Furthermore, they consider how these responses lead to feedback acceptance or rejection during a school inspection process. In the third article, Quintelier, Vanhoof and De Maeyer report on a qualitative study investigating teachers’ cognitive and affective responses to feedback from school inspection in the Flemish education context in Belgium. They also point out possible implications of the study related to the geographical area, and they suggest that the choice of model may determine the evaluation of teacher effectiveness. The authors raise questions about whether local autonomy should be given to districts to choose the models. Statistically and substantively, these assignments depend on the approach or model that is adopted to evaluate teachers’ influence on their students’ growth in achievement over time. However, there is substantial variety in the teacher-level rating assignments. The authors’ analyses, which are based on the various approaches, show that some methods more closely correspond to the SGP model rating than they do to the other evaluations. The approaches were tested in a large suburban school district in Arizona, USA. The approaches include the following: (1) the student growth percentile (SGP) model (2) value-added linear regression model (VALRM) (3) value-added hierarchical linear model (VAHLM) (4) simple different (gain) score model (5) rubric-based performance level (growth) model and, finally, (6) simple criterion (per cent passing) model. In the second article, Sloat, Amrein-Beardsley and Holloway examine the consistency of teacher-effectiveness ratings resulting from six VAM approaches. Moreover, the difference in reported correlations when using completely and partially nested designs indicates the need for more precise descriptions of study designs that use classroom observation or survey measures. For example, it illustrates how the importance of conducting multiple observations of multiple lessons can increase the reliability and effect size. Several implications can be drawn from this study. The findings show that the correlations between the survey and observation measures depend on three factors, as follows: the number of classroom observations, the number of student ratings and whether the designs are nested or partially nested.
In his analysis, the author tests and compares different models. The two measures differ in their exact item content, but they aim to operationalise the same latent construct. In the first article, van der Lans reports on a study in the Dutch secondary education system in which he examined the association between two measures of teacher effectiveness, namely classroom observation and student survey measures, and the extent to which this association depends on the study design.
0 kommentar(er)
