Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 161}173

Educators' opinions on classroom observation as a practice

of sta! development and appraisal
Shui-fong Lam*
Department of Psychology, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong
Received 25 August 1999; received in revised form 8 December 1999; accepted 8 February 2000

Abstract

This study examines educators' perceptions of classroom observation as a practice of sta! development and appraisal.
A questionnaire survey was conducted on 2400 educators in Hong Kong. The reported frequency and patterns of
classroom observation suggested that the current practice was primarily for the purpose of appraisal. Compared to
secondary and special school educators, primary school educators were less likely to welcome observers. Teachers were
more likely than principals to perceive that classroom observation was more for appraisal than for sta! development. All
respondents indicated that they wished for a model of peer observation and coaching. The results are discussed with
reference to the need to develop a model of observation that is solely for sta! development.  2001 Elsevier Science Ltd.
All rights reserved.

Keywords: Classroom observation; Sta! development; Sta! appraisal

1. Introduction Peer observation in classrooms has been widely

A motivated and competent teaching workforce
is a key to the delivery of quality education in
schools. To have an e!ective teaching cadre, we
cannot rely solely on pre-service training programs
or recruitment mechanisms. In an era of knowledge
explosion, teachers must keep up with the ever-
changing society with continuous learning and ad-
aptation. Sta! development for teachers is therefore
an indispensable component in quality education.
On the other hand, to ensure teachers' competence
and conscientiousness, sta! appraisal is another
equally essential mechanism. In both sta! develop-
ment and appraisal, classroom observation plays
an important role.
* Tel.: #852-2859-2388; fax: #852-2858-3518.
E-mail address: lamsf@hkusub.hku.hk (S.-F. Lam).
recognized as a tool to improve teaching quality
among teachers. Gottesman and Jennings (1994)
criticized sta! development for teachers as usually
a one-shot deal that does not include on-site con-
tinual coaching and refresher courses in skills. As
a result, what teachers learn from sta! development
workshops does not necessarily transfer to actual
practice in the classroom. However, peer observa-
tion or coaching can help rewrite this story. Joyce
and Showers (1983) found that peer observation or
coaching had a tremendous e!ect on transfer. In
their study, all the teachers received three months
of training in a speci"c skill. Half the group also
received peer coaching back at the school site as
they implemented the skill. The other half did not
receive the coaching. The results showed that 75%
of those who had received coaching transferred the
skill appropriately to the classroom; in the group

0742-051X/01/$ - see front matter  2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 7 4 2 - 0 5 1 X ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 4 9 - 4
162 S.-F. Lam / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 161}173
that had not been coached, only 15% transferred it
to the classroom. Joyce and Showers' "ndings were
repeatedly replicated by other researchers. In
a study of sta! development programs, Sparks
(1986) examined three di!erent types of training.
(1) workshops only, (2) workshops plus peer coach-
ing, or (3) workshop plus trainer coaching. She
found that the second type had the best result. In
her study, peer observation was even more e!ective
than trainer-provided coaching in boosting work-
shop e!ectiveness. In another study to understand
the improvement of marginal or incompetent
teachers, Singh and Shi%ette (1996) also found that
the most promising ways of professional develop-
ment were those that engaged teachers in peer
coaching and sharing, instead of one-shot work-
shops with a cookbook approach to skill training.
There are numerous ways of data gathering for
sta! appraisal. Self-report, record review, and inter-
view can help the appraiser obtain important in-
formation about the performance of the appraisee.
Nevertheless, teacher appraisal will not be com-
plete without an appraisal of the interactive process
in the classroom, which is usually carried out
through classroom observation. The guidelines
given by the School Management Initiative Section
of the Education Department in Hong Kong (1998)
describe classroom observation as an important
part of sta! appraisal.
However, although classroom observation is
seen as an indispensable component in both sta!
development and appraisal, it is not well received
by teachers in general. As Gottesman and Jennings
(1994) have noted, classrooms are very isolated
places and there is subtle resistance from teachers
against having another adult in their classrooms.
For many teachers, isolation is a guarantee of job
security. Thomas (1993) also pointed out that hav-
ing another adult in the classroom is usually per-
ceived as intrusion instead of support.
The resistance to the practice of classroom obser-
vation makes a problematic contrast to the recog-
nition that classroom observation is an integral
part of both sta! development and appraisal. Be-
fore we can use classroom observation e!ectively as
a tool for sta! development and appraisal, we need
to understand the phenomenon of concern. In the
"rst place, we need to know how educators perceive
the practice of classroom observation in their
schools. Their perception of its objectives, pattern
of operation, and the di$culties involved will be
closely related to their acceptance of the practice.
Further, their expectation of its objectives and pat-
tern of operation will have signi"cant implications
on the future development of the practice. There is
an obvious need to "nd out how educators perceive
classroom observation and what they expect from
it. The present study was conducted to serve this
purpose. Speci"cally, the study aimed at addressing
the following questions:
1. How do educators view the existing practice of
classroom observation? How do they perceive
its frequency, current objectives, and patterns of
operation?
2. What do educators expect from an ideal practice
of classroom observation? What would be the
ideal frequency, objectives, and patterns of op-
eration? Are there any discrepancies between the
perceived and ideal frequency, objectives, and
patterns of classroom observation?
3. How do educators perceive the di$culties that
undermine the practice of classroom observa-
tion?
4. What factors a!ect their acceptance and evalu-
ation of classroom observation?
5. Do educators from di!erent school settings and
ranks di!er in their perception and opinions of
classroom observation?
6. What are the implications of educators' opinions
about the practice of classroom observation as
a tool for sta! appraisal and development?
2. Methods
In June 1997, the Education Convergence,
a professional teachers' organization in Hong
 The Education Convergence was formed in 1994 by a group
of enthusiastic educators in Hong Kong. It was established with
the mission to improve the education system in Hong Kong. The
members of the Education Convergence are teachers and ad-
ministrators from primary, secondary, and tertiary institutes.
They conduct research, examine educational issues, and provide
consultation to policy makers.
 S.-F. Lam / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 161}173
Kong, conducted a questionnaire survey of local
educators to study their opinions on classroom
observation. The study was made possible with the
"nancial support from the Teachers' Center
of the Education Department of the Hong Kong
Government. Questionnaires were sent to all
the 427 secondary schools, 818 primary schools,
and 87 special schools in Hong Kong (i.e., all sec-
ondary, primary, and special schools in Hong
Kong were covered). All the principals were invited
to "ll out the questionnaire. In each secondary
school, two panel/section heads and two teachers
were randomly invited to participate. In each pri-
mary or special school, one panel/section head and
two teachers were randomly invited to participate.
A total of 5755 questionnaires were mailed to
schools. The respondents were requested to return
the questionnaires with the stamped envelopes
provided by the research team. A total of 2413
questionnaires were returned. The response rate
was 41.9%.
The questionnaire (see the appendix) tapped the
respondents' perceptions of the existing practice of
classroom observation in their schools, the ideal
practice of classroom observation, and the di$cul-
ties that undermined the practice. It also tapped the
respondents' perceptions of the relative importance
of sta! development and sta! appraisal as the ob-
jectives of classroom observation.
Among the 2413 respondents, 55.0% came from
primary schools, 39.3% from secondary schools,
and 5.7% from special schools. The percentages of
teachers, panel/section heads, and principals were
41.6, 37.4, and 21.0%, respectively. In reality,
teachers, panel/section heads, and principals, re-
spectively, make up 77.5, 17.0, and 5.5% of the total
population of educators in Hong Kong (Education
Department, 1999). Panel/section heads and princi-
pals were over-represented in this sample because
of the strati"ed random sampling procedure. The
average scores of this sample, therefore, should
be interpreted with caution. Nevertheless, the
substantial percentages of panel/section heads and
principals facilitate meaningful comparison of the
opinions of educators from di!erent ranks. For the
present study, this composition of the sample was
essential because the comparison was one of its
main concerns.
163
3. Results
3.1. Prevalence and frequency
Among the 2413 respondents, 53.4% indicated
that classroom observation was practiced in their
schools. The prevalence of the practice was signi"-
cantly di!erent across di!erent types of schools.
Only 29.6% of the primary school educators in-
dicated that they practiced classroom observation
in their schools, as compared to 86.7% of the sec-
ondary and 68.7% of the special educators. The
prevalence rate in primary schools was signi"cantly
lower than that in secondary schools (z"!34.13,
p(0.05) and special schools (z"!8.92,
p(0.05).
On average, educators who indicated that they
practiced classroom observation observed their
colleagues 3.07 times a year. In return, they were
observed by their colleagues 0.92 times a year. The
frequencies for primary, secondary, and special
school educators to observe their colleagues
in a year were 2.94, 3.04, and 3.80, yielding
no signi"cant di!erence between school settings in
the frequency of educators being observers, F
(2, 1265)"0.66, p'0.05. However, there was
a signi"cant association between the frequency
to be observed and the types of schools. The
average frequencies of educators being observed in
primary, secondary, and special schools were 0.84,
0.88, and 1.49 in a year, F (2, 1243)"8.63,
p(0.001. Post hoc Sche!e tests revealed that pri-
mary and secondary school educators were ob-
served less than their counterparts in special
schools.
It was noteworthy that there was a strong associ-
ation between the frequency of observation and the
ranks of the respondents. The frequencies for
teachers, panel/section heads, and principals to be
observers were 0.57, 2.55, and 8.47 in a year.
The results of one-way ANOVA showed that the
di!erences were statistically signi"cant, F(2,
1258)"172.17, p(0.001. Post hoc Sche!e tests
indicated that teachers observed less than
panel/section heads, or principals, and panel/sec-
tion heads observed less than principals. This trend,
however, was reversed for the frequency of being
observed. On the average, the frequency for
164 S.-F. Lam / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 161}173

teachers, panel/section heads, and principals to be Table 1

observed were 1.2, 0.86, and 0.45 in a year. The Primary objective of current practice of classroom observation
results of one-way ANOVA showed that the di!er- as perceived by educators from di!erent school settings and
ranks
ences were signi"cant, F(2, 1235)"25.58,
p(0.001. Post hoc Sche!e tests indicated that Sta! Sta!
teachers were observed more than panel/section appraisal development
heads or principals. The results of these analyses (%) (%)
indicated that principals and panel/section heads
Primary school educators 37.6 62.4
were mostly the observers but teachers were mostly (n"194)
the ones being observed. Secondary school educators 33.5 66.5
In the survey, respondents were asked to indicate (n"437)
how many times a year they would like to observe Special school educators 29.8 70.2
and to be observed. Taken as a whole, they in- (n"47)
Total (n"668) 34.4 65.6
dicated that they would like to observe 2.19 times Teachers (n"249) 37.8 62.2
and to be observed 1.77 times a year. It makes an Panel/section heads (n"252) 34.5 65.5
interesting contrast with the actual frequencies they Principals (n"164) 28.0 72.0
reported (2.95 and 0.91, respectively). Pair-sample Total (n"665) 34.1 65.9
t tests revealed that the respondents would like to
Note. The number of respondents for the current item was less
observe less (t"!19.07, df"1180, p(0.001) but than the total samples because half of the samples did not have
to be observed more (t"!4.16, df"1183, practice of classroom observation in their schools.
p(0.001). However, these average scores should
be interpreted with caution particularly when sig-
ni"cant interaction was found between the desired Table 2
frequency of observation and the ranks of the re- Primary objective of ideal practice of classroom observation as
desired by educators from di!erent school settings and ranks
spondents. A repeated-measures ANOVA was per-
formed on the desired frequency to observe among Sta! Sta!
the respondents with di!erent ranks. It was found appraisal development
that teachers wished to observe more but (%) (%)
panel/section heads and principals wished to ob-
Primary school educators 14.1 85.9
serve less. There was a strong interaction e!ect (n"910)
between the rank and the frequency to observe Secondary school educators 7.3 92.7
(F"106.77, df"2, p(0.001). A repeated- (n"645)
measures ANOVA was also performed on the de- Special school educators 3.3 96.7
sired frequency to be observed among the respon- (n"92)
Total (n"1647) 10.8 89.2
dents with di!erent ranks. This interaction e!ect Teachers (n"638) 13.9 86.9
was also found to be signi"cant (F"49.73, df"2, Panel/section heads (n"628) 8.4 91.6
p(0.001). All the respondents preferred to in- Principals (n"379) 9.5 90.5
crease the frequency to be observed. However, the Total (n"1645) 10.8 89.2
increase in magnitude indicated by principals was
The number of the respondents reported here was less than
larger than that by panel/section heads and the total samples because the respondents who endorsed other
teachers. objectives or did not have complete data on this item were
excluded.

3.2. Objectives
Respondents were asked to indicate the relative
importance of sta! appraisal and sta! development
as the objectives of classroom observation in their
schools. The results are presented in Table 1. About
34% of the respondents perceived that classroom
observation in their schools was primarily for
sta! appraisal and only secondarily for sta!
 S.-F. Lam / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 161}173
development. However, when they were asked to
indicate the relative importance of these two objec-
tives in ideal practice, the percentage of respon-
dents who endorsed that sta! appraisal should be
the primary objective dropped to 10.8% (See Table
2). To see if the respondents' ideal objectives were
di!erent from what was currently practiced in their
schools, the changes of their responses in the items
of current and ideal objectives were traced. It was
found that among those who saw sta! appraisal as
the primary objective of their current practice of
classroom observation, 83.7% (n"175) indicated
that they wished that sta! development would be
the primary objective in ideal practice. In contrast,
only 16.3% (n"34) of them wished that sta!
appraisal should remain as the primary objective in
ideal practice. Among those who saw sta! develop-
ment as the primary objective of their current
practice of classroom observation, 96.8% (n"366)
indicated that they would like to keep sta! develop-
ment as the primary objective in ideal practice.
Only 3.2% (n"12) indicated that they would like
it to be replaced by sta! appraisal. I performed
a z test for correlated proportions and found that
there was a signi"cant change of primary objective
in the ideal situation (z"13.68, p(0.001). There
were more respondents who wished to replace sta!
appraisal with sta! development as the primary
objective of classroom observation than respon-
dents who wished vice versa.
When z tests were performed for educators of
di!erent ranks on their perception of current objec-
tives, a signi"cant di!erence between teachers and
principals was found (see Table 1). There were
proportionally more teachers than principals
 The respondents who endorsed other objectives or did not
have complete data on this item were excluded. About 3% of the
respondents endorsed other objectives, such as quality assur-
ance inspection and demonstration on open day. The percent-
ages for primary, secondary, and special educators who
endorsed other objectives were 4.1, 2.8, and 1.1%, respectively.
The percentages for teachers, panel/section heads, and princi-
pals were 3.6. 3.6, and 1.1%, respectively.
 About 4% of the respondents endorsed other objectives in
this item. The percentages for primary, secondary, and special
educators who endorsed other objectives were 4.4, 3.3, and
2.2%, respectively. The percentages for teachers, panel/section
heads, and principals were 5.3, 2.8, and 2.8%, respectively.
165
(37.8}28.0%) who perceived that their current prac-
tice of classroom observation was primarily for
sta! appraisal (z"2.10, p(0.05).
3.3. Conyicts between the two objectives
The majority of the respondents (79.6%) did not
think that there was con#ict between sta! develop-
ment and sta! appraisal if both were the objectives
of classroom observation. However, there were sig-
ni"cant di!erences among the responses of educa-
tors of di!erent ranks. The percentages of teachers,
panel/section heads, and principals who thought
that there was no con#ict were 77.8, 77.3 and
86.8%, respectively. The results of z tests indicate
that the percentage of principals who thought so
was signi"cantly greater than that of teachers
(z"4.50, p(0.05) or that of panel/section heads
(z"4.62, p(0.05).
3.4. Patterns of operation
The respondents were requested to report what
patterns of observation were practiced in their
schools. Six patterns were listed in the question-
naire: (1) principal observes teachers, (2) panel/sec-
tion heads observe teachers (3) teachers observe
panel/section heads, (4) teachers observe one an-
other, (5) experienced teachers observe new
teachers, and (6) new teachers observe experienced
teachers. Respondents were asked to indicate if
each of these patterns were used in their schools.
It was found that `principal observes teachersa
was the most common pattern practiced (see
Table 3). About 66% of the respondents reported
that they had this pattern of observation. In con-
trast, only 29% of the respondents reported that
`teachers observe one anothera was a pattern in
their schools.
Considerable discrepancies were found in the
perceptions of educators of di!erent ranks. Princi-
pals identi"ed more patterns of classroom observa-
tion practiced in their schools than teachers did.
Compared with teachers, principals believed that
there were more opportunities for teachers to ob-
serve, both for experienced teachers to observe new
teachers and for new teachers to observe experi-
enced teachers.
166 S.-F. Lam / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 161}173

Table 3
Patterns of classroom observation practiced as reported by educators from di!erent school settings and ranks

Principal Panel/section Teachers Teachers Experienced New teachers

observes heads observe observe panel/ observe one teachers observe observe
teachers teachers section heads another new teachers experienced
% % % % % teachers %

Primary schools (n"359 ) 72.8 13.9 6.2 27.2 12.3 20.9

Secondary schools (n"809) 60.8 82.3 29.2 28.9 18.9 24.8
Special schools (n"70 ) 73.3 51.1 36.7 33.3 27.8 71.1
Total (n"1238) 66.4 61.4 24.0 29.9 17.7 27.7
Teachers (n"472) 60.7 53.6 16.2 26.5 14.9 23.3
Panel/section heads (n"496) 64.1 67.7 100 30.7 15.1 26.6
Principals (n"285 ) 81.0 63.5 33.5 35.2 27.5 38.8
Total (n"1253) 66.4 61.4 24.0 29.9 17.7 27.7

The number of respondents for the current item was less than the total sample because half of the samples did not have a practice of
classroom observation in their schools. Multiple responses were permitted on this item. The respondents were requested to check as
many patterns as possible provided that they practiced these patterns in their schools.

Table 4
Endorsement of the most ideal patterns by educators from di!erent school settings and ranks

Principal Panel/section Teachers Teachers Experienced New teachers

observes heads observe observe panel/ observe one teachers observe
teachers teachers section heads another observe new experienced
% % % % teachers % teachers %

Primary schools (n"1322 ) 19.3 7.6 8.3 42.1 13.3 33.5

Secondary schools (n"948 ) 9.9 25.2 11.1 41.1 14.8 33.0
Special schools (n"137 ) 14.7 3.1 3.8 31.4 4.0 53.8
Total (n"2402) 15.7 14.9 9.2 41.2 13.2 34.4
Teachers (n"998) 14.5 11.6 13.5 34.4 15.4 39.9
Panel/section heads (n"899) 16.5 17.1 5.7 44.2 14.7 31.0
Principals (n"504) 16.6 16.6 6.3 47.9 6.1 29.6
Total (n"2401) 15.7 14.9 9.2 41.2 13.2 34.4

Note. The respondents were requested to rank their preference of these patterns from 1 to 6. The percentage in each cell is the
percentage of the respondents who ranked the pattern concerned as number 1 in the preference list.

When the respondents were asked to indicate
their ideal patterns of classroom observation, they
presented a very di!erent picture from the current
situation. They were requested to rank their prefer-
ence of the six patterns from 1 to 6 with `1a being
the most favored and `6a being the least favored
pattern. The results are presented in Table 4.
The most favored pattern turned out to be
`teachers observe one anothera (41.2%). In
contrast, only 15.7% of the respondents indicated
that `principal observes teachersa was the most
desirable pattern.
3.5. Association between objectives and pattern
An association was found between the ideal ob-
jectives of classroom observation and the ideal pat-
terns of classroom observation. Of educators who
thought sta! development should be the primary
objective of classroom observation, 74.2%
(n"925) endorsed the `teachers observe one an-
othera or `new teachers observe experienced
teachersa pattern as the most desirable pattern of
classroom observation, while the remaining 25.8%
(n"322) endorsed the `principal observes
 S.-F. Lam / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 161}173
teachersa or `panel/section heads observe teachersa
as the most desirable pattern. Of those who
thought sta! appraisal should be the primary ob-
jectives of classroom observation, 47.9% (n"68)
endorsed the `teachers observe one anothera or
`new teachers observe experienced teachersa
pattern as the most desirable pattern, and the
remaining 52.1% (n"74) endorsed the `principal
observes teachersa or `panel/section heads observe
teachersa as the most desirable pattern. The results
of a Chi-square test showed that the educators who
preferred sta! development as the primary objec-
tive were more likely to endorse `teachers observe
one anothera or `new teachers observe experienced
teachersa as the most desirable pattern of class-
room observation (s"43.23, df"1, p(0.001).
3.6. Association between objectives and
follow-up meetings
Another association found was that between the
perceived objectives of classroom observation and
the evaluation of follow-up meetings. The respon-
dents were asked to evaluate the follow-up meet-
ings after classroom observation on a "ve-point
scale with `very meaninglessa anchored to `1a and
`very meaningfula anchored to `4a. Educators who
perceived sta! development as the primary objec-
tive of the classroom observation in their schools
rated the meetings 3.24 whereas educators who
perceived sta! appraisal as the primary objective
rated the meetings 3.09. The rating of the former
was signi"cantly higher than the latter (t"3.35,
df"577, p(0.001), indicating that follow-up
meetings were more meaningful to those who saw
sta! development instead of sta! appraisal as the
primary objective of their current practice of class-
room observation.
There was also an association between the evalu-
ation of the follow-up meetings and the ranks of the
respondents. Teachers, panel/section heads, and
principals rated the meaningfulness of the meeting
as 3.07, 3.14, and 3.36, respectively. The results of
a one-way ANOVA indicated that the ratings were
signi"cantly di!erent, F(2, 1065)"29.35, p(0.001.
Principals were more positive about the follow-
up meetings than were teachers or panel/section
heads.
167
3.7. Willingness to be observed
Respondents were asked to indicate if they were
willing to have observers in their classrooms. The
results are presented in Table 5. A strong associ-
ation between willingness, school settings, and
ranking was discerned. It was found that primary
school educators were less likely to welcome ob-
servers than were their counterparts in secondary
schools (z"11.64, p(0.05 ) or special schools
(z"15.06, p(0.05); teachers were less likely to
welcome observers than were panel/section heads
(z"4.42, p(0.05) or principals (z"13.19,
p(0.05); and panel/section heads were less likely
to welcome observers than were principals
(z"8.86, p(0.05).
There was an association between educators'
willingness to be observed and their perception of
the current objectives of classroom observation in
their schools. Of the educators who saw sta! ap-
praisal as the primary objective of classroom obser-
vation, 20.8%(n"26) did not welcome observers.
Of the educators who saw sta! development as the
primary objective of classroom observation, only
13.4%(n"38) did not welcome observers to their
classroom. Compared to educators who perceived
sta! development as the primary objective in their
current practice, those who perceived sta! apprai-
sal as the primary objective were more reluctant to
welcome observers to their classrooms (s"3.62,
df"1, p(0.05).
3.8. Dizculties
Three major di$culties that undermine class-
room observation were listed in the questionnaire:
(1) pressure felt by teachers, (2) lack of time, and (3)
lack of understanding and experience in classroom
observation. The respondents were requested to
rank these di$culties in a descending order in
terms of their impact. The results are presented in
Table 6. The majority of the respondents (71.1%)
saw `pressure felt by teachersa as the top di$culty
 In Hong Kong, principals usually do not teach on a regular
basis. When they are observed, they teach in someone else's
classroom.
168 S.-F. Lam / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 161}173

Table 5
Willingness of educators from di!erent school settings and ranks to have observers

Do not welcome observers % Welcome observers % No strong preference %

Primary schools (n"1322 ) 26.2 31.0 42.8

Secondary schools (n"943 ) 8.7 56.6 34.7
Special schools (n"137 ) 1.6 68.3 30.1
Total (n"2402) 18.2 43.0 38.8
Teachers (n"998) 25.1 33.4 41.5
Panel/section heads (n"899) 16.9 45.7 37.4
Principals (n"504) 3.8 59.6 36.6
Total (n"2401) 18.2 43.0 38.8

Table 6
Di$culties undermining classroom observation as perceived by educators from di!erent school settings and ranks

Pressure felt by the teachers % Lack of time % Lack of understanding and

experience %

Primary schools (n"1322 ) 73.3 20.2 15.7

Secondary schools (n"943 ) 69.0 29.7 16.4
Special schools (n"137 ) 63.1 31.5 18.8
Total (n"2,402) 71.1 24.5 16.1
Teachers (n"998) 72.3 25.9 13.2
Panel/section heads (n"899) 71.9 23.2 17.0
Principals (n"504) 67.2 23.7 19.8
Total (n"2,401) 71.1 24.5 16.1

The respondents were requested to rank the di$culties from the greatest to the least. The percentage in each cell is the percentage of
the respondents who ranked the relevant di$culty as the greatest on their list.

that undermined classroom observation. Statistical
tests revealed signi"cant association of the endorse-
ment of this di$culty with school settings and
ranks. The result of z tests indicated that more
educators from primary schools (73.3%) saw pres-
sure felt by teachers as the top di$culty than their
counterparts from secondary schools (69.0%;
z"2.22, p(0.05) or special schools (63.1%;
z"2.37, p(0.05). There was also a trend for pro-
portionally more teachers (72.3%) to endorse such
a di$culty than principals (67.2%) (z"2.02,
p(0.05).
4. Discussion
It is a common phenomenon that teachers do not
welcome classroom observation although it is
widely accepted as an important component in sta!
development and appraisal. To understand this
complex phenomenon, the present study investi-
gated educators' perceptions and opinions on class-
room observation.
Most respondents reported that the classroom
observation in their schools was primarily for sta!
development and only secondarily for sta! apprai-
sal. However, their answers to many questions in
the survey suggested a di!erent picture. When
asked to indicate what patterns of classroom obser-
vation were practiced, 66% of the respondents re-
ported that `principals observes teachersa was
practiced; only 30% reported that `teachers ob-
serve one anothera was practiced. At the same time,
it was found that the pattern of observation was
related to the objective of the practice. Educators
who preferred sta! development as the primary
objective of classroom observation were more like-
ly to opt for `teachers observe one anothera or
 S.-F. Lam / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 161}173
`new teachers observe experienced teachersa. In
contrast, educators who preferred sta! appraisal as
the primary objective were more likely to endorse
the `principal observes teachersa or `panel/section
heads observe teachersa as the ideal pattern. The
results indicate that classroom observation in
Hong Kong is practiced more as a form of sta!
appraisal than a devise for sta! development
although the latter is publicly recognized as the
primary objective. The analyses of frequency of
observation corroborate this "nding. In Hong
Kong, teachers have fewer chances to be observers
than panel/section heads do, whereas panel/section
heads have fewer chances to be observers than
principals do. This trend is entirely reversed for the
chance to be observed. Teachers have more chances
than panel/section heads to be observed and
panel/section heads have more chances than princi-
pals to be observed. The data suggest that class-
room observation in Hong Kong is mainly done by
superiors to their subordinates. The #avor of ap-
praisal and supervision is strong in the practice.
The current practice of classroom observation in
Hong Kong is far from the ideal espoused by Hong
Kong educators. When asked what would be the
most desirable pattern of classroom observation,
most of the respondents opted for `teachers ob-
serve one anothera or `new teachers observe ex-
perienced teachersa instead of `principal observes
teachersa or `panel/section heads observe
teachersa. The survey also shows that there are
more educators who wish to replace sta! appraisal
with sta! development as the primary objective of
classroom observation than educators who prefer
the other way round. The analyses on the ideal
frequency of observation also indicate the wish for
such a replacement. While teachers wish to observe
more, panel/section heads and principals wish to
observe less. On the other hand, teachers wish to be
observed less, but panel/section heads and princi-
pals wish to be observed more. All these suggest
that peer observation is much more desirable than
observation by superiors to subordinates.
What Hong Kong educators perceive as the ideal
practice of classroom observation is close to the
model of peer coaching advocated by Joyce and
Showers (1982) and Gottesman and Jennings
(1994). Peer coaching is not intended for super-
169
vision and appraisal, it is instead a mutual support
between professional peers, and no one is evaluated
or set up as the master teacher. As Gottesman and
Jennings (1994) put it, the coaching is informal
observation on one speci"c, teacher-identi"ed area.
It is not an appraisal done by superiors to their
subordinates. The purpose of peer coaching is sta!
development instead of sta! appraisal.
Hong Kong educators wish that the classroom
observation in their schools were primarily for sta!
development rather than sta! appraisal. However,
their wish does not imply that sta! development
and sta! appraisal are mutually exclusive of each
other in the practice of classroom observation. In
the present survey, respondents were asked whether
there was a con#ict between sta! development and
sta! appraisal if both were held as the objectives of
classroom observation. About 80% of the respon-
dents answered that there was no con#ict. Actually
there are strong voices in the "eld of education for
the synthesis of sta! development and sta! apprai-
sal (Poster & Poster, 1993). There are two distinct
trends in appraisal: one for the sake of accountabil-
ity and one for development and improvement pur-
poses. This distinction corresponds to that between
summative and formative evaluation. Summative
evaluation is concerned with judging teachers' per-
formance at a given point of time whereas forma-
tive evaluation is concerned with helping teachers
develop. In the case of formative evaluation, sta!
appraisal merges with sta! development. That is
the background for Poster and Poster (1993) to
advocate the synthesis of sta! development and
performance review in appraisal. Along the same
line of thought, classroom observation in a frame-
work of formative evaluation can serve both the
purposes of sta! appraisal and sta! development.
As Bollington, Hopkins, and West (1990) pointed
out, classroom observation could be geared to indi-
vidual development and be a vehicle for monitoring
the achievement of school objectives as well.
The view of Poster and Poster (1993) that apprai-
sal should be able to bring together both sta!
development and performance review is parti-
cularly pertinent in the case of formative evalu-
ation. However, the argument that sta! appraisal
should include elements of sta! development does
not imply that sta! development should include
170 S.-F. Lam / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 161}173
elements of sta! appraisal. The logic does not
work in both directions. Sta! development can
be independent of the sta! appraisal mechanism.
Bollington, Hopkins, and West (1990) succinctly
pointed out that classroom observation, as an
important approach to professional development,
did not need to be restricted to appraisers viewing
appraisees. It is possible to have classroom
observation that is solely for sta! development and
independent of sta! appraisal.
The voices of Hong Kong educators are strong
and clear. They prefer peer classroom observation
primarily aimed at sta! development. To have
classroom observation that is separated from the
appraisal mechanism is not only possible but also
desirable. Such separation could help ameliorate
the resistance of educators to classroom observa-
tion. In the current survey, an overwhelming ma-
jority of the respondents ranked `Pressure felt by
teachersa as the top di$culty that undermined the
practice of classroom observation. There is some
evidence from other research that the source of
pressure might be sta! appraisal. In an action re-
search study aimed at developing peer coaching in
two schools, in-depth interviews with teachers con-
"rmed that the concern of sta! evaluation was
a source of pressure for teachers (Lam, Yim,
& Lam, 1999). The results of the present survey
revealed a strong association between sta! apprai-
sal and educators' reluctance to have observers.
Compared to educators who saw sta! development
as the primary objective of classroom observation,
educators who saw sta! appraisal as the primary
objective were less likely to welcome observers to
their classrooms. The latter group also tended to
rate the follow-up meeting after the observation as
being less meaningful.
To a certain extent, the discrepancy in responses
from educators of di!erent ranks also indicated the
pressure of sta! appraisal. Taken as a whole, the
majority of the respondents perceived that class-
room observation in their schools was primarily for
sta! development and only secondarily for apprai-
sal. However, principals were more likely than
teachers to think so. Besides, teachers were also less
likely than their superiors to welcome observers
and were more likely to rank `pressure felt by
teachersa as the top di$culty that undermined the
practice of classroom observation. Research has
shown that it is not uncommon for people with
di!erent ranks in the same organization to have
very di!erent perceptions. In a classic study, Likert
(1961) found that superiors usually over-estimated
the percentage of their subordinates who would
frankly discuss important aspects of work with
them. There may be subtle pressures in organiza-
tions that block the upward #ow of disagreement.
However, the discrepancy of responses from
teachers, panel/section heads, and principals in the
present study cannot entirely be attributed to the
miscommunication between superiors and subordi-
nates. The discrepancy is possibly due to the #avor
of appraisal in the current practice of classroom
observation and the pressure related to it. The
present study reveals that classroom observation in
Hong Kong is mainly in the form of principals and
panel/section heads observing teachers. Educators
who are in a position to be observed or appraised
would inevitably have a less positive perception of
classroom observation than those who are in the
position to observe or appraise. The ones being
observed su!er the most from the pressure of ap-
praisal. It is therefore not surprising that the cur-
rent study found teachers to be more likely than
principals to rank `pressure felt by teachersa as the
top di$culty that undermined the practice of class-
room observation.
One of the obvious "ndings of the study is the
e!ect of school type on the responses of the educa-
tors. Half of the respondents indicated that class-
room observation was practiced in their schools.
However, the prevalence of the practice varied
across di!erent types of school. Classroom obser-
vation was least practiced in primary schools. Less
than 30% of the educators from primary schools
indicated that their schools had such a practice.
They were also less likely than their counterparts in
secondary and special schools to welcome ob-
servers. At the same time, they were more likely
than the other two groups to rank `pressure felt by
teachersa as the top di$culty that undermined the
practice of classroom observation. Classrooms in
Hong Kong primary schools seem to "t Gottesman
and Jennings' (1994) description of `isolated pla-
cesa. This is a phenomenon that deserves further
investigation.
 S.-F. Lam / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 161}173
In contrast to primary educators, the special
educators in Hong Kong have the most positive
perception of classroom observation. While 26.4%
of primary educators and 8.7% of secondary educa-
tors indicated that they did not welcome observers
to their classrooms, only 1.7% of special educators
would say `noa to observers. Fewer special educa-
tors than primary and secondary educators ranked
`pressure felt by teachersa as the top di$culty that
undermined the practice of classroom observation.
The percentage of special educators who saw sta!
development as the primary objective of classroom
observation was the highest among all the educa-
tors. Special educators also reported signi"cantly
more chances to be observed than their counter-
parts in primary and secondary schools. The posit-
ive perception of special educators may be due to
the practical use of classroom observation in their
work environment. Hong Kong special educators
have to cope with many di$culties, such as under-
provision, multiplicity of handicaps, and lack of
pre-service training for educators and tailoring of
curriculum (Board of Education, 1996). To cope
with all these di$culties, many special educators in
Hong Kong turn to team teaching or peer coaching
for solutions. In the special schools in Hong Kong,
it is more likely for classroom observation to serve
the purpose of helping one another out of di$cul-
ties than to serve the purpose of sta! appraisal.
When educators "nd that they bene"t from the
practice, they would have more positive percep-
tions of it.
The results of the present study reveal that edu-
cators in Hong Kong wish for a peer-coaching
model of classroom observation. Appraisal incites
pressure among teachers. Classroom observation
that is independent of appraisal allows teachers to
171
make the best use of peer coaching without the
apprehension of performance review. Classroom
observation is still an important component of
a sta! appraisal mechanism. However, it is possible
and desirable to develop a model of classroom
observation that is solely for sta! development and
between peers. A survey of support services to
teachers (Lam, Yuon, & Mak, 1998) found that
colleagues were the most important source of sup-
port when teachers came across di$culties in work.
In a review of the research on school climate,
Anderson (1982) found that a cooperative, warm,
and friendly collegial relationship would provide
sources of emotional and psychological support
for teachers' work. It would also provide
opportunities for joint problem-solving to resolve
di$culties in the classroom. Peers can be rich re-
sources for sta! development and school improve-
ment. The peer-coaching model of classroom
observation is one of the tools that can capitalize
on these rich resources. While we continue to use
classroom observation for sta! appraisal, we need
to develop a model of classroom observation that is
between peers and for the sole purpose of sta!
development.
Acknowledgements
This research project was sponsored by the
Teachers Center, the Education Department
of Hong Kong. Thanks are due to Mr. Chow
Kam-ming, Mr. Tso Kai-lok, Ms. Chow Hoi-man,
Ms. Grace Yung, Mr. Lau Hor-keung, Ms. Eva
Chan, and Mr. Cheng Tsz-kit for their assistance in
data collection and analyses.
172 S.-F. Lam / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 161}173

Appendix

Questionnaire

1. Is classroom observation practiced in your school?

䊐 No
䊐 Yes
2. What is (are) the pattern(s) of classroom observation practiced in your school? (You may check more
than one response.)
䊐 Principal observes teachers
䊐 Panel/section heads observe teachers
䊐 Teachers observe panel/section heads
䊐 Teachers observe one another
䊐 Experienced teachers observe new teachers
䊐 New teachers observe experienced teachers
3. What is the purpose of classroom observation in your school? (Please indicate its priority by the
ranking of 1, 2, and 3. 1 for the primary purpose, 2 for the secondary purpose, and etc.)
䊐 Sta! appraisal
䊐 Sta! development
䊐 Others: }}}}}}}}}}}}}
4. How many times did you observe your colleagues last year?}}}}}}}}}}
5. How many times were you observed by your colleagues last year?}}}}}}}}}}}}
6. Did you and your colleagues have discussion after the observation?
䊐 Yes
䊐 No
7. How meaningful do you think the discussion was?
very meaningless very meaningful
1 2 3 4
8. In your opinion, what would be the ideal purpose of classroom observation? (Please indicate its
priority by the ranking of 1, 2, and 3. 1 for the primary purpose, 2 for the secondary purpose, and etc.)
䊐 Sta! appraisal
䊐 Sta! development
䊐 Others:}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
9. In your opinion, what would be the ideal patterns of classroom observation? (Please indicate
its priority by the ranking of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. 1 for the most ideal, 2 for the second most ideal, and
etc.)
䊐 Principal observes teachers
䊐 Panel/section heads observe teachers
䊐 Teachers observe panel/section heads
䊐 Teachers observe one another
䊐 Experienced teachers observe new teachers
䊐 New teachers observe experienced teachers
10 What would be the ideal frequency for you to be the observer in a year?
11 What would be the ideal frequency for you to be observed in a year?
12 Is there any con#ict between the purposes of sta! appraisal and sta! development in the practice of
classroom observation?
䊐 Yes
䊐 No
 S.-F. Lam / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 161}173 173

13 What is the greatest di$culty in promoting classroom observation in your school? (Please indicate its
impact by the ranking of 1, 2, and 3. 1 for the greatest di$culty, 2 for the second greatest, and etc.)
䊐 Pressure felt by the teachers
䊐 Lack of time
䊐 Lack of understanding and experience
14 Do you welcome observers to your classroom? (Please indicate the reasons for your choice.)
䊐 Yes}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
䊐 No}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
15 Do you have any other comments on the practice of classroom observation?

References
Board of Education (1996). Report of the sub-committee on
special education. Hong Kong: Government Printer.
Bollington, R., Hopkins, D., & West, M. (1990). An introduction
to teacher appraisal. London: Cassell.
Gottesman, B. L., & Jennings, J. O. (1994). Peer coaching for
educators. Lancaster: Technomic.
Education Department (1998). Teacher Appraisal. Hong Kong:
Government Printer.
Education Department (1999). Teacher survey. Hong Kong:
Government Printer.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1982). The coaching of teaching.
Educational Leadership, 40(1), 4}10.
Lam, S. F., Yuon, E., & Mak, Y. S. (1998). Support services to
secondary school teachers in Hong Kong. Education Journal,
26(1), 77}99.
Lam, S. F., Yim, P. S., & Lam, W. H. (1999). Peer coaching in
classroom observation. Hong Kong: Education Convergence.
Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Poster, C., & Poster, D. (1993). Teacher appraisal: Training and
implementation (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Sparks, G. M. (1986). The e!ectiveness of alternative training
activities in changing teaching practices. American Educa-
tional Research Journal, 23(2), 217}225.
Singh, K., & Shi%ette, L. M. (1996). Teachers' perspectives on
professional development. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in
Education, 10, 145}160.
Thomas, G. (1993). Ewective classroom teamwork: Support or
intrusion?. New York: Routledge.