Teacher evaluation in British Columbia as perceived by teachers, a survey study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study reports a survey of teacher perceptions of the teacher evaluation process. Three hundred fifty-three practicing British Columbia teachers responded to a fifty-six item questionnaire designed to investigate their experiences with teacher evaluation and to estimate their satisfaction and confidence with respect to the instruments, the procedure and the evaluators. Information was obtained about the reports, their style, distribution, frequency, and availability to teachers; the evaluation techniques used, including visitation for observation and forms of communication with the teachers; and reactions of teachers to the reports, the evaluators, and the process in general. The design of the questionnaire highlights the position of the principal as an evaluator as compared to that of other evaluators. Open-ended questions were included to clarify response in some areas. Opinions were sought in some more general areas to test the existence of perceived need for change, to obtain teachers’ suggestions as to the direction such change might take, and to sample teachers' perceptions as to the efficacy of teacher evaluation practices for the improvement of instruction. Major conclusions were that present practice is essentially inspectorial in nature and only partially oriented to the improvement of instruction; that teachers generally accept present practice though substantial minorities express lack of satisfaction and confidence with respect to many aspects of it; and that teachers are divided as to whether the principal's roles as evaluator and educational leader conflict.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".