Journal of Educational Administration

The Evaluation of Teaching Performance

T.J. MOORE W.D. NEAL
Article information:
To cite this document:
T.J. MOORE W.D. NEAL, (1969),"The Evaluation of Teaching Performance", Journal of Educational
Administration, Vol. 7 Iss 2 pp. 127 - 136
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb009637
Downloaded on: 16 March 2016, At: 20:45 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 198 times since 2006*
Downloaded by RMIT University At 20:45 16 March 2016 (PT)

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Itolondo Wilfrida Arnodah, (2013),"Teacher improvement through peer teacher evaluation in
Kenyan schools", European Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 37 Iss 7 pp. 635-645 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-10-2012-0047
Nicky Rogge, (2011),"Granting teachers the “benefit of the doubt” in performance evaluations",
International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 25 Iss 6 pp. 590-614 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513541111159077
Charles R. Emery, Tracy R. Kramer, Robert G. Tian, (2003),"Return to academic standards: a critique
of student evaluations of teaching effectiveness", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 11 Iss 1 pp.
37-46 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09684880310462074

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:393177 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well
as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 T H E JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION 127
V O L U M E VII, N U M B E R 2 O C T O B E R , 1969

The Evaluation of Teaching Performance

T. J . MOORE AND W. D. NEAL
E v a l u a t i o n of teaching Is a key concern of educational adminis-
tration. I n Victoria, Australia, inspectors arc required to carry
out assessments of teaching performance hut no written guide or
checklist is provided. This study seeks to identify by means of
two instruments, a critical incident paper and an evaluation
record designed to highlight Mitzel's Product, Process and Presage
criteria, the criteria used by Victorian inspectors i n evaluating
teacher performance. It was found that inspectors stressed P r o -
cess criteria when recommending promotion i n teaching positions
a n d Presage criteria when recommending selection for adminis-
Downloaded by RMIT University At 20:45 16 March 2016 (PT)

trative positions. L i t t l e emphasis was placed on Product criteria.

Inspectors' judgments of teachers were found to be based largely
on their own individual "image" of good teachers. On the basis
of this study it seems that a guide could be developed to assist
inspectors in reaching agreement on basic criteria for promotion
of teachers.

INTRODUCTION
The spectacular increase in school population in the past two
decades has focused attention on a number of aspects of adminis-
tration. One of the major problems brought into sharper focus by
the increased number of teachers is that of evaluation and assess-
ment, especially in those systems where such assessment is
required as part of the evaluation of teachers. In these cases a
particular assessment of teaching performance is usually vital to
the teacher in that it represents a condition of promotion through
the service to more senior positions. This paper refers to some of
the issues involved and reports a study recently completed.
The evaluation of teacher performance is a particularly com-
plex task; extensive research has emphasized this point but has
not so far provided definitive answers to the problems involved.
M R . T. J . MOORE is Assistant Director of Secondary Education in the
Victorian Education Department. He holds the degrees of B.A. and B.Ed. of
the University of Melbourne and M.Ed. of the University of Alberta: PRO-
FESSOR W. D. N E A L , sometime Deputy Director General of Education in
Western Australia, is now Associate Dean for Planning and Development in
the Faculty of Education at the University of Alberta. He is a graduate of
the University of Western Australia and Teachers College, Columbia University.
 128 Journal of Educational Administration

The importance of the task cannot be denied because

. . . The task of identifying effective teachers (or effective
teaching) is crucial to teacher education, certification, selec-
tion and promotion; and insofar as teaching contributes to the
total social welfare . . . to human survival.1

THE NEED FOR EVALUATION

In state systems of education throughout Australia inspectors
have the responsibility of evaluating teaching performance as one
of the conditions determining the suitability of teachers for pro-
motion in the organization. Apart from this there are other needs
and processes to be served by evaluation. There is, in any system,
the necessity for justification of activities and for the expenditure
of public money. Neal 2 advocates a detailed study of the instruc-
tional program to ensure that it is based on a sound set of prin-
ciples together with adequate and precise objectives. Other areas
he lists are the administrative structure, school-staff and school-
community relations.
Downloaded by RMIT University At 20:45 16 March 2016 (PT)

Morphet3 stresses the need for evaluation of schools if only

because parents and citizens have a right to know how well the
schools are functioning; furthermore, teachers are interested in
the results of their efforts. Morphet goes on to point out that
evaluation provides a basis for a judgment upon which adminis-
trative recommendations and policies are established, continued
and revised.
Thus, evaluation is an important function providing a basis for
making judgments at the end of a particular period of operation.
In addition, opportunity is available for the diagnosis of difficul-
ties, the testing of new approaches, the conduct of pilot studies
and generally ensuring the continued effective operation of the
school system.
The major justification for the evaluation of processes must
nevertheless be found in the desire to improve teaching and learn-
ing performance.
In placing the function of formal evaluation with the inspector
the concept of psychological distance is an important considera-
tion. The inspector may, by virtue of his situation, view the
school, its performance and the effectiveness of its teachers from
the point of view of one not too closely involved. It is this psycho-
logical distance which enables him to make comparisons and to
set standards of performance, and which places him in the best
strategic position to carry out evaluation. It has been suggested
on occasions that the principal is in the best situation to perform
this task. However, in order that he does not jeopardize his role
 Evaluation of Teaching Performance 129

as consultant and adviser to teachers it is best that he be not too

closely associated with the formal evaluation of his staff; yet he
must be sufficiently involved in the function to make a contribu-
tion on the basis of justice to the teacher and assistance to the
inspector.
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF TEACHING PERFORMANCE
In summarizing the work done on teacher evaluation at the
University of Wisconsin, Barr points out that "as yet we do not
have an adequate dimension of teaching efficiency and con-
sequently no satisfactory means of measuring this variable".4 In
the extensive literature on evaluation of teaching performance
there is some consensus in the approach taken in the more recent
studies. Three general areas of concern have been identified and
these have been stated by Rose5 as (1) the characteristics of the
person (teacher), (2) the performance of the teacher, and (3)
the results obtained. He points out that in practice the methods
of evaluation followed represent a combination or mixing of these
elements. These three areas of concern must then be evaluated in
terms of criteria and thus there is a consequent grouping of these
Downloaded by RMIT University At 20:45 16 March 2016 (PT)

criteria. Mitzel 6 adopted this approach when he suggested that

criteria for teacher evaluation could be grouped under three
headings:
1. Product criteria. This category relates to the changes pro-
duced in the students by the teacher; for example, examination
results are taken as an index of pupil growth. Research reports,
however, indicate that attempts to appraise teacher performance
through pupil achievement alone have serious shortcomings,
partly because the individual is the product of many forces of
which the school is but one; isolating the effects of the school
from the effects of other agencies would be virtually impossible.
2. Process criteria. This category stems from the belief that the
processes employed lead to changes in the product; thus the pro-
cesses are evaluated according to their influence on pupil develop-
ment; the methods of instruction employed are indicative of
processes. If this approach alone is used there are also difficulties
in that variation in the processes employed by teachers may not
result in marked differences in the product.
3. Presage criteria. This approach seeks to evaluate neither the
process nor the product at first hand but concentrates attention
upon such personal characteristics of the teacher as voice, dress,
intelligence, manner and the like. Much of the older work in the
field of teacher evaluation concentrated in this area, that is, at
the level of the teacher as a person; the meagre results reported
 130 Journal of Educational Administration

in the literature have led to the inclusion of both product and

process as areas of concern in teaching performance.
Each of these categories has some serious limitations if used
alone in the evaluation of personnel. On the other hand when
used in conjunction they provide an acceptable approach to the
study of teacher performance. The analysis of a complex function
demands a structure of broad categories into which any part of
the whole performance can be placed. Thus, recent research has
tended to adopt a structure similar to the one suggested by
Mitzel.
THE STUDY
A recent study sought to identify the criteria employed by
inspectors in Victoria, Australia in their evaluation of teaching
performance.7 In this system no written guide or checklist is pro-
vided for the use of inspectors.
The study sought merely to identify criteria which inspectors
formulated for themselves. An attempt was made also to isolate
any particular emphasis placed on product, process or presage
Downloaded by RMIT University At 20:45 16 March 2016 (PT)

criteria and to determine any specific facets of a teacher's per-

formance which might be closely influenced by the observations
of the principal.
Data were collected on two instruments distributed to inspec-
tors in the primary (i.e. elementary) and secondary divisions of
the State Education Department. The first instrument, based on
the critical incident technique, was relatively unstructured, inspec-
tors being requested to list the criteria used by them in their
assessment of teaching performance. The second instrument,8
reproduced below, was distributed when responses to the first
reached the 89 per cent level. It contained a list of thirty criteria
selected for relevance in a pilot study and included ten criteria in
each of the categories suggested by Mitzel, i.e. Product, Process
and Presage criteria. These criteria bore a close relationship to
those included by Beecher in his Teaching Evaluation Record9,
which he claimed included "all the criterions of effective teaching
commonly indicated in the lists of cardinal objectives and pupil
needs". The criteria selected following the pilot study were
included at random in the instrument and respondents were asked
to score each item on a scale indicating A, F, S, or N, thereby
showing in respect of each criterion whether it is always used,
frequently used, seldom used or never used by each individual
inspector. The critical incident technique was again employed in
that inspectors were asked to describe a situation in which their
assessment of a teacher was influenced by the comments of the
principal. They were also asked to list those criteria on which
 Evaluation of Teaching Performance 131

they believed the principal could make a more accurate evalua-

tion than the inspector. Even though the data allowed a number
of side issues to be examined the main purpose of the study
remained as an attempt to identify how one group charged with
the duty of evaluation and assessment of teachers approached its
task. It was also possible to make some subjective judgments and
speculations relating to the problem of teacher evaluation
generally.

EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE
Instructions:
1. The accompanying questionnaire contains a list of factors which may be
taken into account in the evaluation of teachers. Please score all items on Part
A of the Questionnaire according to the following scale to indicate the import-
ance that each factor has for you in your evaluation of teachers.
(A) indicates a factor always used.
(F) indicates a factor frequently used.
(S) indicates a factor seldom used.
Downloaded by RMIT University At 20:45 16 March 2016 (PT)

(N) indicates a factor never used.

Please circle your selected response.
e.g. indicates that the factor concerned is used frequently in your
evaluation of teachers.
indicates that the factor .concerned is never used by you in your
evaluation of teachers.
2 On the page reserved for comments please include:
(a) Any factors always or frequently used by you which are not included
on the questionnaire.
(b) Any comment ycu care to make on:
(i) evaluation of personnel.
(ii) any further comment you may care to make on any item included
in the instrument.
(iii) any general comment you care to make relating to the study.

QUESTIONNAIRE

Part A. Evaluation of Teachers.

Factors Which May Be Considered in Teacher Evaluation.
Marking Key:
(A) indicates a factor always used.
(F) indicates a factor frequently used.
(S) indicates a factor seldom used.
(N) indicates a factor never used.
 132 Journal of Educational Administration

Please circle your selected response.

NO. FACTOR SCORE
1. Provision for individual differences and group needs A F S N
2. The all round development of pupils ... ... A F S N
3. Qualities of leadership .... .... .... ... .... . A F S N
4. Self evaluation of processes employed ... .... . A F S N
5. Participation and standing in the community .. .. A F S N
6. Supervision and checking of written work ... . . A F S N
7. Academic qualifications and knowledge of the
curriculum ...... .. .. .... .... .... . . . . .. . A F S N
8. Attitude of pupils to the school and to authority A F S N
9. Pupil attitudes of courtesy, industry and self
reliance .... .... .... .... .... . .. ..... . . . . A F S N
10. Class control .... .... . . . .. ... . . ... . . A F S N
11. Character development of the pupils .. .. . . .. A F S N
12. Dress and appearance of the teacher ... ... .. . A F S N
13. Methods of lesson presentation used . . .. . . A F S N
14. Professional Activities of the teacher . . . . . . A F S N
15. Pupil appreciation of moral and ethical standards A F S N
Downloaded by RMIT University At 20:45 16 March 2016 (PT)

16. Pupils work well without supervision .. . .. . .. . A F S N

17. Pupil participation in lessons ... . ... . . A F S N
18. Level of intelligence of the teacher ... .. .. . . A F S N
19. Lesson preparation ... . .. . ... . . . . .. . A F S N
20. Examination results .... ... .... .... ... ... . . A F S N
21. Personality of the teacher ... . . . . . . A F S N
22. Teacher-pupil relationships .. ... .. . . . . . . . A F S N
23. The teacher's standing with the pupils . .. . . A F S N
24. Development of the process of individual enquiry A F S N
in the pupils .... .... . .. .. .... . ... . . . .... .. A F S N
25. Loyalty and dependability of the teacher ... . . .. A F S N
26. Training of pupils in self expression .. . ... .. . . A F S N
27. Co-operation of the teacher with other staff A F S N
members .. .. ... . ..... .. . . .. . . .. . . . A F S N
28. Energy force and enthusiasm displayed in teaching A F S N
29. Use of teaching aids ... .. .. ... ..... .... .. .. . . A F S N
30. Training of pupils in civic competence and respon- A F S N
sibility ... .. .... .... .... .. .. .. . .. .. .. ... ... . .. A F S N

Part B.
This section of the questionnaire seeks information on the influence of the
Headmaster on assessment and evaluation.
1. Describe a specific situation where the comments of the Headmaster
influenced your assessment of a teacher.
2. On which of the criteria listed above would you consider a good Head-
master to be able to make a sounder judgment than an inspector?
(List the numbers of the criteria only).
 Evaluation of Teaching Performance 133

RESULTS
In the first instance the study indicated that inspectors have a
personal approach and outlook on the question of just what con-
stitutes good teaching. Isolation of a common body of criteria
employed by them proved to be impossible when data from the
unstructured first instrument were considered. However, the
second instrument was more fruitful in this respect in that it was
possible to identify eleven criteria which satisfied the conditions
established for inclusion in a common body of criteria and which
therefore represented a common approach to the task of assess-
ment. It is reasonable to assume from this that the criteria so
identified are considered by inspectors to be important for good
teaching. Table I shows frequency of response to each criterion
by inspectors.
TABLE I
FREQUENCY OF RESPONSE TO LISTED CRITERIA COMMONLY USED
IN THE ASSESSMENT OF TEACHERS FOR PORMOTION TO
CLASSROOM SITUATIONS
N=70
Downloaded by RMIT University At 20:45 16 March 2016 (PT)

Number of Percentage
Criteria Responses Response
.. .. .. .. .. ..
Class control 63 97
.. .. .. .. 60 94
Pupil participation in lessons .. and..self reliance
.. .. 64 91
Pupil attitudes of courtesy, industry .. 58 83
Lesson preparation and planning.. .. .. .. 56 80
The personality of the teacher .. .. .. 56 80
Energy, force and enthusiasm displayed in the teaching 52 74
Supervision and checking of written work .. .. 52 74
The teacher's standing with the pupils .. .. .. 51 73
The loyalty and dependability of the teacher .. .. 50 71
The attitude of the pupils to the school and to authority 50 71

On the other hand, when it is considered that no written guide

is provided for inspectors in the system under review and that
only in the structured response situation was consensus obtained,
it is reasonable to conclude that each inspector had his own
rationale of what constitutes good teaching and based his evalua-
tion of performance on this. A much wider area of agreement
was reached with both instruments in relation to the criteria least
frequently used by inspectors.
Criteria Preferred for Selection for Administrative Posts.
In this aspect of the study there was strong agreement that a
number of criteria were significant; in fact seven stood out quite
markedly from the rest as being relevant to the selection of
teachers for administrative posts. These were:
 134 Journal of Educational Administration

1. Qualities of leadership displayed by the teacher.

2. The personality of the teacher.
3. The methods of lesson presentation used.
4. The degree of co-operation by the teacher with other staff
members.
5. The teacher's participation and standing in the community.
6. Academic qualifications and knowledge of the curriculum.
7. The professional activities of the teacher.
From this list it can be concluded that in the selection of adminis-
trators presage criteria arc considered to be vitally important and
that these combined with competent lesson presentation provide
the basis for the selection of teachers for administrative positions.
Criteria Preferred for Promotion as Teachers.
It was postulated that there are some aspects of teaching per-
formance which do not show up readily under inspection. The
critical incident technique was employed to determine these and
to ascertain the extent to which the principal was consulted by
inspectors in such matters. From the incidents related it was
Downloaded by RMIT University At 20:45 16 March 2016 (PT)

possible to establish the aspects of teaching performance most

likely to be influenced by the observations of the principal.
Generally they related to presage criteria and could be stated
thus:
1. The teacher's ability to get on well with other staff members.
2. Evidence of an insincere attitude towards the school on the
part of the teacher.
3. Doubts about the loyalty and dependability of the teacher.
4. The degree to which the teacher co-operated in the per-
formance of extra duties.
5. The qualities of leadership and example shown by the
teacher.
6. Punctuality and consistency of performance as against spas-
modic effort on special occasions.
It would seem, then, that for an adequate evaluation to be made
the principal should be consulted and questioned on a number of
points relating to a teacher's performance. The data obtained
indicate that this is almost always done by inspectors in the sys-
tem under review. Even though the principle is not formally
involved in teacher assessment, he obviously plays an important
informal role.
CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION
1. Inspectors appear to approach the task of evaluation from
an individual point of view. Their judgments are based on their
 Evaluation of Teaching Performance 135

own images of a good teacher developed by practice and experi-

ence rather than on specific criteria.
2. Inspectors appear to stress process criteria when teaching
positions are being considered, presage criteria when administra-
tive posts are being considered. Small stress is placed on product
criteria for either purpose.
The suggestion has sometimes been made that attention would
be more appropriately focused on the learning situation itself
rather than on the technicalities of teaching. The data provided in
this study indicate that the learning situation is part of teaching
performance and therefore cannot be considered separately; it is
certainly not neglected by inspectors in their work. Inspectors
frequently refer to the "Wholeness" of the assessment being more
significant than that of the parts: this may in part be a reflection
of the fact that there is no guide to direct inspectors to the specific
components of the teaching function.
A good deal of time and energy has been devoted in the past
to the development of an instrument for the objective measure-
ment of teaching performance. Teaching is a complex function
Downloaded by RMIT University At 20:45 16 March 2016 (PT)

and a great many personal variables defy quantitative measure-

ment. It may be much more worth while to endeavour to develop
a guide which would ensure that agreed factors were taken into
account when assessments were made. Responses to the second
instrument would suggest that some such consensus could be
achieved. Such a guide could still leave room for the individuality
of the inspector. At present it seems to be impossible to divorce
the image of a good teacher from the value judgments of the
inspector, and therefore attempts at this stage to derive complete-
ly objective measuring instruments seem to be impracticable.
Clearly there are agreed factors which are considered fundamental
to good teaching and which form the basis of inspectors' assess-
ments. Accepting these as a basis each inspector then adds his
own concept of competent teaching developed from his personal
experience. As Byrne10 has pointed out "if he is a reasonably
shrewd person this sort of conceptualization will guide him well in
his task of teacher evaluation". Unless the basic criteria are con-
sidered, however, there is danger of a halo effect operating to
influence the assessment. Because a teacher performs well in some
areas he may be judged to perform well overall. There may, too,
be a halo effect associated with impressions formed on previous
occasions. Undoubtedly inspectors are faced with a complex task,
one which is difficult to analyse, and one on which it is even more
difficult to make definite pronouncements, but it seems that a
guide could be developed to assist them in reaching agreement on
certain basic criteria for promotion.
 136 Journal of Educational Administration

REFERENCES
1. Mitzel, H. E. "Teacher Effectiveness Criteria" Encyclopaedia of Educa-
tional Research. Third edition. 1960. pp. 1481-1486.
2. Neal, W. D. "The Characteristics of a Good School" in E. Miklos (ed.).
Evaluation: An Administrative Function. Edmonton. Department of
Educational Administration. 1964. pp. 51-70.
3. Morphet, E. L., Johns, R. L., and Reller, T. L. Educational Administra-
tion. Englewood Cliffs. N. J . Prentice Hall. 1959. p. 524.
4. Barr, A. S. "The Measurement and Prediction of Teaching Efficiency"
Journal of Experimental Education. 30. pp. 150-151. September, 1961.
5. Rose, G. W. "Toward the Evaluation of Teaching" Educational Leader-
ship. 15. pp. 231-238. January, 1958.
6. Mitzel, H. E. op. cit. pp. 1481-1486.
7. Moore, T. J . "An Identification and Analysis of the Criteria Employed in
Teacher Evaluation". Unpublished M.Ed. thesis. University of Alberta.
1966.
8. This instrument has now been printed by the University of Alberta in a
form where the school principal rather than the inspector is the respondent.
9. Beecher, D. E. The Teaching Evaluation Record. New York Educators
Publishing Company. 1953.
10. Byrne, T. C. "Good Teaching and Good Teachers" The Canadian Admin-
trator. Vol. 1, No. 5. February, 1962.
Downloaded by RMIT University At 20:45 16 March 2016 (PT)
 This article has been cited by:

1. Andrew Gitlin, John Smyth. 1988. ‘Dominant’ View of Teacher Evaluation and Appraisal: an
international perspective. Journal of Education for Teaching 14, 237-257. [CrossRef]
2. A.J. CROPLEY, P.F. GROSS. 1973. COMPUTER‐ASSISTED INSTRUCTION AND
INCREASED EDUCATIONAL PRODUCTIVITY. Journal of Educational Administration 11:1,
115-123. [Abstract] [PDF]
Downloaded by RMIT University At 20:45 16 March 2016 (PT)