Sie sind auf Seite 1von 12

Module 3 Evaluation Interview

L. Roche, page 1

Module 3 Evaluation Interview


Lauren Roche
University of New England
EDU-704 Supervision and Evaluation of Instructional Personnel
Spring Term 2015-B1
Dr. Carolyn Marcotte
March 22, 2015

Module 3 Evaluation Interview

L. Roche, page 2

Q1. Briefly and succinctly, what are your other roles? How many teachers and other instructional
personnel do you directly, formally evaluate? What is the category of personnel you formally evaluate
(e.g. grades/subjects, regular education, special education, teachers, instructional assistants etc.)
Gary Stevens has been at Thornton Academy for the past nine years, but has an extensive history of
involvement in high school education and athletics. Since the early 80s, Mr. Stevens has served as a history
teacher, coach, principal, athletic administrator, and now, at Thornton Academy, the Director of Student
Activities. Aside from this position, Mr. Stevens also serves on the schools Safety Planning Committee and is
the facilitator of the Observation Supervision Evaluation Feedback (OSEF) Team. Outside of Thornton, Mr.
Stevens is on the board of directors for the Maine Sports Hall of Fame, serves as assistant executive director the
Maine Interscholastic Athletic Administrators Association, is a member of the board of directors for the
National Interscholastic Athletic Administrators Association, and is a contributing writer for the Interscholastic
Athletic Administration Magazine. While fulfilling all of these roles, Mr. Stevens has worked towards the
completion of a degree in School Leadership and will earn his masters at the end of March, 2015.
Mr. Stevens role on the OSEF Team calls upon both his experience as a classroom teacher and as an
administrator. While the school faculty is divided fairly equally in numbers among the OSEF Team members,
some individuals supervise those who are hired in their area of concern (e.g. the Director of Guidance will have
supervise counselors and the Director of Student Services will supervise special education teachers). Mr.
Stevens is currently responsible for the observation of 12 teachers, which has given him the opportunity to
return, in a sense, to the classroom. Of those teachers, 7 are first, second, or third year teachers to Thornton, and
5 are teachers with four years or more experience at Thornton.

Q1a) Are teachers evaluated by the same person throughout the year? From year to year?
Yes and no (GS). Mr. Stevens explained that at the start of each school year, the OSEF Team
convenes and distributes new hires equally among the group. Typically once a teacher has been observed by
an OSEF committee member, that member will perform the observations of that teacher throughout his or
her tenure. However, OSEF members will occasionally have another OSEF member do a second
observation on a teacher just for additional information (GS), and sometimes returning teachers will be

Module 3 Evaluation Interview

L. Roche, page 3

transferred from one observers roster to another just to keep teacher groups balanced in numbers, while also
trying to keep teachers being observed by OSEF members in their same realm.
Q1b) Is it really possible for administrators to be effective instructional leaders when there are so
many things going on in their day-to-day schedules which may be inhibiting their abilities to really see
what is going on in the classroom?
It is possible (GS). While Mr. Stevens feels that it is possible for the administrators of Thornton to be
effective instructional leaders (only one person on the team, the Director of Guidance, does not have
teaching experience (GS)), Mr. Stevens did not hesitate to state that believes the OSEF Committee is too
small. Although there are enough members to perform the obligated number of formal and informal walkthroughs required each year, Mr. Stevens believes that there are not enough members to observe more than
what is required, which he believes is necessary for the committee to meet its primary goal (observe
teachers in classroom setting, provide feedback, and serve as a prof development opportunity for teachers
(GS)). Because administrators have so many other obligations to the school throughout the day, he feels the
team should look to expand so that observations do not become a nuisance and a rushed, inadequate process
for those who are performing them. His reasoning is simple: upon expanding, members will have fewer
teachers to observe and be able to execute more walk-through observations, which would provide a more
honest look at the every day reality as students are experiencing it.
Q1c) Do you feel that there should be more or less administrators on the team? Should there be senior
level teachers? Newer, more innovative teachers? Newer teachers who consistently report out well
after their own observations?
The best feedback and observation is done by peers, the best evaluation is done by administrative
folks, Mr. Stevens responded, explaining that his response is backed by research from a book he could not
recall, but had read once in his earliest years of performing observations himself. Administrators arent in
the classroom nearly as often as peers, who tend to produce more accurate appraisals of what is going on in
a teachers classroom.

Module 3 Evaluation Interview

L. Roche, page 4

Q2. Describe the evaluation process you use. (Include specific, concrete examples of this person
interacting with specific individuals in this response and throughout. Do not use individuals names to
protect their privacy.)
Mr. Stevens completes, as he is expected to, one walk-through and one formal observation per semester
for all first, second, and third year teachers at Thornton. He also completes one walk-through and one formal
observation for year for all veteran teachers (four years or more experience at Thornton). I prefer to do more
frequent walk-throughs than were required, Mr. Stevens explained, basing his preference on research as shared
in an issue of Marshall Memo (2015).
His walk-through process, as Mr. Stevens executes it, is unannounced. Although only three to four
minutes is suggested, he prefers to observe a teacher and the class for 15 minutes at no particular time during the
period. For both types of observations, he uses his literal note-taking skills and handwrites very rapidly for the
entire time he is in the room. He writes about what he sees going on, what he hears the teacher say, what he
hears the students say, what the dcor in the room is, how the room is arranged, where the teacher is located,
what tools the teacher uses, etc. After the walk-through and that same day, he creates a one-page report that he
will share with the teacher within a matter of a few days. If a walk-through does not go well, if Mr. Stevens
believes he observed the teacher on an off day, he will not produce his report, but prefers to sit down with the
teacher, have a conference, discuss what could be improved, so that another unannounced walk-through will
show the teacher in better form. I aim to keep the process, both walk-through and formal observations, positive.
I want to acknowledge negative with the teacher and try to help them first (GS).
Formal observations are initiated by a pre-conference between Mr. Stevens and the teacher to be
observed. He asks the teacher questions for insight into the class and lesson (e.g. What are the lesson goals?
What are the dynamics of the class? Will you have to make modifications to your lesson?). His observation and
note-taking techniques are the same as those he uses in his walk-throughs. To provide immediate feedback, Mr.
Stevens finalizes his formal observation reports and shares them with the teacher using the same timeline as his
walk-throughs, as well; however, he prepares them in narrative form with each paragraph revolving around a
theme such as classroom organization, provisioning, statement of expectations, teaching methodologies,
classroom management, etc. Each paragraph is written in the order of the CEIJ method, as he (GS) referred to

Module 3 Evaluation Interview

L. Roche, page 5

it, a technique he took away from The Skillful Teacher (Gower, Haley-Speca, & Saphier, 2008) and a training
program one of the authors of the book led him through at the Research of Better Teaching. He uses the
acronym to provide his feedback. For example, from a formal observation Mr. Stevens had conducted the day
before I sat down to interview him, he adlibbed his second paragraph of Mr. Ms formal observation with: the
claim, C, Mr. M was appropriately provisioned for class; the evidence, E, all students had access to ipads in
order to access a required reading for the lesson, copies of a timeline for another activity were given to each
student, and a video was used to support the study; the impact on student learning, I, ipads were a resource for
students to access information in an online reading and a timeline provided students with a graphic organizer;
and judgement, J, Mr. M was appropriately provisioned.
The post-observation meeting between Mr. Stevens and Mr. M occurred prior to our interview. The
report was not shared directly with the teacher, but its contents were discussed. Mr. Stevens prefers not to share
the complete report at this time because he wants the teacher to be able to clarify or agree on points referenced
in the report, or even bring attention to an important aspect of the class or lesson that Mr. Stevens may have
missed in his observation. I want the teachers voice to be included in the final report. The post-conference is to
be sure we are on the same page about what was seen, that things were interpreted appropriately. I need the
teachers input to polish and acknowledge what I saw (GS). Mr. M, for example, addressed his attention to
assisting lab groups of student who were vocal about having difficulties with running the experiment, and his
failure to check in with groups who were not seeking help, acknowledging that while one group that did not ask
for Mr. Ms attention was self-sufficient (apparent from their completion of the lab with a large collection of
data), another group that also chose not to call on his help struggled to complete the lab and collected only a
small sample of data. Mr. Stevens had not included this in his report because Mr. M was observed to check in
with each group; however, Mr. Stevens agreed that it was a situation that was important to include and offer
suggestions for future labs. Mr. Stevens shared with me that he will finalize his report and suggest that Mr. M
reconsider organization of lab groups so that each group includes one or two students who can be strong leaders
to guide the group towards successful completion of the lab and allow Mr. M to check-in with each group more
equally.

Module 3 Evaluation Interview

L. Roche, page 6

Q2a. Where are reports and other evaluation-related documents, schedules and materials housed and
maintained?
Mr. Stevens explained that while he keeps a copy of his own observation schedule (see Appendix A)
and reports, he provides a copy of his final reports to the observed teacher for their own reference, and one
to the assistant to the Director of Teaching and Learning who files the report in the teachers personal file.
The same assistant also maintains a master schedule of all observations carried out by the OSEF Team.
Q2b. In what ways does your evaluation processes measure teacher ability vs. teacher
development?
Within every observation, evidence is collected to demonstrate the teachers skill level Mr. Stevens
responded. Data will always be collected to suggest skill level. Mr. Stevens evaluates teacher
development through his choice to carry out multiple walk-throughs for all teachers, regardless of their
experience at Thornton. This way you can see patterns develop. You see, #1, growth; #2, the teachers
capacity to learn; and #3, the teachers capacity for growth (GS).
Q2c. Is student learning part of your evaluation process?
Mr. Stevens reminded me that during his observations he is frantically writing as much as he can about
what is going on in the classroom he wants to consider in his analysis how it reflects good teaching and
good learning opportunities. He does not focus on specific student outcomes during those observation times,
but does not negate that they could be useful in the evaluation process.
Q2d. Research has found that student ratings correlate with student achievement. Has there ever
been any consideration of using student feedback as a factor in teacher evaluation? (Marshall, 154).
Mr. Stevens identifies student rating as data and admits the team has not discussed the consideration of
such data. He stresses that the OSEF Team focuses on the O and the F [observation and feedback], but
that ideally, peers and department heads would do the O and the F, and the team would focus on the S
and the E (supervision and evaluation).
Q2e. Have rubrics been considered as a means to evaluate teachers and provide more detailed
feedback? Rubrics, as we give students, are effective and can be more judgemental, allowing teachers
to have a more clear sense of where they stand, while saving time for evaluators. (Marshall, 124).

Module 3 Evaluation Interview

L. Roche, page 7

Mr. Stevens agree that while rubrics help to provide the claim of his CEIJ method and that Charlotte
Danielson (2004) supports the use of teacher rubrics, he does not care for scales and judging people on
them; specifically, he does not want a teacher to focus on a number, but on a message (the feedback details).
Q3. Do you have any choice in the evaluation process used? If it was mandated, by whom? Is there choice
in HOW you implement the process? Give concrete examples of how you have adjusted the process based
on the individual being supervised and circumstances, or not.
The situation is this: We have two people with oceans of experience doing observations, and we have a
lot of folks who are brand new to formal observation (GS). Because of Mr. Stevens experience, the
Headmaster of Thornton approached him years ago to take the lead on the much-needed development of the
schools OSEF process, or lack thereof (GS). Together, with the new Associate Headmaster, Mr. Stevens
facilitates the group. While decisions are made as a group, his experience allows him to put many suggestions
on the table that he believes could be beneficial to the process, so in a sense he believes he does have some
choice. He proposed the guidance of The Skillful Teacher (Gower et al., 2008) and often shares articles citing
the principles of Charlotte Danielson.
Regarding individuals and the implementation of the evaluation process, besides the expected number of
walk-throughs and formal observations each OSEF Team member and each department head is required to carry
out, there is some choice. Currently observers develop their own reports using their own preferred format;
however, that is an area of choice that Mr. Stevens would actually like to see less variation in. In his attempt to
improve the process used by the team, Mr. Stevens has suggested videos of teachers in the classroom be
watched by the group so that everyone sees the same thing. From this, the committee could practice literal notetaking skills, share what they observe, discuss what they do not, etc. all in an effort to help the team observe and
produce their reports in a similar manner. It has not adjusted the process yet, but after some practice, Mr.
Stevens hope this practice will pave the way for consistency in the way each observer reports out to the teachers.
Q4. What do you believe to be the strengths of the process that is used and how it is implemented? Give
concrete specific example(s) of interactions and situations with specific unnamed teachers.
While Mr. Stevens has plenty to say about how the process could be improved, he comments that the
current process and how it is implemented is receiving positive feedback, despite the fact that [our] process is

Module 3 Evaluation Interview

L. Roche, page 8

still a developing one, we have a lot of work to do to be a satisfactory process (GS). From thank you notes,
handwritten messages on copies of reports, and verbal appreciation, Mr. Stevens senses that most teachers like
having someone in their classrooms because they like having feedback. Even one teacher who I have observed
and who tends to be somewhat of a curmudgeon scribbled a short note of thanks (GS).
Q5. What do you believe to be weaknesses in the process and challenges that have occurred in its
implementation? Give concrete, specific example(s) of interactions and situations with specific unnamed
teachers.
Mr. Stevens does not feel the process offers sufficient observation of veteran teachers who end up in a
five-year observation cycle. Because the OSEF Team was put together under nine years ago, Mr. Stevens
identified a handful of veteran teachers who went for more than seven years without being observed, simply
because they were at the end of the list when veteran teachers were being scheduled for their formal
observations when the OSEF Team formed. He also feels the group needs to sharpen their skills based on the
fact that there are a lot of new members in the observation process. For example, he noted the necessity of the
group to refine their post-observation conferences and develop meaningful reports and not narratives. One
challenge to the implementation of the processes and the pursuit of the OSEF Team goals is its size Mr.
Stevens wholeheartedly believes if the group was larger, more (and more meaningful) observations could take
place and more peers could be involved in the process.
Q5a. Why do these weaknesses exist?
First off, the observation process as developed and implemented by the OSEF Team is a new process for
us, identified as a need in the NEASC accreditation process that took place ten years ago. Its still in its
infancy (GS). Mr. Stevens believes that until the group has a more common understanding of the process in
the long-term and how it should be implemented, the group will not become streamlined as quickly as he
would like to see. For the most part, he agrees the team is learning while doing.
Q5b. From a teachers perspective, I believe the process is a weak one because it does not require
teachers to reference their walk-through and observation reports beyond the post-observation
conferences and self-monitor. Do you agree with this and do you have any suggestions as to how

Module 3 Evaluation Interview

L. Roche, page 9

teachers might be encouraged or obligated to consider the feedback they are provided in their
observation reports beyond, I passed and I dont have to do that for another five years?
I do agree with this, to some extent (GS). Mr. Stevens began to describe a recent walk-through, which
was the second one he carried out for a particular teacher whom, after the first walk-through, Mr. Stevens
had suggested that he slow his speech down. Mr. Stevens went into the second walk-through, looking to see
if the teacher had improved and he had. In the post-conference, the teacher shared that he had used the
criticism and suggestion in an attempt to improve his communication to his classes. The same teacher shared
in his second post-conference that he is interested in using better strategies to help his students access and
utilize prior knowledge when learning new material. This was not something Mr. Stevens was able to point
out as an area in need of improvement simply from a walk-through, but it was a suggestion that supported
his desire for more frequent observations for all teachers more observation, more feedback, more growth.
While he could not argue that there are likely many teachers who do not take the feedback into great
consideration, Mr. Stevens states that the process is still better than no process at all, which was the case not
more than ten years ago. So, even if a teacher is only involved so far as to just get it over with, at least
their considering feedback at least once, and one time of recall and reflection is better than none at all. To
fix this, Mr. Stevens suggests training more people to join the OSEF Team, particularly department heads,
so that more walk-throughs and observations can be executed and there will be more people to provide
feedback more often. He strongly believes that more feedback, more often, will likely increase the
willingness to recall and reflect on the feedback by teacher.
Q6. Have you ever made any adjustments in the evaluation process to fit the supervisor's style, the needs
and preferences of the individual being evaluated, or a situation in the school? Give specific, concrete
example(s).
If a walk-through or a formal observation is not going well for a teacher, Mr. Stevens continues his
note-taking, but does not draft a report. Instead, he chooses to meet with the teacher to hear if that teacher claims
it was a typical day, or if he/she was off the ball and what was observed was far beyond their average, expected
implementation. If the teacher gives Mr. Stevens reason to believe it was an off day, he provides suggestions

Module 3 Evaluation Interview

L. Roche, page 10

how to avoid a repeat performance (GS), such as checking the operations of all classroom technology prior to
the start of the lesson or having lab equipment sorted into group bins before students enter a lab.
Q7. Any additional insights and suggestions you would like to share regarding the formal/summative
evaluation process? Include examples.
The most important thing Mr. Stevens wanted me to take away from our interview with regards to the
process of his OSEF Team was that for any observational system to be high-quality, he believes all people
should be observed more frequently, even if in just walk-through settings. He stressed again that the team would
need to expand if this situation could ever be possible, and bringing in department heads and other peers to have
more dependable, vital roles and responsibilities could add routine and regular feedback, not to mention more
congeniality, as well. This growth would also allow for more supervision and evaluation to occur by the
administrators on the team, while department heads and peers execute frequent observations and feedback.

Module 3 Evaluation Interview

L. Roche, page 11
References

(G. Stevens, personal communication, March 18, 2015).


Gower, R., Haley-Speca, M., Saphier, J. (2008). The skillfull teacher: Building your teaching skills (6th ed.).
Acton, MA: Research For Better Teaching.
Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA:
ASCD.
Marshall, K. (2013). Rethinking teacher supervision and evaluation: How to work smart, build collaboration,
and close the achievement gap. (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Marshall, K. (Jan. 19, 2015). Will Multiple Observers Improve the Quality of Teacher Evaluations? Marshall
Memo, 570. (pg. 2-4) Retrieved from http://www.marshallmemo.com/issues/13d3fad3a5c0f10a6abf
566fba6b589e/MarshMemo570.pdf

Module 3 Evaluation Interview

L. Roche, page 12

APPENDIX A
Thornton Academy OSEF 2014-2015 Observations and Walk-Throughs
Observer: Gary Stevens
Name

Walk-Throughs

Formal Observation 1

Formal Observation 2

I.B.

October 3, 2014
March 13, 2015

J.C.

January 20, 2015

C.C.

October 6, 2014
March 13, 2015

------

R.D.

October 3, 2014
March 13, 2015

------

J.D.

September 23, 2014


February 3, 2015

B.G.

November 3, 2014
March 13, 2015

------

C.J

November 13, 2014


March 13, 2015

------

J.K.

November 3, 2014

January 6, 2015

February 23, 2015

C.K.

October 6, 2014
February 3, 2015

December 2, 2014

February 27, 2015

R.M.

January 14, 2015

March 10, 2015

N.M.

September 24, 2014

November 12, 2014

March 12, 2015

S.T.

September 24, 2014


January 14, 2015

October 22, 2014

February 24, 2015

-----March 13, 2015

November 20, 2014

February 12, 2015

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen