Abstract
We know that students benefit from excellent teaching. These teachers know how to develop curriculum and instruction for the full range of individual differences and how to address each student’s strengths and needs. For these reasons, I read with great interest several research reports related to teacher evaluations that influence the effectiveness of teachers. One report from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2018) found that teachers in countries performing well on the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) participated in professional development and appraisal systems that concentrated on continuous improvement. They noted that these school-level processes appeared to have a direct influence on teachers and the assessment of their work: mentoring, professional learning, feedback, and career and leadership development. Similarly, the RAND Corporation found that teachers were more positive toward evaluation systems, and more willing to make changes, when they focused on teacher growth and development as opposed to promotion. Moreover, when teachers were provided frequent feedback from a mentor or a coach, 91% made improvements to their instructional practices (Tuma, Hamilton, & Tsai, 2018).
Thinking about these important characteristics of a teacher appraisal system, I thought of a personal assessment approach that aligns with many of these important characteristics—action research. Being involved in a professional development school taught me the power of collaborative action research projects that focused on improving student performance. As an example, I was working with a master teacher who was not happy with the effects of timed math worksheets she used in attempting to improve the fluency of students in the class. It seemed as if some students were able to breeze through the facts quickly whereas others seemed to be in a holding pattern—no noticeable improvements from day to day. We wondered how we might concentrate on improving fluency, yet increase the growth of each student. We decided to plan an intervention where half of the class participated in sets of fluency items that were more matched to their strengths (e.g., single-digit vs. double-digit addition problems) whereas the other group continued with the traditional approach (e.g., every student received the same set of problems). We discovered that the personalized approach was much more effective with each student-making progress. The master teacher changed her practice immediately, and all students participated in the more personalized approach to learning.
Reflecting on this internal evaluation of one’s practices, I felt that this collaborative action research project incorporated some of the best appraisal practices described in the reports: It provided frequent feedback from a mentor (and the students), addressed practices that were effective in advancing student learning, and empowered the teacher in evaluating and changing his or her instruction. Educators may want to consider both internal and external types of appraisal systems when developing teacher evaluation policies.