A Study of Perceptions Held Toward Teacher Evaluation Policies and Practices by Teachers and Their Supervisors in Adventist Schools in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Problem. Most school administrators and teachers deem teacher evaluation systems to be extremely stressful, of little or no value, and a barrier to high staff morale. The purpose of this study was to investigate the current teacher evaluation policies and practices and the perceptions held toward these policies and practices by selected elementary and secondary' teachers and their supervisors in the Adventist schools in Canada. Method. The population of this study consisted of selected elementary and secondary teachers and their supervisors in the Adventist schools in Canada. Two hundred and twenty-five teachers and 48 supervisors were surveyed. The survey instrument used in the study was adapted from the one used by Hauge (1981). The instrument was designed to reflect the teachers' evaluation policies and practices as perceived by elementary and secondary teachers and their supervisors. The survey instrument and the cover letters were sent to the supervisors and the teachers by first-class mail. The 47 hypotheses were tested at the .05 level o f significance using /-tests and chi-square to determine whether a significant difference existed between variables by comparing the group means and whether or not an association existed between variables by calculating discrepancies between observed and expected cell frequencies, respectively. Results. The findings of this research study generally confirm that: 1. The supervisors thought they had a better knowledge of their teachers’ teaching capabilities than their teachers thought they had. 2. Both supervisors and teachers perceived the evaluation process to be a useful one. 3. Both teachers and supervisors viewed the improvement of teaching performance as the main purpose of performance evaluation. 4. While supervisors and teachers agreed in their perception concerning the implementation of four basic components of the evaluation process, they disagreed on another four. The general picture, however, indicates that supervisors tended to view themselves as implementing the basic components of the evaluation process to a greater extent than teachers viewed them as doing. 5. Most supervisors reported having had formal training in performance evaluation before and after assuming the supervisory role. Supervisors reported that they felt competent and at ease in the evaluator's role, and teachers concurred. 6. Both teachers and supervisors felt there was a need for more administrative assistance for supervisors so that they could have the time to conduct more frequent and more effective evaluations. They also felt that the evaluation process ought to include greater teacher involvement. Conclusion. From this study it can be concluded that most teachers and supervisors in Adventist schools in Canada deemed teacher evaluation policies and practices to be helpful. As well it was not as stressful, nor of little value as reported in the literature and pertinent research studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".