • SIR is not fully explained to the teacher • • The information is very confidential • The comments are read rater than the numbers • It’s the comments that the teachers look at • The numerical results need a more clear explanation • Comments need to be broken down into specific factors
Responding Formal Evaluation Guidelines Students
Frequency of Meetings
Conflict of interest
For service orientation, the clusters formed were on the results, examiner, and responding. According to the participants, they were “not satisfied because the results come very late.” There is a need to “prepare hard copies of the results” because “most faculty members
could not access the results” and the “PEF qualitative results are not seen online.” The participants appraisal of the examiners include being “friendly, sometimes late, new staff have difficulty administering the form because they could not handle deaf students, and they are not able to answer the questions of students.” In responding to the SIR it was mentioned that “there should be orientation to students.” For the formal evaluation guidelines the three areas specified were the students, frequency of meetings, and observation visits. For the students, it was mentioned that “they get tired of answering many SIR (forms) within the day.” In terms of the frequency of meetings, there are “no guidelines for modular classes and team teaching; and “no SIR for OJT classes and the teacher cannot be promoted.” In the observation visits, it is needed to “make clear who will call the teacher when the SIR is finish; the observer can’t make other visits; the PEF guidelines do not give instructions what the observer will do; it is not practical for the observer to go through the whole process of preobservation, observation and post observation.” No clusters were formed for the conflict of interest. The themes extracted were “CLPA do not give in to requests; not too many queries about the SIR; because the LC is adopted by the college, more value is given to the SIR; and SIR is not fully explained to the teacher.” For confidentiality, majority of the participants agree that ‘the information kept by the center is very confidential.” For the area on helpfulness the themes identified were “the comments are read rather than the numbers; it’s the comments that the teachers look at; the numerical results need a more clear explanation; and comments need to be broken down into specific factors.” Table 4 Rating for Propriety
Propriety Mean Rating Service Orientation 0.53 Formal Agreement 0.70 Rights of Human subjects 0.62 Human Interaction 0.57 Complete and Fair Assessment 0.38 Disclosure of Findings 0.50 Conflict of Interest 0.48 Physical Responsibility 0.40 Note. Excellent (.9-1), Very Good (.7-.8), Good (.5-.6), Fair (.3-.4), Poor (.1-.2)
Interpretation Good Very Good Good Good Fair Good Fair Fair
Most of the ratings for propriety using the metaevaluation checklist were pegged at good. A very good rating was obtained for formal agreement. A fair rating is obtained in the areas of complete and fair assessment, conflict of interest, and physical responsibility. Feasibility The standards on feasibility include practical procedures, political viability, fiscal viability, and legal viability. Table 5 shows the clusters and themes for the standards. Table 5 Themes and Clusters for the Feasibility Standard
Standard Practical procedures Cluster Understandability of the Instructions Themes • Generally, the students do not understand the instructions. • Korean students don’t understand • May ilang students (freshmen or even higher years) na hindi naiintindihan ang instructions sa part 2 and 3 - Paano gagawin? • Students normally ask, "Bakit 3 columns, bakit hindi pwedeng shade ang column 2 kung walang 1?" • There are a lot of questions about the Comments and Suggestions part. • Kailangan ba talagang sagutan or optional? • Yung iba ayaw lagyan dahil baka mabasa daw ng professor at pagalitan sila. • Halatang hindi naiintindihan ang instructions kasi hindi kinukumpleto ang sentence. • Hindi malinaw sa kanila ang statement. • The instrument is complicated, not only the instructions.
Difficulty with the Comments and Suggestions Part
Difficulty with the Instrument as a Whole
33 • Oras- yung 30 minutes kulang sa pagexplain at pagadminister, magdagdag ng another 10 minutes pag first year. Kung papayag ang faculty, if we prolong the time for administration • Pressured • The new instrument needs 30 minutes to be administered so other classes cannot be accommodated because the time will not be enough anymore. • (In cases where) the last 30 minutes was used (for the evaluation)…and the next class (had theirs in the)…first 30 minutes, problem(s) occurs in managing the time. • Some faculty members do not want to be evaluated in the first 30 minutes • Some faculty members dictate that the last 30 minutes will be used for evaluation. • Teachers complain about the duration of the SIR administration but the guidelines indicated first 30 minutes. • Rescheduling is always granted because some of the faculty members (or their students) do not show up. • Rescheduling due to conflict with other activitiesThe Young Hoteliers’ Exposition and some tours and retreats have the same schedule as the SIR. • Kailangan bang ievaluate every term? • Anticipating name changes (e.g. female faculty members getting married) – We need to request for the updated list of the faculty names early in the term, a list including the faculty members who changed their surnames with ACTC. • Faculty member comment – Matagal nang mali yang evaluation form. • (To make sure the teacher is aware of his/her evaluation schedule) Signing in the receiving copy of memo is helpful. • In case there is a transfer of classroom, the teacher should put a note in front of the door. • Need to think of (ways of) maximizing the time of the teacher while outside of the classroom. • The door should be locked to prevent the teacher from coming in before the students are done evaluating. • Inuunahan na ang faculty for the evaluation (Go to the room ahead of the faculty member to preempt anything he/she may have planned for the day) • Tinatandaan yung mga notorious faculty para alam iapproach next time. • Some teachers announce the evaluation and it affects the attendance of students – students do not show up. • The policies are not read by the faculty in terms of the guidelines. They always come and call CLPA
Time Issues in Administration
Time Issues of Teachers
Frequency of Evaluation Identifying and Anticipating Teacher-related Issues
34 • The (human) resources (e.g. staff) are maximized during SIR. LASU staffers are also used. Ipabasa ang transcript with the LASU staff. • Well-utilized • Some staffers have difficulties going home because of the late hours. • Meals provided - okay, except they’re redundant sometimes. They serve as good compensation for the late work hours. • The scanner is worth it because it encodes the responses fast and it helps meet the deadlines. • The SIR process is well-supported by the College • Sometimes it’s hard to administer in AKIC. • The programmer is new (as of September 2006) hindi pa niya feel yung data processing kaya nawawala siya. Hindi pa siya attuned sa work flow. • The staffs are oriented with the use of the program. The program is shared. Random checking of the comments and the editing can be directly done • The faculty members do not have their own PCs so they do not get the memo on time. • Kaunting respondents with online evaluation. We need to maximize online. If all classes come together for on-line the computers hang. • There is a common script • The classroom is generally conducive in answering • During C-break some classes are affected with the noise.
Standardizing the Evaluation Setting
For practical procedures, the clusters formed were on the understandability of the instructions, difficulty with the comments and suggestions part, difficulty with the instrument as a whole. These clusters show that while there are standardized procedures for every run of the SIR, there is a difficulty following them because “generally, the students do not understand the instructions.” The comments and suggestions (part four) part of the instrument appears to be a particularly problematic part—here too, the instructions do not seem to be clear to the students: “halatang hindi naiintindihan ang instructions kasi hindi kinukumpleto ang sentence.” (It is obvious they do not understand the instructions because they do not complete the sentence.). Other than this, some students are not sure whether “talagang sagutan or optional” (they are required to answer or it is optional). Others don’t feel safe answering this part because they are
afraid their professors will get back at them for whatever they write. Ultimately, observed the participants, “the instrument (itself) is complicated, not only the instructions.”
For political viability, eight issue clusters were formed. These were time issues in administration, time issues of teachers, rescheduling issues, frequency of evaluation, anticipating name changes, identifying and anticipating teacher-related issues, anticipating student needs, and concerns about utility. The time issues in administration mentioned administration problems regarding the first-thirty-minutes policy observed by the Center. The time allotment is generally too short for the whole administration procedure from giving instructions to the actual answering of the instrument (“yung thirty minutes kulang sa pagexplain at pagadminister”). Teachers also have issues regarding the same policy. Some refuse to be rated in the first thirty minutes, preferring to be rated in the last thirty. Another issue regarding the policy is the refusal of some teachers to be evaluated in the first thirty minutes. There are faculty members who “dictate that the last 30 minutes will be used for evaluation”. There are others who “complain about the duration of the SIR administration”, even if “the guidelines (distributed in the eighth week of the term, the week before the evaluation) indicated first 30 minutes.” Though discouraged by the Center, rescheduling still does happen during the evaluation period. Usually it is because “some of the faculty members (or their students) do not show up”. Similarly, there are times when some students do come, but their numbers do not meet the fifty percent quota required for each section’s evaluation. Another common reason for rescheduling are schedule conflicts with other activities: “(the) Young Hoteliers’ Exposition and some tours and retreats have the same schedule as the SIR”.
The next issue “cluster” formed is regarding the frequency of evaluation; teachers question whether there is a need to evaluate every term. Although there is only one strand, it is important enough to be segregated as it gives voice to one of the interest groups’ major concerns. The next cluster forms the biggest group, the cluster that talks about identifying and anticipating the needs of the one of the major interest groups/stakeholders of the whole evaluation system: the teachers themselves. Their needs range from the minor (“We need to request for the updated list of the faculty names early in the term, a list including the faculty members who changed their surnames with ACTC.”) to the major (“Matagal nang mali yang evaluation form”), and a lot in between. Among this last include the need to make sure that teachers are aware of their evaluation schedules and the Center’s policies, to come up with ways to deal with the teachers during the actual administration, and to equip them with the know-how to access their online results. Just as teachers, the evaluatees, have needs, so do their evaluators, their students. By not taking care of the students’ needs and/or preferences, the Center risks generates inaccurate results. Thus, the Center should “compile the needs of students and present it (the SIR) to (the) students in an attractive form. (CLPA should) drum up the interest of students in the evaluation.” Last under this area are issues on utilization. There appears to be a need to make the utilization clearer to the stakeholders, especially the teachers. For the area on cost effectiveness, the clusters formed were human resources, material resources, and technology. The human resources of the Center are “well-utilized”. The staff feels that despite special cases when they find it difficult to go home because of the late working hours, they feel well compensated, in part because of the meals served. As to material resources, “the SIR process is well-supported by the College” and so, everything is generally provided.
There are special cases where the evaluation setting makes administration difficult. For instance, “sometimes it’s hard to administer in AKIC”, especially in the food labs. Finally, under the theme of technology, the Center proved well-equipped enough to handle the pen-and-paper instrument’s processing. However, it may be some time before the process become paperless; if the memos would be delivered online, instead of personally, as is currently done, some of the faculty would “not get the memo on time” because “the faculty members do not have their own PCs”. Then, an attempt was made to administer the instrument online. A problem that was noted in this regard was “kaunting respondents with online evaluation” (very few respondents are gathered with the online evaluation). Other than that, “if all classes come together for on-line the computers hang.” For legal viability, only one theme was developed, standardizing the evaluation setting. “There is a common script” to keep the instructions standardized and, although “During C-break some classes are affected with the noise (of C-break activities)”, the “classroom is generally conducive in answering”. Table 6 Rating for Feasibility Feasibility Rating Political Viability 0.23 Practical Procedure 0.68 Cost effectiveness 0.50 Note. Excellent (.9-1), Very Good (.7-.8), Good (.5-.6), Fair (.3-.4), Poor (.1-.2) Interpretation Poor Good Good
For the three areas of feasibility, a good raring was obtained for practical procedure and cost effectiveness and poor for political viability. Accuracy
The standards of accuracy were rated based on the reliability report of the instrument since SY 2003-2004 to 2005-2006. The trend of the mean performance of the means of the faculty from 2003-2006 was also obtained. Table 7 Internal Consistency of the items for the SIR from 2003 to 2006 2003-2004 0.873 0.888 0.892 0.832 School Year 2004-2005 0.875 0.892 0.885 0.866 2005-2006 0.881 0.894
1st Term 2nd Term 3rd Term Summer
The reliability of the SIR form is consistently high since 2003 to 2006. The Cronbach alphas obtained are all in the same high level across the three terms and across three school years. This indicates that the internal consistency of the SIR measure is stable and accurate across time. Figure 1 shows a line graph of the means in the SIR each term across three school years. Figure 1 Data Trend from the Last Three Years
4.40 4.30 4.20 Mean 4.10 4.00 3.90 3.80 3.70 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Term Part I Part 2 Part 3
The trend in the means show that the SIR results increase at a high level during summer terms (4th). The high level of increase can be observed from the spikes in the 4th term in the line graph for the three part of the SIR instrument. The means during the first, second, and third term are stable and it rapidly increase for the summer term. Table 8 Rating for Accuracy Accuracy Rating Program documentation 0.03 Content Analysis 0.00 Described Purposes and Procedures 0.25 Defensible Information Sources 0.50 Valid Information 0.23 Reliable information 0.35 Systematic information 0.85 Analysis of Quantitative information 0.25 Analysis of Qualitative information 0.00 Justified conclusions 0.00 Impartial reporting 0.38 Metaevaluation 0.08 Note. Excellent (.9-1), Very Good (.7-.8), Good (.5-.6), Fair (.3-.4), Poor (.1-.2) Interpretation Poor Poor Poor Good Poor Fair Very Good Poor Poor Poor Fair Poor
The ratings for accuracy using the metaevaluation checklist were generally poor in most areas. Only systematic information was rated as very good, only defensible information sources was rated as good, and both reliable and impartial reporting were fair. Table 9 Summary Ratings for the Standards Standard Feasibility Accuracy Propriety Utility Rating 4.5 8.75 15.17 13.5 Percentage 25% 0% 25% 25% Interpretation Fair Poor Fair Fair
In the four standards as a whole, feasibility (25%), propriety (25%), and utility (25%) are met fairly and accuracy (0%) is poor for the entire teacher performance evaluation system of the center. The poor accuracy is due to zero ratings on content analysis, qualitative information, and justified information. The three standards rated as fair did not even meet half of the standards in the metaevaluation checklist. Figure 2 Outcome of the Standards
Utility Propriety Accuracy Feasibility 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Discussion The overall findings in the metaevaluation of the teacher evaluation system at the Center for Learning and Performance Assessment show that it falls below the standards of the Joint Committee on Evaluation. The ratings of utility, propriety, and feasibility were fair and the standard on accuracy is poor.
In the standard of utility the report timeliness and dissemination is poor. This is due to the lack of timely exchanges with the full range of right-to-know audiences. In order to improve the
timely exchanges, the Center needs to conduct consistent communications with different offices that they are serving. For propriety, the rating is only fair because low ratings were obtained for complete and fair assessment, conflict of interest, and fiscal responsibility. To improve complete and fair assessment, there is a need to assess and report the strengths and weaknesses of the procedure, use the strengths to overcome weaknesses, estimate the effects of the evaluation’s limitations on the overall judgment of the system. In line with conflict of interest, there is a need to make the release of evaluation procedures, data and reports for public review. For physical responsibility, there is a need to improve adequate personnel records concerning job allocations and time spent on the job, and employ comparisons for evaluation materials. In standards of accuracy, majority of the ratings were poor, including program documentation, content analysis, described purposes and procedures, valid information, analysis of qualitative and quantitative information, justified conclusion and metaevalaution. For program documentation the only criteria met was the technical report that documents the programs’ operations; all other nine criteria were not met. For content analysis, all criteria were not met. In described purposes and procedures, only the record of the client’s purpose of evaluation and implementation of actual evaluation procedures were met. All other eight criteria were not met. For valid information, there is a need to focus evaluation on key ideas, employ multiple measures to address each idea, provide detailed description of the constructs assessed, report the type of information each employed procedures acquires, report and justify inferences, report the comprehensiveness of the information provided by the procedures as set in relation to the information needed, and establish meaningful categories of information by identifying regular and recurrent themes using qualitative analysis. In the analysis of qualitative and quantitative
information, there is a need to conduct exploratory analysis to assure data correctness, choose procedures appropriate to the system of evaluating teachers, specify assumptions being met by the evaluation, report limitations of each analytic procedures, examine outliers and verify correctness, analyze statistical interactions, and using displays to clarify the presentation and interpretation of statistical results. In the areas of justified conclusions and metaevaluation, all criteria were not met. In the standards of feasibility, political viability needs to be improved. For political viability, the evaluation needs to consider ways to counteract attempts to bias or misapply the findings, foster cooperation, involve stakeholders throughout the evaluation, issue interim reports, report divergent views, and affirm a public contract. Given the present condition of the SIR and PEF in evaluating faculty performance based on the qualitative data, there are still gaps that need to be addressed in line with the evaluation system. The stakeholders are more or less not yet aware of the detailed standards on conducting evaluations among their faculty and what is verbalized in the qualitative data is only based on their personal experience and the practices required of the evaluation system. By contrast, the standards on evaluation would specify more details that need to be met in the evaluation. Some areas in the evaluation are interpreted by the stakeholders as acceptable based on the themes of the qualitative data but more criteria need to be met in a larger range of evaluating teachers. It is recommended for the Center for Learning and Performance Assessment to consider the specific areas found wanting under utility, propriety, feasibility, and especially accuracy to attain quality standards in their conduct of teacher evaluation.
References Aultman, L.P. (2006). An unexpected benefit of formal student evaluations. College Teaching, 54(3), 251, Retrieved from ProQuest Educaton Journals.
Benson, M. and Otten, A. (2005, September). Teachers’ Rights Review. The Professional,5. Retrieved September 10, 2006, from http://www.minnetonkateachers.org/docs/news0506/The%20Professional%202005-09.htm Danielson, C. and McGreal, T.L. (2000). Teacher evaluation to enhance professional practice [Electronic version]. Princeton, New Jersey:Educational Testing Service. Differentiated supervision. Buck County Schools Intermediate Unit, Special Education News. Retrieved from http://www.bucksiu.org/specialed/news/?id=55 Frederick Winslow Taylor: Scientific Management. (n.d.). Retrieved September 6, 2006, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Winslow_Taylor#The_development_of_scientific_manag ement Galves, R.E. (1986). Ang ginabayang talakayan: Katutubong pamamaraan ng sama-samang pananaliksik. Unpublished manuscript, Psychology Department, University of the Philippines Gonzales, V. (2001). Teacher evaluations. Retrieved September 10, 2006, from http://students.ed.uiuc.edu/vgonzale/eport/eol2.html= Greenberg, M.S. (2001). Student evaluations of teacher effectiveness in the workplace: Mask designers versus design engineers. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 2001) (UMI No. 3065790) Hummel, B. (2006). Metaevaluation: An online resource. Retrieved September 6, 2006, from http://www.bhummel.com/Metaevaluation/index.html
Isaacs, J.S. (2003). A study of teacher evaluation methods found in select Virginia secondary public schools using the 4x4 model of block scheduling. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Landrum, R.E. and Dillinger, R. J. (2004). The relationship between student performance and instructor evaluation revisited. The Journal of Classroom Interaction, 39(2), 5. Retrieved from ProQuest Academic Research Library. Mallory, A.L. (2006, August 10). Teacher evaluation law criticized [Electronic version]. Knight Ridder Business Tribune News, p.1 Retrieved September 6, 2006, from ProQuest database. McKeachie, W. J. (1996). The Professional Evaluation of Teaching: Student ratings of teaching. American Council of Learned Societies, Occasional Paper No. 33. Retrieved from http://www.acls.org/op33.htm#TOP Moore, T. (2006). Teacher evaluations and grades: Additional evidence. Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, 9(2), 58. Retrieved from ABI/INFORM Global. Steiner, S., Holley, L.C., Gerdes, K., Campbell, H. E. (2006). Evaluating teaching: Listening to students while acknowledging bias. Journal of Social Work Education, 42(2), 355. Retrieved from ProQuest Psychology Journals. Stufflebeam, D.L. (2000). The methodology of metaevaluation as reflected in by the Western Michigan University Evaluation Center. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 14(1), 95. Retrieved from ProQuest Education Journals. Wright, R.E. (2006). Student evaluations of faculty: Concerns raised in the literature, and possible solutions. College Student Journal, 40(2), 417. Retrieved from ProQuest Psychology Journals.
Appendix A Gabay based on the Joint Committee Standards for Evaluation Propriety 1. Does PASU provide Quality service in delivering SIR? (service orientation) 2. Are the guidelines for the SIR clear? (formal evaluation guidelines) 3. Does PASU answer appropriately to the queries on SIR and PEF? (conflict of interest) 4. Is confidentiality of information maintained? (access to personnel evaluation) 5. Does the SIR and PEF help teacher improve their teaching performance? (interaction with evaluatees) 6. What items are applicable in your area? Utility 1. Do you provide feedback on the rating of your faculty? (constructive orientation) 2. Do the SIR and PEF fit the needs of your school? (defined uses) 3. Is the SIR conducted professionally? (evaluator credibility). Does the PEF facilitate the feedback process? 4. Is the SIR and PEF helpful in decision making and providing loads for the teachers? (functional reporting) 5. Are the reports generated clear for faculty and chairpersons? (follow-up and impact) Feasibility 1. Are the instructions for the SIR clear for students? (Practical procedures) 2. What part of the policies and procedures for the SIR needs to be appealed and rectified? (political viability) 3. Are the resources used effectively? (fiscal viability) 4. Does the process adhere to testing standards? (legal viability) Accuracy 1. Is the staff generally qualified to administer the evaluation? (defined roles) 2. Are the conditions of the students and faculty considered during administration of the SIR/PEF? (work environment) 3. Is the processing of the SIR/PEF well documented? (documentation and procedures) 4. Is the staff well-trained in the scoring, coding and data entry? (systematic data control) 5. Are potential biases safeguarded? (bias control) 6. Do we periodically assess evaluation? (Monitoring and control)
Appendix B Metaevaluation checklist
The Metaevaluation Checklist: For Evaluating Evaluations against The Program Evaluation Standards - Accuracy To meet the requirements for ACCURACY, evaluations should: A1 Program Documentation Collect descriptions of the intended program from various written sources Collect descriptions of the intended program from the client and various stakeholders Describe how the program was intended to function Maintain records from various sources of how the program operated As feasible, engage independent observers to describe the program's actual operations Describe how the program actually functioned Analyze discrepancies between the various descriptions of how the program was intended to function Analyze discrepancies between how the program was intended to operate and how it actually operated Ask the client and various stakeholders to assess the accuracy of recorded descriptions of both the intended and the actual program Produce a technical report that documents the program's operations TOTAL Total ÷ 10 0.9 – 1.0 Excellent 0.3 – 0.4 Fair A2 Content Analysis Use multiple sources of information to describe the program's context Describe the context's technical, social, political, organizational, and economic features Maintain a log of unusual circumstances Record instances in which individuals or groups intentionally or otherwise 0.7 – 0.8 Very Good 0.1 – 0.2 Poor 0.5 – 0.6 Good
interfered with the program Record instances in which individuals or groups intentionally or otherwise gave special assistance to the program Analyze how the program's context is similar to or different from contexts where the program might be adopted Report those contextual influences that appeared to significantly influence the program and that might be of interest to potential adopters Estimate effects of context on program outcomes Identify and describe any critical competitors to this program that functioned at the same time and in the program's environment Describe how people in the program's general area perceived TOTAL Total ÷ 10 0.9 – 1.0 Excellent 0.3 – 0.4 Fair 0.7 – 0.8 Very Good 0.1 – 0.2 Poor 0.5 – 0.6 Good
A3 Described Purposes and Procedures At the evaluation's outset, record the client's purposes for the evaluation Monitor and describe stakeholders' intended uses of evaluation findings Monitor and describe how the evaluation's purposes stay the same or change over time Identify and assess points of agreement and disagreement among stakeholders regarding the evaluation's purposes As appropriate, update evaluation procedures to accommodate changes in the evaluation's purposes Record the actual evaluation procedures, as implemented When interpreting findings, take into account the different stakeholders' intended uses of the evaluation When interpreting findings, take into account the extent to which the intended procedures were effectively executed Describe the evaluation's purposes and procedures in the summary and fulllength evaluation reports As feasible, engage independent evaluators to monitor and evaluate the evaluation's purposes and procedures TOTAL
Total ÷ 10 0.9 – 1.0 Excellent 0.3 – 0.4 Fair A4 Defensible Information Sources Obtain information from a variety of sources Use pertinent, previously collected information once validated As appropriate, employ a variety of data collection methods Document and report information sources Document, justify, and report the criteria and methods used to select information sources For each source, define the population For each population, as appropriate, define any employed sample Document, justify, and report the means used to obtain information from each source Include data collection instruments in a technical appendix to the evaluation report Document and report any biasing features in the obtained information TOTAL Total ÷ 10 0.9 – 1.0 Excellent 0.3 – 0.4 Fair A5 Valid Information Focus the evaluation on key questions As appropriate, employ multiple measures to address each question Provide a detailed description of the constructs and behaviors about which information will be acquired Assess and report what type of information each employed procedure acquires Train and calibrate the data collectors Document and report the data collection conditions and process 0.7 – 0.8 Very Good 0.1 – 0.2 Poor 0.5 – 0.6 Good 0.7 – 0.8 Very Good 0.1 – 0.2 Poor 0.5 – 0.6 Good
Document how information from each procedure was scored, analyzed, and interpreted Report and justify inferences singly and in combination Assess and report the comprehensiveness of the information provided by the procedures as a set in relation to the information needed to answer the set of evaluation questions Establish meaningful categories of information by identifying regular and recurrent themes in information collected using qualitative assessment procedures TOTAL Total ÷ 10 0.9 – 1.0 Excellent 0.3 – 0.4 Fair A6 Reliable Information Identify and justify the type(s) and extent of reliability claimed For each employed data collection device, specify the unit of analysis As feasible, choose measuring devices that in the past have shown acceptable levels of reliability for their intended uses In reporting reliability of an instrument, assess and report the factors that influenced the reliability, including the characteristics of the examinees, the data collection conditions, and the evaluator's biases Check and report the consistency of scoring, categorization, and coding Train and calibrate scorers and analysts to produce consistent results Pilot test new instruments in order to identify and control sources of error As appropriate, engage and check the consistency between multiple observers Acknowledge reliability problems in the final report Estimate and report the effects of unreliability in the data on the overall judgment of the program TOTAL Total ÷ 10 0.7 – 0.8 Very Good 0.1 – 0.2 Poor 0.5 – 0.6 Good
0.9 – 1.0 Excellent 0.3 – 0.4 Fair
0.7 – 0.8 Very Good 0.1 – 0.2 Poor
0.5 – 0.6 Good
A7 Systematic Information Establish protocols for quality control of the evaluation information Train the evaluation staff to adhere to the data protocols Systematically check the accuracy of scoring and coding When feasible, use multiple evaluators and check the consistency of their work Verify data entry Proofread and verify data tables generated from computer output or other means Systematize and control storage of the evaluation information Define who will have access to the evaluation information Strictly control access to the evaluation information according to established protocols Have data providers verify the data they submitted TOTAL Total ÷ 10 0.9 – 1.0 Excellent 0.3 – 0.4 Fair 0.7 – 0.8 Very Good 0.1 – 0.2 Poor 0.5 – 0.6 Good
A8 Analysis of Quantitative Information Begin by conducting preliminary exploratory analyses to assure the data's correctness and to gain a greater understanding of the data Choose procedures appropriate for the evaluation questions and nature of the data For each procedure specify how its key assumptions are being met Report limitations of each analytic procedure, including failure to meet assumptions Employ multiple analytic procedures to check on consistency and replicability of findings Examine variability as well as central tendencies Identify and examine outliers and verify their correctness Identify and analyze statistical interactions
Assess statistical significance and practical significance Use visual displays to clarify the presentation and interpretation of statistical results TOTAL Total ÷ 10 0.9 – 1.0 Excellent 0.3 – 0.4 Fair A9 Analysis of Qualitative Information Focus on key questions Define the boundaries of information to be used Obtain information keyed to the important evaluation questions Verify the accuracy of findings by obtaining confirmatory evidence from multiple sources, including stakeholders Choose analytic procedures and methods of summarization that are appropriate to the evaluation questions and employed qualitative information Derive a set of categories that is sufficient to document, illuminate, and respond to the evaluation questions Test the derived categories for reliability and validity Classify the obtained information into the validated analysis categories Derive conclusions and recommendations and demonstrate their meaningfulness Report limitations of the referenced information, analyses, and inferences TOTAL Total ÷ 10 0.9 – 1.0 Excellent 0.3 – 0.4 Fair A10 Justified Conclusions Focus conclusions directly on the evaluation questions Accurately reflect the evaluation procedures and findings Limit conclusions to the applicable time periods, contexts, purposes, and activities 0.7 – 0.8 Very Good 0.1 – 0.2 Poor 0.5 – 0.6 Good 0.7 – 0.8 Very Good 0.1 – 0.2 Poor 0.5 – 0.6 Good
Cite the information that supports each conclusion Identify and report the program's side effects Report plausible alternative explanations of the findings Explain why rival explanations were rejected Warn against making common misinterpretations Obtain and address the results of a prerelease review of the draft evaluation report Report the evaluation's limitations TOTAL Total ÷ 10 0.9 – 1.0 Excellent 0.3 – 0.4 Fair A11 Impartial Reporting Engage the client to determine steps to ensure fair, impartial reports Establish appropriate editorial authority Determine right-to-know audiences Establish and follow appropriate plans for releasing findings to all right-to-know audiences Safeguard reports from deliberate or inadvertent distortions Report perspectives of all stakeholder groups Report alternative plausible conclusions Obtain outside audits of reports Describe steps taken to control bias Participate in public presentations of the findings to help guard against and correct distortions by other interested parties TOTAL Total ÷ 10 0.9 – 1.0 Excellent 0.3 – 0.4 Fair A12 Metaevaluation 0.7 – 0.8 Very Good 0.1 – 0.2 Poor 0.5 – 0.6 Good 0.7 – 0.8 Very Good 0.1 – 0.2 Poor 0.5 – 0.6 Good
Designate or define the standards to be used in judging the evaluation Assign someone responsibility for documenting and assessing the evaluation process and products Employ both formative and summative metaevaluation Budget appropriately and sufficiently for conducting the metaevaluation Record the full range of information needed to judge the evaluation against the stipulated standards As feasible, contract for an independent metaevaluation Determine and record which audiences will receive the metaevaluation report Evaluate the instrumentation, data collection, data handling, coding, and analysis against the relevant standards Evaluate the evaluation's involvement of and communication of findings to stakeholders against the relevant standards Maintain a record of all metaevaluation steps, information, and analyses TOTAL Total ÷ 10 0.9 – 1.0 Excellent 0.3 – 0.4 Fair 0.7 – 0.8 Very Good 0.1 – 0.2 Poor 0.5 – 0.6 Good
SCORING THE EVALUATION FOR ACCURACY: Add the following: Number of Excellent ratings (0-12) ____ x4= ____ Number of Very Good ratings (0- ____ x 3 = ____ 12) Number of Good ratings (0-12) ____ x 2 = ____ Number of Fair ratings (0-12) ____ x 1 = ____ Total Score = ____(Interpret below) Strength of the Evaluation's provisions for Accuracy: 45 (93%) - 48 33 (68%) - 44 24 (50%) - 32 12 (25%) - 13 Excellent Very Good Good Fair
0 (0%) - 11 Poor
Evaluation Standards - Feasibility
To meet the requirements for FEASIBILITY, evaluations should: F1 Practical Procedures Tailor methods and instruments to information requirements Minimize disruption Minimize the data burden Appoint competent staff Train staff Choose procedures that the staff are qualified to carry out Choose procedures in light of known constraints Make a realistic schedule Engage locals to help conduct the evaluation As appropriate, make evaluation procedures a part of routine events TOTAL Total ÷ 10 0.9 – 1.0 Excellent 0.3 – 0.4 Fair F2 Political Viability Anticipate different positions of different interest groups Avert or counteract attempts to bias or misapply the findings Foster cooperation Involve stakeholders throughout the evaluation Agree on editorial and dissemination authority Issue interim reports Report divergent views Report to right-to-know audiences Employ a firm public contract Terminate any corrupted evaluation TOTAL 0.7 – 0.8 Very Good 0.1 – 0.2 Poor 0.5 – 0.6 Good
Total ÷ 10 0.9 – 1.0 Excellent 0.3 – 0.4 Fair F3 Cost Effectiveness Be efficient Make use of in-kind services Produce information worth the investment Inform decisions Foster program improvement Provide accountability information Generate new insights Help spread effective practices Minimize disruptions Minimize time demands on program personnel TOTAL Total ÷ 10 0.9 – 1.0 Excellent 0.3 – 0.4 Fair 0.7 – 0.8 Very Good 0.1 – 0.2 Poor 0.5 – 0.6 Good 0.7 – 0.8 Very Good 0.1 – 0.2 Poor 0.5 – 0.6 Good
SCORING THE EVALUATION FOR FEASIBILITY Add the following: Number of Excellent ratings (0-3) ____ x 4 = ____
Number of Very Good ratings (0-3) ____ x 3 = ____ Number of Good ratings (0-3) ____ x 2 = ____ Number of Fair ratings (0-3) ____ x 1 = ____ Total Score = ____ (Interpret below) Strength of the Evaluation's provisions for Feasibility: 11 (93%) - 12 8 (68%) - 10 6 (50%) - 7 3 (25%) - 5 Excellent Very Good Good Fair Evaluation Standards - Propriety To meet the requirements for PROPRIETY, evaluations should:
0 (0%) - 2 Poor
P1 Service Orientation Assess needs of the program's customers Assess program outcomes against targeted customers' assessed needs Help assure that the full range of rightful program beneficiaries are served Promote excellent service Make the evaluation's service orientation clear to stakeholders Identify program strengths to build on Identify program weaknesses to correct Give interim feedback for program improvement Expose harmful practices Inform all right-to-know audiences of the program's positive and negative outcomes TOTAL Total ÷ 10 0.9 – 1.0 Excellent 0.3 – 0.4 Fair P2 Formal Agreements Reach advance written agreements on: Evaluation purpose and questions Audiences Evaluation reports Editing Release of reports Evaluation procedures and schedule Confidentiality/anonymity of data Evaluation staff Metaevaluation Evaluation resources TOTAL 0.7 – 0.8 Very Good 0.1 – 0.2 Poor 0.5 – 0.6 Good
Total ÷ 10 0.9 – 1.0 Excellent 0.3 – 0.4 Fair P3 Rights of Human Subjects Make clear to stakeholders that the evaluation will respect and protect the rights of human subjects Clarify intended uses of the evaluation Keep stakeholders informed Follow due process Uphold civil rights Understand participant values Respect diversity Follow protocol Honor confidentiality/anonymity agreements Do no harm TOTAL Total ÷ 10 0.9 – 1.0 Excellent 0.3 – 0.4 Fair P4 Human Interactions Consistently relate to all stakeholders in a professional manner Maintain effective communication with stakeholders Follow the institution's protocol Minimize disruption Honor participants' privacy rights Honor time commitments Be alert to and address participants' concerns about the evaluation Be sensitive to participants' diversity of values and cultural differences 0.7 – 0.8 Very Good 0.1 – 0.2 Poor 0.5 – 0.6 Good 0.7 – 0.8 Very Good 0.1 – 0.2 Poor 0.5 – 0.6 Good
Be even-handed in addressing different stakeholders Do not ignore or help cover up any participant’s incompetence, unethical behavior, fraud, waste, or abuse TOTAL Total ÷ 10 0.9 – 1.0 Excellent 0.3 – 0.4 Fair P5 Complete and Fair Assessment Assess and report the program's strengths Assess and report the program's weaknesses Report on intended outcomes Report on unintended outcomes Give a thorough account of the evaluation's process As appropriate, show how the program's strengths could be used to overcome its weaknesses Have the draft report reviewed Appropriately address criticisms of the draft report Acknowledge the final report's limitations Estimate and report the effects of the evaluation's limitations on the overall judgment of the program TOTAL Total ÷ 10 0.9 – 1.0 Excellent 0.3 – 0.4 Fair P6 Disclosure of Findings Define the right-to-know audiences Establish a contractual basis for complying with right-to-know requirements Inform the audiences of the evaluation's purposes and projected reports 0.7 – 0.8 Very Good 0.1 – 0.2 Poor 0.5 – 0.6 Good 0.7 – 0.8 Very Good 0.1 – 0.2 Poor 0.5 – 0.6 Good
Report all findings in writing Report relevant points of view of both supporters and critics of the program Report balanced, informed conclusions and recommendations Show the basis for the conclusions and recommendations Disclose the evaluation's limitations In reporting, adhere strictly to a code of directness, openness, and completeness Assure that reports reach their audiences TOTAL Total ÷ 10 0.9 – 1.0 Excellent 0.3 – 0.4 Fair P7 Conflict of Interest Identify potential conflicts of interest early in the evaluation Provide written, contractual safeguards against identified conflicts of interest Engage multiple evaluators Maintain evaluation records for independent review As appropriate, engage independent parties to assess the evaluation for its susceptibility or corruption by conflicts of interest When appropriate, release evaluation procedures, data, and reports for public review Contract with the funding authority rather than the funded program Have internal evaluators report directly to the chief executive officer Report equitably to all right-to-know audiences Engage uniquely qualified persons to participate in the evaluation, even if they have a potential conflict of interest; but take steps to counteract the conflict TOTAL Total ÷ 10 0.9 – 1.0 Excellent 0.3 – 0.4 Fair P8 Fiscal Responsibility 0.7 – 0.8 Very Good 0.1 – 0.2 Poor 0.5 – 0.6 Good 0.7 – 0.8 Very Good 0.1 – 0.2 Poor 0.5 – 0.6 Good
Specify and budget for expense items in advance Keep the budget sufficiently flexible to permit appropriate reallocations to strengthen the evaluation Obtain appropriate approval for needed budgetary modifications Assign responsibility for managing the evaluation finances Maintain accurate records of sources of funding and expenditures Maintain adequate personnel records concerning job allocations and time spent on the job Employ comparison shopping for evaluation materials Employ comparison contract bidding Be frugal in expending evaluation resources As appropriate, include an expenditure summary as part of the public evaluation report TOTAL Total ÷ 10 0.9 – 1.0 Excellent 0.3 – 0.4 Fair 0.7 – 0.8 Very Good 0.1 – 0.2 Poor 0.5 – 0.6 Good
SCORING THE EVALUATION FOR PROPRIETY Add the following: Number of Excellent ratings (0-8) ____ x 4 = ____ Number of Very Good ratings (0-8) ____ x 3 = ____ Number of Good ratings (0-8) ____ x 2 = ____ Number of Fair ratings (0-8) ____ x 1 = ____ Total Score = ____(Interpret below) Strength of the Evaluation's provisions for Propriety: 30 (93%) - 32 22 (68%) - 29 16 (50%) - 21 8 (25%) - 15 Excellent Very Good Good Fair
0 (0%) - 7 Poor
The Metaevaluation Checklist: For Evaluating Evaluations against The Program Evaluation Standards - Utility To meet the requirements for UTILITY, evaluations should: U1 Stakeholder Identification
Clearly identify the evaluation client Engage leadership figures to identify other stakeholders Consult potential stakeholders to identify their information needs Use stakeholders to identify other stakeholders With the client, rank stakeholders for relative importance Arrange to involve stakeholders throughout the evaluation Keep the evaluation open to serve newly identified stakeholders Address stakeholders' evaluation needs Serve an appropriate range of individual stakeholders Serve an appropriate range of stakeholder organizations TOTAL Total ÷ 10 0.9 – 1.0 Excellent 0.3 – 0.4 Fair U2 Evaluator Credibility Engage competent evaluators Engage evaluators whom the stakeholders trust Engage evaluators who can address stakeholders’ concerns Engage evaluators who are appropriately responsive to issues of gender, socioeconomic status, race, and language and cultural differences Assure that the evaluation plan responds to key stakeholders' concerns Help stakeholders understand the evaluation plan Give stakeholders information on the evaluation plan's technical quality and practicality Attend appropriately to stakeholders' criticisms and suggestions Stay abreast of social and political forces Keep interested parties informed about the evaluation's progress TOTAL Total ÷ 10 0.7 – 0.8 Very Good 0.1 – 0.2 Poor 0.5 – 0.6 Good
0.9 – 1.0 Excellent 0.3 – 0.4 Fair
0.7 – 0.8 Very Good 0.1 – 0.2 Poor
0.5 – 0.6 Good
U3 Information Scope and Selection Understand the client's most important evaluation requirements Interview stakeholders to determine their different perspectives Assure that evaluator and client negotiate pertinent audiences, questions, and required information Assign priority to the most important stakeholders Assign priority to the most important questions Allow flexibility for adding questions during the evaluation Obtain sufficient information to address the stakeholders' most important evaluation questions Obtain sufficient information to assess the program's merit Obtain sufficient information to assess the program's worth Allocate the evaluation effort in accordance with the priorities assigned to the needed TOTAL Total ÷ 10 0.9 – 1.0 Excellent 0.3 – 0.4 Fair U4 Values Identification Consider alternative sources of values for interpreting evaluation findings Provide a clear, defensible basis for value judgments Determine the appropriate party(s) to make the valuational interpretations Identify pertinent societal needs Identify pertinent customer needs 0.7 – 0.8 Very Good 0.1 – 0.2 Poor 0.5 – 0.6 Good
Reference pertinent laws Reference, as appropriate, the relevant institutional mission Reference the program's goals Take into account the stakeholders' values As appropriate, present alternative interpretations based on conflicting but credible value bases TOTAL Total ÷ 10 0.9 – 1.0 Excellent 0.3 – 0.4 Fair U5 Report Clarity Clearly report the essential information Issue brief, simple, and direct reports Focus reports on contracted questions Describe the program and its context Describe the evaluation's purposes, procedures, and findings Support conclusions and recommendations Avoid reporting technical jargon Report in the language(s) of stakeholders Provide an executive summary Provide a technical report TOTAL Total ÷ 10 0.9 – 1.0 Excellent 0.3 – 0.4 Fair 0.7 – 0.8 Very Good 0.1 – 0.2 Poor 0.5 – 0.6 Good 0.7 – 0.8 Very Good 0.1 – 0.2 Poor 0.5 – 0.6 Good
U6 Report Timeliness and Dissemination Make timely interim reports to intended users Deliver the final report when it is needed
Have timely exchanges with the program's policy board Have timely exchanges with the program's staff Have timely exchanges with the program's customers Have timely exchanges with the public media Have timely exchanges with the full range of right-to-know audiences Employ effective media for reaching and informing the different audiences Keep the presentations appropriately brief Use examples to help audiences relate the findings to practical situations TOTAL Total ÷ 10 0.9 – 1.0 Excellent 0.3 – 0.4 Fair 0.7 – 0.8 Very Good 0.1 – 0.2 Poor 0.5 – 0.6 Good
U7 Evaluation Impact Maintain contact with audience Involve stakeholders throughout the evaluation Encourage and support stakeholders' use of the findings Show stakeholders how they might use the findings in their work Forecast and address potential uses of findings Provide interim reports Make sure that reports are open, frank, and concrete Supplement written reports with ongoing oral communication Conduct feedback workshops to go over and apply findings Make arrangements to provide follow-up assistance in interpreting and applying the findings TOTAL
Total ÷ 10 0.9 – 1.0 Excellent 0.3 – 0.4 Fair 0.7 – 0.8 Very Good 0.1 – 0.2 Poor 0.5 – 0.6 Good
SCORING THE EVALUATION FOR UTILITY Add the following: Number of Excellent ratings (0-7) ____ x 4 = ____ Number of Very Good ratings (0-7) ____ x 3 = ____ Number of Good ratings (0-7) ____ x 2 = ____ Number of Fair ratings (0-7) ____ x 1 = ____ Total Score = ____ (Interpret below) Strength of the Evaluation's provisions for Utility: 19 (68%) - 25 14 (50%) - 18 26 (93%) - 28 7 (25%) - 13 Very Good Good Excellent Fair
0 (0%) - 6 Poor