The major purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between commonly used teacher evaluation items and objectives of staff development programs. Two questions were asked in an effort to determine the relationship: (a) Should selected items found on teacher evaluation forms also be included as objectives of staff development? If so, to what degree?, and (b) Do staff development programs address selected items found on teacher evaluation forms? If so, to what degree? A new survey instrument, the "Teacher Evaluation and Staff Development Objectives Relationship Scale" (TESDOR Scale), was constructed for this study. The instrument contained 25 brief statements reflecting items commonly found on teacher evaluation forms which were obtained from 37 widely dispersed school districts. / School board members, high school administrators, and high school teachers in seven Florida school districts were surveyed. Of the 1073 surveys distributed, 450 or 42% were returned in useable form. The resulting data were analyzed using t-tests, F-tests, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and percentages. / The findings of this study indicated that all teacher evaluative items on the TESDOR Scale should be accepted as staff development objectives. The level of agreement for the sample groups was higher for the items to be included as objectives for staff development, than they were for the items being addressed by the inservice education program. The difference between the degrees of agreement was significant at the .0001 level of confidence. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed significant differences in the three groups' responses to two parts of the eight-part TESDOR Scale--the differences were significant at the .0264 level in the Teaching Procedures Cluster (CS) and at the .0146 level in the Planning and Preparation Cluster (DS). These differences resulted from (a) the lower mean score registered by administrators in their responses to items in the Teaching Procedures Cluster (CS); and (b) the higher mean score registered by board members on the Planning and Preparation Cluster (DS). / The following conclusions were drawn from the findings of this study: (1) The assumption that a positive relationship should exist between teacher evaluation criteria and staff development programs was supported; (2) staff development programs were not addressing teacher evaluation criteria to an adequate degree in the perceptions of the sample; (3) administrators tended to be more selective than teachers or board members in their acceptance of teacher evaluation items which should be addressed by staff development programs; (4) school board members were more receptive than teachers or administrators of the concept that teacher evaluation criteria should be addressed by staff development programs; (5) and the closer respondents were to the classroom, the less they perceived teacher evaluation criteria to be addressed adequately by staff development programs. / Based on this study, the following recommendations were made: (1) Staff development objectives should more clearly reflect an awareness of and a responsiveness to the criteria by which teachers are evaluated; (2) specific staff development components should be designed and made available for the purpose of addressing specific teacher evaluation criteria; (3) all levels of educational personnel should be included in a cooperative effort to develop staff development programs by which all teachers are provided opportunities to meet each of the standards by which teachers are evaluated; (4) and greater care should be taken in the selection of teacher evaluation criteria and in the design and use of forms for reporting teacher evaluations. / Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 41-10, Section: A, page: 4240. / Thesis (Educat.D.)--The Florida State University, 1980.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:fsu.edu/oai:fsu.digital.flvc.org:fsu_74309 |
| Contributors | MOORE, JAMES HOWARD., Florida State University |
| Source Sets | Florida State University |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Text |
| Format | 129 p. |
| Rights | On campus use only. |
| Relation | Dissertation Abstracts International |
Page generated in 0.0016 seconds