MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2206814819 · doi:10.32597/dissertations/437/

A Study of Perceptions Held Toward Teacher Evaluation Policies and Practices by Teachers and Their Supervisors in Adventist Schools in Canada

2002· dissertation· en· W2206814819 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dave Higgins

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPerceptionSchool teachersMathematics educationPopulationClass (philosophy)Medical educationPedagogyMedicineSociologyComputer scienceDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.207
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEvaluation and Performance Assessment→French-language works237,207→