Which Quality Of Teaching Is Assessed Through Criteria-based Observation?

By Author: Cynthia
Total Articles: 95
Comment this article

The items on the form helped me remember what was discussed when I had to write a reflective journal on my lesson. I find them very useful. They were like post signs for me. The whole form is like an outline for a lesson plan. It gives me a clear picture of what was good and what needs to be worked on. It really gives you a picture where you are and what to focus on next time. The criteria help you see the process. I can compare the form of my first observation and the second one Replica Breitling and know exactly where I improved.

It gives you a fairer picture of the evaluation. I do not like vagueness. I have to see how many points have been taken off or given for each item. Not in favour of specified criteria on the observation forms. There are too many details to process. I can't focus on all the items. It confuses me. I would rather focus on one or two features of the lesson. The criteria should be more general and not so detailed. It is too technical and robot like. I feel as if my lesson has been put under a microscopic lens and it does ...
... not really depict the dynamics of the lesson. Insights and Teaching is a web of interrelated dimensions. Some are clearly observable conclusions and others are not. As a consequence, the assessment of teaching quality through observation entails an internal paradox. This paradox encapsulates our initial urge to re-examine our own practice. Our research questions related to the extent to which quality of teaching is assessed through criteria-based observation and we found that our students felt that it was a valid method of assessment.

Although all trainees voted for numerical assessment, there were differences between trainees in the choice between holistic or analytical approaches, with the majority choosing the holistic approach. The fact that none of our subjects chose the 'fail' or 'pass' as evaluation criteria accords with Kennedy's assertion that trainees prefer to receive a numerical grade for the observed lesson (Kennedy 1993). This may be a result of conditioning, of trainees' upbringing, and the constraints of social demands and norms. However, a numerical grade on its own did not seem to be satisfactory, as it did not provide explicit feedback on their performance. The trainees who were in favour of the holistic approach needed the stated criteria Breitling Replica Watches on the assessment form to aid discussion during feedback sessions and to provide signposts for further reflection. Yet, they did not want to be assessed analytically where each criterion was allotted numerical points, in spite of this approach enhancing reliability and transparency.

Our small-scale investigation demonstrated that trainees at their initial stages of teaching perceive the lesson as separate parts and not as a whole entity. The sum of the parts represents quality of teaching. Trainees need explicit criteria for effective teaching in order to identify the quality of their teaching. Their preferences for assessment show that they regard the observation lesson as both a test and a means for reflection and professional development. These conclusions are situated in the limited context of just one practicum experience, thus they cannot have wide implications. However, as teachers researching our own field of practice, we gained deeper understanding and insights into a troublesome issue. Our findings represent insights of an exploratory nature and they support the claim that quality and accountability should be achieved through explicit and objective criteria.